WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Shell
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
1NC CCS DA
Coal will remain competitive – that’s key to a shift to CCS
Lindsay Morris, staff writer, 8-15-2012, “Coal to Remain Viable, says EPA's McCarthy at COAL-GEN
Keynote,” Power Engineering, http://www.power-eng.com/articles/2012/08/coal-to-remain-viable-saysepas-mccarthy-at-coal-gen-keynote.html
“Coal will continue to provide more of America’s electricity than any other fuel source, producing
nearly 40 percent of generation in 2035,” said Gina McCarthy during the keynote session of COAL-GEN
in Louisville, Ky. on Aug. 15. McCarthy, assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Air and Radiation, remained positive about the future of coal as it
transforms into a cleaner source of generation in order to comply with several proposed or finalized
EPA regulations.¶ The other keynote speakers who spoke on the future of coal generation were John
Voyles Jr., vice president of transmission and generation, Louisville Gas & Electric; Pierre Gauthier,
president & CEO, Alstom U.S. and Canada; and Greg Graves, president & CEO, Burns & McDonnell
Engineering Co.¶ The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that the coal-fired power industry will
invest $275 billion in retrofits through 2035. The need for upgrades is driven by several EPA regulations,
including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and
the proposed New Source Performance Standard for greenhouse gases.¶ The potential greenhouse gas
standard has been met with heated debate among power generators, who would have to install carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technology in order to reach compliance. The EPA has received over 2 million
comments from the industry as a result of the proposed rule-making, McCarthy said.¶ “While it’s a
significant economic lift, (the proposed standard) will provide investment for new technologies,”
McCarthy said. “CCS is technologically viable.”
<<Insert relevant link>>
US development spills over – US is a key leader
Allen Wampler, former assistance secretary of the US DOE, 7-11-2008, “Coal Power: Stress efficient
carbon capture-and-storage,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
http://www.nma.org/pdf/members/outreach/111308_ajc_oped.pdf
As global leader in energy technology, America needs to come up with a practical way to combat
climate change that allows for the continued use of the world's most abundant fuel: coal. Developing
methods for more efficient coal combustion combined with the capture and underground storage of
carbon emissions is the answer. Advanced clean-coal technologies now under development could be
incorporated into new coal plants and many existing plants over the next 20 years. The environmental
benefits are expected to be significant. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that a 10 percent
improvement in the efficiency of a conventional pulverized coal plant would increase the amount of
electricity squeezed from each ton of coal, and translate into a carbon reduction of 25 percent. The
importance of clean-coal technology should not be under-estimated. Coal is our country's energy
mainstay, accounting for more than half of the nation's electricity generation and 62.5 percent of
Georgia's power. Industry now has the capability to capture carbon dioxide at coal-fueled power plants
before it reaches the atmosphere. Research is under way on improved and more cost-effective
technologies for carbon capture. Transporting carbon dioxide by pipeline to a suitable site for
underground storage is the next step, then injecting it into oil and natural gas fields. Further into the
future, carbon dioxide could be sequestered in other geologic formations such as deep saline
formations. Geologists believe layers of rock will seal the carbon dioxide underground indefinitely. The
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
continuing development of this technology --- and its successful demonstration in large-scale testing --is the key to reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. In turn, it could be exported abroad or developed
and demonstrated jointly with other countries like China and India that rely on coal to power their
economies.
Clean coal solves Chinese air pollution and growth
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), September 2008, “Climate Change: China Innovating
in the Clean Coal Technology Market,” by Sarah Jessup,
http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/05/article_0006.html
China is regarded as one of the world’s leading emitters of greenhouse gas (GHG). It is reported that some 70 percent of
China’s energy comes from coal, the greatest part of which is burned in outdated power plants that are
primary contributors to GHG.1¶ Coal is still used in most home stoves for cooking and heating as well as by big power companies for generating
electricity, using processes that produce high levels of wasted heat. About 86
percent of coal is burned with limited
pollution controlling measures; flues are poorly maintained on the few homes that have them.2¶ *¶ A coal delivery bike. Coal is still
used in most home stoves for cooking and heating. (Photo: Biran Kelley)¶ The situation is dire, as reportedly respiratory diseases from
air pollution cause more than a million deaths a year, while more than 400,000 avoidable deaths are from
indoor air pollution that leads to illnesses such as lung cancer, weakened immune systems and chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease.3¶ But there is a potential conflict between environmental protection and economic growth. The
country has a population of over one billion and a growth rate of a staggering nine percent a year; however, at least 135 million Chinese survive
on less than US$1 a day, and millions more on barely more than that. The Chinese government is making an effort to figure out ways to balance
economic progress with cleaner energy.¶ Are there solutions to tackle the problem without sacrificing economic growth? What kinds of
research and development (R&D) are under way to assure a greener future?¶ Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)¶ Despite the serious problems
caused by its use, coal is cheap and plentiful and will not be abandoned as an energy source any time soon. It is
mined on all continents except for Antarctica. China has recognized the economic potential in developing clean coal technologies for both the
foreign and local market. Creating a clean coal
technology (CCT) market could possibly balance China’s dual efforts to
reduce pollution and maintain economic growth . China’s one-billion strong market would allow a fast
learning curve for CCT manufacturing and marketing, which would reduce production costs. China would be in a position
to control the market on clean coal technologies if it could invent the right clean coal solutions. Its scientists are already making strides in that
direction.
Nuke War
Herbert Yee, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Hong Kong Baptist University, and
Ian Storey, Lecturer in Defence Studies at Deakin University, 2002, “The China Threat: Perceptions,
Myths and Reality,” RoutledgeCurzon, 5.
The forth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear of political and economic
collapse in the PRC, resulting in territorial fragmentation, civil war and waves of refugees pouring into
neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would have a profoundly negative
impact on regional stability. Today the Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems, including
the increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a shortage of natural resources
and a deterioration in the natural environment caused by rapid industrialization and pollution. These
problems are putting a strain on the central government’s ability to govern effectively. Political
disintegration or a Chinese civil war might result in millions of Chinese refugees seeking asylum in
neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees from a collapsed PRC would no
doubt put a severe strain on the limited resources of China’s neighbours. A fragmented China could also
result in another nightmare scenario—nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible local
provincial leaders or warlords. From this perspective a disintegrating China would also pose a threat to
its neighbours and the world.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Uniqueness
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Yes CCS
CCS will be commercialized through mineralization – keeping coal alive in the US key
Carin Hall, interviews top executives, researches the latest business and executive news and creates
content for WDM Group's multiple channels, 8-8-2012, “Carbon Capture and Mineralization: Coal's New
Savior,” Energy Digital, http://www.energydigital.com/global_mining/carbon-capture-andmineralization-coals-new-savior
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology used to prevent the release of large quantities of
CO2 into the atmosphere by capturing the CO2 and pumping it into underground geologic formations,
has long been held back by high costs, its complexities and an inability to be commercialized. For many
coal plants today, implementing CCS technologies in order to meet air quality standards is less
economically viable than shutting down altogether. However, that trend overlooks the fact that the
world still desperately needs the industry to stay alive. Although coal accounted for 42 percent of
electricity production in 2011 in the US alone, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
aggressively pursued regulations to doom the industry. After passing the Clean Air Act's “new source
performance standards,” the EPA successfully achieved a de facto ban on new coal-fired power plants,
while leaving little hope for remaining sites. It required that all new utilities install equipment to control
CO2 emissions, such as CCS—some of the most expensive and complex industrial equipment on the
market. What if there's another solution? Rather than injecting captured CO2 deep into the ground,
one company has found a safer, more profitable solution: mineralization of CO2. Based out of Texas,
Skyonic is developing systems that capture CO2 by mineralizing the gas into sodium bicarbonate, or
baking soda, which would be sold into the market along with other byproducts of the process. “I'm just a
chemical engineer who thought he had a better idea for capturing CO2 than the current capture and
release mechanisms, aimed at pumping it into the ground, by instead converting it into a mineral
product,” says Joe Jones, President and CEO of Skyonic. Read More in Energy Digital's Hottest Summer
Issue Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department of Energy ran a research and
construction grant program in 2009 and 2010, providing Skyonic with the most funding out of six
contenders representing various carbon capture solutions. The company is now moving forward with
the help of ConocoPhillips, BP and others to soon become a commercial reality. Starting with Capitol
Aggregates Inc.'s cement plant in San Antonio, Texas, the $125 million system is expected to capture
75,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions each year. Complements Natural Gas As a natural gas-centric
future becomes more apparent, carbon capture and mineralization has an upper hand in its ability to be
adopted. While traditional carbon capture systems require extremely concentrated CO2, Skyonic's
“Skymine” technology is effective even when the concentration of the gas is extremely low, making it
suitable for natural gas plants. Considering the country's lead in shale gas and all the industries it
supports, there's a huge leadership potential for the US to jump on this technology now. “The fact that
our technology also performs a full scrub of SOx, NOx, mercury and metals from the flue gas of coalfired utilities in the high 99 percentiles makes it a superior cleanup technology with the added benefits
of eliminating CO2 and being profitable,” says Jones.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Yes Coal
Coal will remain competitive – regulations determine future coal viability
Forbes, 4-27-2012, “Will Cheap Natural Gas Replace Coal in U.S. Electricity Generation?”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/04/27/will-cheap-natural-gas-replace-coal-in-u-selectricity-generation/
With prices expected to stay at the present low levels for the next few months because of low
underground storage capacity, analysts expect demand for natural gas to pick up as utilities begin to
shift from coal to gas because of environmental as well as economic reasons. [1] However, there are a
few concerns regarding the widespread adoption of natural gas by electricity producers in the U.S.
that could delay the shift. If this shift does occur on a large scale, companies like Anadarko Corp., Exxon
and ConocoPhillips have significant exposure to natural gas prices in the U.S. We have a $90 price
estimate for Anadarko Corp., which is at a 25% premium to its current market price. Click here for our
full analysis of Anadarko Corp. Reasons for change Spot prices for natural gas dropped to about
$1.85/MMbtu in the U.S. as the mild weather cut into demand over the last few months. In January, coal
cost utilities close to $2.41 /MMBtu, according to EIA data. In addition to the lower spot prices, natural
gas plants are almost 50% more efficient in converting energy from the fuel into electricity, making it
economically viable for electricity producers to shift to gas. Natural gas is also seen as a cleaner
alternative to coal and future regulations could also support a longer-term shift to gas. Concerns
Remain Despite the seemingly compelling reasons for utilities to shift to natural gas, there are certain
technical and economic issues that could be hurdles to adoption.
Despite spot prices of natural gas being below $2 MMBtu, utilities have reported that their fuel costs for
gas were around $3.73/MMBtu in the month of January. This made gas 14% costlier than coal despite
the higher efficiency. [2] Another technical issue is that gas-fired plants are designed to run for short
periods while coal-fired plants are more suited for base load operations because of the issues involved
in taking the plants offline. Because of these issues, the immediate displacement of coal seems
unlikely.
Natural gas production has pushed coal to the brink: the plan sinks it.
Evariste Lefeuvre, Economist, 10-17-2012, “Coal Vs. Natural Gas: Is There Really A Trade Off?”,
Seeking Alpha, http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/759243-evariste-lefeuvre/1183511-coal-vs-naturalgas-is-there-really-a-trade-off¶ Nat gas and coal were a hot topic during last night's presidential debate.
Lower natural gas prices, combined with environmental regulation, have accelerated the substitution
of nat gas for coal in power generation. In spite of a widespread and rising domestic use of nat gas, the
ratio of nat gas to coal prices went down up to early this year, when prices reached a decade low.¶ If
relative demand cannot explain the price pattern, the answer could be found on the supply side. Yet, as
can be seen below, coal supply has drifted downward since 2009 whereas nat gas supply has
consistently edged up. This was not enough to stabilize the price ratio. Only the sharp fall in coal supply
in early 2012 - combined with the perception that nat gas was oversold - pushed the ratio upward.¶ The
rebound in nat gas prices from their April 2012 low is justified by the shrinking gap between today's
inventories and their 5-year average. Many investors thought that at $1.9/MMBtu, producers were far
from breakeven prices. The decline in rig counts to a 3-year low has also been brought forward as a
potential reason, but it neglects the fact that nat gas is a byproduct of oil extraction.¶ The shift toward
liquid-rich wells could have limited the increase of overall supply. Attracted by the spread between
methane and natural gas liquids (propane, ethane), many producers have favored the drilling of liquid
rich wells. This must have been a much stronger phenomenon than "drill it or lose it" as there is always a
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
share of methane that is collected. Yet, as can be seen below, the incentive could be reduced as ethane
prices did not rebound in the wake of higher nat gas prices (ethane price have also disconnected from
WTI prices, to which they are correlated as a substitute for naphtha in ethylene production).¶ (click to
enlarge)¶ It looks like nat gas has found a new price range, and that a rebound in prices up to $4/MMBtu
will depend on more traditional factors, such as the weather.¶ Both commodities are showing similar
patterns in terms of domestic prices and net exports.¶ (click to enlarge)¶ The first chart highlights the
disconnect between higher net exports of coal and lower domestic prices. The second chart shows the
fall in nat gas domestic prices that began in late 2009 and the subsequent decline in net imports.¶ The
comparison stops here. In the case of coal, the fall in domestic use is partly offset by higher exports,
but it is not enough to balance the market. As for natural gas, imports are dwindling while exports are
stuck due to a lack of facilities (and political will).¶ One market is isolated, while the other is open.¶
Domestic use of natural gas is mounting (substitute for heating oil, tame hopes for transportation).
There is no significant LNG export infrastructure in place, and opening the market to exports would
probably have the same impact on domestic prices as it does on gasoline: a correlation with Brent, not
WTI (hence, a loss of "price-independence").¶ Domestic use of coal should not be ruled out as many
power plants can continue to make arbitrage between nat gas and coal. In addition, political
willingness to revive the market has recently reemerged. But most importantly, the westward shift of
coal production is opening the way for more exports as some Asian countries, China in particular, are
turning into net importers of coal.
Coal’s coming back now – natural gas prices will rise
Brad Plumer, Energy and Environment Writer for Wonkblog, 9-14-2012, “Why the recent plunge in
U.S. carbon emissions may not last” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezraklein/wp/2012/09/14/why-the-recent-plunge-in-u-s-carbon-emissions-may-not-last/
But there’s a possibility that natural gas won’t remain at its current cheap levels forever. Over at
Climate Progress, Stephen Lacey points out that the Energy Information Administration now expects
natural gas prices to rebound in 2013, thanks to a slowdown in drilling. That will enable coal to make
a small comeback: Because of the projected increase in natural gas prices relative to coal, EIA expects
the recent trend of substituting coal‐fired electricity generation with natural gas generation to slow and
likely reverse over the next year. … EIA expects that coal‐fired electricity generation will increase by 9
percent in 2013, while natural gas generation will fall by about 10 percent. EIA expects carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil fuels, which fell by 2.3 percent in 2011, to further decline by 2.4 percent in 2012.
However, projected emissions increase by 2.8 percent in 2013, as coal regains some of its electric‐
power‐generation market share.
Natural gas prices will rebound ensuring coals viability
Debra McCown, staff writer, 5-23-2012, “Miller: 'Gas prices are now competitive with coal',” Bristol
Herald Courier, http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/may/23/miller-gas-prices-are-now-competitivecoal-ar-1935318/
“The natural gas development and lower prices facilitated this,” Miller said, “but the switching of the
last two or three years would not have happened if it hadn’t been for the regulations.” Ultimately, he
said, he believes gas production will be reduced to a level that leaves the price between $3.50 and $4 a
unit while meeting increased demand. “Hopefully that will prevent more switching for that reason
over to natural gas from coal,” Miller said. “Domestic coal demand should eventually stabilize at near
its current reduced level.”
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Switch to natural gas has stalled – coal and natural gas will remain deadlocked –
natural gases volatility key
Marin Katusa, staff writer, 5-30-2012, “Shale Gas Takes On Coal To Power America's Electrical Plants,”
Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/05/30/shale-gas-takes-on-coal-to-poweramericas-electrical-plants/
Competition is supposed to make competitors stronger, but when it comes to the battle between coal
and shale gas for supremacy as the United States' power-generating fuel of choice, the rivalry instead
has each commodity holding the other down. Coal is the reigning champ is this competition, having
provided at least 50% of the electricity consumed in the United States for many decades. Coal and
nuclear plants have long worked together to provide the nation with its all-important baseload power;
natural gas and renewables contribute to help meet peak-demand needs, but neither has come close to
challenging coal's grip on power. But then horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracturing unlocked trillions
of cubic feet of natural gas from shale formations across North America. Suddenly the continent was
flooded with gas; and as supplies overwhelmed demand, a commodity that traded as high as $13 per
MMBtu just four years ago saw its value drop as much as 85%. At the same time, international demand
kept coal prices pretty strong. Faced with a choice, utilities started to switch from coal to natural gas.
Coal's grip on US power-generation supremacy started to fade – from a high of 57% in 1985, coal's
contribution to US power needs slipped to 42% last year. Today coal is providing only 37% of US
electricity. As demand for coal dropped, coal prices started to lose ground. In the past 12 months, prices
for Appalachian coal have fallen 24% while coal from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming
has lost 45% of its value. It's become a race for the bottom. Ultracheap gas started to displace coal,
coal prices fell to remain competitive, and now the two are fighting to simply tread water. The Switch
to Gas As gas flooded the continent and prices plunged, it only made sense for US utilities to take
advantage of this inexpensive alternative fuel. Southern Co., Xcel Energy, American Electric Power, and
Dominion Resources are among the US power-generators that have taken advantage of low natural-gas
prices to displace some of their coal-fired generation. Some of these companies simply started making
more use of gas-fired plants that had previously only been used to serve peak-power demand. Others
operate combined cycle coal-gas plants, which can burn either fuel. And some actually built new gasfired units to replace older, less efficient facilities, some of which were being forced to close because of
increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Southern's switch to gas makes for a good example.
Southern ran its combined cycle gas turbine fleet at a near-record 70% of capacity during the first
quarter of the year, doubling the plants' typical use. This degree of transition has the utility on pace to
consume more gas than coal this year for the first time in its 100-year history. As a result the company
expects to derive 47% of its power from gas and only 35% from coal. Five years ago the company relied
on coal for 70% of its generation; gas provided just 16% of its power. No matter how you look at it,
utilities are using a lot more gas than they used to. Barclays Capital estimates that 7 billion cubic feet of
gas is being burned each by US utilities that used to burn coal to generate those watts. US Energy
Information Administration data show power companies consuming 34% more gas this February than a
year earlier. Credit Suisse estimates power plants ate up 5 billion cubic feet more gas each day in the
first three months of the year compared to Q1 of 2011. However, the switchover phase is almost
complete. Utilities have transitioned their combined cycle plants, restarted their idled gas capacities,
and committed as much to new gas plants as they are probably willing to commit, given natural gas'
tendency for extreme price volatility. And utilities will only start to make a dent in America's massive
stockpiles of natural gas if the trend to increased gas consumption can continue through this year.
Credit Suisse figures the power industry will need to burn at least 4.5 billion cubic feet more per day
above 2011 levels to create a notable drawdown in gas inventories, something that analysts peg as
unprecedented but not out of the question. So the switch is barely easing the gas-supply glut…but it is
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
definitely hurting coal prices. What Happens Next As utilities switched to gas, demand for coal started to
decline, and with declining demand comes falling prices. By January coal producers could no longer
ignore the trend and started idling mines. Patriot Coal idled its Big Mountain mine, Alpha Natural
Resources closed four mines, and many other companies cut back on production volumes. Coal
production in the United States is now down 8% compared to this time last year. Shares of Peabody
Energy, the biggest coal producer in the United States, have dropped from $70 to $29. Arch Coal shares
have fallen from $35 to less than $10. Several coal producers have announced losses in the hundreds of
millions. I like to say that the cure for low prices is low prices. Low commodity prices force production
cuts, which reduce supplies and help to define a pricing floor based on the cost of production.
Eventually, reduced supplies fall behind building demand, and prices are forced back up again. The
interesting thing about this situation is that there are two commodities competing to define the pricing
floor. It's like a manufacturing battle, where two companies keep undercutting each other's prices until
one goes under and the survivor gets all the business. In this case, neither fuel is going to go under –
both will undoubtedly play important roles in electricity generation in the United States for many
years. Instead, the competition will simply keep a tight lid on prices for years. For example, in the last
month natural gas prices posted an impressive rally, gaining as much as 40% after bottoming below $2
per MMBtu. That rally has now stalled, blocked from continued ascent by two serious obstacles: coal
prices and shut-in gas production. Coal prices matter because natural gas needs to remain competitive
with coal. Utilities only switched to gas because it was cheaper, but with gas' rally that economic edge
is wearing thin. In fact, our calculations show that the two fuels are almost equivalent in terms of
energy economics. Since April 20 Central Appalachian coal has been priced at US$60.90 per ton. Each
pound of Central Appalachian thermal coal generates 12,500 Btu, or 0.0125 MMBtu. With that
information we can calculate that this mainstay US thermal coal is currently priced at US$2.436 per
MMBtu. Natural gas is priced per MMBtu, so we can now compare our two fuels on a dollars-perenergy-produced basis: over the same time frame, the Henry Hub natural gas spot price has averaged
US$2.188 per MMBtu. So gas is cheaper than coal, but not by much. In fact, on May 25 the Henry Hub
spot price was US$2.67 per MMBtu, making gas slightly more expensive than coal on an energyequivalent basis. And the price to generate each unit of energy is the only thing that matters to energy
producers. We contend that gas' price rally is over because if a rising gas price renders the two fuels
economically equivalent, the shift to gas will end. Remember, coal was entrenched as America's powergeneration mainstay for many years, and that tenure leaves behind a legacy that favors a return to
coal – if the economics allow it. For example, many US utilities are sitting on growing coal inventories.
These utilities are being forced to continue buying the fuel under long-term take-or-pay contracts and
will start burning it as soon as it makes sense to do so. And limited storage space is making these
stockpiles problematic: GenOn Energy (NYSE:GEN), for instance, has declared force majeure on coal
receipts due to a lack of storage space.
Fuel switch is over – coal will reassert itself post natural gas price rebound
Elliott Gue, editor of the long-running investment newsletter Personal Finance, 6-13-2012, “North
American Coal And Natural Gas: Producers Scrambling To Get Out,” Seeking Alpha,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/657721-north-american-coal-and-natural-gas-producers-scrambling-toget-out
But investors shouldn't assume that the recent bout of fuel-switching marks the end of king coal. For
one, two consecutive colder-than-average winters in 2009-10 and 2010-11 helped eliminate the utilities'
supply overhang in the wake of the financial crisis and Great Recession. Meanwhile, even if natural gas
production maxes out domestic storage capacity in early fall and the price of the fuel plummets, those
prices aren't sustainable over the long haul; natural gas prices eventually will rise to levels that make
thermal coal more attractive to electric utilities. At that point, fuel switching will reverse course.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Central Appalachian coal becomes more competitive in the Southeast when natural gas exceeds $3.50
per mmBtu to $4.00 per mmBtu, while utilities have an economic incentive to revert to coal from the
Powder River Basin when natural gas tops $3.00 per mmBtu. A number of coal producers and utilities
have also indicated that there's little additional capacity for fuel switching in the near term.
