142 ss renewables disads redux

8/14/2019 142 SS Renewables Disads Redux

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/142-ss-renewables-disads-redux 1/74

Alternative Energy DAsDDI 2008Culpepper et al.

Alternative Energy Disads

Alternative Energy Disads ........................................................................................................................1

Space Mil 1NC Shell ..................................................................................................................................3

Space Mil 1NC Shell ..................................................................................................................................4Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell ..............................................................................................................5

Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell ..............................................................................................................6




Solar Space Key To Space Mil ................................................................................................................10

Heg Scenario .............................................................................................................................................11

Ext – DOD Wants Space Mil ...................................................................................................................12

Ext – Other Nations Will Follow ............................................................................................................13

Russia Scenario ........................................................................................................................................14

China Scenario .........................................................................................................................................15China Scenario .........................................................................................................................................16

China Scenario Brink ..............................................................................................................................17

India Scenario ..........................................................................................................................................18

Non U – Space Mil ...................................................................................................................................19

Non U – Space Mil ...................................................................................................................................20

Non U – Space Mil ...................................................................................................................................21

Non U – Solar Space ................................................................................................................................22

No Impact .................................................................................................................................................23

AFF – Solar Power Key To Econ ............................................................................................................24

Birds Of Prey 1NC ...................................................................................................................................25

Birds Of Prey 1NC ...................................................................................................................................26Birds Of Prey Key ....................................................................................................................................27

Birds Of Prey Key ....................................................................................................................................28

Birds Of Prey Key ....................................................................................................................................29

Birds Of Prey Key ....................................................................................................................................30

Birds Of Prey Key ....................................................................................................................................31

Turbines Kill Birds ..................................................................................................................................32





Turbines Kill Birds ..................................................................................................................................37Ext – Faulty Surveys ................................................................................................................................38

Ext – Faulty Surveys ................................................................................................................................39

Ecosystems Key ........................................................................................................................................40

Ecosystems Key ........................................................................................................................................41

Ecosystems Key ........................................................................................................................................42

Ecosystems Key ........................................................................................................................................43

Readiness Shell .........................................................................................................................................44

Readiness Shell .........................................................................................................................................45

1




Readiness Shell .........................................................................................................................................46

Uniqueness ................................................................................................................................................47

Link Ext.................................................................................................................................................... 48

Link Ext.................................................................................................................................................... 49

Link Ext.................................................................................................................................................... 50Readiness Brink .......................................................................................................................................51

Readiness Good ........................................................................................................................................52

Readiness Good ........................................................................................................................................53

Earthquake Module .................................................................................................................................54

Wind -> Earthquakes ..............................................................................................................................55

Earthquake Detection Key ......................................................................................................................56

Readiness = Iraq Withdrawal .................................................................................................................57

Terrorism Module ....................................................................................................................................58

Inefficient disad? ......................................................................................................................................59

Marine Ecosystems Module ....................................................................................................................60

Marine Ecosystems Module ....................................................................................................................61Climate Change Module ..........................................................................................................................62

Climate Change Module ..........................................................................................................................63

Climate Change Module ..........................................................................................................................64

Wind = Climate Change ..........................................................................................................................65

Wind -> Climate Change .........................................................................................................................66

Climate Change = Extinction ..................................................................................................................67

Wind Power Hurts Environment ...........................................................................................................68



Wind Power = FF Use ..............................................................................................................................71

AFF Answers ............................................................................................................................................72AFF Answers ............................................................................................................................................73

AFF Answers ............................................................................................................................................74

2




Space Mil 1NC Shell

A. UniquenessVarious space and defense agencies recognize the need to provide both

security for energy and humanity in spaceNational Security S pace Office, 10/10/07. Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security"

http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, toinclude revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basicidea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2) , collectgigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power viadirect connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low‐intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth todayThis amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmentalstewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSPcapability. NASA and DOE have collectively spent $80M over the last three decades in sporadic efforts studying this concept (by

comparison, the U.S. Government has spent approximately $21B over the last 50 years continuously pursuing nuclear fusion). Thefirst major effort occurred in the 1970’s where scientific feasibility of the concept was established and a reference 5 GW design was proposed. Unfortunately 1970’s architecture and technology levels could not support an economic case for development relative toother lower ‐cost energy alternatives on the market. In 1995-1997 NASA initiated a “Fresh Look” Study to re‐examine the conceptrelative to modern technological capabilities. The report (validated by the National Research Council) indicated that technologyvectors to satisfy SBSP development were converging quickly and provided recommended development focus areas, but for variousreasons that again included the relatively lower cost of other energies, policy makers elected not to pursue a development effort. The post-9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than adecade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now underthreat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition byemerging global economies . Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, oftenimported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologiesto enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets

and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.

B. Link A renewed interest in solar development leads to an ambitious new spaceprogramJohn C. Mankins, was with NASA for 25 years, including 10 years with JPL in Pasadena, and 15 years at NASA Headquarters in

Washington "Space-based Solar Power: Inexhaustible Energy From Orbit", Spring 2008. Ad Astra Magazine.

http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf Photographs of the sky over Beijing on a hot summer day—dark with particulates and unburned hydrocarbons dangerous to the youngand the elderly—illustrate that the air pollution crisis that once plagued Los Angeles is not gone, but has only relocated. Similarly,making the energy to run civilization releases enormous volumes of greenhouse gasses—over two pounds (one kg) of carbon dioxidefor each kilowatthour (kwh) generated by coal. Global average temperatures and ocean

surface temperatures are rising, along with insurance premiums for coastal areas—when insurance can be found at all.At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitiousmissions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much asthey do on progress in space transportation. New energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for theclimate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs.

3




Space Mil 1NC Shell

Should the US militarize space, India, Russia, Pakistan and Japan are all sure tofollow

Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104Perhaps of even greater concern is that several other nations, including one of China's regional rivals, India, may feel compelled toseek offensive as well as defensive capabilities in space. The U.S. trade journal Defense News, for instance, quoted unidentifiedIndian defense officials as stating that their country had already begun developing its own kinetic-energy (nonexplosive, hit-to-kill)and laser-based antisatellite weapons. If India goes down that path, its archrival Pakistan will probably follow suit. Like India,Pakistan has a well-developed ballistic missile program, including medium-range missiles that could launch an antisatellite system.Even Japan, the third major Asian power, might join such a space race. In June 2007 the National Diet of Japan began considering a bill backed by the current Fukuda government that would permit the development of satellites for "military and national security" purposes. As for Russia, in the wake of the Chinese test President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's stance against theweaponization of space. At the same time, though, he refused to criticize Beijing's actions and blamed the U.S. instead. The Americanefforts to build a missile defense system, Putin charged, and the increasingly aggressive American plans for a military position inspace were prompting China's moves. Yet Russia itself, as a major spacefaring power that has incorporated satellites into its national

security structure, would be hard-pressed to forgo entering an arms race in space. Given the proliferation of spacefaring entities [see box at left], proponents of a robust space warfare strategy believe that arming the heavens is inevitable and that it would be best for the U.S. to get there first with firepower. Antisatellite and space-based weapons, they argue, will be necessary not only to defend U.S.military and commercial satellites but also to deny any future adversary the use of space capabilities to enhance the performance of itsforces on the battlefield.

C. Internal Link and ImpactAmassing space weaponry leads to a catastrophic international exchangeGordon Mitchell, Associate Professor and Dir Debate – U Pittsburgh, Et al., ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense, July 2001,

http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6.htmlA buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that '… the presence of space weapons…will result in the increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage isstrengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-

satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stemsfrom the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UNConference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to targetsomething on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, suchinterceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars', capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. Thedizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation wouldenhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human handsand endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yalesociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which havemany sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlockingcomplexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normalaccident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36

Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectileswould likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling tocontemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectilereentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by anuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst DavidLangford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack wouldretaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by acomputer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

4

http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html#note1%23note1


















Chinese Silicon Valley 1NC Shell

A. Uniqueness-No solar power now, lack of R&D funding kills widespreadsuccess

Andrew C. Revkin and Matthew L. WaldMonday, International Herald Tribune, "Lack of financing casts shadow on solar power", July 16, 2007http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/solar.phpSolar power, which has captured the public imagination strongly in Europe, is making big inroads in the United States. Panels thatconvert sunlight to electricity are winning supporters around the world - from Europe, where gleaming arrays cloak skyscrapers andfarmers' fields, to Wall Street, where stock offerings for panel makers have had a great ride, to California, where Governor ArnoldSchwarzenegger's "Million Solar Roofs" initiative is promoted as building a homegrown industry and fighting global warming.But forall the enthusiasm about harvesting sunlight, some of the most ardent experts and investors in solar technologies say that moving thisenergy source from niche to mainstream - last year it provided less than 0.01 percent of the U.S. electricity supply - is unlikely withoutsignificant technological breakthroughs. And given the current scale of research in private and government laboratories, that is notexpected to happen anytime soon.Indeed, even a quarter century from now, said the U.S. Energy Department official in charge of renewable energy, solar power might account for, at best, 2 percent or 3 percent of the energy supply in the United States.In themeantime, coal-burning power plants, the main source of smokestack emissions linked to global warming, are being built around the

world at the rate of more than one a week.Propelled by government incentives in Germany and Japan, as well as a growing number of American states, sales of photovoltaic silicon panels have soared, helping steadily drop manufacturing costs and leading to widespread product refinements.But Vinod Khosla, a prominent Silicon Valley entrepreneur focused on energy, said the market-drivenimprovements were not happening fast enough to put solar technology beyond much more than a boutique investment."Most of theenvironmental stuff out there now is toys compared to the scale we need to really solve the planet's problems," Khosla said.Scientistslong ago calculated that an hour's worth of the sunlight bathing the planet held far more energy than humans worldwide could use in ayear, and the first practical devices for converting light to electricity were designed more than half a century ago.Yet research on solar power and methods for storing intermittent energy flows has long received less spending, in the United States and other industrializedcountries, than energy options with more political support.For decades, conventional nuclear power and nuclear fusion receiveddominant shares of government energy-research money.These days, a growing amount of government money in the United States isheaded to the farm-state favorite, biofuels, and to research ways to burn coal while capturing the resulting carbon dioxide, the mainheat-trapping smokestack gas.In this fiscal year, the Energy Department plans to spend $159 million on solar research anddevelopment. It will spend nearly double, $303 million, on nuclear energy research and development, and nearly triple, $427 million,

on coal, as well as $167 million on other fossil fuel research and development.For the moment, the biggest government support for solar power is coming from the states, not the national government. But there, too, the focus remains on spurring markets, notlaboratory research.The U.S. government is proposing more spending on solar research now, but not enough to set off a largesustained energy quest, many experts say."This is not an arena where private energy companies are likely to make the breakthrough,"said Nathan Lewis, head of a solar-research laboratory at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.

B. Link New incentives boost solar developments, but kills R&D when they terminateSolar Energies Industry Association, "Senate Fillibuster Once Again Prevents Vote on Solar Tax Credits", 6/17/08.

http://seia.org/solarnews.php?id=189SEIA STATEMENT ON H.R. 6049, THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND AND TAX RELIEF ACTStatement by SEIA president Rhone Resch following the Senate's failure to end the filibuster of H.R. 6049, the Energy Independenceand Tax Relief Act, which would extend the solar investment tax credit (ITC) for 8 years. The motion failed 52 - 44 (on a cloture

motion requiring support of 60 Senators). "I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has once again failed to reach a bipartisanconsensus that would allow this important legislation to move forward. Not extending the solar tax credits is an enormous tax increasethat will cost America tens of thousands of jobs. If the Senate is unable to act - and the solar tax credits are allowed to expire - it willresult in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar. "Time is running out. I strongly urge the Senate to reach a bipartisanconsensus and pass this legislation, now."

5





C. Internal Link: To continue investment, businesses turn to horrificallyunsanitary Chinese factories

Ariana Eunjung Cha Washington Post Sunday, 3/9/08; A01. "Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China".http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595_pf.htmlThe first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened.Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto theground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.This ritual has been goingon almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrialgrowth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in thecentral plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicondestined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is ahighly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards."The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees willgrow in the place. . . . It is like dynamite -- it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it," said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University.The situation in Li's village points to the environmentaltrade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels.Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like

palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water.Likewise inChina, the push to get into the solar energy market is having unexpected consequences.With the prices of oil and coal soaring, policymakers around the world are looking at massive solar farms to heat water and generate electricity. For the past four years,however, the world has been suffering from a shortage of polysilicon -- the key component of sunlight-capturing wafers -- driving up prices of solar energy technology and creating a barrier to its adoption.With the price of polysilicon soaring from $20 per kilogram to$300 per kilogram in the past five years, Chinese companies are eager to fill the gap.In China, polysilicon plants are the new dot-coms. Flush with venture capital and with generous grants and low-interest loans from a central government touting its efforts to seek clean energy alternatives, more than 20 Chinese companies are starting polysilicon manufacturing plants. The combined capacity of these new factories is estimated at 80,000 to 100,000 tons -- more than double the 40,000 tons produced in the entire world today.ButChinese companies' methods for dealing with waste haven't been perfected.Because of the environmental hazard, polysiliconcompanies in the developed world recycle the compound, putting it back into the production process.But the high investment costs and time, not to mention the enormous energy consumption required for heating the substance to more

than 1800 degrees Fahrenheit for the recycling, have discouraged many factories in China from doing the same. Like LuoyangZhonggui, other solar plants in China have not installed technology to prevent pollutants from getting into the environment or have not brought those systems fully online, industry sources say. "The recycling technology is of course being thought about, but currently it'sstill not mature," said Shi Jun, a former photovoltaic technology researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.Shi, chief executiveof Pro-EnerTech, a start-up polysilicon research firm in Shanghai, said that there's such a severe shortage of polysilicon that thegovernment is willing to overlook this issue for now."If this happened in the United States, you'd probably be arrested," he said.Anindependent, nationally accredited laboratory analyzed a sample of dirt from the dump site near the Luoyang Zhonggui plant at therequest of The Washington Post. The tests show high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, which can result from the breakdown of silicon tetrachloride and do not exist naturally in soil. "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people tolive nearby," said Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences.Wang Hailong, secretary of the board of directors for Luoyang Zhonggui, said it is "impossible" to think that the company would dump large amounts of waste into aresidential area. "Some of the villagers did not tell the truth," he said.However, Wang said the company does release a "minimalamount of waste" in compliance with all environmental regulations. "We release it in a certain place in a certain way. Before it isreleased, it has gone through strict treatment procedures."Yi Xusheng, the head of monitoring for the Henan Province EnvironmentalProtection Agency, said the factory had passed a review before it opened, but that "it's possible that there are some pollutants in the production process" that inspectors were not aware of. Yi said the agency would investigate.In 2005, when residents of Li's village,Shiniu, heard that a new solar energy company would be building a factory nearby, they celebrated.The impoverished farmingcommunity of roughly 2,300, near the eastern end of the Silk Road, had been left behind during China's recent boom. In a countrywhere the average wage in some areas has climbed to $200 a month, many of the village's residents make just $200 a year. They hadhigh hopes their new neighbor would jump-start the local economy and help transform the area into an industrial hub.The LuoyangZhonggui factory grew out of an effort by a national research

6





<card continues no text removed>institute to improve on a 50-year-old polysilicon refining technology pioneered by Germany's Siemens. Concerned about intellectual property issues, Siemens has held off on selling its technology to the Chinese. So the Chinese have tried to create their own.Last year,the Luoyang Zhonggui factory was estimated to have produced less than 300 tons of polysilicon, but it aims to increase that tenfoldthis year -- making it China's largest operating plant. It is a key supplier to Suntech Power Holdings, a solar panel company whosefounder Shi Zhengrong recently topped the list of the richest people in China.Made from the Earth's most abundant substance -- sand-- polysilicon is tricky to manufacture. It requires huge amounts of energy, and even a small misstep in the production can introduceimpurities and ruin an entire batch. The other main challenge is dealing with the waste. For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste.When exposed to humid air, silicon tetrachloride transformsinto acids and poisonous hydrogen chloride gas, which can make people who breathe the air dizzy and can make their chestscontract.While it typically takes companies two years to get a polysilicon factory up and running properly, many Chinese companiesare trying to do it in half that time or less, said Richard Winegarner, president of Sage Concepts, a California-based consulting firm.Asa result, Ren of Hebei Industrial University said, some Chinese plants are stockpiling the hazardous substances in the hopes that theycan figure out a way to dispose of it later: "I know these factories began to store silicon tetrachloride in drums two years ago."Pro-EnerTech's Shi says other companies -- including Luoyang Zhonggui -- are just dumping wherever they can."Theoretically, companiesshould collect it all, process it to get rid of the poisonous stuff, then release it or recycle. Zhonggui currently doesn't have the

technology. Now they are just releasing it directly into the air," said Shi, who recently visited the factory.Shi estimates that Chinesecompanies are saving millions of dollars by not installing pollution recovery.