Natural gas price rally causes switch back to coal
Ben Lefebvre and Carolyn Cui, staff writers, 5-21-2012, “Investors Look for Gas Cap,” WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304791704577418273833920922.html
Some investors are wagering on natural-gas prices losing their spark. Natural gas has rallied after
sinking to decade lows last month. Above, a crew from Alpha Oil & Gas. Natural-gas prices have jumped
as much as 44% since sinking to decade lows last month. Much of that rally had been powered by rising
demand from utilities, which had taken advantage of the low prices by using more natural gas instead of
coal. But the higher prices are making coal competitive once again. Coal prices are down 22% since the
start of the year. Utilities are continuously fine-tuning how much coal and natural gas they're burning to
generate electricity. In recent months, they've increasingly favored natural gas due to the steep drop in
gas prices. Utilities keep the breakdown of their fuel use a trade secret. How utilities will respond to
higher gas prices has spurred debate among investors. Some analysts and traders say the rally threatens
to erode natural gas' recent gains in market share as utilities switch back to coal, and that could limit
any further price increases. "This has been a decent rally, but it's come to its peak," said Dominick
Chirichella, an analyst at Energy Management Institute, a commodities-market consultancy. On Monday,
front-month natural-gas futures fell 13.30 cents, or 4.9%, to finish at $2.6090 per million British thermal
units. "The next big move in the [gas] market is going to be determined by how the market perceives
utilities are going to manage gas-to-coal switching," said Brison Bickerton, managing director at
Greenwich, Conn.-based Freepoint Commodities, a trading house. Coal demand in some parts of the
U.S. traditionally has been sensitive to natural-gas prices. Recently, though utilities have fled the
cheapest types of coal at a high rate, boosting natural-gas demand from power plants by 25% over the
past year. But gas prices are nearing the point where it makes sense for utilities to switch back.
Prefer our evidence – theirs doesn’t factor in maintenance which distorts their data
Ben Lefebvre and Carolyn Cui, staff writers, 5-21-2012, “Investors Look for Gas Cap,” WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304791704577418273833920922.html
But other factors are working against gas, analysts say. Some of its recent market-share gains at coal's
expense were inflated by the closure of coal plants for seasonal maintenance and mechanical
problems, and when they come back on line they'll "force more gas off the market," said Vikas
Dwivedi, global oil and gas economist at Macquarie Group MQG.AU +0.87% . He added that U.S.
inventories of natural gas are still near record levels for this time of year.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Links
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Energy Generics
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
1NC Electricity Link
Electricity-sector consumption is the backbone of the US coal industry
Investor's Business Daily 11-1-2004, lexis
The heart of the business for coal producers is supplying electric utilities and independent power
companies, which account for about 90% of domestic coal consumption. Growth in domestic power
demand, which is driven by strength in the industrial economy, fuels the need for coal. A number of
factors have led to increased merger activity and industry concentration. Among them are severe
cyclical swings, the capital-intensive nature of the industry, substantial retiree costs and the challenge of
continuing to amass reserves and obtain permits for new production. "Since the profitability of a coal
company is tied to production levels and coal prices, earnings variability can swing from a large profit to
a loss depending on prevailing market conditions," wrote Smith Barney analyst David LaBonte. As in
many commodity businesses, firms can ramp up only so far during the good times. Otherwise, they risk
a swift turn in fortunes if supplies start to exceed demand. The bulk of sales to power customers are
done through long-term contracts of more than a year, which limits exposure to short-term price moves.
While coal producers reduce production in the face of weak demand, they typically wait until they can
secure long-term contracts before raising output, LaBonte says. Still, in some ways the coal industry
isn't a typical commodity market. "Coal is not as fungible as, say, natural gas and oil," said Jim
Thompson, editor of the Coal & Energy newsletter. "The design of specific power plants will determine
what kind of coal they can burn." Transportation challenges also can contribute to wide variations in
pricing from one region to another, he notes. "What we've seen this year is that Eastern coal prices have
exploded, while (the West's) Powder River prices are up marginally," he said. ** Name of the Game:
produce coal efficiently and take advantage of strong pricing conditions, while guarding against industry
downturns. 2. Market Coal provides 51% of the fuel used to generate electricity in the U.S., up from
50% in 2002. The closest competitors are nuclear at 20% and natural gas, which supplies 17%. While the
other fuels are cleaner burning, coal has the advantage of being readily available and less expensive.
Like coal, natural gas has taken off in price recently. That's helping keep coal relatively cheap. With coal
prices where they are, natural gas prices would have to be $4 to $5 per million British thermal units to
be competitive. But they've recently been trading in the $8 to $9 range, Thompson says. "As long as
natural gas is at those high levels, that doesn't put a ceiling on coal prices," he said. With nuclear energy
plants operating close to maximum capacity and no new plants on the drawing board, coal will have to
carry much of the increasing load.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC Electricity Link Wall
Electricity generation is the foundation of the US coal industry—over 90% of mined
coal is burned for electricity
Andy Roberts and Gary Hunt, vice president, Coal Advisory Services + vice president-Consulting and
Advisory Services at Henwood, a Global Energy Decisions company, 9-1-2004, Public Utilities Fortnightly
Economic conditions and weather are key price factors. Nearly 90 percent of the coal mined in the
United States is burned by U.S. electric generators. (Small amounts of coal are used in steel-making,
industrial plants, and in the residential and commercial sectors. Small amounts of coal are also exported
to steel-making and steam-generating customers. See Figure 1.) Coal markets are dearly dependent
upon the electric generation industry, which makes them dependent on the level of electric sales. As the
U.S. economy improves, coal burn usually increases; the converse also is true.
US coal consumption in the electricity sector is set to remain strong—it will continue
to be the primary fuel for electricity generation
Guy Caruso, 3-16-2005, Administrator, Energy Information Administration U.S. Department of Energy
Total coal consumption is projected to increase from 1,095 million short tons in 2003 to 1,508 million
short tons in 2025, growing by 1.5 percent per year. About 90 percent of the coal is currently used for
electricity generation. Coal remains the primary fuel for generation and its share of generation is
expected to remain about 50 percent between 2003 and 2025. Total coal consumption for electricity
generation is projected to increase by an average of 1.6 percent per year, from 1,004 million short tons
in 2003 to 1,425 million short tons in 2025.
90% of all coal is used for electricity production
Jodi Britton, Winter 2004, 12 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 241
Coal is the most abundant fuel source for electricity in America. 22 Ninety percent of all coal is used for
electricity. 23 In 2000, coal [*246] accounted for fifty-two percent of fuel used for electricity. 24 Unlike
other fuel sources, the price of coal has actually decreased since it peaked in 1982. 25 The projected
price of coal is expected to remain low and coal is likely to remain the dominant fuel in the United
States' future. 26 Unfortunately, regardless of its low cost and abundance, coal emits large amounts of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 27
Domestic electrical generation is the primary market for the US coal industry—more
that 75% of US coal production is sold to electric utilities
US Industrial Outlook 1993 (January, lexis)
The principal domestic market for U.S. coal is the electric utility industry. Coal generates over half of U.S.
electric power, and more than three-quarters of U.S. coal production is sold to electric utilities. An
additional 11 percent is exported. Metallurgical coal used in the U.S. steel industry accounts for about 3
percent of production. The balance is used in industries other than steel, and in the residential,
commercial, and transportation sectors (Table 3).
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
OTEC
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
1NC OTEC Link
OTEC plants would crush coal
The ON Project, consulting firm for alternative energies, 7-2-2011, “OTEC By the Numbers”,
http://www.theonproject.org/2011/otec-by-the-numbers/
How do you measure the cost of energy? The value exists beyond the dollar. Dr. Ted Johnson, Senior
Vice President for Ocean Thermal Energy Corporation sees OTEC as a crucial part of the world’s future
and believes all the proof lives in the numbers. Here are some energy cost stats associated with fossilfired electrical and OTEC power generation: FUEL: Fossil Plant: In 2009, the U.S. power plants burned
1,000,400,000 tons of coal. OTEC: Requires zero barrels. Fossil fuels are not required, sparing
operators and customers enormous costs while producing vastly cleaner energy. EMISSIONS: Fossil
Plant: Coal burning power plants in the United States produce 2.8 billion tons of CO2 per year. OTEC: 0
carbon output. As Dr. Johnson puts it, “We are still in an age of fire, where people think we have to burn
everything to make energy.” The carbon footprint we leave on the world has increased since the
industrial age. With just a few changes, we can lessen the impact and create cleaner power. BYPRODUCTS: Fossil Plant: Along with carbon, fuel-burning produces many more poisonous gases,
including nitrogen oxides and sulfur compounds that return to the Earth as acid rain and snow with the
power to contaminate water supplies and our soil. OTEC: Clean water! A 100 Megawatt plant produces
120 million gallons of clean water annually, along with 4 square/kilometers of fresh water aquaculture
to farm fish and plants – all without additional cost. Dr. Johnson adds, “Water is the enabler of life; over
the long term the benefits from clean water will be as lasting as those from clean electricity. The ability
to produce clean power and clean water ‘changes the game’ with the potential to drastically improve
the quality of life in surrounding areas.” (Read more about Ted Johnson and his views on OTEC). There
are 98 countries where OTEC could flourish today, and 54% of the world’s population lives within reach
of possible OTEC plants. In these areas, an OTEC plant could replace a fossil fuel plant , not just lessen
the load like wind or solar power. The price of power shows in its numbers, whether it’s upfront and
ongoing costs, or the equally compelling long-term quantifiable impact on our quality of life. At what
point do the numbers become compelling enough to drive positive change? Perhaps OTEC is the
catalyst for that change.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC OTEC Link Wall
OTEC Replaces Fossil Fuels By Creating Both Electricity And Hydrogen
Joseph C. Huang Senior Scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hans J.
Krock Professor of Ocean &. Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii and Stephen K. Oney, PhD.
and executive vice present of OCEES July 2003 “Revisit Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n864l3217156h045/fulltext.pdf, Zavell
The Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) technology, a superior mechanical system which takes
advantages of the ubiquitous natural ocean thermal gradients between the warm surface layer and
the deep cold water to generate electricity and produce other products, can be very practical for
extracting the solar energy stored in the ocean to be employed for coping with current challenges.
OTEC technology can be utilized to alleviate both the plight of tropical island people and the over
dependence on fossil fuel of the global population. Land-based OTEC installations on tropical islands
can be designed as an economically optimized system to produce multiple products.
OTEC displaces coal
Masayuki Mac Takahashi Research scientist at Institute of Oceanography, University of British
Columbia 2000 “Deep Ocean Water as Our Next Natural Resource” http://www.terrapub.co.jp/elibrary/dow/pdf/chap3.pdf
Even supposing that the cost of coal remained the same, by 2000 the cost of OTEC-produced electricity
would be lower than thermally produced power, as long as OTEC power plant construction costs could
be reduced. Similarly, if the price of uranium, the fuel for nuclear power plants, rose by only 0.8 percent,
OTEC-generated electricity would be cheaper. If coal went up by 1.4 percent or more per year, OTECgenerated electricity would become more economical by the year 2000 even with a power plant
constructed in the medium cost range. In actual fact, the price of coal rises by more than 8 percent per
year, which leaves no doubt that OTEC-generated electricity will soon beat it for economy. Similarly, if
the price of uranium rises by more than 2.7 percent per year, OTEC-generated electricity from a
mediumcost plant will be competitive. What is more, if the costs for environmental conservation and
waste disposal are added to the production costs of coal, oil and nuclear power plants, a much higher
figure is reached. At present, not enough thought is given to those factors.
OTEC would make electricity cheaper than fossils – crushes coal
Ted Johnson, Senior Vice President and Head of OTEC Programs, “Q&A with Dr. Ted Johnson”, 2011,
http://www.theonproject.org/2011/qa-with-dr-ted-johnson/?utm_source=internalblog&utm_medium=social-blog&utm_campaign=op-blog-stats
“When we flip the switch on a 10 megawatt OTEC plant, the world is really going to change. Once we
get a commercial OTEC plant going, that will be it. 54% of the world’s population live within the OTEC
belt, and 98 countries are a fit for OTEC systems. Some places need more awareness, but we’re not far
from developing a one GIGAWATT OTEC plant, which would provide an enormous worldwide impact for
both developed nations, and the developing world. OTEC uses no fuel – so once you pay off the capital
cost of building a plant, you’re producing electricity far cheaper than nuclear and fossil fuels, it’s much
cleaner, and it runs forever.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
OTEC Competes With Fossil Fuels For Energy Production
Joseph C. Huang Senior Scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Hans J.
Krock Professor of Ocean &. Resources Engineering, University of Hawaii and Stephen K. Oney, PhD.
and executive vice present of OCEES July 2003 “Revisit Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion System”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n864l3217156h045/fulltext.pdf, Zavell
The most recent calculation for turnkey construction costs for an OTEC power plant is very
competitive with that of equivalent oil-fired power plants. One cost estimation from a private
company in Hawaii quoted about $0.04 per kilowatt-hour for a 100 MW floating OTEC plant (Krock
and Oney, 2002). This reflects a much improved overall OTEC efficiency afforded by a significant
reduction in the total heating and cooling water flow requirements. In addition, unlike fuel or coal fired
power plants, the OTECenergy resource is automatically replenished by the solar system at no cost.
Thus OTEC will reduce our reliance on imported oil for national and international energy security as
well as eliminate GHG emissions.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Oil
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
1NC Oil Link
Oil expansion trades off with CCS
Source Watch, 4-16-2012, “Coal Reserves”, Center for Media and Democracy,
The researchers and agencies are making forecasts using different methodologies. The Hubbert cycle
analysis looks at past production trends to predict future results. EIA and the mining trade group
prefer to measure current consumption rates against estimated future reserves. Jerry Taylor, a
resource economist and senior fellow at the libertarian CATO Institute said much of the disparity comes
because there are too many variables contributing to coal production to make precise predictions. New
mining technology could boost production by making previously untouchable reserves cheap to recover,
Taylor said. Alternatively, coal production would drop if an influx of cheap oil and natural gas curbed
demand, he said, pointing to the boost in natural gas drilling due to hydraulic fracturing.[16]¶ ¶ The
researchers are also skeptical about emissions from burning fossil fuels causing catastrophic climate
change: they accept the science connecting human greenhouse gas emissions to global warming, but
think the remaining accessible fossil fuel stores only contain enough carbon to raise global temperatures
by about 0.8 degrees Celsius, said Croft. (It should be noted that the scientific consensus is the earth has
already warmed 1 degree Celsius, and many climate scientists like James Hansen believe any additional
increase could set into motions feedbacks toward warming beyond human control.) Therefore, Croft
said, he advocates not a cap-and-trade law for carbon emissions and investment in carbon capture and
storage, but instead incentives for renewable energy and possibly a carbon tax to promote
efficiency.[16]¶ ¶ Barbara Freese, a senior coal policy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said
she could not judge whether the peak-coal prediction was accurate without more analysis but that the
study should prompt policymakers to question some of their assumptions about the fossil fuel: "We
spend a lot of time talking about whether we can rely on renewables and efficiency and whether that's
practical and affordable, but we've kind of given a pass to coal proponents. We need to see evidence
that we have the economically recoverable reserves."[16]¶ Coal reserves and climate change¶ ¶ Most
climate policy recommendations having to do with coal and climate change have focused on measures
to limit the yearly output of greenhouse gases; for example placing a moratorium on new coal-fired
power plants that do not sequester their carbon dioxide emissions and then phasing out existing plants.
Such recommendations generally assume that coal reserves are too massive to not pose a potential
limitation to climate change. If anything, coal usage would rise if other sources, particularly oil, were to
run short. For example, in 2004, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded:[17]¶ ¶
Absolute fossil fuel scarcity at the global level is not a significant factor in considering climate change
mitigation. Conventional oil production will eventually peak, but it is uncertain exactly when and what
the repercussions will be. The energy in conventional natural gas is more abundant than in conventional
oil but, like oil, is not distributed evenly around the globe. In the future, lack of security of oil and gas
supplies for consuming nations may drive a shift to coal, nuclear power and/or renewable energy. There
is also a trend towards more efficient and convenient energy carriers (electricity, and liquid and gaseous
fuels) instead of solids (high agreement, much evidence) [4.3.1].¶ ¶ According to Dave Rutledge's analysis,
the IPCC scenarios assume levels of coal far higher than actually will be mined. For example, the IPCC
maximum scenario depends on an ultimate coal usage (past production plus projected future
production) of 3,400 billion metric tons (Gt), compared to 663 Gt projected by the analysis.[18]¶ ¶ An
implication of the suggestions that coal reserves are significantly overstated is the possibility that
depletion of coal reserves, or "peak coal," might limit the extent of potential warming caused by coal,
especially if those reserves could be reduced yet further by policies to move some coal into off-limits
status. Noting that the a third of U.S. coal reserves are located on federal lands, Dave Rutledge suggests
¶¶
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
that a government program aimed at sidetracking a portion of those reserves would be more effective in
limiting ultimate global warming than attempting to limit annual usage of coal.[19]¶ Effect of Rutledge
projection on global warming¶ ¶ Rutledge used the MAGICC climate model to assess the implications of
his lower coal reserve estimates. Applied his projection of coal reserves to the MAGICC climate model,
Rutledge If the Rutledge analysis is correct, then the impact of future coal usage is 0.3 degrees C. Of that
total, the share attributable to future U.S. coal burning is 0.05 degree C.[20]¶ Kharecha/Hansen analysis¶
¶ A contrasting study to that done by Rutledge is a 2008 study by Pushker Kharecha and James Hansen,
"Implications of 'peak oil' for atmospheric CO2 and climate."[21] Kharecha and Hansen modeled a coal
phase-out scenario in which developed countries leveled out their coal usage from 2012 to 2022, then
reduced it at a straightline pace until zeroing it out in 2050. Developing countries would level their usage
out in 2022 and would also zero out their usage by 2050. This coal phase-out scenario, which would
release 110 Gt of carbon from coal into the atmosphere from 2007 through 2050, was then analyzed in
connection with a variety of assumptions about oil and gas depletion. The peak carbon dioxide level
connected to the various scenarios ranged from 428 to 446 parts per million (ppm). A "business as
usual" scenario in which coal usage was not limited produced a peak carbon dioxide level of 563 ppm.¶ ¶
The implication of the Kharecha/Hansen scenario is a climate policy that focuses heavily on coal: with
the phenomenon of peak oil limiting other fossil fuel emissions, proactive limits on coal alone are
sufficient to curb climate impacts below 450 ppm.¶ Comparing Rutledge's conclusions to the
Kharecha/Hansen conclusions¶ ¶ Rutledge's study implies a contribution of future coal, inherently limited
by "peak coal" dynamic, of 201 Gt of carbon, compared to 110 Gt of carbon for the Kharecha/Hansen
coal phase-out scenario.[22] In other words, achieving the carbon emission levels of the
Kharecha/Hansen coal phase-out scenario implies that carbon emissions are 91 Gt lower than would
occur under a business-as-usual continuation of trends to the present. This coal phase-out represents a
45 percent reduction (91 Gt/201 Gt) from Rutledge's projection of ultimate future coal usage.¶ ¶ Note
that neither Rutledge nor Kharecha/Hansen includes the contribution to global warming from
unconventional sources such as tar sands and oil shale. Nor do they include any role for carbon capture
and storage technology. Development of tar sands and oil shale would decrease the amount of
"acceptable" coal use; development of carbon capture and storage would increase it.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC Oil Link Wall
Oil prices determine switch to CCS
Michael Levi, David M. Rubenstein Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at CFR, 6-14-2012,
“Could Expensive Oil Rescue Carbon Capture?” CFR, http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/06/14/couldexpensive-oil-rescue-carbon-capture/
What a difference a few years makes. Not long ago, power plants with carbon capture and sequestration
(CCS) seemed to be the key to a low carbon future. Today, with no large-scale pilot plants operating, no
appetite for big government subsidies, and no price on carbon in the offing, CCS barely registers in most
low-carbon energy conversations. I’ve recently been wondering, though, whether high oil prices might
change that. The United States produces about a quarter-million barrels of oil each day by injecting
carbon dioxide underground to enhance oil recovery. The scale of this endeavor, known as CO2-EOR, is
limited primarily by CO2 availability, most of which comes from natural sources. That’s why estimates of
the potential impact of various cap-and-trade bills often projected big gains in U.S. oil production: by
penalizing greenhouse gas emissions, they would have incentivized CCS, and in doing that, helped boost
oil. But here’s the thing: at some oil price, it should be worth capturing CO2 from power operations
purely so that it can be used to extract oil. I’ve been meaning for a while to try and put some numbers
to this hunch. I hadn’t followed through, but this past Monday, I visited an interesting company whose
business strategy is based substantially on this bet. That’s enough motivation for me to drill down a bit
more. In a 2010 study, ARI estimated that a typical CO2-EOR project would require about one ton of CO2
for each 3.8 barrels of produced oil (assuming some recycling). Assuming CO2 available at $15/ton and
an oil price of $112 they figured that a typical project could make a profit of about $30/bbl after
returning 25% on capital. Alas capturing and delivering CO2 from power plants costs a lot more than
$15/ton. How much more? A lot depends on how much natural gas costs. A recent paper in
Environmental Science & Technology uses a central estimate of $6.55/MMBtu and estimates that
captured CO2 could be delivered at $73/ton. If prices are instead $5/MMBtu, which is a reasonable
expectation in the United States, this would drop by about ten percent, to around $65/ton. The authors
also look at the question probabilistically. They find that there’s a 70 percent chance of being able to
deliver CO2 for $100/ton or less. If you shift their natural gas price assumptions down a bit, it’s
reasonable to drop this to about $90. What would this mean for the economics of oil production?
Estimated profits at $112/bbl oil would fall to about $18/bbl (part of the extra cost of CO2 would be
offset by lower taxes). Once again, though, this is profit in excess of a 25 percent return on capital.
Excess profits would be wiped out if oil prices fell to about $75. This might sound attractive, but it is still
a risky proposition. First of a kind CCS plants would face higher costs than those used here. (Oil prices
around a hundred dollars or so, though, could still make the system work with $180/ton CO2.) It also
relies on a big sustained gap between prices for oil and gas, but it’s not clear that investors could count
on that. Bottom line? I wouldn’t count on high oil prices rescuing power plant CCS. But I wouldn’t write
it off entirely either – and, even if there’s only limited deployment, the impact on technological
progress could be large.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Natural Gas
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
1NC Gas Link
Expanding natural gas trades off with CCS
Matthew Wald, reporter at The New York Times, where he has been writing about energy topics for 30
years, 5-18-2012, “With Natural Gas Plentiful and Cheap, Carbon Capture Projects Stumble,” NYT,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/business/energy-environment/low-natural-gas-prices-threatencarbon-capture-projects.html
A federal proposal to ban the construction of coal-fired power plants that release all of their carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere would seem to smooth the way for carbon capture, a budding technology
that traps the greenhouse gas for storage or other uses. But even as the Environmental Protection
Agency prepares to open hearings on the proposed rule, unveiled in March, industry experts say the
persistently low price of natural gas is threatening the viability of the nation’s carbon capture projects.
Natural gas is so cheap and plentiful that utilities have little incentive to build coal-fired plants with the
capture technology. And the proposed rule exempts existing coal- and gas-fired plants. In the tiny
universe of American carbon capture projects, the first casualty may be the Taylorville Energy Center, a
project in the coal fields of Illinois. The plan was to cook coal into methane, capture the carbon dioxide
released in the process, then burn the methane in a conventional natural gas-style power plant. But
Taylorville’s backers, unable to persuade the state legislature to approve the project because of its
estimated $3.5 billion price, are considering deferring the coal element and simply building the gasburning plant for one-third the cost. “It’s primarily due to the low natural gas prices, and how that
affects the political environment,” said Bart Ford, a vice president of Tenaska, the developer. “We’re
not changing the nature of the facility, just deferring the synthetic natural gas portion.” Still, Tenaska is
continuing to seek permits to inject carbon dioxide underground at the site, Mr. Ford said. “This allows
us to say, we’ll wait until the price impact is lower because the price of natural gas is up,” he said.