Further environmental damage will lead to widespread political discontent against the CCP, resulting in

its collapse

Nathan Nankivell, Senior Researcher, Office of the Special Advisor at Joint Task Force Pacific Headquarters, Canada, 10/25/2005.

"China's Pollution and its Threat to Domestic and Regional Stability". http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=146.There is little disagreement that China’s environment is a mounting problem for Beijing. The country produces as many sulphur emissions as Tokyo and Los Angeles combined but with only a fraction of the vehicles; China is home to 16 of theworld’s 20 most polluted cities; water pollution affects as much as 70 percent of the country; air pollution is blamed for the prematuredeath of some 400,000 Chinese annually; crop returns are steadily decreasing in quantity and quality because of polluted land andwater; and solid waste production is expected to more than double over the next decade, pushing China far ahead of the U.S. as the

largest producer (The Economist, August 19, 2004). While the general accessibility of this information is creating greater awareness,trends indicate that pollution and environmental degradation will worsen. Chinese consumers are expected to purchase hundreds of millions of automobiles, adding to air pollution problems. Despite pledges to put the environment first, national planners still aim todouble per capita GDP by 2010 (China Daily, October 20, 2005). Urban populations are expected to continue expanding, leading tothe creation of slums and stressing urban sanitation and delivery systems. Steadily richer Chinese will be able to purchase more goodsand consume more resources. The nation lacks a powerful national body able to coordinate, monitor, and enforce environmentallegislation: the State Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) is under-staffed, has few resources, and must compete with other bureaucracies for attention. The devolution of decision-making to local levels has placed environmental stewardship in the hands of officials who are more concerned with economic growth than the environment. Finally, the deficiency of capital and the lack of will to promote massive spending on environmental repair necessary to reverse more than two decades of destruction are perhaps mostindicative of the fact that environmental restoration will not occur: estimates on the final cost of environmental repair range into thetens of billions of dollars (Canadian Security Intelligence Services Division; The Economist, October 20, 2005).From the examples above, it is clear that China’s environmental crisis will only worsen before it gets better. SEPA’s impotence,Beijing’s contradictory policy statements, expanding consumption, and a lack of funds to reverse already serious problems all suggestthat pollution and degradation will most likely worsen in the decades to come. Pollution, Unrest, and Social Mobilization As theimpact of pollution on human health becomes more obvious and widespread, it is leading to greater political mobilization and socialunrest from those citizens who suffer the most. The latest statement from the October 2005 Central Committee meeting in Shanghaiillustrates Beijing’s increasing concern regarding the correlation between unrest and pollution issues. There were more than 74,000incidents of protest and unrest recorded in China in 2004, up from 58,000 the year before (Asia Times, November 16, 2004). Whilethere are no clear statistics linking this number of protests, riots, and unrest specifically to pollution issues, the fact that pollution wasone of four social problems linked to disharmony

7





<card continues no text removed> by the Central Committee implies that there is at least the perception of a strong correlation. For the CCP and neighboring states,social unrest must be viewed as a primary security concern for three reasons: it is creating greater political mobilization, it threatens toforge linkages with democracy movements, and demonstrations are proving more difficult to contain. These three factors have the potential to challenge the CCP’s total political control, thus potentially destabilizing a state with a huge military arsenal and a historyof violent, internal conflict that cannot be downplayed or ignored. Protests are uniting a variety of actors throughout localcommunities. Pollution issues are indiscriminate. The effects, though not equally felt by each person within a community, impact richand poor, farmers and businessmen, families and individuals alike. As local communities respond to pollution issues through unitedopposition, it is leaving Beijing with no easy target upon which to blame unrest, and no simple option for how to quell wholecommunities with a common grievance. Moreover, protests serve as a venue for the politically disaffected who are unhappy with thecurrent state of governance, and may be open to considering alternative forms of political rule. Environmental experts like ElizabethEconomy note that protests afford an opportunity for the environmental movement to forge linkages with democracy advocates. Shenotes in her book, The River Runs Black, that several environmentalists argue that change is only possible through greater democratization and notes that the environmental and democracy movements united in Eastern Europe prior to the end of the ColdWar. It is conceivable that in this way, environmentally-motivated protests might help to spread democracy and undermine CCP rule.A further key challenge is trying to contain protests once they begin.

The steady introduction of new media like cell phones, email, and text messaging are preventing China’s authorities from silencingand hiding unrest. Moreover, the ability to send and receive information ensures that domestic and international observers will bemade aware of unrest, making it far more difficult for local authorities to employ state-sanctioned force. The security ramifications of greater social unrest cannot be overlooked. Linkages between environmental and democracy advocates potentially challenge theParty’s monolithic control of power. In the past, similar challenges by Falun Gong and the Tiananmen protestors have been met byforce and detainment. In an extreme situation, such as national water shortages, social unrest could generate widespread, coordinatedaction and political mobilization that would serve as a midwife to anti-CCP political challenges, create divisions within the Party over how to deal with the environment, or lead to a massive show of force. Any of these outcomes would mark an erosion or alteration tothe CCP’s current power dynamic. And while many would treat political change in China, especially the implosion of the Party, as awelcome development, it must be noted that any slippage of the Party’s dominance would most likely be accompanied by a period of transitional violence. Though most violence would be directed toward dissident Chinese, a ripple effect would be felt in neighboringstates through immigration, impediments to trade, and an increased military presence along the Chinese border. All of these situationswould alter security assumptions in the region. Other Security Concerns While unrest presents the most obvious example of a security

threat related to pollution, several other key concerns are worth noting. The cost of environmental destruction could, for example, begin to reverse the blistering rate of economic growth in China that is the foundation of CCP legitimacy. Estimates maintain that 7 percent annual growth is required to preserve social stability. Yet the costs of pollution are already taxing the economy between 8 and12 percent of GDP per year [1]. As environmental problems mount, this percentage will increase, in turn reducing annual growth. As aresult, the CCP could be seriously challenged to legitimize its continued control if economic growth stagnates. Nationalists insurrounding states could use pollution as a rallying point to muster support for anti-Chinese causes. For example, attacks on China’senvironmental management for its impact on surrounding states like Japan, could be used to argue against further investment in thecountry or be highlighted during territorial disputes in the East China Sea to agitate anti-Chinese sentiment. While nationalism doesnot imply conflict, it could reduce patterns of cooperation in the region and hopes for balanced and effective multilateral institutionsand dialogues.

8





D. Impact-CCP collapse causes global nuclear warSan Renxing,. The Epoch Times "The CCP's Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War. Hundreds of millions of deaths

proposed", 8/5/05. http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30931.htmlWhat, then, is the gist of this wild, last-ditch gamble? To put it in a few words: A cornered beast is fighting desperately to survive in a battle with humanity. If you don’t believe me, read some passages directly from the speeches.We must prepare ourselves for two scenarios. If our biological weapons succeed in the surprise attack [on the US], the Chinese peoplewill be able to keep their losses at a minimum in the fight against the U.S. If, however, the attack fails and triggers a nuclear retaliationfrom the U.S., China would perhaps suffer a catastrophe in which more than half of its population would perish. That is why we needto be ready with air defense systems for our big and medium-sized cities. Whatever the case may be, we can only move forwardfearlessly for the sake of our Party and state and our nation’s future, regardless of the hardships we have to face and the sacrifices wehave to make. The population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone! In any event, we, the CCP, will never step down from the stage of history! We’d rather have the whole world, or even the entireglobe, share life and death with us than step down from the stage of history!!! Isn’t there a nuclear bondage theory? It means that sincethe nuclear weapons have bound the security of the entire world, all will die together if death is inevitable. In my view, there is anotherkind of bondage, and that is, the fate our Party is tied up with that of the whole world. If we, the CCP, are finished, China will be

finished, and the world will be finished. It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path thatwill secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world. We, as revolutionary humanitarians, do not want deaths.But if history confronts us with a choice between deaths of Chinese and those of Americans, we’d have to pick the latter, as, for us, itis more important to safeguard the lives of the Chinese people and the life of our Party. That is because, after all, we are Chinese andmembers of the CCP. Since the day we joined the CCP, the Partys life has always been above all else! Since the Party’s life is aboveall else, it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend itslife. The CCP, which disregards human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eighthundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its everycell 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.

9




Solar Space Key To Space Mil

The military is ready and willing to pursue space militarization—they need onlya fresh interest in solar space capabilities

JOSEPH D. Rouge, SES Acting Director, National Security Space Office, 10/10/07. "Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunityfor Strategic Security" http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high priority for theDepartment of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space. In March2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of space‐ based solar power (SBSP) as a potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well.First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look” Study. In the decade since this laststudy, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications of SBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a no‐cost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring andSummer of 2007. Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the attached report was compiled through an innovative andcollaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal,and business experts around the world. I applaud the high quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants whocontributed in the last six months. I encourage them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek

to answer the question of whether SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable,clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind. This interim assessment contains significant initial findings andrecommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders, andcitizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is improving witheach passing year. Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actuallydeveloping a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP presents as part of a nationaand international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.

10




Heg Scenario

Even if a new balance of power was struck after space militarization, it wouldbe inevitably unstable and without US primacy

Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104Yet any arms race in space would almost inevitably destabilize the balance of power and thereby multiply the risks of global conflict.In such headlong competition--whether in space or elsewhere--equilibrium among the adversaries would be virtually impossible tomaintain. Even if the major powers did achieve stability, that reality would still provide no guarantee that both sides would perceive itto be so. The moment one side saw itself to be slipping behind the other, the first side would be strongly tempted to launch a preemptive strike, before things got even worse. Ironically, the same would hold for the side that perceived itself to have gained anadvantage. Again, there would be strong temptation to strike first, before the adversary could catch up. Finally, a space weapons racewould ratchet up the chances that a mere technological mistake could trigger a battle. After all, in the distant void, reliablydistinguishing an intentional act from an accidental one would be highly problematic.

US hegemony is key to preventing proliferation and global nuclear war.Zalmay Khalilzad , 1995, Director of the Strategy and Doctrine Program @ RAND and current US Ambassador to Iraq, "Losing

the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War," The Washington Quarterly, Spring, p. Lexis) Under the thirdoption, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity forthe indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end initself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the globalenvironment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second,such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation,threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendantdangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or amultipolar balance of power system.

11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad






Ext – DOD Wants Space Mil

The DOD is in favor of translating solar power into weapons capabilitiesThe National S pace Security Office Space-Based Solar Power Study Group, Spring, 2008.

"Strategic importance: Solar power from space can help keep the peace on Earth" Ad Astra Magazine.http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf The 21st century is shaping up to be one of potential environment- and resource-driven conflict, and as the United States’ ultimateguarantor of national security, the Department of Defense (DoD) is keenly aware of this future scenario. History teaches us that theapplication of sufficient energy and imagination to almost any problem ultimately leads to solutionsfor a better future. Ensuring abundant long-term energy security then becomes a fundamental pursuit of all societies. Compared toEarth, the resources of space are infinite. In the Age of Exploration, Europe looked beyond the horizons of her surrounding oceans tosolve a growing resource problem for a growing population. A similar time distance problem separates human society today from thespace resources needed to prevent its collapse and deliver the resources needed to support its ever-increasing levels of scale andcomplexity. While space already delivers ubiquitous telecommunication, global positioning, and surveillance commodities, theseintangibles are higher-order services and not true life-sustaining resources. The first true resource delivered from space may very well be nearly limitless clean energy. Enter the four-decade-old concept of space solar power (SSP). Originally invented in 1968 by Dr.Peter Glaser of Arthur D. Little, and last validated in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC),

SSP is a simple concept analogous to the hydroelectric dam as an energy-collection device. The traditional SSP architecture utilizesvery large (kilometer-scale) photovoltaic arrays in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) to convert a continuous stream of intense solar radiation into carbon-neutral electrical energy, which is then transmitted 24/7 through night and weather via microwave beams tocollectionrectennas on Earth’s surface. In honor of its inventor, these space solar power satellites are sometimes fondly called, “Glasers.” Totalcalculated end-to-end system efficiency for base-load power approaches 10 percent- -remarkably high for any known natural or artificial energy production scheme. Variations on the basic concept include using solar dynamic versus photovoltaic collectionsystems, optical wavelength versus microwave power transmission, lunar versus orbital basing, and low-Earth orbit versus GEOarchitectures. Despite their differences, all systems share a common philosophy with the hydroelectric power model: invest in a high-capital infrastructure expense up front to then enable decades of clean, reliable, low-maintenance and low unit-cost energy collection,free from the volatile fuel expenses and vulnerabilities of conventional energy systems. So why do we not have SSP satellites in orbittoday when the NRC validated the concept as scientifically sound and on a healthy path toward technical feasibility as recently as fiveyears ago? Over the course of 40 years the answer has always centered around “the business case” in the face of less-expensivecompeting conventional terrestrial energy sources. But that calculus is about to change. The very real risks of climate change, energynationalism and scarcity, unconstrained technology explosion, and potential resource conflicts weigh heavily on the futurist minds of the action officers of the Air Force Future Concepts and Transformations Office and National Security Space Office (NSSO) Theseofficers are charged with visualizing the world 25-or-more years from now, and informing and guiding Air Force and space strategydevelopment. For a military that is fundamentally dependent on high-energy capabilities to protect its nation and the internationalcommons for the good of all humanity, not only are the strategic risks associated with energy scarcity that lie ahead great, but so tooare the operational and tactical vulnerabilities for the finest war-fighting and peacekeeping machine humans have ever known. It wasfrom within this Air Force policy incubator and the NSSO that the spark to reexamine SSP as a strategic, operational, and tacticalenergy solution was struck. Beginning in the 1970s through 2001, the SSP was examined on multiple previous occasions by theDepartment of Energy (DOE) and NASA, but failed to find a champion in large part because SSP fell between organizational gaps(DOE does energy but not space, and NASA does space, not energy). On the other hand, because of its unique mission, DoD is thefirst government agency that will have to deal with the harsh realities of a coming energy peak. Self-developed, complex modernweapon systems spend two decades in pre-production and another five in operation— a 70-year life cycle that clearly places any new platforms (and our entire war-fighting doctrine) squarely on the backside of peak oil, and permanently in a hangar unless DoD can

reinvent itself to remain relevant in an energy-scarce world. Therefore, DoD is in a position of greatest need for examining allalternate energy options. On a more tactical level, the very real high cost in dollars and lives lost to deliver large quantities of fuel andenergy supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has informed the military that energy logistics is a reality that begs for a paradigm change.

12




Ext – Other Nations Will Follow

Should the US militarize space, India, Russia, Pakistan and Japan are all sure tofollow

Theresa Hitchens, March 08, Scientific American, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=101&sid=4d503dfb-ade2-4b86-867d-9bbbf133d4b7%40sessionmgr104Perhaps of even greater concern is that several other nations, including one of China's regional rivals, India, may feel compelled toseek offensive as well as defensive capabilities in space. The U.S. trade journal Defense News, for instance, quoted unidentifiedIndian defense officials as stating that their country had already begun developing its own kinetic-energy (nonexplosive, hit-to-kill)and laser-based antisatellite weapons. If India goes down that path, its archrival Pakistan will probably follow suit. Like India,Pakistan has a well-developed ballistic missile program, including medium-range missiles that could launch an antisatellite system.Even Japan, the third major Asian power, might join such a space race. In June 2007 the National Diet of Japan began considering a bill backed by the current Fukuda government that would permit the development of satellites for "military and national security" purposes. As for Russia, in the wake of the Chinese test President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's stance against theweaponization of space. At the same time, though, he refused to criticize Beijing's actions and blamed the U.S. instead. The Americanefforts to build a missile defense system, Putin charged, and the increasingly aggressive American plans for a military position inspace were prompting China's moves. Yet Russia itself, as a major spacefaring power that has incorporated satellites into its national

security structure, would be hard-pressed to forgo entering an arms race in space. Given the proliferation of spacefaring entities [see box at left], proponents of a robust space warfare strategy believe that arming the heavens is inevitable and that it would be best for the U.S. to get there first with firepower. Antisatellite and space-based weapons, they argue, will be necessary not only to defend U.S.military and commercial satellites but also to deny any future adversary the use of space capabilities to enhance the performance of itsforces on the battlefield.