Making synthetic natural gas from coal makes economic sense only if the ordinary natural gas that it
displaces is more expensive. The advent of hydraulic fracturing, a drilling method that has opened vast
new supplies of natural gas, has helped to keep gas prices low. The industry’s expectation is that the
price will rise somewhat from its current depressed level — near $2 per million B.T.U., compared with as
much as $14 before the recession — but that it will not recover fully for many years. Edwardsport, a
“capture-ready” Duke Energy coal plant, is scheduled to begin commercial operation this year. The
plant, in Edwardsport, Ind., will cook coal into a fuel gas and could be retrofitted to capture carbon
dioxide released in that conversion. But Duke, the builder, has no plan to capture the carbon dioxide and
no place to sequester it for now. It is exempted from the new rule because construction began five years
ago. The plant cost nearly $3 billion to build, about $1 billion over budget, and carbon capture would
cost $380 million, not counting storage. Only two other major carbon capture projects are on the
drawing boards in the United States. Neither is affected directly by low natural gas prices. But the
ebbing interest in coal-fired construction may signal that even if the technology works well, there may
be few commercial projects where it could be deployed.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC Gas Link Wall
Plan trades off with GOVERNMNET SUPPORT – key to CCS expansion
Greenwire, 5-2-2012, “CLIMATE: Market woes, reduced government support create global hurdles
for CCS,” by Manuel Quinones, E&E Reporter, lexisnexis
CCS is the top research priority within the U.S. government's clean coal efforts. Even as President
Obama stays away from mentioning coal in public speeches, his fiscal 2013 budget blueprint talks up
the importance of CCS (Greenwire, April 27). Projects proceed in China¶ "To foster the clean energy
economy of the future and reduce the nation's reliance on fossil fuels that contribute to climate
change," the budget proposal says, "the budget proposes to focus limited Fossil Energy Research and
Development resources on clean energy technology, namely carbon capture and storage."¶ Globally,
the CCS Institute's March update and an IEA report on clean energy development suggest governments
need to avoid cutting spending on such projects. IEA said new funding peaked in 2008 when
governments were implementing economic stimulus plans.¶ "Since this time," IEA said, "additional
funding has been limited, and the allocation of announced funds still lags."¶ With researchers and
emission sources, particularly coal-fired power plants, looking to make electric generation cleaner
through CCS, regulations and the economics have prompted some utilities to turn their backs on coal
altogether.¶ "We are in a situation right now that the natural gas prices is at an all-time low," Forbes
said. "That influences the discussion.
Rapid development short-circuits the COAL DIRTY BRIDGE
Shelley DuBois, staff writer, 8-30-2010, “Politics aside, natural gas is beating up on clean coal,” CNN
Money, http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/30/news/companies/clean-coal_vs_natural-gas_BTUprice.fortune/index.htm
Coal has always been cheap and dirty. And the dirty part was justifiable because it was so cheap. Now,
gas prices are dropping, threatening coal's dominance in the North American energy market. Which
means gas could take over before coal gets a chance to clean up its act. Natural gas dropped in price
last week, trading at under $4 per million British thermal units-the unit used to measure energy output.
The price is competitive with coal on a Btu basis, David L. Goldwyn of the U.S. Department of State
announced last week. Coal is still cheaper at $2.25 per million Btu in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration. Even so, the coal market is starting to feel the burn from gas on its heels.
Coal stocks are down, across the board. Bloomberg recently reported that the largest U.S. coal producer,
Peabody Energy Corp., fell 5.2 %, to $40.96. The second biggest producer, Arch Coal Inc., fell 5.9 % to
$21.08. Massey Energy Co., the largest Central Appalachia coal producer, plunged $1.40, or 4.6 percent,
to $28.75. So if natural gas is accessible, cheap, clean, and getting cleaner, should the government
keep spending billions on clean coal? So far, the government has tried to spearhead projects to
demonstrate that coal plants capturing carbon can compete with traditional plants. But the flagship
federal clean coal project, FutureGen, has mutated since it started in 2003, and had to be completely
resuscitated after being scrapped in 2008. The latest holdup with FutureGen 2.0 is that the project will
retrofit a current coal plant as opposed to building a new one, and it will be in a different location than
previously planned. The project was going to cost $1.1 billion under the latest plan, but could change
depending on a recent quirk in finding a location to store the captured carbon. The government
established the Clean Coal Power Initiative in 2002 to try to partner with industry and push clean coal
technology. So far, the intiative has completed 3 of the 18 total projects, 7 of which have been
terminated. The choppy, drawn-out start to FutureGen hasn't helped the U.S. clean coal industry either.
These projects need to kick into gear fast, if coal is going to compete with gas. Gas is especially
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
threatening to coal because it's a local fuel -- it's not economical to transport it over vast distances in
large pipelines like oil. But natural gas could provide energy relatively close to power plants, just like
coal does now. TVA replacing coal with gas In both new projects and business expansions, power
producers have also already started choosing gas over coal. A company called American Municipal
Power Inc. planned to build a coal-fired plant on the Ohio River last year. In early August, the company
announced that it would build a 600-megawatt gas-fired plant in that location instead. NRG Energy
(NRG, Fortune 500) signed a $1.9 billion deal to buy five power plants in California from the Blackstone
Group. Four out of the five plants will burn gas. Also, the Tennessee Valley Authority announced last
week that it was going to idle nine coal-fired generating units at three plants, starting in 2011. The TVA
plans to build natural gas generators to replace several of the coal-fired units. As dirty as coal is, people
do have reservations about the environmental impacts of producing more gas, especially from shale
sources. Namely, there's concern that extracting gas from shale could contaminate groundwater with
drilling fluids. But if regulators snap into place to oversee the United State's copious shale gas reserves,
then coal will really be in trouble. Coal won't just be able to rely on being cheap anymore, it will have to
be clean too. And yet, if natural gas stays cheap, it will still become increasingly difficult to make the
economic or political case to keep throwing clean money after dirty coal.
Fracking trades-off with STORAGE SPACE
Christa Marshall, staff writer, 3-16-2012, “Can Fracking and Carbon Sequestration Coexist?” Scientific
American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-fracking-and-carbon-sequestrationco-exist
That is the message from a new study finding that many of the same shale rock formations where
companies want to extract gas also happen to sit above optimal sites envisioned for storing carbon
dioxide underground that is captured from power plants and industrial facilities. The problem with this
overlap, the researchers found, is that shale-gas extraction involves fracturing rock that could be
needed as an impenetrable cover to hold CO2 underground permanently and prevent it from leaking
back into the atmosphere. "Shale gas production through hydraulic fracturing can compromise future
use of the shale as a caprock formation in a CO2 storage operation," said Michael Celia, a civil and
environmental engineering professor at Princeton University and a co-author of the study. "There is an
obvious conflict between the two uses," the study says. Celia's work with colleague Thomas Elliot, a
postdoctoral research associate, will be published in an upcoming paper version of Environmental
Science & Technology. The two reported that 80 percent of the potential area to store CO2
underground in the United States could be restrained by shale and tight gas development. The
numbers held when they examined potential CO2 storage sites close to the nation's largest greenhouse
gas emitters, such as coal plants. Natural gas is extracted from shale via hydraulic fracturing, in which
rock is cracked so that injected fluids can flow through the rock more easily to extract gas. The process is
designed to increase permeability of the rock over a long distance. That cracking of the shale rock is
what could make it inappropriate for use as a stable, impervious rock layer blocking upper migration of
injected CO2, the researchers said. Drilling into potential storage sites The study raises issues that would
play out in the future, since carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) in deep rock formations or saline
aquifers currently has never been proved at scale in the power sector. It envisions separating the
greenhouse gas from power stacks and piping the CO2 to an underground storage spot to prevent
release in the atmosphere. There is a large CCS pilot project at an ethanol plant in Illinois, but otherwise
the energy industry is testing the concept in nonintegrated, small pieces in the United States. Many
other projects have stalled because of cost concerns. The concept is considered pivotal for coal's survival
in a carbon-constrained world, since the fossil fuel releases about a third of the nation's greenhouse gas
emissions. Shale gas production also has not reached full scale. Celia and Elliot looked at a carbon
sequestration database of potential storage spots for underground CO2 created by the National Energy
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Technology Laboratory known as the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic
Information System, or NATCARB. That analysis was then overlaid with a Department of Energy
database of large shale regions such as the Marcellus formation stretching from Ohio to northern New
York and the Barnett formation in Texas. The researchers considered areas already known to be rich in
shale gas, in addition to regions likely to yield future production. They also considered tight gas, another
uncoventional natural gas source where the fuel sits tightly in impenetrable rock. Nationally, there is an
estimated storage capacity underground for CO2 of 1,711 to 20,402 gigatons. When gas plays were
added to the picture, though, the range fell to between 217 and 2,885 gigatons of space -- an 80 percent
reduction. The researchers said the numbers were "an upper bound" estimate, but "appear to be
compelling." A potentially different picture An even higher degree of overlap occurred when the two
mapped large stationary sources of CO2 in the United States, such as coal plants, and considered
available storage spots for CO2 within 20 miles of those emitters. In that case, the researchers
concluded that shale and tight gas production could affect 85 percent of potential storage spots for
stored CO2. One reason the overlap between shale gas and sequestration regions is so great, they said,
is that shale formations typically have very low permeability in the first place. That gives them an
obvious dual purpose -- ideal for gas extraction, but also for protecting underground storage spots for
CO2.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Internal Links
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Coal Use Good
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC Coal Key CCS
Continued use of coal is key to US leadership on CCS – key to tech diffusion to China
and economic growth
Tamar Hallerman, staff writer, 2012, “McConnell: Gap Between EOR and Sequestration should be
narrowed,” GHG Monitor, http://ghgnews.com/index.cfm/mcconnell-gap-between-eor-andsequestration-should-be-narrowed/?mobileFormat=false
McConnell’s remarks this week further underscore the rhetoric which he has branded himself and DOE’s
Office of Fossil Energy with since the Obama Administration nominated him for the position of assistant
secretary last summer. In his speech, McConnell continued to push EOR as a CO2 utilization method that
could help project operators establish a salient business case at a time when there is no price on CO2.
He also emphasized the potential for the technology to help cement United State’s role as a leader in
the CCS field.¶ Seizing on his hallmark argument for utilization, McConnell said EOR could lead to a 30 to
40 percent reduction in imported oil and bring in more than $10 trillion to the American economy over
the next three decades. “We’re probably approaching a known geological reach of well over 100 years
of CO2 storage capacity in this country just in enhanced oil recovery geologies. So it’s not a niche, it’s
not a little bit that can get us going. It’s a big part of the business case for the future,” he said.¶ Leader in
Utilization Technologies¶ McConnell said that industry should take advantage of the energy
infrastructure already available across the country in the form of pipelines and transmission systems and
leverage it to create an advantage when developing EOR and other utilization technologies. “It’s a
chance for us to take those natural resources that we have that are abundant and affordable and make
them sustainable long-term,” he said.¶ McConnell said the U.S. has the opportunity now to
commercialize the technologies that he says will likely be in high demand in the years to come,
particularly in coal-reliant developing countries like China and India. However, he said the U.S. country
needs to take advantage of its position now or else risk losing out on future economic opportunities.
“As we’re here in the United States often noodling very hard around what we believe the future of coal
should be, I’m here to tell you that the future of coal is very much being defined in other places in the
world where there’s a lot of people….that’s why it’s so critical that we look at it as our opportunity not
just to use our own coal, but to develop our own technologies and global leadership about how we’re
going to use coal and natural gas in the future.”
Continued coal production key to switch to CCS – lead time key
Caitlin Burke, CBN News Producer, 9-1-2012, “Trouble in Coal Country: Blue States to Snub Obama?”
CBN, http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/August/Trouble-in-Coal-Country-Blue-States-to-SnubObama/
Many in the coal industry point to that gap and wonder why they are given an ultimatum of "change
your way of doing business or else." "You've got to give people time to come up with the clean coal
technology and the ideas need to be put into place and you can't do it overnight and you can't just
replace coal overnight," said Maj. Gen. Allen Tackett, a former coal miner and now the adjutant general
of the West Virginia National Guard.
Shrinking coal use kills CCS investment – UK industry proves
The Engineer Online, 4-3-2012, “Government relaunches £1bn CCS technology competition,” News,
Lexisnexis
Energy secretary Ed Davey said the offer was one of the best anywhere in the world and a CCS industry
could potentially support around 100,000 UK jobs by 2030.¶ 'What we are looking to achieve, in
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
partnership with industry, is a new, world-leading CCS industry, rather than just simply projects in
isolation... The CCS industry could be worth £6.5bn a year to the UK economy by late next decade as
we export UK expertise and products,' he said.¶ Most entrants to DECC's previous competition pulled
out, citing economic reasons, and the government eventually decided to close the scheme after the
final remaining project, designed for Scottish Power's Longannet coal plant, was deemed too costly.¶
The original contest was limited to post-combustion technology that could be retrofitted to coal plants
- partly so it could be exported to big coal-burning countries such as China - but this was increasingly
seen as inefficient and unsuitable given the UK's shrinking coal use .
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC Coal Use Inevitable
Consumption of US coal abroad is inevitable – US consumption is key to best
technology adoption.
Russell Ray, staff writer, 6-1-2012, “No "Hall Pass" for Gas,” Power Engineering, http://www.powereng.com/articles/print/volume-116/issue-6/departments/opinion/no-hall-pass-for-gas.html
If U.S. coal production isn't consumed in the U.S., it will be consumed abroad, where environmental
policies and technologies aren't as advanced, McConnell said.¶ "The future of coal is very much being
defined in other places of the world where there are a lot more people," he said. "That's why it's so
critical that we use our own coal and own technologies."¶ Requiring CCS for new gas-fired generation
would level the playing field for coal. What's more, higher gas prices sparked by record gas usage
would make coal competitive once again. It's a trend we're already seeing.¶ Natural gas usage for
generation reached an all-time high in February, according to the Department of Energy. In March,
natural gas use by U.S. power plants was 40 percent higher than it was during the same month a year
earlier. Meanwhile, gas prices were hovering around $2.50 per thousand cubic feet at the time this
column was written. That's 31 percent higher than the decade-low of $1.90 on April 19.¶ The boom is
U.S. gas production from shale continues, but the consumption of gas is also booming. The forecasts
from analysts, traders and investors are mixed. But one thing is certain. When you factor in the
volatility of gas, coal remains a viable option for power producers.
Increasing demand for coal abroad compensate for reduced demand here
Brad Plumer, staff writer, 7-31-2012, “The decline of U.S. coal, in three charts,” The Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/31/the-decline-of-u-s-coal-in-threecharts/
On the other hand, the rest of the world isn’t ready to give up coal just yet. Coal use is growing at a
staggering pace around the world, particularly in countries such as China and India. That’s created a
potentially vast market for coal exports. Currently, U.S. coal producers like Arch Coal and Alpha Natural
Resources are hoping to build large export terminals in the Pacific Northwest to compensate for falling
demand here. Environmental groups, by contrast, are trying to stop this from happening, arguing that
the United States shouldn’t be shipping its climate pollution abroad.
India is going to massively expand coal use – coal gets locked in – affordable, too
expensive to reverse infrastructure investments
Lisa Friedman, writer for Climatewire, 9-17-2012, “India Has Big Plans for Burning Coal”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=india-has-big-plans-for-burning-coal
India is poised to contend with China as the globe's top consumer of coal, with 455 power plants
preparing to come online, a prominent environmental research group has concluded. The coal plants in
India's pipeline -- almost 100 more than China is preparing to build -- would deliver 519,396 megawatts
of installed generating capacity. That is only slightly less than pending new capacity in China, which
remains the undisputed king of coal consumption. The data from the World Resources Institute (WRI),
not released publicly but obtained by ClimateWire, paint a picture of a global energy trajectory in
which coal remains a dominant actor, despite concerns about rising costs and environmental groups'
trumpeting of the reduced costs of renewable energy. The research found 1,231 new coal plants with a
total installed capacity of more than 1.4 million MW proposed worldwide. Beyond the biggest users -China, India and the United States -- the assessment finds a heavy coal demand building up in Russia,
Vietnam, Turkey and South Africa. The United States, with 79 coal plants in the pipeline, ranks fourth in
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
this category. Environmentalists called the numbers alarming, but coal industry leaders said the plants
are not enough to meet the world's energy needs. "We need more. We need more of everything -- wind
power, renewables, hydro. But we will certainly need more coal," said Milton Catelin, CEO of the World
Coal Association. He argued that with 1.5 billion people still living without access to electricity, coal
needs to grow. "It's still the most affordable fuel by a long shot," he said. "It's going to be important
where countries have a large poverty challenge and in particular a large energy poverty challenge, and
where they have access to coal reserves." The WRI assessment appears to be the most exhaustive
compilation to date of coal plants in the global pipeline, along with robust analyses of the export
landscape and financing trend. Catelin, who said he had seen the estimates and found them accurate,
said the industry association does not keep its own central data of global coal production plans. Locking
in the next generation of power plants? Culled from government and corporate websites, commercially
available websites, news reports and civil society initiatives, the data on each plant were then crosschecked with field knowledge, according to the assessment. They cover only pending plants, not those
already under construction. Environmental groups familiar with the assessment called India's explosive
development of new coal-fired capacity a concern but not a surprise. Many were shocked, though, at
the high level of coal activity in countries with little domestic production capacity, like Turkey and
Vietnam. Justin Guay, a coal campaigner for the Sierra Club, argued that while coal is still riding the
reputation of being a cheap and easy fuel source, "it's just not true anymore." He argued that rising
taxes on coal exports and competing energy sources have changed the energy landscape dramatically.
The coal industry, he maintained, knows the economics are shaky and is racing to get plants built and
lock countries into decades of coal dependence.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Impacts
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Good – US
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
US CCS Good – Spillover
US development necessary to CCS spread – key to reduce impact of inevitable coal use
Paul Sullivan, prof of econ, national defense University, 8-18-2010, “CCT is a medium term global
solution,” National Journal, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2010/08/how-viable-is-clean-coal.php
But I diverge, but not entirely. The success of CSS programs here in the US, in Norway, where I saw a
CSS site recently, and elsewhere could determine the energy and environment futures of the world,
not just of the US. Coal supplies about 41% of all electricity worldwide:
http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-electricity/. Coal is also used worldwide to produce
cement, steel, and other materials that are in need of extreme heat to process them. The top 5 coal
users in the world use 75% of the coal in the world. These are China, the US, India, Germany and Russia
in order from largest and so forth. Focus on these countries could help solve a large part of the
environmental problems from coal. China is looking into CSS in a very big way:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/22/22climatewire-a-sea-change-in-chinas-attitude-towardcarbo-94519.html. India is also. Germany is heavily involved in research, development and policy
developments toward CSS. So we are not alone in this issue. Cracking the clean coal-CSS connection will
bring us a long way toward helping to solve the environmental impacts of using coal for electricity
production. Given that we can’t exactly dump coal in the use of electricity any time soon, much like we
are unlikely to be able to dump oil and refined products for transportation worldwide any time soon it
behooves us to find the intermediate solutions that will involve CSS here and worldwide.
Tech/engineering coop key
Richard K. Morse, Director of Research on Coal and Carbon Markets at Stanford University’s Program
on Energy and Sustainable Development, July 2012, “Cleaning Up Coal Subtitle: From Climate Culprit to
Solution,” Foreign Affairs, lexisnexis
In order to prevent emissions from rising as fast as the demand for coal, developing countries need to
install advanced clean-coal technologies on a large scale. To do so, they will need help from the
developed world. The countries of the OECD should work with international institutions such as the IEA
and the World Bank to provide expertise on the latest clean-coal technologies and the financing to pay
for them. In the short run, they should focus on helping the developing world upgrade its existing coal
plants and build more efficient new ones. The world's existing coal plants are the low-hanging fruit.
Simply improving basic maintenance and replacing old turbine blades can make coal plants two
percent more efficient and emit four to six percent less carbon dioxide. Those reductions can add up. If
China were to make just its least-efficient coal plants two percent more efficient, the country would
slash emissions by an estimated 120 megatons annually -- nearly as much as the United Kingdom emits
every year. Opportunities for simple upgrades are ripe across most of Asia, and such improvements
typically take little time to pay for themselves. To put them in place, all that developing countries need
from the rest of the world is engineering know-how and modest financing.
The U.S. shares CCS tech with China
Germanwatch, German NGO for climatology, 2009, “Carbon Capture and Storage in China,” an E3G
Report, http://germanwatch.org/klima/ccs-china.pdf
The United States is funding a range of projects including “Building Regulatory ¶ Capacity in China Guidelines for Safe and Effective Carbon Capture and ¶ Storage” and “Promoting Better Use of Coal
Mine Methane”. The latter has ¶ started with a feasibility study at the Hebi mine in Henan Province,
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
funded by the ¶ US Environmental Protection Agency. The Obama administration has signalled ¶ its
interest in scaling up cooperation on clean coal technologies including CCS.
Tech swaps get China on board
John Thompson Director of the Coal Transition Project at Clean Air Task Force 1-11-12 A recipe to
jumpstart CCS in the US – the rewards of collaborating with China, 3 of 3 | Global CCS Institute
http://www.adamaston.com/?p=781
To spur EOR, how can we bring down carbon capture costs? There’s where we think China comes in.
China has very low‑cost capture technology, but they have no or little EOR experience. Texas and the
Gulf states have lots of EOR experience, but to get more oil from their mature fields will require
anthropogenic CO2. We see a huge opportunity to partner with China here, to bring lower‑cost
Chinese CO2 capture technology to the US. A bigger supply of lower-cost CO2 will in turn help capture
more of our oil. In turn, we can export EOR technology back to China. CATF recently hired a new staff
person in Texas to develop this vision, Dr. Frank Chou. He’s a 30-year veteran of various refining and
chemical companies, most recently Shell. Our aim is to develop links between China and the Gulf states
region as a way to promote carbon capture in both countries. China builds projects at twice the speed of
the US, and at a fraction of cost. If we can harness these global synergies, we have the potential to really
drive down costs globally. How far has this collaboration gone? We’ve already brought AEP into
partnership with Huaneng, and linked Duke with Huaneng as well. I mentioned Southern Co’s Plant
Radcliff earlier: the technology there is a TRIG gasifier, developed in Mobile, Ala., by KBR and Southern
Co. That technology is being built in China first, in a small, 120‑megawatt power plant about two hours
from Hong Kong. That operational data will help refine the design as Kemper is built. How has China
become a leader in low-cost carbon capture? We’ve all heard that ‘China builds one coal plant a week’.
That may or may not be quite true at the moment, but they’re building at an incredible rate (see chart
below), and much of the capacity is at the cutting edge of coal technology. They’re building an advanced
coal gasification plant about once a month, where the US has only a handful. It’s no different than
China’s experience with factory manufacturing: there are economies of scale taking place that lower the
cost to build advanced coal plants. For example, there’s a plant called Shidonkou, outside of Shanghai.
They’re capturing CO2 at about $30 a ton. That same project in the United States would probably be
double or triple that cost. And then there’s the potential appetite in China for EOR. We estimate they
have the potential, easily, to build 30 gigawatts of CCS capacity to supply EOR in China. Yet right now,
there’s maybe only one EOR project there. With more know-how from the US, there’s huge potential for
that number to grow. But why would China be better able to solve the problem of scaling up carbon
capture than here? The math suggests that China may be able to build CCS on power plants using EOR
with little or no incentives. In China, they refer to EOR-CCS as ‘CCUS’ where the ‘U’ is for utilisation.
Keep in mind the value of CO2 for EOR purposes is set by the global price of oil. So whether you’re in
Texas, Norway or Beijing, you’re basically paying the same global price for oil and that price establishes
the same economic value of the CO2 used for EOR regardless of where you are doing it. On the other
hand, capture costs do vary by region and country and in China they’re a fraction of the costs elsewhere.
So, if you buy CO2 for EOR at roughly the same price in China and Texas, but your China capture costs
are a third or half what they are in Texas, you may be able to do EOR‑CCS in China on power plants
without any extra economic incentives, without any need for a price on carbon. That’s not true in
Texas yet, given today’s cost of capture. To develop power plant CO2 sources, you’re either going to
need some kind of incentive or deep reduction in the cost of capture technology. But we can lower
capture costs with China’s help. We can harness that global synergy to scale up 30 gigawatts worth of
CCS for EOR in China in a matter of years. That scale of development lowers costs of capture technology
globally. Building that much CCS first in the West would take decades. China is a really significant
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
strategic opportunity that we’re trying to exploit. So a lot of what we’re trying to do in China is break
down the barriers between Chinese CO2 suppliers and Chinese oil companies, because the oil
companies have the knowledge. They understand the geology but they don’t produce the CO2. If we can
create US-Chinese business partnerships, the transfer of technology both ways could take years off the
time when CCS is widely deployed. At the outset, I mentioned that for me, CCS can also mean ‘Copy
Canada’s Successes’. Someday, it could also mean ‘Copy China’s Successes’ too. China could be the key
to creating global synergies that allow us to develop CCS technology with little or no subsidies, and no
price on carbon .
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
US CCS Good – AT: Chinese CCS
US must take lead on CCS – china waits for the US to move
Germanwatch, German NGO for climatology, 2009, “Carbon Capture and Storage in China,” an E3G
Report, http://germanwatch.org/klima/ccs-china.pdf
At the time of writing it is far from clear that China will end up choosing any of the ¶ above options.
Chinese policy-makers may simply decide to bide their time until ¶ the EU, US and others have shown
a stronger lead. Much depends on the ¶ funding question and on the wider international climate
negotiations, as ¶ discussed in the final section of the paper. However before addressing these ¶
questions it is worth exploring three other factors that will have a significant ¶ influence on the future of
CCS in China:
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
US CCS Good – Econ
Clean coal is key to the environment-and economy
Eugene M. Trisko, attorney in the District of Columbia, 9-27-2006, “Economic and Public Health Benefits of Coal Based Energy,”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba573
Coal is critical to electricity production in many countries and the United States is no exception. It is a
low-cost source of reliable, baseload power - continuously produced power necessary to keep
electricity flowing. It is also a secure energy source, since the United States contains more than a quarter
of the world's recoverable coal reserves, equaling a 250-year supply at current rates of consumption.
Coal-fired power plants generate 52 percent of the electricity in the United States. Some environmentalists have
indicted coal-fired electric power generation as a major source of air pollution and contributor to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Modern coal-fired power plants produce 90 percent less of major air pollutants than previous
generations, and because of their increased efficiency, they emit less carbon dioxide (CO2 ) into the
atmosphere per kilowatt produced. Nevertheless, some proposed air quality standards and domestic and international proposals
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would force utilities to shift electricity production from coal to other sources of generation. For example,
the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy estimated the climate change plan proposed by
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) in 2004 would reduce coal use by 59 percent to 78
percent. Two recent studies supported by the Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED)
show the significant benefits delivered by coal-fired power plants and the substantial harm that could
result if environmental policies force a reduction in the use of coal. Economic Benefits of Coal.
Researchers at Pennsylvania State University estimated the economic benefits of coal and the potential impact
of replacing coal with more expensive energy sources such as natural gas and a 10 percent mix of
renewables. They netted out the positive offsetting impacts of investments in replacement fuels and electric generating capacity. By
2015: The annual benefit of coal use at currently projected levels is estimated at more than $1 trillion in gross
domestic product (GDP), $360 billion in additional household income and nearly 7 million jobs . In contrast, a 33
percent reduction in coal-fired electric power generation would reduce GDP by $166 billion, household income by $64 billion and employment
by 1.2 million below what it otherwise would be. [See the figure.] A 66 percent reduction in coal-fired electric power generation would reduce
GDP by $371 billion, household income by $142 billion and employment by 2.7 million. The negative impact of displacing coal would be felt
nationally, regionally and in nearly every state, even after considering the positive impacts of replacement energy sources.
Clean Coal good for economy- Jobs
Paul Bedard, Editor for the U.S. News &World Report and White House Correspondent for The Washington Times, 5-6-2010, “Group
Says Clean Coal Means More Jobs”, U.S. News, http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/05/06/group-says-cleancoal-means-more-jobs)
The deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies at advanced coal facilities would
create or support more than 150,000 jobs nationally, according to a study released today by the American
Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). The study done for ACCCE by BBC Research & Consulting
found that 1.7 million job years of labor would be created through the construction of 124 new
advanced coal facilities by 2025. "Deploying carbon capture and storage makes good economic sense,
by enhancing existing employment and creating new well-paying jobs," said Steve Miller, president
and CEO of ACCCE. "These technologies are critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions." The study was
released the same day that the White House's Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage held their first public meeting in
Washington, D.C. The Task Force is working to develop a comprehensive federal strategy to speed the development and deployment of carbon
capture and storage.
"Clean coal technology is already at work today, with a number of pilot-scale
projects that are capturing and storing carbon emissions. But realizing the full potential of this
technology and deploy it commercially, will require a strong and sustained partnership between the
government and the private sector. We are hopeful that the task force's report will provide a sound and lasting strategy for that
partnership.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
US CCS Good – Oil Dependence Module
Clean coal overcomes oil dependence solving oil shocks and the Korean economy
Sam-Ryong Park, 11-28-2008, “Clean coal: a promising oil alternative: To attain green growth, Korea
aims to replace 8 percent of oil use with clean coal by 2018,” LexisNexis
The discovery of cheap and convenient oil enabled humans to establish highly advanced civilizations in the 20th century. However, due to the excessive use of limited oil,
production
of oil is likely to hit a peak sometime between 2010 and 2030, according to experts. It was only three or four years ago
when oil prices remained at $20 per barrel. Now, most think tanks and researchers project that oil prices will hover at around $100 per barrel for the near future. The proportion of oil use will
coal is almost the only energy source that can
replace oil in the near future. The oil dependency issue will be solved only when the technology of solar energy, hydrogen energy and nuclear fusion is fully
decrease while that of alternative energies like bio fuels and solar energy will increase. However,
developed. This will probably come after 2050. Thus, we have to focus on coal to replace oil until 2050. A useful energy source meets three requirements; it should be abundant, affordable
. Coal reserves are three times larger than those of oil; coal is
more evenly distributed around the earth than oil; and it is cheaper than oil. Therefore, coal is considered as one of the
and clean. Unfortunately, there is no energy source that satisfies all three
strongest candidates for an alternative energy source to oil. Relatively low oil prices since the oil shock have been the major stumbling block to the development of coal energy technology.
Since the technology of using low rank coal, which is as abundant as high rank
as an energy source has been developed, it is highly likely that coal prices will become competitive
However, chances are very slim that the era of low oil prices will continue.
coal,
.
To use coal as an alternative energy, we should ensure its cleanliness. Coal emits much more carbon dioxide than oil or natural gas. If we can develop technology that can remove pollutants
Clean coal energy would have a formidable
impact on the world's energy market and help us overcome the problem of oil dependence. For Korea,
which relies heavily on oil, using clean coal energy is almost the equivalent of achieving "energy
independency." As clean coal energy does not emit pollutants, it can be deemed as a representative energy to promote low-carbon growth
or, "green growth." Even though the Korean economy has achieved a remarkable growth through fast industrialization since the 1960s, it had to pay a heavy
price of high dependency on overseas energy sources and pollution. Clean coal energy would not only
solve such problems but would serve as a stepping stone for the economy to make another leap
forward. The importance of developing clean coal technology is being felt not only in Korea but around the world, as nations are scrambling for more energy sources and imposing
when using coal, we will be able to create cheap, clean coal energy as a complete alternative to oil.
tougher regulations on carbon emissions. Due to such a prospective outlook, clean coal technology has been selected as one of the New Growth Engines by the government. From a long-term
perspective,
Korea plans to commercialize the clean gasification technology to produce synthetic oil using low rank coal as raw material and
The technology is expected to lower investment costs by half,
recycle carbon dioxide that is generated during the production procedure.
compared to existing gasification technologies.
Oil dependence makes conflict over the Strait of Hormuz inevitable – that escalates
and goes nuclear
Charles Glaser Professor of Political Science and International Relations 8-2011 Reframing Energy
Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security
http://depts.washington.edu/polsadvc/Blog%20Links/Glaser_-_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.docx
Energy dependence could draw the United States into a conflict in which a regional power was
interrupting, or threatening to interrupt, the flow of oil. The economic costs of a disruption would
determine whether the costs of fighting were justified. Similarly, the potential economic costs of a
disruption would determine whether U.S. foreign and military policy should be devoted to deterring
states from interrupting the flow of oil; more precisely, these economic costs would determine how
much the United States should invest in the policies required for deterrence. Given the geographical
distribution of oil, such a conflict would likely occur in the Persian Gulf. The greatest danger is
probably posed by Iran—the Iraq War has greatly increased Iran’s power relative to Iraq, and Iran is
acquiring improved missile capabilities and making progress toward having the capability to build
nuclear weapons. The most disruptive Iranian action would be closure of the Strait of Hormuz,
through which the vast majority of Persian Gulf oil must pass. Having identified the danger posed by
dependence on oil that transits this strait (as well as the Strait of Malacca), a recent Council on Foreign
Relations study concluded that the “United States should take the lead in building an infrastructure
protection program that would be based on practical steps by relevant countries and address critical
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
infrastructures and transit routes. Initial efforts should focus on joint planning, technical assistance, and
military exercises, especially involving naval units operating near ports or along critical sea-lanes.”
Although difficult to estimate the probability that Iran would attempt to close the strait, analysts have
offered reasons for expecting the probability to be quite low: Iran would lose the oil revenue from its
own exports; and Iran would likely be deterred by the probable costs of U.S. intervention, which could
include the destruction of key military bases and occupation of some of its territory. Because so much
oil flows through the strait, the United States would almost certainly respond to keep it open.
Nevertheless, there are plausible scenarios in which Iran blocks the strait, for example, as retaliation for
an attack against is nuclear weapons program or as a coercive measure if losing a conventional war.
Careful analysis suggests that the United States would prevail, but that a successful campaign could take
many weeks or more, and that oil prices would increase significantly during this period. Iranian
acquisition of nuclear weapons would increase the risk of this scenario in two basic ways. First, Iran
might believe that the possibility of escalation to nuclear weapons would deter the United States from
responding, making Iran more willing to interrupt tanker traffic. Although basic deterrence logic says this
calculation points in the correct direction, the United States might nevertheless intervene. The United
States would question Iran’s willingness to escalate to nuclear use because America’s far larger and
more capable nuclear forces would pose a formidable retaliatory threat. In addition, the United States
would have incentives to make clear that possession of a small number of nuclear weapons by a much
weaker state would not deter the United States from using conventional weapons in a limited war.
Being deterred by the Iranian nuclear force would suggest that small nuclear arsenals provide
tremendous potential for launching conventional aggression. As Barry Posen argued in a related context
(the counterfactual case in which Iraq possessed nuclear weapons before deciding to invade Kuwait), “If
the Iraqi conquest of Kuwait is permitted to stand, nuclear weapons will come to be viewed as a shield
that protects conventional conquests from any challenger, including a great power heavily armed with
its own nuclear weapons.” Consequently, the United States would have incentives to respond to
Iranian aggression both to preserve its ability to deter conventional aggression by small nuclear states
and to support its nonproliferation policy. Second, once a conventional conflict occurred, there would
be the danger that U.S. conventional operations could increase the probability nuclear war. A number of
paths are possible. The U.S. mine clearing operation required to open the strait would likely be
accompanied by attacks against land-based Iranian targets. The United States would want to destroy the
land-based anti-ship cruise missiles that Iran could use to threaten U.S. mine clearing ships; in addition,
the United States would want to destroy Iranian air defenses that could be used to protect these
missiles. These U.S. strikes would require large numbers of carrier-based aircraft flying sorties over a
period of a few weeks or more. If Iran lacked confidence that U.S. aims were limited, it could feel
compelled to put its nuclear forces on alert to increase their survivability, which would increase the
probability of accidental or unauthorized nuclear attack. The United States could then have incentives to
attack Iran’s nuclear force, either preemptively because it believed Iran was preparing to launch an
attack or preventively because it faced a closing window of opportunity after which Iran’s nuclear forces
would be survivable. A more subtle danger is the possibility of inadvertent nuclear escalation resulting
from a situation in which Iranian leaders decide to escalate because they believe, incorrectly, that the
United States has decided to destroy their nuclear force (or ability to launch it). U.S. conventional
operations could create this danger by destroying Iranian radars, and command and control systems,
leaving Iranian leaders unable to assess the U.S. conventional campaign and fearing that the United
States was preparing to launch a full-scale invasion or a conventional attack against their nuclear forces
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
US CCS Good – Oil Dependence
Combing CCS technology with EOR production can create sustainability in domestic oil
markets reducing dependency by half
Katie Howell Greenwire Writer 3-11-10 Pairing Oil Recovery With Carbon Capture a Win-Win for U.S. –
Report http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/11/11greenwire-pairing-oil-recovery-with-carboncapture-a-win-52359.html
The Natural Resources Defense Council backed the report (pdf) that says combining CCS with
enhanced oil recovery could boost U.S. production by 3 million to 3.6 million barrels a day. "Significant
growth is dependent on sourcing affordable carbon dioxide," said Mike Godec, vice president of
Advanced Resources International, which prepared the report. "Climate legislation obviously would
give enhanced oil recovery a kick start and allow the technology to grow most rapidly." Oil companies
for years have wrung as much oil as they could from maturing wells. And for the past 35 years or so,
they have been pumping CO2 into aging reservoirs to displace oil and enhance production. Those efforts
have produced about 1.5 billion barrels of domestic oil since 1986, or more than 250,000 barrels per
day. But companies using the technique rely on natural sources of CO2, and that has posed a problem.
"The real limiting factor historically has been the availability of CO2 supplies, not the availability of
reservoirs," said Tracy Evans, president of Denbury Resources Inc., which uses enhanced oil recovery
with CCS. A House-passed climate bill and pending Senate legislation could spur the technology's use,
the report says. If a price on CO2 emissions pushed industrial emitters to develop capture technology,
the greenhouse gas could easily be transported to oil recovery sites, Evans said. And by pumping
captured CO2 underground and sequestering it, the United States could cut its carbon emissions by 530
million tons by 2030, the report says. Interest in enhanced oil recovery with CCS has grown recently. In
response to a separate report this month that mentioned combining oil production and CCS, NRDC's
Wesley Warren said such an effort "could cut U.S. oil imports in half, helping the economy and
enhancing national security without raising new environmental concerns."
Clean coal can help transition us to other energy sources
Balat Hawa, “Role of coal in sustainable Energy Development, “Energy Exploration & Exploitation,”
2007
Coal is the one fossil energy source that can play a substantial role as a transitional energy source as
one moves from the petroleum and natural gas based economic system to the future economic system
based on nondepletable or renewable energy systems. For coal to remain competitive with other
sources of energy in the industrialized countries of the world, continuing technological improvements in
all aspects of coal extraction have been necessary. Coal has many important uses, but most significantly
in electricity generation, steel and cement manufacture, and industrial process heating. Despite the
long-term importance of oil and gas use, coal will remain a major pillar of the world's energy supply.
Developing countries use about 55% of the world's coal today; this share is expected to grow to 65%
over the next 15 years.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Good – Generic
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Good – Warming
CCS solves carbon emissions
Richard K. Morse, Director of Research on Coal and Carbon Markets at Stanford University’s Program
on Energy and Sustainable Development, July 2012, “Cleaning Up Coal Subtitle: From Climate Culprit to
Solution,” Foreign Affairs, lexisnexis
Developing economies are adding new coal plants on a scale that still dwarfs the contribution of
renewable energy, and those plants will continue churning out more and more emissions for decades
to come. Coal, despite the proliferation of clean-energy policies, is not going away anytime soon. As of
2010 (the most recent year with available data), 30 percent of the energy used in the world came from
coal, second only to oil, at 34 percent. Most of this coal is used in the power sector, where it accounts
for more than 40 percent of global generation capacity -- a larger share than any other form of energy.
Given how dominant coal is, one of the most promising ways to fight global warming is to make it emit
less carbon dioxide, a solution that is less elusive than commonly thought. Merely installing the best
available technologies in coal plants in the developing world could slash the volume of carbon dioxide
released by billions of tons per year, doing more to reduce emissions on an annual basis than all the
world's wind, solar, and geothermal power combined do today. And advanced technologies now in
the works could someday allow coal to be burned without releasing any carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere. In order for these innovations to materialize, multilateral banks will have to offer financing,
and individual governments will have to fund research and encourage private investment.
CCS key – other approaches aren’t sufficient
Allen Wampler, former assistance secretary of the US DOE, 7-11-2008, “Coal Power: Stress efficient
carbon capture-and-storage,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
http://www.nma.org/pdf/members/outreach/111308_ajc_oped.pdf
The risk here is that, unless and until a cost-effective technology becomes available to capture and store
carbon emissions, U.S. utilities would be forced to shift from coal to high-priced natural gas. And any
reduction in U.S. carbon emissions would be more than offset by increased emissions from countries
with fast-growing economies that have no such restrictions on carbon dioxide releases from power
plants. Any plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without making provisions for the future use of
coal worldwide will be doomed from the start. A country like China --- which relies on coal for 80
percent of its energy --- can't be expected to abandon it, since doing so would cause energy shortages
and serious damage to its economy. Policymakers like to talk about the need for alternative energy
sources --- solar and wind power, geothermal energy, natural gas, nuclear power and conservation. But
those alternatives, though helpful, aren't enough to meet growing demand for electricity in increasingly
digitalized economies. The growth of nuclear power is severely constrained by equipment and
manpower shortages. Even with state mandates, it's unlikely that renewable energy sources will ever
account for more than a fraction of U.S. electricity generation. Solar and wind have serious limitations
due to cost and practicality. Neither one is of much help on days when the weather isn't cooperating.
For the United States and globally, a combination of more efficient coal combustion and carbon
capture-and-storage offers a potentially workable solution to the greenhouse-gas problem --- and an
opportunity to reach a comprehensive strategy for international cooperation on carbon mitigation.
Energy supply would be more secure, and the citizens of coal-producing countries would gain more from
the natural wealth their countries control. Both producing and consuming countries would win --regardless of where the carbon is sequestered.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS is feasible and is the only way to solve warming – other energy solutions are
insufficient
Cohen founder of the clean air task force 2009
http://www.catf.us/projects/power_sector/advanced_coal/
II. CCS is Critical to a Zero-Carbon World¶ The title of a recent article by two leading climate researchers
sums up the message emerging from the latest scientific evidence: "Stabilizing climate requires nearzero emissions."1 Even the most dramatic, 50–80 percent CO2 reduction goals generally being discussed
likely are not enough. We need a near-100-percent reduction by mid-century at the latest. Energy
systems need to change faster.2¶ Part of the urgency stems from the reality that warming impacts
from today’s emissions may last as long as 1,000 years3; we cannot assume that reducing emissions
"tomorrow" means we can reverse damage done to date. Worse, we risk passing irreversible "tipping
points" that trigger abrupt and catastrophic changes, such as major ice melt in the polar regions,
extensive rainforest loss, and radical alterations of critical weather and ocean circulation patterns. Such
tipping points could be in sight if current emission trends continue for another decade or more.4¶
Unfortunately, we are moving in the wrong direction fast. In recent years, China has added coal capacity
at a rate of one large new plant per week (70–100 GW per year)5 and India – potentially the world’s
most populous country by 2030 – could ramp up as well. The International Energy Agency (IEA)
currently projects that world coal capacity will nearly double by 2030, an increase of 1,310 GW.6 If
this build-out occurs without CCS, it will increase world CO2 emissions by about 12.6 billion metric
tons annually7—roughly twice current U.S. emissions from all sources. Clearly, China, India, and other
developing countries will "make or break" any global effort to cut CO2 emissions—in fact, changes in
their emissions trajectory will overwhelm any plausible reductions by developed countries.¶ Numerous
studies—including studies by the IEA, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. Climate
Change Science Program (CCSP), and several major environmental organizations—have assessed the
relative roles that different technologies might play in meeting various climate stabilization targets. This
body of work (and more) suggests that CCS has economic advantages relative to other options and is
likely to be indispensable in achieving a zero-carbon energy mix. Specifically, these studies (which are
reviewed and summarized at the CATF Web site,
http://www.catf.us/projects/power_sector/advanced_coal/) find the following:¶ • Stabilizing
atmospheric CO2 at 450 parts per million by volume (ppmv) could require more than 250 GW of fossil
power with CCS globally by 2030 (U.S. CCSP, 2007)8;¶ • Fossil fuels with CCS might need to provide 26
percent of global energy supply under stabilization constraints (WWF, 2007)9;¶ • Combined power
sector and industrial CCS could provide the largest single CO2 abatement option in the U.S. in 2030
(McKinsey %26 Co., 2007)10;¶ • Costs for stabilizing CO2 with widespread CCS deployment could be
reduced 30 percent or more compared to the costs without CCS (IPCC, 2005)11;¶ • CCS is likely to play a
role roughly equivalent to that of energy efficiency and renewables in climate mitigation (IPCC,
2007).12¶
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC CCS>Renewables
CCS is key – coal is inevitable even with massive pushes for renewable
James Fallows, national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late
1970s, worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter, December 2010, “Dirty Coal, Clean Future,” The
Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/dirty-coal-cleanfuture/308307/?single_page=true
“Emotionally, we would all like to think that wind, solar, and conservation will solve the problem for
us,” David Mohler of Duke Energy told me. “Nothing will change, our comfort and convenience will be
the same, and we can avoid that nasty coal. Unfortunately, the math doesn’t work that way.” The math
he has in mind starts with the role that coal now plays around the world, and especially for the two
biggest energy consumers, America and China. Overall, coal-burning power plants provide nearly half
(about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record: natural gas
supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and
everything else the remaining 4 or 5 percent. The small size of the “everything else” total is worth
noting; even if it doubles or triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to
meeting total demand. In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing
total electric demand: at least 70 percent, with the Three Gorges Dam and similar hydroelectric projects
providing about 20 percent, and (in order) natural gas, nuclear power, wind, and solar energy making up
the small remainder. For the world as a whole, coal-fired plants provide about half the total electric
supply. On average, every American uses the electricity produced by 7,500 pounds of coal each year.