Other nations will follow suit if the US militarizesKarl Grossman, Professor of Journalism at State University of New York, 01,

http://www.epsusa.org/publications/newsletter/april2001/grossman.htmSome 163 nations supported the resolution titled “Prevention of An Arms Race In Outer Space.” It recognized “the common interest ofall mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes” and reiterated that the use of space “shall be for peaceful purpose . . . carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries.” The measure stated that the “prevention of an arms race inouter space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.” The United States, backed by Israel and Micronesia,

abstained. Canada and China have been leaders at the United Nations in challenging the U.S. space military plans and seeking tostrengthen the Outer Space Treaty by banning all weapons in space (the treaty currently prohibits nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction). Marc Vidricaire, counselor with the Canadian delegation to the United Nations, in a speech last October 19 stated:“It has been suggested that our proposal is not relevant because the assessment on which it rests is either premature or alarmist. In our view, it is neither. ” Moreover, he continued, it is clear that technology can be developed to place weapons in outer space, and no statecan expect to maintain a monopoly on such knowledge — or such capabilities — for all time. If one state actively pursues theweaponization of space, we can be sure others will follow.”

13




Russia Scenario

Any weapon put in space by the US will be immediately followed by war withRussia

James Oberg, 22-year veteran of NASA Mission Control, 10/9/07, Weaponization of space: who’s to blame?,”http://thespacereview.com/article/976/1In Moscow, Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin, commander of the Russian “Space Troops”, has warned that US plans to baseweapons in space might lead to war. Western news media accounts report these statements straight, as if there really were such “plans”to do what the Russians complain about (station weapons in space for space-to-space combat), instead of only studies and tests—thekinds of activities that were they to occur in Russia or China, wouldn’t even be known to exist. “We don’t want to fight in space,”Popovkin told his audience, “but on the other hand, we’ll not allow any other country to play the master in outer space. Theconsequences of positioning strike forces in orbit will be too serious.” And he wrote himself a blank check for a future free hand: “If any country will place a weapon in space, then our response will be the same,” he added, to the approving echo of press coveragearound the world.

US/Russian nuclear war causes extinction – its categorically different than

other impacts Nick Bostrom, PhD Philosophy – Oxford University, "Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios", Journal of

Evolution and Technology, Vol. 9, March 2002, http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html

The unique challenge of existential risks Risks in this sixth category are a recent phenomenon. This is part of the reason why it isuseful to distinguish them from other risks. We have not evolved mechanisms, either biologically or culturally, for managing suchrisks. Our intuitions and coping strategies have been shaped by our long experience with risks such as dangerous animals, hostileindividuals or tribes, poisonous foods, automobile accidents, Chernobyl, Bhopal, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, draughts, World WarI, World War II, epidemics of influenza, smallpox, black plague, and AIDS. These types of disasters have occurred many times and ourcultural attitudes towards risk have been shaped by trial-and-error in managing such hazards. But tragic as such events are to the people immediately affected, in the big picture of things – from the perspective of humankind as a whole – even the worst of thesecatastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the great sea of life. They haven't significantly affected the total amount of humansuffering or happiness or determined the long-term fate of our species. With the exception of a species-destroying comet or asteroidimpact (an extremely rare occurrence), there were probably no significant existential risks in human history until the mid-twentiethcentury, and certainly none that it was within our power to do something about. The first manmade existential risk was the inauguraldetonation of an atomic bomb. At the time, there was some concern that the explosion might start a runaway chain-reaction by"igniting" the atmosphere. Although we now know that such an outcome was physically impossible, it qualifies as an existential risk that was present at the time. For there to be a risk, given the knowledge and understanding available, it suffices that there is somesubjective probability of an adverse outcome, even if it later turns out that objectively there was no chance of something badhappening. If we don't know whether something is objectively risky or not, then it is risky in the subjective sense. The subjective senseis of course what we must base our decisions on.[2] At any given time we must use our best current subjective estimate of what theobjective risk factors are.[3] A much greater existential risk emerged with the build-up of nuclear arsenals in the US and the USSR. Anall-out nuclear war was a possibility with both a substantial probability and with consequences that might have been persistent enoughto qualify as global and terminal . There was a real worry among those best acquainted with the information available at the time that anuclear Armageddon would occur and that it might annihilate our species or permanently destroy human civilization. [4] Russia andthe US retain large nuclear arsenals that could be used in a future confrontation, either accidentally or deliberately. There is also a risk that other states may one day build up large nuclear arsenals. Note however that a smaller nuclear exchange, between India and

Pakistan for instance, is not an existential risk, since it would not destroy or thwart humankind's potential permanently. Such a war might however be a local terminal risk for the cities most likely to be targeted. Unfortunately, we shall see that nuclear Armageddonand comet or asteroid strikes are mere preludes to the existential risks that we will encounter in the 21st century.

14

http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn2












China Scenario

Space militarization would lead to dangerous precarious US-Sino relations,assuring mutual destruction

William C. Martel and Toshi Yoshihara, Professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Rhode Island andDoctoral candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, 03, Washington Quarterly,

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/washington_quarterly/v026/26.4martel.htmlStrategists in the United States and in China are clearly monitoring the other's developments in space. How the United States judgesChinese intentions and capabilities will determine Washington's response; of course, the reverse is equally true. As each side eyes theother, the potential for mutual misperceptions can have serious and destabilizing consequences in the long term. In particular, bothcountries' exaggerated views of each other could lead unnecessarily to competitive action-reaction cycles. [End Page 26] What exactlydoes such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, somecritical sectors of China's economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington andBeijing could increasingly hold each other's space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the

other's space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption(already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinesestrategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S.military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sideswould enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sidesstand ready to launch a first strike on a moment's notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, whichseek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example,Washington's reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa.In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highlyvulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space. Although attacks against space assetswould likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may notgenerate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for theinternational community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.

15




China Scenario

That leads to global nuclear war and the end of civilizationChing Cheong, The Straits Times 2k , “No one gains in war over Taiwan,”

THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washingtonwere to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict onsuch a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war . Beijing hasalready told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attackingChina as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extentSingapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powerselsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order.With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's politicallandscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities betweenIndia and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against theChinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from militarydefeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications onfuture US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which

could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The USestimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to gofor the nuclear option . A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies,told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided bythat principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weaponsmandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass,we would see the destruction of civilisation.

16




China Scenario Brink

Tensions between the US and China have been rising ever since the satelliteincident

The Economist, 1/17/08, “Dangerous driving in the heavens,”http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533956A year ago, the Americans fumed when China tested a missile by shooting up one of its own weather satellites. One thing that madethe test look anti-social was that it created the worst-ever cloud of man-made debris in the heavens. Ever since, other satellites havehad to be moved periodically to avoid the shrapnel. And bumping into things is not just a matter of collecting scratches. At orbitalspeeds, colliding with an object the size of a pebble can ruin the day of a multi-billion dollar spacecraft. There was, however, a secondreason for America's anger over the Chinese test. America is space's pre-eminent military power. Or, more exactly, given that Americahas held back from putting weapons in space, it has used space to preserve and extend the pre-eminent military power it enjoys onearth. By using a missile to blow apart one of their own satellites, the Chinese showed that they could if they chose blow apart the spyand navigation satellites on which America's armed forces (and grateful drivers everywhere using GPS systems) depend. Indeed, theChinese test may have been intended to send precisely this warning. Given the dangers of a clash in space, and the degree to which themilitary and civilian uses of space have blurred together (see article), why have the big powers so far failed to negotiate either arms-control agreements or simple rules of the road, as they have on earth? In the case of arms control, the explanation is that America is

suspicious. Russia and China have offered to negotiate a treaty banning space weapons. The Americans are not sure whether that isfeasible.