Precisely because coal already plays such a major role in world power supplies, basic math means that
it will inescapably do so for a very long time. For instance: through the past decade, the United States
has talked about, passed regulations in favor of, and made technological breakthroughs in all fields of
renewable energy. Between 1995 and 2008, the amount of electricity coming from solar power rose by
two-thirds in the United States, and wind-generated electricity went up more than 15-fold. Yet over
those same years, the amount of electricity generated by coal went up much faster, in absolute terms,
than electricity generated from any other source. The journalist Robert Bryce has drawn on U.S.
government figures to show that between 1995 and 2008, “the absolute increase in total electricity
produced by coal was about 5.8 times as great as the increase from wind and 823 times as great as the
increase from solar”—and this during the dawn of the green-energy era in America. Power generated
by the wind and sun increased significantly in America last year; but power generated by coal increased
more than seven times as much. As Americans have read many times, Chinese companies are the
world’s leaders in manufacturing solar panels, often using technology originally developed in the United
States. Many of the panels are used inside China for its own rapidly growing solar-power system; still,
solar energy accounts for about 1 percent of its total power supply. In his book PowerHungry, Bryce
describes a visit to a single coal mine, the Cardinal Mine in western Kentucky, whose daily output
supports three-quarters as much electricity generation as all the solar and wind facilities in the United
States combined. David MacKay, of the physics department at Cambridge University in England, has
compiled an encyclopedia of such energy-related comparisons, which is available for free download
(under the misleadingly lowbrow title Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air). For instance: he
calculates that if the windiest 10 percent of the entire British landmass were completely covered with
wind turbines, they would produce power roughly equivalent to half of what Britons expend merely by
driving each day. Similar patterns apply even more starkly in China. Other sources of power are growing
faster in relative terms, but year by year the most dramatic increase is in China’s use of coal. “Coal
simply is going to be with us for decades,” a technical adviser to China’s energy ministry told me this
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
summer in Beijing. “We hope someday to have 15 percent of our power from renewable sources. Even
so, the percentage of power generated by coal will not drop by more than a few points, and the
absolute amount will quickly grow.” Another government energy expert in Beijing said that the only
serious limit on how fast Chinese power companies can increase their use of coal is the capacity of the
country’s transportation system. “It’s kind of an existential question, whether they can handle the
physical volumes they are planning to consume,” he said. “Right now railroads are at capacity, you have
entire highways being blocked with coal trucks, and the problems cascade.” Part of the reason China has
committed some $80 billion over the next decade to build light-rail networks across the country is to get
human passengers off the main rail lines, opening up more capacity to move coal. “People without a
technical background think, ‘Coal is dirty! It’s bad,’” I was told in Beijing by Ming Sung, a geologist and
energy expert who was born in Shanghai, worked for decades in America and became a citizen, and has
now returned to China. “But will you turn off your refrigerator for 30 years while we work on
renewables? Turn off the computer? Or ask people in China to do that? Unless you will, you can’t get rid
of coal for decades. As [U.S. Energy Secretary] Steven Chu has said, we have to face the nightmare of
coal for a while.” Coal will be with us because it is abundant: any projected “peak coal” stage would
come many decades after the world reaches “peak oil.” It will be with us because of where it’s located:
the top four coal-reserve countries are the United States, Russia, China, and India, which together have
about 40 percent of the world’s population and more than 60 percent of its coal. It will be with us
because its direct costs are in most circumstances far lower than those of the alternatives—that’s why
so much is used. (Prices vary widely from place to place and company to company, but one utility
executive said that the lowest-price coal plant might generate electricity for 2 cents per kilowatt-hour,
while the same amount of power from a new wind farm in the same area might cost 20 cents.) It will be
with us because its indirect costs, in miner deaths, environmental destruction, and carbon burden on
the atmosphere are unregulated and “externalized.” Power companies that answer to shareholders or
ratepayers have a hard time justifying a more expensive choice. “Coal is so cheap because its dirtiness
still doesn’t count against it,” an air-pollution expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council told
The Wall Street Journal 10 years ago. In the absence of climate legislation in the United States and
international agreements to reduce emissions, the dirtiness still doesn’t count. Coal will be with us
because changing a power infrastructure—like building a new transportation system or extending cable
or fiber-optic connections through an entire country—is the very opposite of a “virtual” process, and
takes many years to complete. And it will be with us because of a surprising constraint: after a century in
which medical diagnosis and treatment, computer and communications systems, aerospace and
nanotech industries, and nearly every other form of technology have routinely achieved the magical,
energy production is essentially what it was in the time of James Watt. With the main exception of
nuclear-power plants and the hoped-for future exception of practical nuclear-fusion systems, we mostly
create electricity by burning something that was once underground—coal, oil, natural gas—to boil water
and turn turbines with the steam. (Windmills use the wind’s force, and hydropower systems use falling
water, to turn turbines directly.) The computer of 10 years from now will be unrecognizably more
powerful than today’s, and its predictably increased capability will make medical, navigation, and other
systems better, too. If the power plant of 10 years from now is even slightly more efficient than today’s,
that will be a major achievement. The most advanced of today’s “ultra-supercritical” coal-fired plants,
which operate at very high temperatures and pressures to maximize the efficiency of combustion,
convert up to 48 percent of the coal’s potential energy to electric power; the rest is lost as heat.
“Subcritical” plants typically have efficiencies in the mid-30s. The costliest and most advanced
technology is an improvement—but not a breakthrough. A breakthrough is what it would take to move
beyond reliance on coal. “I know this is a theological issue for some people,” Julio Friedmann of
Lawrence Livermore said. “Solar and wind power are going to be important, but it is really hard to get
them beyond 10 percent of total power supply.” He pointed out the huge engineering achievement it
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
has taken to raise the efficiency of solar photovoltaic cells from about 25 percent to about 30 percent;
whereas “to make them useful, you would need improvements of two- or threefold in cost,” say from
about 18 cents per kilowatt-hour to 6 cents. He recited a skeptic’s line used about the Carter
administration’s clean-energy programs—“You’re not going to run a steel plant with solar panels”—and
then made a point that summarized the outlook of those who have decided they can best wage the
climate fight by working on dirty, destructive coal. “It is very hard to go around the world and think you
can make any difference in carbon-loading the atmosphere without some plan for how people can
continue to use coal,” Friedmann said. “It is by far the most prevalent and efficient way to generate
electricity. People are going to use it. There is no story of climate progress without a story for coal. In
particular, U.S.-China progress on coal.”
Coal is inevitable – there’s no way to replace it all
Robert Bryce, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, 5-29-2012, “The Coal Hard Facts,” Slate,
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/05/epa_coal_rule_why_the_fuel_wo
n_t_be_replaced_anytime_soon_.html
Coal use is soaring because demand for electricity is soaring. Between 1990 and 2010, global electricity
production increased by about 450 terawatt-hours per year. That’s the equivalent of adding one Brazil
(which used 485 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2010) to the electricity sector every year. And the
International Energy Agency expects global electricity use to continue growing by about one Brazil per
year through 2035. Perhaps the best example of growing electricity demand can be seen in Vietnam.
Between 2001 and 2010, electricity use and coal use in the country increased by 227 percent and 175
percent, respectively. And more coal is on the way. Last September, Virginia-based AES Corp. finalized a
deal to build a $1.5 billion, 1,200-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Vietnam’s Quang Ninh province. Or
consider China, which uses more than three times as much coal as the United States. About 70,000
megawatts of new coal-fired electric generation capacity will likely come online in China over the next
two years. And the world’s most populous country has plans to build another 270,000 megawatts of
coal-fired capacity. Over the next two decades, India will likely add another 72,000 megawatts of coalfired capacity. For comparison, the total of all U.S. coal-fired electric capacity is about 317,000
megawatts, and that capacity is declining as generators switch to natural gas, which, in some regions of
the country, is now cheaper than coal. But we needn’t look only at developing countries. Germany may
lead the world in solar-photovoltaic capacity with some 25,000 megawatts of installed panels, but RWE,
the German utility, will soon begin operating the world’s largest lignite-burning power plant, a new
2,100-megawatt facility located south of Dusseldorf. Over the next two years or so, Germany will add
8,400 megawatts of new coal-fired generation capacity. And another 5,500 megawatts of coal-fired
capacity is awaiting approval. In fact, thanks to the slumping European economy, electricity producers in
the region are already ramping up their use of coal. On May 8, Reuters reported that German utilities
are likely to produce about 12 percent more electricity from coal this year than they did in 2011 thanks
to abundance of cheap permits issued under the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme. The punch line is
obvious: The EPA might outlaw future coal-fired power plants in the United States, but the rest of the
world hasn’t quit burning coal, and it won’t. There’s no question that the coal sector imposes serious
negative impacts on society. The extraction and burning of coal—strip mines, mountaintop removal, air
pollution, mercury emissions, and ash ponds at power plants—take an enormous toll. Thousands of
miners die each year in the world’s coal mines. Just last month, nine Chinese miners were killed and 16
were injured in an explosion at a colliery in northern China. Despite these very real costs, coal continues
to present a compelling value for electricity production because deposits of the fuel are abundant,
widely dispersed, easily mined, and not controlled by any OPEC-like cartel. Environmental groups claim
we should simply replace coal with renewable energy. That’s easy to say, but the scale of our coal use
is staggering. Global coal consumption is now about 71 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, which is
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
approximately equal to the daily oil output of more than eight Saudi Arabias. If the world wanted to
replace all coal-fired electricity (about 40 percent of global production) with juice provided by solar
photovoltaic panels, it would require, in rough terms, 470 times Germany’s current installed solar
capacity, or about 70 times current installed U.S. wind capacity.
Coal is inevitable globally – expanding CCS is key
Steve Levine, author of The Oil and the Glory and a longtime foreign correspondent, 11-10-2010, “The
inevitable rise of Chinese clean coal,” Foreign Policy,
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/10/the_inevitable_rise_of_chinese_clean_coal
One truth that few people watching the energy space seem to grasp is that the world will not shift
away from its absolute dependence on coal any time soon -- certainly not in the first half of this
century, and probably not in the second, either. Coal provides half the U.S. electricity supply, and an
even higher percentage of China's. Cleaner natural gas can and will provide a sharply growing
percentage of the fuel needed to produce electricity, and more nuclear power plants will be built. But
coal's advantages -- its plenitude, its cost, its carbon density -- all put it leagues ahead of the
competition. Therefore, for those concerned about a rise in ground temperatures because of the
increase in carbon dioxide levels, coal -- the dirtiest of the fossil fuels -- must be cleaned up.
Steve Levine, author of The Oil and the Glory and a longtime foreign correspondent, 8-3-2012, “The
Weekly Wrap -- Aug. 3, 2012 (Part I),” Foreign Policy,
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/03/the_weekly_wrap_aug_3_2012_part_i
China's moment of coal truth: A question that has vexed us for some time is when we will witness an
inflection point in ordinary Chinese tolerance for the coal-borne pollution in their air. At that time, we
have argued, we will likely also see a sharp turn away from coal consumption, and more use of cleaner
natural gas -- Communist Party leaders will see to it for reasons of political survival. With this shift will
come important knock-on events, including a materially smaller increase in projected global CO2
emissions. According to Bernstein Research, that tipping point may now be past. In a note to clients
yesterday, Michael W. Parker and Alex Leung argue that the moment of truth became apparent to them
in two pollution protests over the last month in the cities of Shifang and Qidong. In the former, violent
July protests resulted in the scrapping of a planned metals plant; in the latter last week, the ax fell on a
waste pipeline connected to a paper mill, again because of an agitated local citizenry. Their paper's title
-- Who Are You Going to Believe: Me or Your Smog-Irritated, Burning, Weeping, Lying Eyes? -- is a
reference to what the authors regard as a general outside blindness to a conspicuous new political day.
One reason no one is noticing, they say, is the curse of history itself. The record of surging economies -comparing China with, say Japan -- suggests that a burning aspiration for cleaner surroundings over
economic betterment should reach critical mass in China only in about a decade. Yet, "the clear signal
from Shifang and Qidong is that China has reached the point today, where the population is ready to
take to the streets in protest of worsening environmental conditions," the two researchers write. They
go on:
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
2NC CCS>Gas
Coal sequestration is better than natural gas – 40% less emissions
Abrahm Lustgarten, MA in journalism from Columbia, received a grant from the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation, 1-25-2011, “Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated,” Pro
Publica, http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doubt
If carbon sequestration works, coal-based power emissions could drop by 90 percent, said Nick Akins,
president of American Electric Power, the nation’s largest electric utility and the number-one emitter of
greenhouse gas pollution. That suggests to Akins that natural gas may not be the solution to the nation’s
energy needs, but rather the transitional fuel that bridges the gap to cleaner technologies.¶ "Going from
a 100 percent CO2 emitter to a 50 percent solution when you could go beyond that is something we
need to turn our attention to,” said Akins. “If there is a 90 percent solution for coal, and other forms
like nuclear, and renewables, then obviously you want to push in that direction as well.”
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
AT: Tech Fails
CCS is technically feasible
Kurt Waltzer, Special Projects Director and Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration (CCUS)
Coordinator, and Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director, 7-19-2011, “No More Fossil Energy Without
Carbon Capture,” Clean Air Task Force, http://www.catf.us/blogs/ahead/2011/07/19/no-more-fossilenergy-without-carbon-capture/
Its not like the technologies that make up CCS are new. Carbon capture for industrial facilities has been
around for decades. And the oil industry has injected and stored over a billion tons of CO2 since the
mid 1970s as part of its efforts to recover additional oil from depleted oil fields.
CCS through mineralization avoids their defense – unlimited space and
environmentally stable
Sam Krevor, Ph.D in Environmental Engineering at Columbia University, 3-13-2009, “New Life for
Mineral Carbon Sequestration,” On Earth, http://www.onearth.org/blog/new-life-for-mineral-carbonsequestration
It has been a good year for mineral carbon dioxide sequestration. The idea, first developed by
Columbia Professor Klaus Lackner and others at Los Alamos National Laboratories in the mid-90s, is that
one could keep CO2 gas out of the atmosphere and oceans by reacting it with magnesium or calcium
silicate minerals to form stable carbonate minerals, such as magnesium or calcium carbonate. Because
carbonate minerals are the thermodynamic ground state of carbon at the Earth's crust, this process
does not require energy to occur, and in fact as the recent article in OnEarth discusses, is happening
naturally on large scales in areas where there are rocks with high concentrations of magnesium silicate
minerals. Although this process happens naturally, the rates at which they take place in nature are
generally too slow to balance the rate of CO2 emissions from our industrial processes. Thus scientists
over the last 10 years have explored numerous routes through which to speed up these natural
processes without consuming energy. The latest suggestion, coming from Columbia's Peter Kelemen and
Juerg Matter discussed in this edition of onearth and originally published in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, makes light of observations showing that natural carbonation reactions
can happen much more quickly than previously thought, if the conditions are right. Now experimental
data is trickling in showing that artificially creating those conditions through the injection of CO2 into
the rocks may very well be possible. This combined with the recent study published by my work group
at Columbia (I recently finished my Ph.D under Prof. Klaus Lackner) in collaboration with the U.S.
Geological Survey showing the abundance of appropriate rock formations in the United States is
breathing new life into the idea of mineralizing CO2 as a potent greenhouse gas mitigation
technology. Magnesium Silicate Rocks (red) in the United States Map showing the distribution of
magnesium silicate rocks suitable for use in a carbon mineralization process (USGS). The advantages of
CO2 mineralization, especially when compared with other forms of carbon sequestration are
enormous: The technology provides the potential for the permanent removal of CO2 from the
environment through the production of an environmentally benign solid that is easy to monitor and
verify. In addition, the abundance of useful rock formations means that the capacity for CO2 storage
is virtually unlimited.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CO2 fixing bacteria allows commercially viable CCS
Ovidiu Sandru, founder of the green optimistic, 2-25-2012, “Bacteria Could Speed CO2 Mineralization
in Underground Sequestration,” Green Optimistic, http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2012/02/25/co2bacteria-underground-mineralization/#.UE0CvKP64fx
A type o bacteria, however, could save CO2 sequestration from reaching the sandbox. Transported into
porous rock underground, CO2 could be fixed by bacteria much faster. The microbes could speed up
the mineralization of CO2 with positively-charged atoms (cations), process which would form carbonate
minerals, which would definitely trap the greenhouse underground. “Previous studies have shown that
underground bacteria remain in the rock after CO2 injection. We know these microbes can impact how
minerals form, leading us to wonder if they also affect the rate of mineralization,” says NCGC
biochemist Jenny Cappuccio. “And if bacteria could enhance the nucleation of carbonate minerals,
then perhaps we could fine-tune that ability in the laboratory.” The researchers have observed that
different surface bacteria accelerate the formation of calcium carbonate, and that the rule applied to all
of the species. However, microbes whose surfaces have a protein shell known as “S-layer” are better
candidates. They engineered artificial S-layers and attached six aminoacids by increasing their negative
charge. The calcification effect had been significantly increased. So carbon sequestration might make
some economical and scientific sense, after all… all we need now is to capture existing carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere – another money-consuming job that has been found unreasonable if done
outside the factories which pollute most. If done at the output of furnaces, things change for the better
and the capturing efficiency is much higher.
Scientific consensus – CCS it technologically and economically feasible
Chris Baker, staff writer, 6-17-2008, “Chris Baker: Appliance of science will ensure coal (and Earth)
have healthy futures,” The New Zealand Herald,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10516684
Commercial applications of CCS are feasible within the decade and could then be widely deployed
with a favourable policy environment. Progress on CCS is highly promising: "Complete CCS systems can
be assembled from existing technologies that are mature or economically feasible under specific
conditions," says the 2005 IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage. "Significant progress is
being made in proving the commercial feasibility of CCS in projects such as the pilot scale
demonstration of permanent storage of carbon underground in Victoria, Australia and commercial-scale
trials of carbon capture by Sargas, Norway to remove 95 per cent of carbon dioxide from a coal-fired
power station," it continues. "There is widespread scientific and intergovernmental support for CCS as
one of a combination of solutions to reduce emissions from organisations including the IPCC, UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, IEA and the European
Commission, among others.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Good – China
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Good – Chinese Emissions
CCS is necessary to reduce Chinese emissions – US technology spills over
Sarah Forbes and Micah Ziegler, staff writers, 1-21-2011, “U.S.-China Clean Energy Cooperation and
CCS,” World Resources Institute, http://www.wri.org/stories/2011/01/us-china-clean-energycooperation-and-ccs
On January 18, at a ceremony at the U.S.-China Strategic Forum on Clean Energy Cooperation in
Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu and China’s Energy Minister Zhang
Guogao and Science and Technology Minister Wan Gang signed an agreement to advance the U.S.-China
Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). The agreement was announced as part of a “new era” of clean
energy cooperation, as Jon Huntsman, U.S. Ambassador to China, put it at the event.¶ The U.S. and
Chinese governments have been cooperating on clean energy technologies for decades, but the CERC
program arguably represents a fundamentally new way of working together. In the past, collaboration
on clean energy has taken place on a government-to-government, academic-to-academic, and businessto-business basis. But this program integrates activities into what both sides have said they wanted for a
long time – a genuine public-private partnership.¶ The program— funded by a bilateral $150 million in
public-private funding— includes research groups, or “consortia,” focused on building efficiency, electric
vehicles, and advanced coal technologies, including carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS). Each
consortium is led by a research institution and includes private sector partners— and the World
Resources Institute is one of groups focusing on advanced coal and CCS.¶ The collaboration is significant
since both countries face critical choices in their energy mix, and technology and policy choices. Both
countries continue to be heavily dependent on coal, as the top two coal consumers in the world. And,
both countries stand to benefit from the experience and lessons of this collaborative initiative.¶ China
and Coal¶ While China has made advancements in renewable energy and energy efficiency production, it
still relies on coal as its main energy source. Last year, China was the world’s leading coal consumer,
using 3.5 billion short tons of coal. And, although China produces most of its own coal, as the New York
Times recently pointed out, China is now importing major amounts from other countries, including the
United States— from which it brought in some 2.9 million tons in the first six months of 2010 alone.¶ The
United States also uses large amounts of coal—1.4 billion short tons. Although coal production and use
is declining in the United States, it continues to be a major aspect of the country’s energy mix.¶ China’s
coal dependence will continue into the foreseeable future, especially as its economy becomes more
modern and the country provides its people a higher quality of life. Estimating China’s long-term coal
use is difficult because it continues to make policy and technology changes to cut its growth. According
to the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s estimate, China’s use of coal in the electricity sector will
increase from 27.7 quadrillion Btu in 2007 to 72.2 quadrillion Btu in 2035 (based on a “business as usual
growth”)— which is an average rate of 3.5 percent per year.¶ China and Carbon Capture and Storage¶ In
order to meet its growing energy demands, yet constrain its emissions– both traditional air pollutants
and greenhouse gases– China has been working to substitute non-coal energy sources, use coal more
efficiently, and address its emissions directly. These efforts include increasing energy efficiency,
deploying nuclear and renewable energy, and implementing carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS).¶
If China is going to meet its emissions targets in the future, many analysts and academics agree that
CCS will be needed. Even with advances in efficiency, renewables, and nuclear energy, without CCS,
China’s emissions would stabilize around 2030, but would not actually decline. (See: The China Human
Development Report 2009/10.)¶ These modeling efforts, however, assume that CCS technology will be
available and implemented at a much greater scale than is currently available. Researchers, including
members of the CERC, are evaluating ways to reduce the energy and water penalties associated with the
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS and to ensure that it can be deployed widely.¶ That’s why the CERC represents an important pilot
project. The joint work plan announced for the advanced coal technology consortium features on-theground collaboration and research around existing complementary demonstration projects. The U.S.
funding goes to researchers in the United States who will be working with their Chinese counterparts
who focus on the same issues in China.¶ In Both Countries’ Interest¶ In his opening remarks at the Clean
Energy Forum, Zheng Bijian, Chairman of the China Institute for Innovation & Development Strategy,
reminded participants that Chinese investment in the United States surpassed United States investment
in China last year. The countries’ economies are increasingly interdependent – as are the energy and
environmental challenges they face. Zheng said, “It is both necessary and possible to work together,”
and he spoke of a future where our two countries find and foster “communities of common interest.”¶
Reducing emissions, shifting to cleaner energy sources, and implementing advanced coal technologies
are clearly areas of common interest to the United States and China. The CERC serves a prime example
of joint collaboration to advance clean energy development and deployment.
CCS only way to solve Chinese emissions
Germanwatch, German NGO for climatology, 2009, “Carbon Capture and Storage in China,” an E3G
Report, http://germanwatch.org/klima/ccs-china.pdf
China’s domestic coal reserves are the second largest in the world after Russia. ¶ According to the IEA, in 1999 China’s
coal reserves were identified as 1,003 ¶ billion tonnes, although only 115 billion tonnes can be regarded as proven ¶ reserves. This yields a
reserve-to-production ratio of around 50 years at current ¶ production levels. More recent assessments conclude
that proven reserves could ¶ be as high as 192 billion tonnes, and a prospecting programme is underway to ¶ expand this. It is therefore likely
that China has more than 50 years of coal ¶ available. ¶ Rapid growth
in the power sector is the main driver of increasing
coal use. In ¶ 2006, China had around 622 GW of installed electricity generation capacity, up ¶ by 100 GW in
2005. This was the largest year-on-year increase ever recorded in ¶ China, or indeed in any nation in the world. Over
90% of this capacity increase in ¶ 2006 was coal fired. An additional 1,312 GW of capacity is expected to be ¶ installed by
2030, leading to a total installed capacity of 1,755 GW – equivalent to ¶ the current installed capacity of the US and EU combined. In a businessas-usual ¶ scenario the majority of this will be based on sub-critical pulverised coal ¶ technology, with an efficiency of less than 40%. ¶ Industrial
sectors such as steel are also heavy consumers of coal – accounting ¶ for around 26% of annual coal consumption in China. Industrial use of coal
is ¶ expected to grow by 2.1% a year between now and 2030. China
is also exploring ¶ coal-to-fuels technology to reduce
its dependence on oil imports, which are ¶ expected to quadruple by 2030 under business-as-usual projections.¶ It has ¶ invested
some $128 billion in a programme to develop coal-based synthetic fuels ¶ and chemical feedstocks15¶ . Coal-to-liquid projects are a particular
focus and there ¶ are around 20 coal-to-oil projects under construction. The IEA has estimated that ¶ after 2010, coal use for coal-to-liquids
(CTL) plants is expected to rise rapidly, ¶ reaching 72 Mtoe in 2030. ¶ Given
China’s huge reserves of coal, and its desire to
continue to use them to ¶ improve its security of supply, it is impossible to imagine a situation where China ¶ is
not using coal to meet its energy needs in the coming decades. This makes the ¶ development of CCS
technology critical .
CCS key to solve Chinese emissions
Germanwatch, German NGO for climatology, 2009, “Carbon Capture and Storage in China,” an E3G
Report, http://germanwatch.org/klima/ccs-china.pdf
These studies, and others, indicate that even with strong policy incentives ¶ for energy efficiency,
renewables and other low carbon technologies, coal ¶ will remain a major part of China’s energy mix
until at least 2030. What ¶ happens beyond that cannot be predicted with certainty but it seems likely ¶
that coal will continue to play a major role in powering China’s economy. ¶ If China is to make a
meaningful contribution to global efforts to reduce carbon ¶ emissions it will need to use the full
range of opportunities available – energy ¶ efficiency, renewables but also cleaner coal technologies
including CCS. Hence, ¶ CCS should be seen as one component of an ambitious overall clean energy ¶
strategy, not a substitute for other measures. A coal-free China is not a realistic ¶ medium-term option
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
and there is no obvious alternative to CCS as a means to ¶ reduce China’s emissions from coal on the
scale required to avoid dangerous ¶ climate change .
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China models CCS
China wants CCS – needs international investment
Bloomberg, 7-14-2012, “Asian Development Bank Aids China’s Pollution Trapping Mission,” by Sally
Bakewell, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/asian-development-bank-aids-china-spollution-trapping-mission.html
“There is an urgent need to fast-track the demonstration and deployment of carbon capture and
storage in the People’s Republic of China to cut CO2 emissions from the energy and industrial sectors
and achieve the country’s long-term climate change mitigation goals,” Annika Seiler, finance specialist
for energy at ADB’s East Asia department, said in the statement.¶ Incomplete policy, low financial
support and inadequate international funding are the main barriers to CCS in China, according to the
ADB. A planned road map will help initiate at least two CCS demonstration projects by 2016, according
to the statement. The ADB will help assemble a team of experts to advise the Chinese government on
the plan.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Key – Warming
China key I/L to warming
Germanwatch, German NGO for climatology, 2009, “Carbon Capture and Storage in China,” an E3G
Report, http://germanwatch.org/klima/ccs-china.pdf
China’s per capita emissions are substantially lower than those of Europe or the ¶ United States.¶
However, in terms of total emissions, China has overtaken the US ¶ as the world’s largest CO2 emitter.
This is mainly due to China’s impressive ¶ growth and relatively high energy intensity compared to
developed countries. For ¶ example, energy-intensive industries and the construction sector account
for ¶ nearly half of China's energy use.¶ It is also because of China’s role as a ¶ manufacturing hub in
global supply chains: a recent study suggested that about ¶ one third of China's emissions were
embedded in exports to the rest of the world ¶ in 2005.¶ ¶ Recent analysis by the Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency¶ found ¶ that China accounted for 24% of global CO2 emissions, with
the US accounting ¶ for 21% and the EU-15 12%. The US Energy Information Agency (EIA) estimates ¶
China’s annual emissions at 6.01 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2, with the US at ¶ 5.9Gt.¶ The International
Energy Agency (IEA) estimates China’s annual ¶ emissions at 5.61Gt of CO2, with the US at 5.7Gt.¶ All of
the analysis points to a ¶ rapid rise in China’s emissions under business-as-usual projections.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Chinese Econ Good – Global Econ
China’s economy key to world economy
IMF November 16, 2009 “China's Leadership Key in Global Economic Recovery and Reform, IMF
Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn Says” Press Release No. 09/408
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2009/pr09408.htm
China is leading the world out of recession and has a key role to play in the longer-term reform and
rebalancing of the global economy, Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Managing Director of the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), said in a speech to the International Finance Forum in Beijing today.
The IMF projects China to grow at 8.5 percent in 2009, and at 9 percent in 2010, greatly exceeding
average global growth rates. “This performance is in keeping with China’s remarkable achievements
over the last generation,” said Mr. Strauss-Kahn. “China’s role in the international policy debate has
been rising in tandem with its growing economy. As a key member of the G20, China is helping to
design the global priorities for the future and devise solutions to global problems,” he added. “For
China and for Asia as a whole, a growing voice on the international stage means tremendous
opportunities to contribute to the shaping of the post-crisis global economy. This is entirely
appropriate, given Asia’s economic weight in the world.”
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
AT: China Coal Switch
China will remain massively dependent on coal
WCA 2011 World Coal Association “COAL'S VITAL ROLE IN CHINA” Ecoal, Vol. 74, May 2011
http://www.worldcoal.org/resources/ecoal/ecoal-current-issue/coals-vital-role-in-china/
Powering Growth¶ Despite the importance of coking coal in steel production in China, it is thermal coal
in electricity production that has been the powerhouse of the Chinese coal market.¶ The IEA estimates
that in 2008 coal accounted for almost 80% of Chinese electricity production. Hydro makes up much of
the remaining 20% of electricity generation in China. While growth rates in renewable energies are
high, they are starting from a very low base. According to the IEA, China will add an additional 600GW
of new coal-fired power generation by 2035, this exceeds the current coal capacity of the USA, EU and
Japan combined. It is this level of consumption and projected growth that makes China key to the future
look of the global coal industry.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China War = High Risk
US China Crises inevitable – high risk
Thomas Wright, Exec. Dir. @ Chicago Council on Global Affairs, 4-30-2009, “5 Questions,” Rising
Powers, http://risingpowers.foreignpolicyblogs.com/2009/04/
The implications are enormous because it implies that the great dramas of the 21st century will play
out in Asia rather than Europe. Let me just focus on two implications that don’t get as much attention as
they should. The first has to do with strategic culture. The United States is used to great power politics
in the Atlantic area and most US foreign policy experts have learned their trade from studying that
experience. The United States must be careful not to assume that the lessons learned from that are
transferable to Asia. India-China-Japan relations will not necessarily play out like Germany-FranceBritain relations in the 19th century. So it will be important for the US foreign policy community to
appreciate and understand the specific context of great power relations in the 21st century. Given that
strategic misunderstanding and misperceptions can heighten the risk of conflict, it is tremendously
important that America gets this right. The second has to do with worse case scenarios. East Asia is
probably the only place on the planet where one could imagine a major war or struggle on a par with
the conflicts of the 20th century. Regional multipolarity, volatility in economics, rising nationalisms,
historic animosities and grievances, legitimate differences of interests and dramatic power transitions
make East Asia unique in the modern world. It falls to the United States, as the world’s strongest
power and as a Pacific nation, to take the lead in managing this situation, reassuring all nations,
dissuading and deterring aggression and guiding them to a mutually beneficial future. This may be
America’s greatest foreign policy challenge of the next half century.
Our miscalc scenarios are unique – tense conflicts with China are inevitable
Robert Kagan, PhD American, 2009, “Ambition and Anxiety,” in The Rise Of China, ed. Schmitt, p. 2-3
The struggle between China and the United States that will dominate the 21st Century is about both
power and belief. Two rising, ambitious powers are contesting for leadership in East Asia. As the world’s
strongest democracy and the world’s strongest autocracy, however, they are also engaged in a contest
about ideas, about definitions of justice, morality, and legitimacy, about order and liberalism. Today,
neither China nor the United States wants war, and wise statesmanship on both sides may avoid it for
years and even decades to come, perhaps long enough for circumstances to change and the
confrontation to dissipate. Neither Americans nor Chinese should delude themselves, however. All the
classic conditions for conflict are already in place; they merely await the right sequence of events to
provide a spark. Nor is this Sino-American confrontation a product of misunderstandings or errors
that just need to be cleared up. It is not an anomaly. It is normal, the unavoidable consequence of two
powerful nations with clashing ambitions and colliding worldviews, and also with much in common. It
is on the subject of power that America and China have the most in common. Both seek power and
believe power is necessary to defend and promote their interests and beliefs. Both deny this, of
course, because the 21st-century world recoils at discussions of power. Yet the United States spent
more on its military than the next dozen powers combined even before September it, 2001. Nor has it
been shy about using it, with ten military interventions in the past two decades alone. In the same two
decades, China has been increasing military spending by more than ten percent per year. It will soon
spend as much on defense as all the nations of the European Union combined. Power changes nations.
It expands their wants and desires, in- creases their sense of entitlement, their need for deference and
respect. It also makes them more ambitious. It lessens their tolerance to obstacles, their willingness to
take no for an answer.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Pollution Bad – China Stability
Warming kills economic stability
Center for American Progress, and Asia Society, November 2009, “A Roadmap for U.S.-China
Collaboration on Carbon Capture and Sequestration,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/pdf/china_ccs.pdf
The problems for China are expected to be no less severe . China’s spectacular economic ¶ growth over
the past several decades has come with a price . According to the United Nations ¶ Development
program, China is home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities, with ¶ one-third of the urban
population breathing heavily polluted air .¶ Conservative estimates ¶ show that environmental
degradation costs China 8 percent of gDp per year .¶ Confronting ¶ climate change in China is
increasingly understood to be critical not only for environmental ¶ protection, but also for the
maintenance of China’s economic, political, and social stability .
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Pollution Bad – China Econ
Pollution kills Chinese growth
Melanie Hart, Policy Analyst for Chinese Energy and Climate Policy at the Center for American Progress,
4-20-2012, “Environmental Standards Give the United States an Edge Over China,” Center for American
Progress, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/china_earthday.html
It is important to note that despite what some politicians and fossil-fuel industry interests in the United
States may claim, a dirty environment is not good for business. In fact, environmental regulation
actually strengthens our economy. When the air and water are cleaner, people are healthier. That
means we can spend less on health care and lost productivity due to illness, and more on the products
and services produced by businesses and, more broadly, on building good foundations for the future by
investing in education, infrastructure, and science and technology research and development. Most
American companies are loath to admit they seek out places to manufacture based on the level of
pollution they can create at the expense of nearby communities. But it is certainly true that many
companies send their operations to China to take advantage of low labor costs and lax environmental
regulations to increase profit margins, particularly on lower-value-added manufacturing, where margins
are often slim. And yet it is also true that environmental pollution is actually threatening economic
growth in China. All of China’s key manufacturing sectors, for example, require water as a critical
input. From coal mining to semiconductor manufacturing, the Chinese economy is water intensive.
Problem is, global warming is causing droughts that are depleting China’s water sources, and the
remaining supplies are becoming so polluted that many provinces are struggling to find enough water
to keep their factories running. Chinese officials report that around 300 million rural citizens—the size
of the U.S. population—do not have access to safe drinking water, that most urban groundwater is unfit
for human consumption, and that 20 percent of China’s rivers are “too toxic even to touch.”
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Economy Good – War
Chinese economic collapse causes global economic decline and global war
Walter Russell Mead, Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, 2-4-2009, “Only Makes You Stronger: Why the recession bolstered America,”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f4weFT4x5L8J:www.freerepublic.com/focus/
news/2169866/posts+http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2169866/posts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The greatest danger both to U.S.-China relations and to American power itself is probably not that China will rise too far, too fast; it is
that the current crisis might end China's growth miracle. In the worst-case scenario, the turmoil in the international
economy will plunge China into a major economic downturn. The Chinese financial system will implode as loans to both state and private
enterprises go bad. Millions or even tens of millions of Chinese will be unemployed in a country without an effective social safety net.
The collapse of asset bubbles in the stock and property markets will wipe out the savings of a generation of the Chinese middle class. The
political consequences could include dangerous unrest--and a bitter climate of anti-foreign feeling that
blames others for China's woes. (Think of Weimar Germany, when both Nazi and communist
politicians blamed the West for Germany's economic travails.) Worse, instability could lead to a vicious cycle, as
nervous investors moved their money out of the country, further slowing growth and, in turn, fomenting ever-greater bitterness. Thanks to a
generation of rapid economic growth, China has so far been able to manage the stresses and conflicts of modernization and change; nobody
knows what will happen if the growth stops. India's future is also a question. Support for global integration is a fairly recent development in
India, and many serious Indians remain skeptical of it. While India's 60-year-old democratic system has resisted many shocks, a deep economic
recession in a country where mass poverty and even hunger are still major concerns could undermine political order, long-term growth, and
India's attitude toward the United States and global economic integration. The violent Naxalite insurrection plaguing a significant swath of the
country could get worse; religious extremism among both Hindus and Muslims could further polarize Indian politics; and India's economic
miracle could be nipped in the bud. If current market turmoil seriously damaged the performance and prospects of India and China, the current
crisis could join the Great Depression in the list of economic events that changed history, even if the recessions in the West are relatively short
and mild. The United States should stand ready to assist Chinese and Indian financial authorities on an emergency basis--and work very hard to
help both countries escape or at least weather any economic downturn. It may test the political will of the Obama administration, but the
United States must avoid a protectionist response to the economic slowdown. U.S. moves to limit market access for Chinese and Indian
producers could poison relations for years. For billions of people in nuclear-armed countries to emerge from this crisis believing either that the
United States was indifferent to their well-being or that it had profited from their distress could damage U.S. foreign policy far more severely
than any mistake made by George W. Bush. It's not just the great powers whose trajectories have been affected by the crash. Lesser powers
like Saudi Arabia and Iran also face new constraints. The crisis has strengthened the U.S. position in the Middle East as falling oil prices reduce
Iranian influence and increase the dependence of the oil sheikdoms on U.S. protection. Success in Iraq--however late, however undeserved,
however limited--had already improved the Obama administration's prospects for addressing regional crises. Now, the collapse in oil prices has
put the Iranian regime on the defensive. The annual inflation rate rose above 29 percent last September, up from about 17 percent in 2007,
according to Iran's Bank Markazi. Economists forecast that Iran's real GDP growth will drop markedly in the coming months as stagnating oil
revenues and the continued global economic downturn force the government to rein in its expansionary fiscal policy. All this has weakened
Ahmadinejad at home and Iran abroad. Iranian officials must balance the relative merits of support for allies like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria
against domestic needs, while international sanctions and other diplomatic sticks have been made more painful and Western carrots (like trade
opportunities) have become more attractive. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other oil states have become more dependent on the United States
for protection against Iran, and they have fewer resources to fund religious extremism as they use diminished oil revenues to support basic
domestic spending and development goals. None of this makes the Middle East an easy target for U.S. diplomacy, but thanks in part to the
economic crisis, the incoming administration has the chance to try some new ideas and to enter negotiations with Iran (and Syria) from a
position of enhanced strength. Every crisis is different, but there seem to be reasons why, over time, financial crises on balance reinforce rather
than undermine the world position of the leading capitalist countries. Since capitalism first emerged in early modern Europe, the ability to
exploit the advantages of rapid economic development has been a key factor in international competition. Countries that can encourage--or at
least allow and sustain--the change, dislocation, upheaval, and pain that capitalism often involves, while providing their tumultuous market
societies with appropriate regulatory and legal frameworks, grow swiftly. They produce cutting-edge technologies that translate into military
and economic power. They are able to invest in education, making their workforces ever more productive. They typically develop liberal
political institutions and cultural norms that value, or at least tolerate, dissent and that allow people of different political and religious
viewpoints to collaborate on a vast social project of modernization--and to maintain political stability in the face of accelerating social and
economic change. The vast productive capacity of leading capitalist powers gives them the ability to project influence around the world and, to
some degree, to remake the world to suit their own interests and preferences. This is what the United Kingdom and the United States have
done in past centuries, and what other capitalist powers like France, Germany, and Japan have done to a lesser extent. In these countries, the
social forces that support the idea of a competitive market economy within an appropriately liberal legal and political framework are relatively
strong. But, in many other countries where capitalism rubs people the wrong way, this is not the case. On either side of the Atlantic, for
example, the Latin world is often drawn to anti-capitalist movements and rulers on both the right and the left. Russia, too, has never really
taken to capitalism and liberal society--whether during the time of the czars, the commissars, or the post-cold war leaders who so signally failed
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
to build a stable, open system of liberal democratic capitalism even as many former Warsaw Pact nations were making rapid transitions. Partly
as a result of these internal cultural pressures, and partly because, in much of the world, capitalism has appeared as an unwelcome interloper,
imposed by foreign forces and shaped to fit foreign rather than domestic interests and preferences, many countries are only half-heartedly
capitalist. When crisis strikes, they are quick to decide that capitalism is a failure and look for alternatives. So far, such half-hearted experiments
not only have failed to work; they have left the societies that have tried them in a progressively worse position, farther behind the frontrunners as time goes by. Argentina has lost ground to Chile; Russian development has fallen farther behind that of the Baltic states and Central
Europe. Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a
liberal capitalist society integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian
traditionalists who are determined to resist liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in
these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier
societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater
economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently, financial crises often reinforce rather than
challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and
enjoy the recession. History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less
reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the
Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American
Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad
economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German
public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts
might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born?
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Economy Good – War
Growth is key to limit Chinese social unrest which causes CCP lashout against the US
Susan Shirk, director of the University of California system-wide Institute on Global Conflict, 2007,
“China: Fragile Superpower,” 69.
As China’s leaders well know, the greatest political risk lying ahead of them is the possibility of an
economic crash that throws millions of workers out of their jobs or sends millions of depositors to
withdraw their savings from the shaky banking system. A massive environmental or public health
disaster could also trigger regime collapse, especially if people’s lives are endangered by a media coverup imposed by Party authorities. Nationwide rebellion becomes a real possibility when large numbers
of people are upset about the same issue at the same time. Another dangerous scenario is a domestic
or international crisis in which the CCP leaders feel compelled to lash out against Japan, Taiwan, or the
United States because from their point of view not lashing out might endanger Party rule.”
direction the White House now seems to prefer.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Economy Good – CCP Stability
Chinese economy is key to CCP stability
Epoch Times, Chinese communist regime’s collapsing economy will be its downfall, 1-3-2009,
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/9656/
By contrast China’s current economy has a GDP that still appears to be increasing, and a relatively large
foreign reserve—although much of this is tied to foreign bonds. Moreover, the country has seen
repeated increases in both the income for government officials at various levels and the national
revenue. The CCP regime’s legality is built on an ideology the proceeds the period of reform and
openness seen during the nation’s economically prosperous period. Especially after June 4, 1989,
China completely transferred to a more economic focus. This transition is known by many. What
people still don’t realize is that the CCP is using this new system to negate its old one. However with
the old ideology being completely negated, this new system will be completely lost in this economic
crisis, leaving nothing for the Chinese people China has a government, intent on demonstrating its
legitimacy, that will “drain the pond to catch the fish,” as the old saying goes. It has been so driven by
a quick paced development, that it has brought severe ecological damage and moral degeneration to
the country as a consequence. Governments of democratic countries also have responsibilities for
developing a nation’s economy. Yet it differs from the economic development of the CCP in three
fundamental ways: First, let’s take the United States as an example: the Republican Party’s defeat in the
2008 General Election was directly related to the economic crisis. As a result, this party lost control of
the White House. The result is not so simple for the CCP, as it will face being brought to justice if it
loses power. Second, if the U.S. economy doesn’t run well, people cannot simply target all their anger
toward the Republican Party and George W. Bush, because Bush or the Republican Party did not have all
the power, especially after 2006, when the Democratic Party seized the majority of seats in both houses.
In contrast, the CCP alone holds all the power in China, and must naturally bear full responsibility for
whatever befalls the country. Third, the leader of a democratic country is chosen from elections. If the
economy is bad under a certain leader, he or she can only stay in power within the duration of a term
even though the economy is not good. With the CCP, however, it faces resistance and challenges from
Chinese people all the time. Therefore, economic development has become of sole importance to the
CCP. It has destroyed a host of constitutional rights, including the freedoms of belief, expression, and
association, stripped millions of their homes, and taken privately owned property by force, all in the
name of "economic development." Yet this “economic development at any cost” policy may be the
end to the party itself. For decades, the CCP has encouraged people to pursue material desires,
advocating for an unbridled hedonism to divert attention. Perhaps it did not realize that when people
become obsessed with their own selfish desires, they lose the ability to endure suffering for the ultimate
good of the country. Once their desires can no longer be met, people’s discontent will be directly
aimed at the CCP. The economic crisis will evolve into both political and social crisis. Consider this:
since the CCP seized control of China in 1949, major events have occurred in every year ending in 9: The
year 1959 was marked by the Great Famine. There was a war between China and the Soviet Union in
1969, the Sino-Vietnam War in 1979, the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989, and the suppression of
Falun gong in 1999. We are now at the dawn of another chapter: 2009. Despite continued promises of
success and prosperity, for several decades the CCP has brought repeated disasters to China. Now is
our opportunity to wake up, and help our fellow countrymen to see the light. Spread the “Nine
Commentaries” in the New Year and help China return to its former glory.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
The result is a CCP lash-out causing a billion deaths
Epoch Times, the ccp’s last-ditch gamble: biological and nuclear war, august 2005,
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.html
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards
human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight
hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it
really is. With evil filling its every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate
attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches. This theme is murderous and utterly
evil. In China we have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab
themselves with knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a
gangster who would use biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that all will
die together with him. This bloody confession has confirmed the CCP’s nature: that of a monstrous
murderer who has killed 80 million Chinese people and who now plans to hold one billion people
hostage and gamble with their lives.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Economy Good – CCP Stability
Growth is the most important factor in determining CCP stability
Daniel Abebe and Jonathan Masur, Assistant Professors of Law, University of Chicago Law School,
2010, “International Agreements, Internal Heterogeneity, and Climate Change: The "Two Chinas"
Problem” Virginia Journal of International Law, Winter, 2010, Lexis.
First, since the collapse of the Marxist-Leninist ideology that served as the basis for the party’s authority, the
CCP has adopted economic
growth as the central justification for its one-party rule. The CCP has pegged its political future to a type of
“performance legitimacy”12—it governs because it can provide faster growth and higher standards of living than any alternative form
of central authority. In Eastern China, the CCP’s approach has been a nearly unqualified success. Special coastal economic zones, favorable
banking policies, and massive decentralization of government have combined to spur blistering economic growth. Western China, however, has
been left starkly behind: per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in Western China is less than half of what it is in Eastern China. The result has
been rising income inequality, social instability, and dramatic divisions between East and West, rural and city, and peasants and urban
residents, along with the creation of a roaming underclass of Western Chinese seeking work in the coastal cities.13 Worse still, these social
schisms coincide with ethnic and religious fault lines: Western China is home to many ethnic minority groups that harbor substantial animosity
toward CCP rule. Poorer conditions in the West have created the political environment for the emergence of separatist movements. Brisk
economic growth in Western China has thus become a political imperative for the CCP, and the CCP has denbergh’s excellent article. See
Vandenbergh, supra note 5; Donald C. Clarke, Economic Development and the Rights Hypothesis, 51 AM. J. COMP. L. 89 (2003) (using the
phrase to refer to a test of the “rights hypothesis” through a case study of post-Mao China). Others, most prominently the Chinese government
itself, have used the same phrase to refer to the political situation surrounding China and Taiwan, though of course no one has yet used it in the
sense we mean here. prioritized it accordingly. China is likely to balk at any international agreement that might imperil this growth. Second, as a
result of its growth-driven delegation of power, the CCP suffers from a surprising (for such a centralized government) erosion of state capacity:
the provinces often ignore the central government’s directives, frequently without meaningful consequences.14 The political structure of the
CCP and the institutional structure of China’s government are sometimes overlapping or redundant and, in many places, lack effective vertical
or horizontal accountability. The environmental regulatory agencies are often subordinate to the very agencies they are intended to regulate.
Province-level CCP officials are often evaluated (both locally and in Beijing) by their ability to produce high levels of economic growth, not their
commitment to environmental protection. Although the CCP has recently tried to recentralize power and rationalize the governance
structure,15 the center’s capacity to enforce environmental regulations on the provinces is much weaker than in a typical industrialized state.