17




India Scenario

India would use space technology to preemptively avert an attack from itsnuclear neighbors

Monotapash Mukherjee, Political Writer, 1/29/08, The Global Politician, http://www.globalpolitician.com/24048-indiaPost nuclear situation, India is being visited by a pre-nuclear weaponization dilemma—to be or not to be a space-weapons state. Theterritorial warfare is not a thing of the past yet, but once again the shadow of space weaponization is looming large.Post-Cold War theUS became the sole superpower of the globe. The threat of "star wars" subsided for the time being. But new geo-political urgenciesunnerved the US and it began to be concerned by the specter of "space Pearl Harbor".America was visibly unsettled by the emergenceof the "Axis of Evil" which constituted Iraq, Iran, North Korea with more states to join it. Iraq was bombed and its ruler hanged (of course, illegally and unethically). But Iran and North Korea proved to be invincible. The USA became concerned about their nuclear ICBMs hitting the US heartland and revived the "Star War" as National Missile Defence System. Again the rapid rise of China as aneconomic and military superpower unnerved the US strategic community. A Chinese General once threatened the US with rainingnuclear bombs if it sided with Taiwan in any future confrontation with China. Furthermore the Russian rise as a Phoenix as thechallenger of the US complicated the US predicament. The USA's proposed deployment of the missile defense components in Polandand Czech Republic angered the resurgent Russia so much that it declared its sophisticated system would jeopardize the missiledefense system. All this became more complicated when China conducted an A-Sat test by destroying one of its ageing weather

satellite by throwing a ballistic missile.All these factors pushed the US towards space weaponization and space utilisation to influencewarfare on earth. The domino effect of space weaponisation has not left India untouched. China's A-Sat test threatened Indian securitytoo, particularly its space assets.First of all, let us count upon us why India should use it for military means.· India is surrounded bytwo declared and symbiotic nuclear powers and a nascent nuclear power. There is a visible co-ordination in the field of missilestechnology among these countries. So India must build an effective missile defence system to counter any threat from these countries.A missile defence system without any military satellite network has no efficacy.· Secondly, for reconnaissance of the ground-based andtroop movement of the enemy, for tapping communication, jamming the enemy network and destroying enemy satellites, India must prepare for space applications.· Thirdly, to monitor the launch of enemy ballistic missiles, thermal imaging satellites are a must.·Fourthly, in modern network-centric system, all the three services—army, navy, air-force—should be integrated by linking all theradars and sensors to the satellite system for early warning and control system.

INERT IMPACT

18




Non U – Space Mil

Indian military officials confirm that space militarization is certain for thecountry

Gavin Rabinowitz, Associated Press, 7/17/08, “Indian army wants military space program,”http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jImmb7wnVKkZLN4SCz6tj-huEEhAD91BUR780India said that it needs a military space program to defend its satellites from threats like China's newly revealed ability to shoot downtargets in orbit.The comments by India's army chief raise the possibility of a regional race that could accelerate the militarization of space and heighten tensions between the Asian giants, who have been enjoying their warmest ties in decades.India urgently needs to"optimize space applications for military purposes," Gen. Deepak Kapoor said Monday at a conference in New Delhi on using spacefor military purposes.He noted that "the Chinese space program is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive anddefensive content." His remarks were first reported by The Indian Express newspaper and confirmed by the Defense Ministry'sspokesman on Tuesday.China destroyed one of its own defunct weather satellites with a ballistic missile in January, becoming the thirdcountry, after Russia and the U.S., to shoot down an object in orbit.In February the United States shot down a satellite that it said posed a threat as it fell to Earth. Kapoor did not mention that, singling out China in a statement analysts said was designed to send aclear message to Beijing."In an unsubtle way this is related to China," said Ashok Mehta, a retired Indian army general and leadingstrategic analyst.Kapoor said that while militarization of space by India was at "a comparatively nascent stage," there was an urgent

need for a military space command for "persistent surveillance and rapid response."Army spokesman Lt. Col. Anil Kumar Mathur said, "We are not talking about deploying weapons, but about self-defense." Neither man elaborated on their remarks.The Indianmilitary does not have its own dedicated spy satellites and uses civilian ones to gather imagery and other intelligence. India has anadvanced civilian space program and frequently launches both types of satellites for other countries, including an Israeli spy satellitein January.Other Indian generals speaking at the conference said a military space race was almost certain."With time we will getsucked into a military race to protect our space assets and inevitably there will be a military contest in space," the Indian Expressnewspaper quoted Lt. Gen. H.S. Lidder as saying."In a life-and-death scenario, space will provide the advantage," said Lidder, whoheads the military department that deals with space technology.

19




Non U – Space Mil

The US already has military satellites in orbit, and China is fast investingenough money to become the next space superpower, yet scientists believe

this competition breeds good relationsMarc Kaufman, The Washington Post, 7-13-08, “Space race goes global — and the U.S. is lagging,”

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/nation/story/80c5c31eaae902b3862574840013a0d8?OpenDocumentSpace, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing"the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe.Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields — and owns half the military satellites orbiting Earth — experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations areexpanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace."We spent many tens of billions of dollars during theApollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who saidhis agency's budget is down 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992."We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40years and have not … chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead."In a recent in-depth study of internationalspace competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda, Md., found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded.Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated

satellites and spacecraft into orbit — and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carryChinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites,"and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's.While the United States has been making incremental progress in space, its global rivals have been taking the giant steps thatonce defined NASA:— Following China's lead, India has announced ambitious plans for a manned space program, and in November the European Union will probably approve a proposal to collaborate on a manned space effort with Russia. Russia will soon launchrockets from a base in South America under an agreement with the European company Arianespace, whose main launch facility is inKourou, French Guiana.— Japan and China both have satellites circling the moon, and India and Russia are working on lunar orbiters. NASA will launch a lunar reconnaissance mission this year, but many analysts believe the Chinese will be the first to return astronautsto the moon.— The United States is largely out of the business of launching satellites for other nations, something the Russians,Indians, Chinese and Arianespace do regularly. Their clients include Nigeria, Singapore, Brazil, Israel and others. The 17-nationEuropean Space Agency and China are also cooperating on commercial ventures, including a rival to the U.S. space-based GlobalPositioning System.— South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil have plans to quickly develop their space programs and possibly become low-

cost satellite launchers. South Korea and Brazil are both developing homegrown rocket and satellite-making capacities.This explosionin international space capabilities has largely taken place since the turn of the century. While the origins of Indian, Chinese, Japanese,Israeli and European space efforts go back several decades, their capability for highly technical feats — sending humans into orbit,circling Mars and the moon with unmanned spacecraft, landing on an asteroid and visiting a comet — are all new developments.Incontrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the global competition today is beingdriven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women and the confidence thatachievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits.China has sent men into space twice in the pastfive years and plans another manned mission in October. More than any other country besides the United States, experts say, Chinahas decided that space exploration, and its commercial and military purposes, are as important as the seas once were to the Britishempire and air power was to the United States.The Chinese space program began in the 1970s, but it was not until 2003 that astronautYang Liwei was blasted into space in a Shenzhou 5 spacecraft, making China one of only three nations to send humans intospace."The Chinese have a carefully thought-out human spaceflight program that will take them up to parity with the United Statesand Russia," Griffin said. "They're investing to make China a strategic world power second to none — not so much to become a grand

military power, but because deals and advantage flow to world leaders."

20




Non U – Space Mil

India pays no attention to US space militarization—it wants capabilities solelybecause of China

The New Zealand Herald, 6-19-08, “Asian giants battle to be No 1 in space,”http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10517144With China blasting satellites out of the sky, India needs a military space programme to defend its orbiters, the country's Army chief said.The talk of a possible push into space by India's military chief, General Deepak Kapoor, is a sign the rivalry between the twoAsian giants could spark a new race to militarise space and highlights India's perception of China as a threat, even as Beijing and NewDelhi enjoy their warmest ties in decades.India urgently needs to "optimise space applications for military purposes", Kapoor wasquoted as saying by the Indian Express. He noted that "the Chinese space programme is expanding at an exponentially rapid pace in both offensive and defensive content".Defence Ministry spokesman Praveen Kavi confirmed the comments.In February the UnitedStates also shot down a satellite it said posed a threat as it fell to earth, but Kapoor did not mention that, singling out China in a moveanalysts said was meant to send a clear message to Beijing."In an unsubtle way this is related to China," said Ashok Mehta, a retiredIndian Army general and leading strategic analyst.Ties between India and China - which together account for about one-third of theworld's population - are at their closest since China defeated India in a brief 1962 border war. Last year, trade between India and Chinagrew to US$37 billion ($48.9 billion) and their two armies conducted their first joint military exercise.However, the Asian powers

remain sharply divided over territorial claims dating back to the war. China claims India's northeastern state of Arunachal Pradesh andoccupies a chunk of territory in Kashmir that India regards as its own.Talks on the disputed border have gone nowhere, and Kapoor's"statement is in relation to what is happening on the border dispute and the Chinese taking an uncompromising position", Mehtasaid.This, plus China's heavy military spending and a growing rivalry for influence, has alarmed the Indian military, which has beengearing up for possible conflict.India has announced plans to have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines at sea in the next decadeand recently tested nuclear-capable missiles that put China's major cities in range. It is also reopening air force bases near the Chinese border.Now, India is also talking about boosting its military presence in space.