The existing structural relationship between the provinces and Beijing often results in a chronic inability on the part of the CCP to provide public
goods like environmental protection, an inability it will not be able to reverse without incurring substantial costs. Finally, there is reason to
believe that the vast majority of economic and scientific projections have substantially underestimated China’s future carbon emissions by
failing to account for heterogeneity among provinces. Eastern China is already highly industrialized and reasonably wealthy; there is every
reason to expect that it will begin to move towards cleaner technologies and shift economic production away from industry and towards
services (which are generally less energy and carbon-intensive).16 Western China, by contrast, is poorer and more agrarian, and the typical
development pattern for such an area involves a shift towards greater industrialization and higher per capita energy consumption (and carbon
production). Indeed, this is precisely the direction in which Western China is moving.17 Every quantitative forecast of Chinese emissions—save
for two important exceptions—uses only national-level data, a methodological weakness that can wash out distinctions between East and
West. Of the two studies that employ sub-national data, one projects higher emissions than any of the national-level studies; the other projects
much higher emissions than any other study.18 We read this as suggesting that Chinese carbon emissions over the forthcoming several decades
may be significantly greater than the standard models have anticipated, with correspondingly higher costs to China from any agreement to curb
carbon emissions. In light of the importance of economic growth to the CCP, the internal structure of Chinese governance, and the need to
develop Western China, the prospects for China choosing to join such an agreement in the immediate future seem slim. This Article proceeds in
four parts. Part I focuses on the general importance of economic growth to the CCP, the distribution of growth within China, and the social and
economic difficulties generated by the CCP’s hyper-growth policies. Part II analyzes the CCP’s internal environmental enforcement capacity and
argues that China would encounter substantial domestic challenges in implementing a climate accord, even if it chooses to sign one. Part III
critiques the assumptions underlying quantitative forecasts of Chinese carbon emissions and suggests that future emissions may exceed
conventional projections by substantial margins. Part IV canvasses extant potential frameworks for an international climate change agreement
and argues that they are likely to be unsuitable to one or more of the relevant parties. Our conclusion is a pessimistic one: it will be difficult to
convince China to join a meaningful international climate agreement in the near future under the best of circumstances. The Two Chinas,
coupled with China’s internal political dynamics, present circumstances that are hardly ideal. I. THE CHINESE GROWTH IMPERATIVE Modern
China has reinvented itself on a foundation of kudzu-like economic growth. Where Marxism once served as the unifying national ideology, the
CCP has substituted wealth generation and prosperity as the touchstones of the regime and suggested
that the Chinese people judge the legitimacy of CCP rule by the increases in their own standards of
living. Economic growth in China has been spectacular, but it has also been highly uneven. Eastern, coastal provinces have become wealthy,
while central and western provinces have lagged far behind. In effect, there is no longer simply “China.” There is now Eastern China, which is
urban, industrialized, and relatively prosperous, and Western China, which is rural, agrarian, and relatively poor. This divergence in economic
outcomes—a divergence that in places coincides with pre-existing ethnic and religious fault lines—poses a serious threat to social stability
within China.19 In response, the CCP has begun an aptly named “Western Development Program” in an attempt to prioritize economic growth,
encourage national integration, and curb nationalist unrest in Western provinces. Accordingly, the governing regime will be reluctant to join a
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
climate agreement that might contribute to greater instability by stunting crucial economic development in Western China. A. Foundations of
CCP Rule: Economic Growth Since 1949, China has been governed by the autocratic CCP, dominated by Chairman Mao’s conception of Marxism
and designed to bring “socialist glory” to China while preserving party rule. After the Cultural Revolution and Mao’s death in 1976, however, the
CCP, led by Deng Xiaoping, began to move away from the Marxist ideological foundation that served as the legitimating discursive force for CCP
authority.20 Concerned with increasing levels of apathy toward communism and questions about its efficacy as the governing regime,21 the
CCP turned to two new sources of authority and legitimacy to galvanize support among the populace and strengthen its hold on power. The
first of these was a new Chinese nationalism. The second was an emphasis on continued economic growth—a type of “performance
legitimacy”22—as a benchmark and measure of the regime’s success. From the late 1970s until the suppression of student-led democratic
protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, Deng and the CCP moved slowly toward a reform of China’s centralized economic policies and internal
governance structure. Deng and some of the reformers began to argue that the Chinese people wanted a higher standard of living,
technological dynamism, and economic efficiency, not more ideology and excessive bureaucracy. To be economically successful, they argued,
China needed the CCP’s one-party rule to ensure stability and regain international prestige. In the words of one scholar, “[i]n the most
fundamental sense . . . China’s economic reform strategy has been guided by a stra tegic vision at the top of the political system. This vision
links China’s security, global influence, and domestic stability to the state of its economy.”23 Sustained economic growth is paramount for the
continuation of the CCP, the maintenance of China’s territorial integrity, and the pursuit of China’s national interests in international politics.24
The CCP’s reform strategy has been marked by incremental opening of the domestic economy, beginning with agriculture in the late 1970s and
continuing through China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001.25 During the 1980s, the CCP delegated a significant
amount of authority from the central government to the provinces and cities, freeing local actors—province and city-level officials—to develop
policies that encouraged economic growth independent of the center.26 After a temporary delay in reforms after Tiananmen Square, the 1990s
saw the CCP commit to the creation of a market system, the privatization of some state-owned enterprises, and the development of the private
sector. At the turn of the century, the CCP began to embrace private entrepreneurs and “retreat from economic administration to economic
regulation as the core economic function of government.”27 From a national perspective, the CCP’s economic reforms are an unqualified
success. Fueled by these reforms, the Chinese economy has produced tremendous economic growth and a rapidly improving standard of living
for many of China’s citizens (in addition to severe consequences for the environment). Between 1978 and 2000, “[o]verall per capita gross
domestic product (GDP) in constant yuan roughly quadrupled.”28 Today, China has the world’s second largest economy by purchasing power
parity, surpassing Japan, India, and Germany.29 It has the world’s largest foreign capital reserves.30 It enjoys a trade surplus of $163.3 billion
with the United States.31 It is a leading destination for foreign direct investment,32 and has become more integrated into the world economy
through its membership in the WTO. By almost every economic measure, the CCP’s economic policies and drive for modernization have
produced tremendous aggregate gains for China and its citizens. The CCP’s policies have also created a consumer society in the formerly
Marxist China. From telephones to televisions, newspapers to the internet, and automobiles to overseas travel, the CCP has brought to the
Chinese people access to information, goods, and technology that were unimaginable during the Maoist era.33 The CCP’s economic policies
have reduced the role of the state in the affairs of daily life, leaving ordinary citizens more free to engage in social and economic activities. In so
doing, the CCP has reinforced the norm that prioritizing hypergrowth polices and ensuring economic development are the party’s overriding
responsibilities. China is hardly unique in favoring continued economic growth; there are few nations on earth that are not attempting to grow
their economies and produce wealth for their citizens. In China, however, economic growth is not merely a matter of policy. Growth,
particularly in certain geographic regions, is viewed by the CCP as a political imperative, integral to the regime’s survival. As subsequent
discussion will demonstrate, this focus on economic growth significantly impacts the CCP’s incentives to curb environmental degradation and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
China Economy Good – Taiwan
CCP will use nationalism to placate masses leads to Taiwan strike
Malou Innocent, Foreign Policy Analyst at the Cato Institute specializing in U.S. foreign policy toward
Pakistan and China, 2.27.2009,
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/02/china_peace_partner_or_warmong.html
For more than 30 years, free and open markets have propelled China's labor-driven growth and lifted
more than 200 million of its citizens out of rural poverty. But America's recent economic downturn has
hit China hard. Exports from its booming trade sector dropped 17.5 percent in January from a year ago.
In the past several months, an estimated 20 million rural Chinese migrant workers have lost their jobs.
China's rising unemployment could lead to increased social unrest, and challenge the authority of the
ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Throughout 30 years of liberal reform, the CCP has justified its
authoritarian grip through the promise of economic advancement. If it can't maintain the steady
growth it's promised, experts fear the country's leaders might bolster their legitimacy by other means,
such as exploiting Chinese nationalism and directing popular discontent toward outside targets.
Given the severity of the financial crisis, China will be entering a stressful and possibly turbulent
period. America must be careful not to adopt policies that risk making the history of great power
conflict come to fruition.
Taiwan conflict causes nuclear war. –text modified
Chalmers Johnson, author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire, 5/14/2001,
The
Nation, Pg. 20
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US
militarists know that China’s minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the
overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000
US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese civil war,
remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown
prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United
States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States,
deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world’s most populous
country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily
escalate into a nuclear [war]holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China’s
sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces
on China’s borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
AT: China Economy Resilient
China is no longer resilient – economic stagnation is sufficient to cause regime
collapse.
Minxin Pei, adjunct senior associate in the Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment, “Will the Chinese
Communist Party Survive the Crisis?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Foreign Affair, 3-122009, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/?fa=view&id=22847
Until recently, most leading China watchers thought the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had become
remarkably resilient. Through learning and adaptation, it seemed, the world's largest and most powerful
one-party regime had become politically nimble and skillful enough to overcome difficulties that would
have overwhelmed lesser autocratic rulers. For two decades, the party has compiled an impressive list
of achievements: at home it has kept the economy growing at a gravity-defying double-digit rate, while
abroad it has pursued a pragmatic foreign policy, avoiding confrontation with the United States and
methodically gaining prestige and influence. Because of the global economic crisis, however, Beijing is
in trouble. The problems are numerous: China's exports are plummeting, tens of millions of migrant
laborers have lost their jobs, millions of college graduates cannot find employment, industrial
overcapacity is threatening deflation, and the once red-hot real estate sector has nose-dived. The
country's faltering growth is posing the hardest test yet to the CCP's resilience. To be sure, the Chinese
economy has fared less badly than many others. The country's insulated banking sector remains largely
unscathed. Indeed, the government's fiscal balance sheet is strong enough to fund a $580 billion
stimulus package (although only about a quarter represents genuinely new fiscal spending). China's
colossal $1.9 trillion in foreign exchange reserves provide a comfortable insurance policy against global
financial turmoil, and the country should be able to avoid an outright recession. But a reduced annual
growth rate -- now down to about seven percent from over 11 percent a couple of years ago -- will
bring enough trouble. Every year, the Chinese labor market grows by more than ten million workers, the
bulk of whom are leaving the countryside for urban areas in search of employment. Each percentage
point of GDP growth translates into roughly one million new jobs a year, which means that China needs
GDP to rise at least ten percent every year in order to absorb the influx of laborers. With no end to the
global crisis in sight, many are wondering how long China's economic doldrums will last and what the
political impact of stagnation will be. The conventional wisdom is that low growth will erode the party's
political legitimacy and fuel social unrest as jobless migrants and college graduates vent their
frustrations through riots and protests. Although this forecast is not necessarily wrong, it is incomplete.
Strong economic performance has been the single most important source of legitimacy for the CCP, so
prolonged economic stagnation carries the danger of disenchanting a growing middle class that was
lulled into political apathy by the prosperity of the post-Tiananmen years. And economic policies that
favor the rich have already alienated industrial workers and rural peasants, formerly the social base of
the party. Even in recent boom years, grass-roots unrest has been high, with close to 90,000 riots,
strikes, demonstrations, and collective protests reported annually. Such frustrations will only intensify in
hard times. It might seem reasonable to expect that challenges from the disaffected urban middle class,
frustrated college graduates, and unemployed migrants will constitute the principal threat to the party's
rule. If those groups were in fact to band together in a powerful coalition, then the world's longestruling party would indeed be in deep trouble. But that is not going to happen. Such a revolutionary
scenario overlooks two critical forces blocking political change in China and similar authoritarian political
systems: the regime's capacity for repression and the unity among the elite. Economic crisis and social
unrest may make it tougher for the CCP to govern, but they will not loosen the party's hold on power. A
glance at countries such as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, and Burma shows that a relatively unified
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
elite in control of the military and police can cling to power through brutal force, even in the face of
abysmal economic failure. Disunity within the ruling elite, on the other hand, weakens the regime's
repressive capacity and usually spells the rulers' doom. The CCP has already demonstrated its
remarkable ability to contain and suppress chronic social protest and small-scale dissident movements.
The regime maintains the People's Armed Police, a well-trained and well-equipped anti-riot force of
250,000. In addition, China's secret police are among the most capable in the world and are augmented
by a vast network of informers. And although the Internet may have made control of information more
difficult, Chinese censors can still react quickly and thoroughly to end the dissemination of dangerous
news. Since the Tiananmen crackdown, the Chinese government has greatly refined its repressive
capabilities. Responding to tens of thousands of riots each year has made Chinese law enforcement the
most experienced in the world at crowd control and dispersion. Chinese state security services have
applied the tactic of "political decapitation" to great effect, quickly arresting protest leaders and leaving
their followers disorganized, demoralized, and impotent. If worsening economic conditions lead to a
potentially explosive political situation, the party will stick to these tried-and-true practices to ward off
any organized movement against the regime. If popular unrest is not a true threat to the party's
continued rule, then what is? The answer could likely be disunity among the country's elite. Those who
talk of China's "authoritarian resilience" consider elite unity to be one of the CCP's most significant
achievements in recent decades, citing as evidence technocratic dominance, a lack of ideological
disputes, the creation of standardized procedures for the promotion and retirement of high officials,
and the relatively smooth leadership succession from Jiang Zemin to Hu Jintao. But there are reasons to
remain skeptical of such apparent harmony -- arrangements of power that are struck in times of
economic prosperity often come undone when crisis hits. The current Chinese leadership is a
delicately balanced coalition of regional, factional, and institutional interests, which makes it vulnerable
to dissension. To most Western eyes, China is blessed with strong, capable, and decisive leaders. But to
the Chinese leaders themselves, the situation looks somewhat different. Their resumés are remarkably
similar, as are their records as administrators. No single individual towers above the others in terms of
demonstrated leadership, vision, or performance -- which means that no one is beyond challenge, and
the stage is set for jockeying for preeminence. So far, the real glue that has held the CCP together is a
vast patronage system that has been underwritten by a long period of economic growth. The regime
has used its financial resources to balance domestic interests, satisfy different constituencies, and
purchase the contingent support of China's social elites. But this patronage system is extremely
expensive -- administrative expenses alone consume more than 20 percent of China's government
budget, and over 40 percent of China's GDP comes from fixed-asset investments such as factories and
warehouses -- a sector that is state-dominated and stuffed with pork. In other words, China's
nonideological ruling elites have stuck with the party because it has been paying them off. But when
economic hardship ends the easy handouts, the elites' support and loyalty to the system can no longer
be taken for granted. Rising social discontent may not be enough to force the party out of power, but it
might be sufficient to tempt some members of the elite to exploit the situation to their own political
advantage. Such political entrepreneurs could use populist appeals to weaken their rivals and, in the
process, open up divisions within the party's seemingly unified upper ranks. Any of these sources of
elite dissension could lead to confusion and turmoil within the Chinese state's repressive apparatus,
rendering it less capable of containing social instability and thus creating a vicious cycle of events that
could result in progressive destabilization. Does this mean the CCP's rule is doomed? Not yet. The
government has weathered the early stages of the crisis successfully, and even tensions within its
upper ranks might yield something less than regime change. But as the economic slowdown continues,
some political impact in China is likely -- and any change is apt to come from the top rather than the
bottom.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Aff
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Uniqueness
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Coal
Coal is dead – natural gas is king
Seeking Alpha, 7-13-2012, “Coal Is Dead; Long Live Natural Gas,”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/719541-coal-is-dead-long-live-natural-gas
When reality turned out to be different from expectations, coal price collapsed with natural gas
flooding the electricity generating market. Since natural gas is more efficient, cleaner, and now
inexpensive, the coal industry as a whole faces major trouble. Power generation from natural gas has
matched coal for the first time. This major trend appears unstoppable. And the worst may be yet to
come. All coal miners will have to downsize, and more will go bust. Within the United States, coal
consumption has dropped sharply during recent years as natural gas gradually becomes cheap and
abundant, replacing thermal coal in power plants. The following chart shows this trend vividly. Click to
enlarge In the meantime, U.S. coal stocks have been rising as supply constantly outruns demand, which
almost inevitably leads to lower prices. Given coal miners' razor-thin profit margin in general, a small
coal price movement often translates into huge stock price swings. And finally, as coal production piles
up, the export of coal has been rising sharply (in the following chart). The sharp rise in exports is a
consequence of price collapse—it becomes so cheap that it's a better deal for other continents to ship
coal across the ocean, still cheaper than digging in their own backyards. Coal mining is a dirty business,
polluting self while serving cheap coal to other countries perhaps wouldn't serve the industry well
politically. Given such overwhelming trends, one has to be very suspicious of the sustainability of this
industry for years to come. One possible policy change that might help coal mining is that the
environmentalists and the EPA manage to stop hydraulic fracturing of natural gas, which will curb
natural gas supply and make dirtier coal a viable option again—a bit ironic, isn't it? The one that might
do better than the others is Walter Energy, Inc. (WLT), which has a focus on metallurgical coal for the
steel industry, and is not so much dependent on thermal coal (for burning). So what about natural gas?
Would major natural gas businesses such as Chesapeake Energy Corporation (CHK) become the new
king? Not necessarily. With abundant reserve and a relatively cheap way of exploration, competition will
be fierce. Big players like Exxon Mobile still have an edge in financial resources. At the end of the day,
companies like Chesapeake are not necessarily winners even if natural gas becomes mainstream.
Overall, investors shall not count on a turnaround of the coal industry like what happened during the
last roller coaster cycle of coal prices.
Natural gas beats out coal in the long run
Ben Lefebvre and Carolyn Cui, staff writers, 5-21-2012, “Investors Look for Gas Cap,” WSJ,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304791704577418273833920922.html
Some analysts say natural gas will win out over coal long term. Utilities gradually have been turning
away from coal in response to pressure from stringent clean-air regulations. Hugh Wynne, a power
analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein, said the market probably is underestimating the industry's potential
to use more gas. For many plants, switching is as easy as powering up some units and powering down
others. Those with less flexibility are taking extreme measures, such as burning gas in units previously
dedicated to coal, Mr. Wynne said.
Natural gas destroys coal – accelerating production
Virginian-Pilot, 9-19-2012, “Cheap natural gas hurting coal market,”
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/cheap-natural-gas-hurting-coal-market
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
American mines are closing because coal right now is too expensive to use to generate electricity.
Natural gas is so abundant, and so cheap, that electricity companies are using it in new ways. Just a
few years ago, coal was the cheapest way to make electricity. Despite years of efforts, coal pollutes
horribly. It contributes to algae blooms in the Chesapeake Bay, helps make smog and ozone in Hampton
Roads, spews mercury and other toxics that contaminate our waterways. It contributes enormous
amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, helping warm the planet. Ten years ago, natural gas far cleaner than coal - was used to generate power to use only in emergencies. Gas was so fast to come
on line but so expensive that it made sense to use it to compensate for times of peak demand. Now,
though, natural gas has fallen to prices unseen in a decade. Prices are so low, in fact, that electricity
companies have begun building new natural gas power stations, with some replacing their coal
facilities. The abundance of natural gas is thanks to new drilling techniques that have been more
effective in extracting natural gas that had heretofore been unreachable. Horizontal drilling and
hydraulic fracturing together promise to provide America with vast new reserves of energy from
domestic wells. Not only is America producing more gas (and oil), it's also finding more.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Coal/CCS
Natural gas and regulations have killed CCS and coal
Ken Silverstein, Energy Central Editor for Forbes, 5-23-2012, “Natural Gas Smothering 'Clean Coal'
and Carbon Capture,” Forbes, www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/05/23/natural-gassmothering-clean-coal-and-carbon-capture/
The energy business is supposed to move at a snail’s pace. And while no one had heard of shale gas 10
years ago, it is now the hot topic. At the same time, the price of such unconventional natural gas has
declined precipitously, making it an economic bargain compared to coal. Meantime, the coal sector
has been given a number of one-two punches by environmental regulators with the most recent
coming in March that nullified any future plants that can’t sequester carbon. “Regulation is certainly a
key,” says Nick Akins, chief executive of American Electric Power, during an EnergyBiz appearance. “It
must be consistent and coherent. But decisions are being made and the regulations could change
overnight.” As for AEP, it has chosen to hold off on building a pilot plant that would use carbon capture
and sequestration technology. It estimated the cost to be $664 million, roughly half of which was to be
paid by the U.S. Department of Energy. It cited the prevailing political landscape, noting that it would be
unable to recover its expenses from ratepayers. “We can’t forget about the customers who are paying
the bills and who would authorize this recovery,” says Akins. “There was not any enabling legislation
requiring this to be done. We are already dealing with environmental costs and it is very difficult for
state utility commissions and customers to pay the additional costs over and above basic infrastructure
needs.” In 2009, the Energy Department awarded AEP $334 million through the Clean Coal Power
Initiative to help pay for installation of a commercial-scale carbon capture and sequestration system at
AEP’s Mountaineer coal-fueled power plant in New Haven, WV. The system was designed to capture at
least 90 percent of the carbon dioxide from 235 megawatts of the plant’s 1,300 megawatts of capacity.
The captured carbon, approximately 1.5 million metric tons per year, would have been treated and
compressed, then injected into suitable geologic formations for permanent storage approximately 1.5
miles below the surface. AEP is not the only one having “clean coal” troubles. So is Tenaska Energy,
which had been pushing hard for a coal gasification facility that scrubs coal of most of its impurities
before turning it into a gas and creating electricity. Exelon Corp., however, is opposed, emphasizing that
it would be cheaper and easier to just burn the natural gas, noting that Illinois taxpayers would have to
pay $3.5 billion for this deal. Tenaska, on the other hand, has been trying to get the state legislature
there to view the project as a 40-year endeavor. It is adding that Exelon has a vested interest in stopping
the construction: Capacity from the coal gasification unit would be bid into the system, making Exelon’s
energy offerings less valuable. Now, though, Tenaska may relent and build a traditional natural gas
plant. But it is saying that the same facility could be later modified to gasify coal. “It makes absolutely no
sense to take coal and make synthetic natural gas out of it,” says Paul Grimmer, chief executive of Eltron
Research in Boulder, Colo., in a talk with this reporter. “The processes are too expensive. But if you see a
huge run-up in natural gas, it may then make sense.” Duke Energy, however, will be firing up a 618
megawatt coal gasification plant in Indiana this fall. It’s a $3 billion public-private partnership that has
gotten a pummeling from its opponents who have said that the price tag just keeps rising. But DukeIndiana President Doug Esamann told this reporter that the facility will be the state’s most reliable and
most cost effective electric generator. It will also have the potential to capture and bury carbon
releases. Meanwhile, Southern Company also has a $3 billion coal gasification effort in Mississippi. Then
there’s FutureGen. It’s a $1.1 billion project that is expected to be 200 megawatts — one that will
retrofit an oil-fueled unit in Meredosia, Illinois. “Gasification has been around for some time,” says John
Mead, director of the Coal Extraction and Utilization Research Center at Southern Illinois University
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Carbondale, in an earlier talk. “But incremental improvements” in current coal generation technologies
are becoming increasingly beneficial. The Obama administration wants to not just advance coal
gasification but also carbon sequestration. To that end, it is providing funds to get 5 to 10 such projects
underway. That’s possible within 15 years, says the Government Accountability Office. But technical
obstacles still persist that would increase the cost of electricity to consumers by at least 30 percent and
potentially as much as 80 percent. That’s a tough pill to swallow. But President Obama is trying to
throw coal-based utilities a life-saving rope, saying that the government will assist with the financing
of progressive, new technologies. Some power companies are getting cold feet, however, as natural
gas is providing them with an acceptable escape route.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No CCS
No CCS investment – liability fear
Will Reisinger et al, Staff Attorney, J.D. and B.A., Nolan Moser, Staff Attorney, J.D. and B.A., Trent A.
Dougherty, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ohio Environmental Council, J.D. and James D. Madeiros, J.D.
Candidate, 2009, “Reconciling King Coal and Climate Change: A Regulatory Framework for Carbon
Capture and Storage,” Vermont Journal of Environmental Law
There are many potential sources of liability that storage operators may face after CO[2] is injected
underground. n86 Unlike the direct legal obstacles to storage outlined in our discussion of property
rights above, unresolved liability issues can be characterized as indirect disincentives to CCS
development. Potential operators of carbon storage projects have identified liability as a primary
barrier to CCS. n87¶ For the purposes of this paper, post-injection liability for non-performing
sequestration operations applies solely to the party who must make economic restitution should there
be a failure to retain the CO[2] as originally sequestered. A non-performing CCS operation is one that
has not properly sequestered CO[2],either by allowing the gas to seep out and return to the
atmosphere, migrate onto the property of another, or contaminate groundwater resources. Each of
these scenarios has the potential to cost the operator money through legal damage awards or
contract-type damages for non-compliance with a sequestration agreement.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Link
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Link – OTEC
This card doesn’t exist
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Link UQ
Coal phased out for natural gas
Associated Press, 8-16-2012, “AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low,” by Kevin
Begos, lexis
"The Sierra Club has serious doubts about the net benefits of natural gas," said Deborah Nardone,
director of the group's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.¶ "Without sufficient oversight and protections, we
have no way of knowing how much dangerous pollution is being released into Americans' air and water
by the gas industry. For those reason, our ultimate goal is to replace coal with clean energy and energy
efficiency and as little natural gas as possible."¶ Wind supplied less than 3 percent of the nation's
electricity in 2011 according to EIA data, and solar power was far less. Estimates for this year suggest
that coal will account for about 37 percent of the nation's electricity, natural gas 30 percent, and
nuclear about 19 percent.¶ Some worry that cheap gas could hurt renewable energy efforts.¶
"Installation of new renewable energy facilities has now all but dried up, unable to compete on a grid
now flooded with a low-cost, high-energy fuel," two experts from Colorado's Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Institute said in an essay posted this week on Environment360, a Yale University
website.¶ How much further the shift from coal to natural gas can go is unclear. Bentek says that power
companies plan to retire 175 coal-fired plants over the next five years. That could bring coal's CO2
emissions down to 1980 levels. However, the EIA predicts prices of natural gas will start to rise a bit
next year, and then more about eight years from now.
Coal is dead
SNL Daily, 8-10-2012, “CSX executive: Baseload coal market eroding amid gas competition,” lexisnexis
In the first four months of 2010, 68%
of the approximately 90 coal-fired power plants served by Eastern U.S. railroad CSX
Corp. utilized 60% or more of their total tonnage, but that number has plummeted to just 17% in 2012.¶ In
the first four months of 2010, nestled between the recession and an accelerated decline in natural gas prices, 68% of the approximately 90
coal-fired power plants served by Eastern U.S. railroad CSX Corp. utilized 60% or more of their total tonnage.¶ Over the same period in 2012,
17% of CSX-served plants utilized at least 60% of their coal tonnage, and none more than 80%.¶ "If you
look at our business model for coal, it used to be entirely base-loaded power plants," said Chris Jenkins, CSX vice president for coal and
automotive service groups, during a discussion on trends in coal Aug. 8 hosted by TD Securities Equity Research. "We are moving into an
environment where coal-fired power plants are only partially base loaded and many are only loaded in an intermediate and peaking basis."¶
The most serious risk to CSX's coal business is the development of new natural gas plants. But Jenkins said the need for a diversified fuel mix is
preventing what he calls an "avalanche" of natural gas plant construction.¶ "It's interesting, because we are not seeing an overwhelming
amount of new natural gas construction taking place," he said. "I think it's the case that many utilities are wary of becoming too dependent on
natural gas. We're certainly seeing some natural gas plant construction. Essentially, most utilities are going to maintain a view they need a
diversified mix of fuel types and generally not going to force coal out of their portfolios."¶ CSX is most exposed to southern utilities - its top coal
customers include Duke Energy Corp., Southern Co., South Carolina Public Service Authority and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. - where
Jenkins said stockpiles are 40 days above normal. Eastern U.S. inventories are averaging 76 days of supply.¶ Jenkins
said utility coal
volumes have reached a bottom, though that bottom may last into 2013. He said the coal that CSX moves can only compete with
natural gas prices between $4/MMBtu and $5/MMBtu.
US coal use ending – Obama
Congressional Documents and Publications, 6-4-2012, “Inhofe: Senate Will Vote in Next Two
Weeks on Effort to Stop Obama War on Coal,” U.S. Senate Documents, lexisnexis
One of the most interesting and telling aspects of President Obama's disingenuous attempt to rebrand
himself as a supporter of fossil fuels is that he never mentions coal. He doesn't even pretend.¶ In fact, up
until very recently President Obama's campaign website had a section devoted to the President's goals
for every energy resource except coal. Only after facing intense criticism, and disappointing primary
results in coal states, the Obama campaign attempted quietly to add a "clean coal" section to its site.¶
Well, apparently President Obama's definition of "clean coal" is no coal. In his 2013 budget request,
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
the President cut funding for coal research and development at the National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) by nearly 30 percent. This is at the same time EPA has proposed greenhouse gas
standards for coal-fired power plants that require Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) - a
technology that is not ready to operate on a commercial scale. So on the one hand we have Obama
issuing standards in which utilities can't comply without using CCS. On the other, we have him
handicapping that very technology.¶ After cap-and-trade was thoroughly rejected by the American
people and defeated in a Democrat controlled congress, President Obama promised that he wouldn't
give up in his efforts to stop coal development. He also said "Cap-and-trade was just one way of
skinning the cat. It was a means, not an end. I'm going to be looking for other means to address this
problem."
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Internals
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
AT: US CCS solves China
China’s plants are already cleaner than ours
Richard K. Morse, Director of Research on Coal and Carbon Markets at Stanford University’s Program
on Energy and Sustainable Development, July 2012, “Cleaning Up Coal Subtitle: From Climate Culprit to
Solution,” Foreign Affairs, lexisnexis
The case of China, the world's biggest carbon emitter, demonstrates just how hard it is to give up the
fuel. The country's reliance on coal is becoming increasingly costly. Over the last five years, as demand
for coal has risen while supply has struggled to keep up, Chinese coal prices have skyrocketed.
Meanwhile, tightly regulated electricity prices have not been allowed to rise in parallel. Pricing has
become so distorted that at many points, a ton of coal has cost more than the value of the electricity it
could create. China's dependence on coal is not only an expensive habit but also an environmental
hazard. In addition to emitting carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, coal combustion creates mountains of
toxic ash that are swept up in storms and blanket cities with particulate poison. That pollution is
increasingly drawing the ire of the Chinese public and has even sparked protests. Beijing is making
every effort to kick its coal habit. The government has set a target of deriving 15 percent of the
country's energy from nonfossil fuels by 2020 (the current figure is eight percent), with nuclear and
hydroelectric power likely to make up most of the difference in the electricity sector. It has given
generous subsidies to wind and solar power, industries that have made strong gains in recent years.
Beijing is also focusing on improving the efficiency of coal-fired power generation by funding state-ofthe-art engineering research and shutting down older, dirtier coal plants . As a result, the average
Chinese coal plant is already far more efficient than the average American one. These policies have
started to curb China's coal addiction, but they are fighting an uphill battle against ever-increasing
energy demand. Coal's share of new electricity capacity in China dropped from 81 percent in 2007 to
64 percent in 2010, but the figure rose to 65 percent in 2011, proving that the march toward alternative
sources of energy will not be linear.
China investing in CCS now
Xinhua General News, 8-6-2012, “China’s first CCS project captures 40,000 tonnes of CO2,” Domestic
News, lexisnexis
China's first carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration project sealed off more than 40,000
tonnes of carbon dioxide in the past 15 months in north China's Inner Mongolia autonomous region,
operators told Xinhua Monday.¶ As an environmental protection project of China's megaton direct
liquefaction coal project, the CCS project was listed as a national key technology project and was
implemented by China's leading coal company Shenhua Group Corporation Ltd, located in
Wulanmulun, Erjinhoro Banner, Inner Mongolia.¶ The project proved China as the first country able to
realize the entire process of capturing carbon dioxide and sealing it in saline aquifers, said Shu Geping,
general engineer of China Shenhua Coal to Liquid and Chemical Co., Ltd.¶ Experiments and research are
still underway and the goal of sealing 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide is expected to be realized in
June 2014, Shu said.¶ The underground saline aquifers in Ordos Basin in Inner Mongolia can store tens of
billions of carbon dioxide, and this kind of basin is quite common in China, which means the
demonstration project will greatly contribute to reducing China's carbon emissions, said Zhang
Dongxiao, dean of the Clean Energy Research Institute of Peking University.¶ About 80 percent of China's
carbon dioxide emissions come from coal burning. China made a promise to the United Nations that by
2020 the country would reduce carbon dioxide emissions per gross domestic product by 40 to 45
percent, based on levels observed in 2005.¶ Researchers with Shenhua said the current CCS technology
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
only stores carbon dioxide but can not generate profits. To popularize the technology, carbon dioxide
needs to become a resource that can be utilized, and Shenhua has started relevant research, Shu said.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
Impacts
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Fails – Timeframe
CCS can’t come online fast enough to solve
Mike Orcut, Technology Review’s research editor, 6-29-2012, “Will Carbon Capture Be Ready on
Time?” Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428355/will-carbon-capture-beready-on-time/
Many long-term strategies for combating climate change count heavily on the ability to capture huge
amounts of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and store it permanently in deep
underground rock formations. But high costs and lingering technical uncertainties mean the
technology, so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS), might not be able to play a significant role in
cutting carbon emissions. A recent report from the International Energy Agency warns that the
development and deployment of CCS is "seriously off pace" as a way to prevent the average global
temperature from rising more than 2 °C—a widely used target in climate strategy. The window to begin
applying CCS toward consequential emissions reduction is "shrinking fast," says the agency, which has
declared that CCS must supply over a fifth of the emissions reductions needed by 2050 to keep the
temperature rise below 2 °C.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
CCS Fails – Tech
Tech’s not coming
Brad Plumer, environment and energy analyst at Wonk Book, 10-11-2012, “How’s that big carboncapture push going? Slowly. Too slowly.” Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/11/so-you-want-to-stash-your-carbonemissions-underground/
So how’s that going? A big new report from the Global CCS Institute takes stock of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects
around the world as of 2012. And progress has been… rather slow. While a handful of carbon-capture projects are coming online,
there’s still nowhere near enough to make a major contribution toward tackling climate change. What’s more, no
one has yet figured out how to effectively capture and bury emissions from coal-fired power plants — a tantalizing idea
that could have a huge impact around the world. If it could ever work. Worldwide, there are just eight CCS projects in operation. Most
of those involve taking carbon-dioxide from gas processing and fertilizer plants and pumping it down into older oil wells to flush out hard-toreach crude oil, a technique known as “enhanced oil recovery.” The United States has four such carbon-capture projects now operating,
including the Val Verdes Gas Plants in western Texas. Altogether, these eight projects are storing 23 million tons of carbon-dioxide underground
each year. The number is expected to rise to 16 projects capturing 36 million tons of carbon-dioxide per year by 2015. That’s not too shabby—
it’s like taking six million cars off the road (though that’s partially offset by the additional oil production). But this
is also considered
woefully insufficient. According to the International Energy Agency, the world needs something like 130 CCS projects by 2020 to meet
its climate targets.
US development fails
Brad Plumer, environment and energy analyst at Wonk Book, 10-11-2012, “How’s that big carboncapture push going? Slowly. Too slowly.” Washington Post,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/11/so-you-want-to-stash-your-carbonemissions-underground/
We’re nowhere close. Moreover, no country has yet figured out how to capture and bury carbon-dioxide from
coal-fired power plants effectively. Given that China and India are burning coal at a furious pace, there’s a lot of hope for this technology.
But efforts to develop “clean coal” (the polite euphemism) in the United States are foundering, even after
Congress shelled out $6.9 billion for deployment. There are a few demonstration projects in the works, but the technology
is still too pricey — CCS coal plants cost about 75 percent more than regular coal plants.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Impact – China Stability
No CCP lashout from instability
Pravada, 8-15-2005, “National poverty does not affect political stability in China”
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/15985_China.html
According to official information from the Chinese government, there were 74,000 incidents of massive
street disorders registered in China. The riots were caused with either social or political reasons,
although Chinese authorities prefer not to dwell upon the latter. It may seem at first sight that the
number is more than just large, taking into consideration the fact that many of the demonstrations
ended with clashes with police. As a rule, China does not distribute information about any victims in this
case. However, one has to acknowledge that street protests in China do not endanger Chinese
politicians. It may seem strange that China, which can be described as the fastest developing state in
the world, has to deal with such vigorous manifestations of people's protesting attitudes. Quite
remarkably, the misery of millions of Chinese does not affect the political stability of the state. One
should analyze the culture of subordination to power, which counts thousands of years of history to try
to understand the phenomenon. Furthermore, one should pay attention to the ability of the Communist
Party of China to manipulate people. It is worth mentioning at this point that Chinese authorities have
recently decided to grant Communist Party membership to businessmen. Chinese businessmen won an
opportunity to incorporate their own people in the ruling party, thus strengthening the communist
regime in the country on the whole. China's geographic size is highly important too. There are provinces
in China, which bear some resemblance to separate independent states: they have their own climate,
economic principles, a special political regime and even peculiar ethnic structure. Even if thousands of
paupers take to the streets and fight with policemen in a city with a million-strong population, the
people residing in a neighboring city may not support the protesting action even in they live in worse
conditions. The Chinese have been learning patience and obedience for centuries. The Chinese
leadership is perfectly aware of it. Chinese public organizations, for example, are not allowed to
establish regional departments. The state controls public activities and the field of communications,
especially the Internet. One has to give credit to the Chinese Communist Party administration, though: it
sometimes listens to requirements of the malcontent. People presumably protest against corruption,
which literally permeates the Chinese society from small village communities to the top of the political
hierarchy in Beijing. China fights against corruption using ruthless measures at times, sentencing most
odious corruption-linked figures to death penalty. It would therefore be sinful for people to complain,
but the traditionally high level of bribery can always be explained with temporal economic problems.
However, the art of ruling, which the Chinese administration masters perfectly, has its limits too. The
number of protesters was seven times lower in China ten years ago in comparison with the current
situation (the number of street protests made up approximately 10,000 a year).
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Impact – China Econ
Chinese economy resilient—manufacturing proves
Bloomberg News 10-24-11 Asia Economic Resilience Seen in China Manufacturing Gauge, Japan
Exports http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/china-manufacturing-may-expand-for-first-timein-four-months-index-shows.html
The MSCI Asia Pacific Index climbed 2.6 percent as of 5:19 p.m. in Tokyo. Stocks in China rallied after
the data. The benchmark Shanghai Composite Index rose 2.3 percent to 2,370.33 at the 3 p.m. close.
The gauge declined earlier after Premier Wen Jiabao signaled over the weekend that policy makers will
maintain an anti-inflation monetary stance. ‘Decisive’ Action The yuan rose 0.17 percent to 6.3732 as of
12:33 p.m. in Shanghai, according to the China Foreign Exchange Trading System. The yen was little
changed at 76.21 per dollar at 5:24 p.m. in Tokyo. The currency rose to a post-World War II high of 75.82
last week, prompting Japanese Finance Minister Jun Azumi to signal today he’s ready to intervene in the
currency market to stem its gains, saying Japan may take “decisive” steps. Japan’s exports increased 2.4
percent in September from a year earlier as demand for cars and auto parts rose, the Ministry of
Finance said in Tokyo today. The median estimate of 26 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was for a 1
percent advance after a 2.8 percent gain in August. In Taiwan, industrial production rose 1.62 percent
in September from a year earlier, government data showed today. That was slower than the median of
11 estimates for a 6.1 percent increase. At the same time, the island’s jobless rate fell to 4.27 percent
last month compared with economist expectations of a 4.4 percent rate, another report showed.
Recession Risk Emerging markets are strong and resilient, Nouriel Roubini, the co-founder and
chairman of Roubini Global Economics LLC, said in Jakarta today. He also said there’s a 50 percent
probability of recession in the U.S., euro area and the U.K.
No hard landing for Chinese economy—manufacturing and internal construction
checks
Bloomberg News 10-24-11 Asia Economic Resilience Seen in China Manufacturing Gauge, Japan
Exports http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-24/china-manufacturing-may-expand-for-first-timein-four-months-index-shows.html
The data “confirm our view that there is no risk of a hard landing in China, Qu Hongbin, a Hong Kongbased economist with HSBC, said in a statement on the PMI report. The index’s expansion marks ‘‘a
steady start to manufacturing activities in the fourth quarter.’’ The official manufacturing index
released by the statistics bureau and the China Federation of Logistics and Purchasing had a reading of
51.2 in September. The gauge hasn’t fallen below 50 since February 2009. ‘‘If the official PMI follows
suit of the HSBC PMI, we are probably further away from any hope of a meaningful stimulus,’’ said
Dong Tao, a Hong Kong-based economist with Credit Suisse AG. ‘‘I’m not convinced that the down cycle
is over judging from steel, shipping, auto orders and home sales.’’ Xugong Group Construction
Machinery Inc., China’s biggest maker of construction equipment, has seen demand cool since April
amid monetary tightening by the central bank and is ‘‘concerned’’ about Europe’s economic outlook,
Chairman Wang Min said last week. Even so, government policies to boost spending on water projects
and spur construction of public housing offer ‘‘big room’’ for manufacturing to pick up, he said.
China isn’t key to the global economy
AFP, January 27, 2008
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
SHANGHAI, Jan 27, 2008 (AFP) - With fears mounting of a global economic slowdown, some analysts
predict developing giants China and India, with their booming growth, will help lessen the impact.
Stock market turmoil this week triggered by fears of a U.S. recession in the wake of a massive mortgage
crisis has ignited debate over whether Asia’s two rising economic stars are strong enough to power the
world economy. This directly challenges the 20th-century economic adage that when the U.S.
economy sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold. “What is occurring is the rise of other
economies to balance out those of the U.S. — and that has to be a good thing,” said Chris DevonshireEllis, a business consultant specializing on China and India trade. “The U.S. has problems but these
will be offset against markets elsewhere. The new world order is working,” he told AFP. China saw
scorching expansion of 11.4 percent last year, closely followed by India’s 9.4 percent, and the prospects
for both economies remain strong. “We expect China and India to support regional growth in the
event of a significant slowdown in the U.S.,” said ING Barings Asia economist Prakash Sakpal. Such a
shakeup is significant because jobs and livelihoods are at stake, but also because, as financier George
Soros wrote in the Financial Times, it could signal a major shift in economic power. “The current
financial crisis is less likely to cause a global recession than a radical realignment of the global economy,
with a relative decline of the U.S. and the rise of China and other countries in the developing world.”
But Zhang Ming, an economist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, dismisses the notion that the
Chinese and Indian economies are independent of U.S. consumption. “If you want to look at who is
going to be the motor of global growth then you have to look at who provides the biggest market for
the world’s production of goods,” said Zhang. “In the short run America is still strongest. China still
has a long way to go.” China, whose 3.4-trillion-dollar economy is about one-third derived from
exports, could easily face economic difficulties if it were to lose the 2.5 growth percentage points
garnered from trade, said Stephen Green, a Standard Chartered economist. However, Indian exports
represent only about 17 percent of its 1.1 trillion dollar gross domestic product, allowing it greater
resiliency in the face of a U.S. recession, analysts said. “Our economy is geared to domestic demand.
We are insulated so that even if there is a U.S. recession it will not have such a direct impact on the
Indian economy,” said Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry economic adviser Anjun Roy.
But given that India’s share of world trade in 2006 stood at 1.5 percent, it is not in a position to boost
the world economy, Roy said, citing official statistics. According to data published by the World Trade
Organization, China’s merchandise exports last year totaled 8.0 percent of the world total, while imports
stood at 6.4 percent. No cumulative figure was provided. However, Stephen Roach, a leading
economist as head of investment bank Morgan Stanley in Asia, said this week that the idea China and
India could power the world economy on their own could “turn out to be a fantasy.” Roach, who is
forecasting a U.S. recession, also argued in a recent note that when the U.S. consumer is in trouble this
has great consequences for the world economy. He calculated that the American consumer spent a
combined 9.5 trillion dollars last year while Chinese only laid out one trillion dollars and Indians 650
billion dollars. “It is almost mathematically impossible for China and India to offset a pullback in
American consumption,” he said.
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Impact – China War
Economic ties prevent China war – comparative evidence
Noah Feldman, Bemis Professor of Law at Harvard University and Senior Fellow of the Society of
Fellows, 5-16-2013, “The Unstoppable Force vs. the Immovable Object”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/16/china_united_states_cool_war_power?page=full
The argument that the United States and China will not find themselves in a struggle for global power
depends on one historical fact: Never before has the dominant world power been so economically
interdependent with the rising challenger it must confront. Under these conditions, trade and debt
provide overwhelming economic incentives to avoid conflict that would be costly to all. Over time, the
two countries' mutual interests will outweigh any tensions that arise between them.
No US-China war – economic integration, both sides would de-escalate because they
have too much to lose
Peter W. Singer, Director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative and a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at
the Brookings Institution, 12-20-2012, “Inside China’s Secret Arsenal”
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-12/inside-chinas-secret-arsenal
The episode underscores an important point: Unlike the U.S. and the Soviets, the U.S. and China are
bound together by hundreds of billions of dollars in mutual trade and investments. War between the
two countries would be mutually ruinous. Leaders on both sides know it. American and Chinese forces
will eye each other suspiciously, and the relationship may become tense. But recall that the much
feared war between the U.S. and Soviets—the issue that defined world politics for the second half of
the 20th century—never did break out. With so much to lose, the two toughest kids decided it wasn’t
worth it to fight.
No China war – economic ties, no benefits from fighting
Kevin Sullivan, editor of RealClearWorld, 5-1-2012, “The New World Disorder”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/01/ian_bremmer_every_nation_for_itself_review_1
14012.html
The greatest potential, as Bremmer notes, is the possibility of greater cooperation between Washington
and Beijing to secure the global system. Unlike during the Cold War, when the West had to compete
with a polar enemy peddling a competing ideology, China and the United States have more reasons to
choose cooperation over conflict. Both are highly invested in each other's economic and political
stability, and both have a stake in keeping the peace on the high seas in order to maintain the free
flow of products, resources and riches. Both require safe and secure access to oil and natural gas.
Neither would benefit from any additional wars in Asia. Simply put, says Bremmer, there can be no
global rebalance and stability "without coordinated leadership and burden sharing from America and
China."
WSDI 2014
Coal DA
No Impact – CCP Stability
CCP resilient
Minxin Pei, the Tom and Margot Pritzker ’72 Professor of Government and director of the Keck Center
for International and Strategic Studies at Claremont McKenna College, Jan 2012, “is ccp rule fragile or
resilient?,” Journal of Democracy
In terms of authoritarian resilience, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) stands out as exemplary. Not
only did the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) survive the turbulent spring of 1989, when millions
of protesters nationwide nearly toppled its rule and it put down demonstrations in Beijing’s Tiananmen
Square with dramatic violence, but it has since thrived. The ruling elites coalesced around a new
strategy that joined the promotion of rapid (mostly export-led) economic growth to the preservation
of one-party rule through selective political repression. The rapid growth of the Chinese economy in
the post-Tiananmen era has lent the CCP popular legitimacy and the resources to defend its political
monopoly. The party has demonstrated remarkable tactical sophistication, a knack for adaptation, and a
capacity for asserting control. It has succeeded in maintaining unity within the elite cadres, resisted the
global tide of democratization, and prevented the revolution in communications technologies from
undermining its grip on the flow of information. It has also manipulated nationalism to bolster its
support among the young and better educated, eliminated any form of organized opposition, and
contained social unrest through a combination of carrots and sticks. The CCP’s ability to consolidate
authoritarian rule even as a wave of democratic openings swept much the world after 1989 raises
several important questions. Does the Chinese case validate any of the theories of authoritarian
resilience advanced by scholars who specialize in the study of other regions? What are the explanations
for authoritarian resilience in China, and what evidence supports them? Are these explanations
theoretically robust? Is authoritarian resilience in China a passing phenomenon, or is it something more
durable?