21




Non U – Solar Space

Florida’s new and massive solar project proves that nationalized solar space is just around the corner

MarketWatch, 7-15-08, “FPL Receives Approval to Build First Commercial-Scale Solar Power Facilities in Florida,”http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fpl-receives-approval-build-first/story.aspx?guid={9AEEB046-1777-4890-A3BA-81FBE99F7B64}&dist=hppr Florida Power & Light Company today received approval from the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) to begin construction ofthree solar energy centers that will make Florida the second largest supplier of utility-generated solar power in the nation. "Today'sdecision by the PSC represents a major step forward in making Florida a leader in solar power generation. At a time of record-settingfossil fuel prices and concern over global climate change, solar power helps to meet the goals of protecting the environment andenhancing Florida's energy security. Governor Crist and the state legislature set a goal of increasing renewable energy in Florida, andas a clean energy company we are committed to playing a meaningful role in this endeavor," said FPL President Armando J. Olivera.Earlier this year, the Florida Legislature approved and the Governor signed into law a comprehensive energy bill which provided for the development of renewable energy, subject to PSC approval. FPL, a subsidiary of clean energy leader FPL FPL 67.23, +0.41,+0.6%) , presented a proposal to the PSC for three solar energy centers that includes the world's largest photovoltaic solar array andthe first "hybrid" energy center that will couple solar thermal technology with an existing natural gas combined-cycle generation unit.

NASA has already used sun power in space on previous missions, and intendsto do so on a larger scale before the end of the summerHolly Jackson, Technician, 6-27-08, “Solar power to set sail in space,” CNetNews.com, http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-

9979259-7.htmlOn earth, people are beginning to use the sun's light to power their houses, office buildings, and even gadgets. Now, outside of our planet, the sun's energy is going to be utilized for something else--space travel.If NASA can successfully implement solar sails, whichhave been referenced in some sci-fi books of the past, using the sun's energy for space exploration may become a reality thissummer.According to a report by NASA Science, the Marshall Space Flight Center and the Ames Research Center have teamed up tomake history, by deploying its first solar sail, the NanoSail-D.The solar sail, made of aluminum and space-age plastic, has the abilityto harness the radiation of the sun for movement. Since outer space is frictionless, the sail could potentially accelerate forever,traveling much faster and much farther than a rocket running on fuel. Travel back to Earth would require a turn of the sail.This

technology isn't the first of its kind. In 2005, The Planetary Society launched a solar sail spacecraft, hoping to be the first successfullaunch. However, later that day, there was no confirmation that the craft, names Cosmos 1, had entered orbit, and the mission wasdeemed unsuccessful.

Both India and China agree a military space contest is inevitable between thetwoHannah Gardner, Foreign Correspondent in New Delhi, 6-26-08, The National, “China’s clout in space rattles India,”

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080626/FOREIGN/286517292/1015/NEWS&Profile=1015But China’s successful attempt to put a man into space in 2003, again only the third country after the United States and Russia to doso, has made India re-evaluate such principles.“With time, we will get sucked into a military race to protect our space assets andinevitably there will be a military contest in space,” said Lt Gen HS Lidder, chief of integrated defence staff. “In a life and deathsituation, only space resources would provide an advantage to any military force.”The two countries are already engaged in a race to

the moon. This year the agency will launch Chandrayaan to the moon, the first Indian satellite to venture beyond the Earth’s orbit and by 2013 it hopes to launch a probe to Mars. A few years later it could be sending up its first gaganaut – one suggestion for the Sanskritversion of astronaut.The Chinese are hoping to put their first taikonaut – derived from the Chinese word taikong, meaning space, onthe moon by 2020.Right now, one of the Indian military’s main priorities is to develop similar technology to that which China used todown its satellite, more than 800km above the Earth’s surface.Abdul Kalam, India’s former president, said in February that India hadthe capacity to destroy an object located 200km above Earth.Such targets, however, come into direct conflict with India’s long-held position, opposing the weaponisation of space. “Things are changing in India, we don’t get much reaction to our Gandhian principles,”said Jabin Jacobs, a China expert at the Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. China’s heavy military spending hasspurred India into action in other spheres too, with the county announcing plans to have aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in thenext decade.

22




No Impact

No impact—Russia recently proposed a Europe-US strategic partnership toexpand transparency in space missions

Chinaview.com, 7-18-08, “Will Russia's new policy paper renew Russia-West ties?” http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/18/content_8567464.htmIt is necessary to switch over Russian-U.S. relations to the state of strategic partnership, to overstep barriers of strategic principles of the past," says the document posted Tuesday on the Kremlin Web site. Russia and the United States should "concentrate on realthreats, and where differences persist, to work on their settlement in the spirit of mutual respect," says the paper ratified by PresidentDmitry Medvedev. Moscow will work along with Washington in taking confidence-building measures, ensuring transparency in spaceexplorations, anti-missile defense and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, securing development of peaceful nuclear power, enhancing cooperation in countering terrorism and other challenges, it says. However, the often soft-spoken MedvedevTuesday slammed a U.S. proposal to deploy missile shield components in Central Europe, which have soured bilateral ties since it wasraised in early 2007.

23




AFF – Solar Power Key To Econ

Solar Power serves as an economic Fix in both the long and short-termSarah Lozanova, MBA in Sustainable Management from the Presidio School of Management in San Francisco, 2008, "Solar

Energy Creating Economic Boom for Nevada", July 3rd, 2008. http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/03/solar-energy-creating-economic- boom-for-nevada/]The American Southwest has some of the best solar resources on the globe. Nevada, with abundant land and sunshine is becoming ahot bed for the solar industry. The result is green jobs and billions of investment dollars. Solar Panel Manufacturing The opening of Ausra's solar thermal power factory earlier this week in Las Vegas is a prime example. As the largest plant of its kind in the world, itemploys 50 factory workers. At full capacity, the plant can generate 700 MW of solar panels, which could produce enough power for 500,000 homes. This quantity of panels would create an estimated 1,400 solar plant construction jobs. The factory will produce giantmirrors and absorber tubes that are used for solar power plants. This technology uses the sun to generate heat and spin turbines, thuscreating electricity. The giant mirrors follow the sun and reflect it onto fixed absorber tubes that are mounted above. "Nevada is poisedto be a leader in the clean energy revolution," said U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). "This facility will help positionour state as the premiere place to invest in these new technologies. As the factory expands operations and we continue to invest inclean energy, we'll create thousands of good-paying jobs and keep our outdoors pristine for future generations." Solar Power PlantsSolar projects totaling more than 10,000 MW have land requests from the Bureau of Land Management in Southern Nevada. If

constructed, these solar plants would bring over $40 billion of investment to Nevada. Power plants benefit the economy in the short-term by creating large quantities of construction jobs. In the long-term, they create plant operations jobs, tax revenue, raise propertyvalues, and generate income through land leases. A recent example is Acciona's Nevada Solar One, located in Boulder City, NV. Asthe third largest solar concentrated plant in the world, its maximum output is 75 MW of electricity. It generates enough power for 15,000 homes annually and had a cost of $260 million. Operating since June, 2007, there are 300 acres of solar fields. The plant will produce peak power , with nearly zero carbon emissions and created approximately 28 operations related jobs.

24

http://www.ausra.com/

http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080630.html


http://www.ausra.com/pdfs/Ausrafactoryfactsheet.pdf

http://www.nevadasolarone.net/the-plant

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/solar-thermal-electricity-catc-002978.php


http://www.ausra.com/


http://www.ausra.com/pdfs/Ausrafactoryfactsheet.pdf

http://www.nevadasolarone.net/the-plant





Birds Of Prey 1NC

A. Wind famers are few and far between because of turbine shortages nowCharleston Post and Courier, 7/15/07, “Turbine shortage knocks wind out of project,”

http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/15/turbine_shortage_knocks_wind_out_projects/The race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.In recent years, improved technology has made it possible to build bigger, more efficient windmills. That, combined with surging political support for renewable energy, has driven up demand. Now, makers can't keep up, mostly because they can't get the parts theyneed fast enough.

B. Wind Farms Put Birds Of Prey On The Edge Of ExtinctionUSA Today. 1/5/05. John Ritter, staff writer. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

The big turbines that stretch for miles along these rolling, grassy hills have churned out clean, renewable electricity for two decades inone of the nation's first big wind-power projects. But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors. After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take toughcorrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized

that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3Energy. The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site inthe Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird routeregulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles. Scientistsdon't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species intodecline. "They didn't realize it at the time, but it was just a really bad place to build a wind farm," says Grainger Hunt, an ecologistwith the Peregrine Fund who has studied eagles at Altamont. Across the USA — from Cape Cod to the Southern California desert — new wind projects, touted as emission-free options to oil- and gas-fueled power plants, face resistance over wildlife, noise and vistas.The clashes come as wind-energy demand is growing, in part because 17 states have passed laws requiring that some of their futureenergy — 20% in California by 2010 — come from renewable sources. Environmental groups, fans in principle of "green" power, arecaught in the middle. "We've been really clear all along, we absolutely support wind energy as long as facilities are appropriatelysited," says Jeff Miller, Bay Area wildlands coordinator for the Center for Biological Diversity, which took 12 companies to court.Wind energy is a tiny but fast-growing share of U.S. energy — 0.4%, up from less than 0.1% five years ago. Since November, when

Congress reinstated a key tax credit for wind producers, the industry is poised to expand by as much as a third this year, the AmericanWind Energy Association says. In 2004, wind generated enough electricity to power 1.6 million households, the association says.Altamont's turbines are the nation's No. 2 producer. Few energy experts think environmental concerns will discourage winddevelopment long-term because the tradeoff is too appealing. "When you opt for wind turbines, you don't opt for pollution that harmschildren and crops from fossil-fuel power plants," says Dan Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California-Berkeley.But windmills — derisively dubbed by some "toilet brushes in the sky" — draw fire when they're planned in areas prized for their pristine landscapes: • Cape Cod groups are fighting what they call visual pollution from 130 turbines, each taller than the Statue of Liberty, sought for Nantucket Sound. Fishermen fear loss of prime fishing grounds from the USA's first offshore project. • Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., asked the Government Accountability Office to study the effects more windmills would have in the Appalachians.Research found that existing turbines killed up to 4,000 bats on Backbone Mountain last year. • In the Flint Hills of Kansas, theAudubon Society worries that windmills could despoil views in one of America's few remaining stands of native tallgrass prairie andharm habitats of migrating prairie birds. • Acting Gov. Richard Codey last month ordered a 15-month wind-power moratorium on the New Jersey shore, where the desire to preserve Atlantic views has collided with plans for offshore turbines near Ocean City and other

sites. Altamont Pass bird kills have been known for years, but turbine owners and federal regulators ignored them except to urge moreresearch, says Miller of the Center for Biological Diversity. But a California Energy Commission study in August found bird fatalitiesmuch higher than had been thought and laid out steps to limit them. At the same time, 20-year-old county permits were up for renewaland the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decided to crack down. "Twenty years has just been too long to resolve this problem," saysScott Heard, the agency's chief Northern California enforcement agent. Fish and Wildlife can prosecute those responsible for killsunder federal laws that protect eagles and migratory birds. The center's lawsuit was withdrawn but filed again in November becausethe wind companies' bird-protection plan was "not a serious attempt," Miller says.

25




Birds Of Prey 1NC

C. Raptors Key To EcosystemsAspen Center for Environmental Studies, 2000. ("Birds of Prey," ASPEN, http://www.aspennature.org/locations/hallam-

lake/birds-prey)“Bird of prey” refers to eagles, hawks, falcons, ospreys and owls; all of which are adapted for a lifestyle of aerial hunting. These birdsare also called raptors, from the Latin raptor (a robber) and rapere (to seize) referring to their ability to seize and carry off prey.Raptors share several characteristics including: Powerful talons for gripping and killing prey Sharp, curved beaks for tearing foodKeen eyesight to spot prey from great distances Why are Birds of Prey so important? The presence of raptors in the wild serves as a barometer of ecological health. Birds of prey are predators at the top of the food chain; because pesticides, drought and habitat losshave the most dramatic impact on top predators, we refer to them as indicator species. The raptors also play an important ecologicalrole by controlling populations of rodents and other small mammals.

D. Human Survival Depends On Stable EcosystemsMillenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”

http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon Earth’s ecosystems. The ways in which

ecosystems are affected by human activities will have consequences for the supply of for the prevalence of diseases, the frequency andmagnitude of floods and droughts, and local as well as global climate. Ecosystems also provide spiritual, recreational, educational, andother nonmaterial benefits to people. Changes in availability of all these ecosystem services can profoundly affect aspects of humanwell-being—ranging from the rate of economic growth and health and livelihood security to the prevalence and persistence of povertyHuman demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly. At the same time, humans are altering the capability of ecosystems tocontinue to provide many of these services. Management of this relationship is required to enhance the contribution of ecosystems tohuman well-being without affecting their long-term capacity to provide services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) wasestablished in 2001 by a partnership of international institutions, and with support from governments, with the goal of enhancing thescientific basis for such management.

26

http://www.aspennature.org/locations/hallam-lake/birds-prey


http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf








Birds Of Prey Key

Birds Of Prey Are A Keystone SpeciesAbsalom Shigwedha - Windhoek correspondent – 5/10/07, "Namibia: Birds of Prey Keep Mother Nature Healthy,"

BushDrums.com, http://www.bushdrums.com/news/index.php?shownews=956)WHILE birds of prey (raptors) are very useful in keeping the environment healthy, they are facing a very serious risk of poisons used by farmers. Throughout the world, vultures are useful to people for purposes ranging from clairvoyance in Africa and the disposal of human corpses by the Parsees in India, writes Ann Scott in the April newsletter of the Vulture Working Group in Namibia. The groupworks under the umbrella body Raptors Namibia, funded by the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF), aimed at protecting birds of prey.Scott said scavenging raptors, including vultures, Tawny Eagles and Bateleur Eagles, clean the carcasses of dead livestock, thusalerting farmers to livestock deaths. "This rapid disposal of carcasses assists in combating the spread of diseases such as anthrax andhelps maintain farm hygiene. Because they can find and consume carcasses very quickly, vultures also control blowfly infestations onrotting carcasses," Scott writes. Therefore, the presence of birds of prey indicates that the environment is healthy, with a wide and balanced diversity of animals and plant species, enough ground cover and no poisons, just like a resident pair of fish eaglesdemonstrates the health of a river or wetland. Furthermore, Scott continues, large and powerful birds of prey such as eagles controlsmall mammals such as dassies, hares and rodents that compete with livestock for grazing resources. "Verreaux's Eagles feed mainlyon dassies and one pair will catch at least one dassie per day, amounting to 350 to 400 per year, which equals grazing for 22 sheep.

Martial Eagles feed on Helmeted Guinea fowl, hares and ground squirrels, mongooses and suricates that have occasionally beenimplicated in the spread of rabies," writes the conservationist. Owls are extremely efficient nocturnal predators with well-adaptedeyesight and hearing and mostly hunt rats, mice and insects and control these pests in towns and on farms. One pair of Barn Owls withsix chicks is able to catch 30 rodents a night. Liz Komen of the Namibia Animal Rehabilitation, Research and Education Centre(Narrec) says poisons and habitat loss through the felling of trees are the major threats to the survival of birds of prey. Some birds areelectrocuted by power lines while others fall victim to wild cats. Raptors are characterised by dramatically curved beaks and claws, powerful wings and superb eyesight - adaptations that contribute to their specialised ecological role as meat eaters at the top of thefood pyramid. Because of these attributes, they are also held in awe as one of the most charismatic groups of birds. They are,traditionally, a symbol of strength, courage and freedom and appear on many flags, coats of arms and emblems. WHY CONSERVERAPTORS? * They maintain a healthy environment and their absence could ultimately contribute to serious environmental problems.* Responsible, sustainable bird-based tourism provides much-needed income to people, especially in rural areas, as well as incentivesfor the conservation of raptors and the environment as a whole.

27

http://www.bushdrums.com/news/index.php?shownews=956






Birds Of Prey Key

Raptor Extinction Kills The EcosystemThe Peregrine Fund- 1/28/2004 ("Asian Vulture Crisis Press Releases," The Peregrine Fund,

http://www.peregrinefund.org/press_full.asp?id=21&category=Asian%20Vulture%20Crisis)A major discovery documenting a pharmaceutical as threatening the extinction of three species will be published in the journal NatureThe paper links the veterinary use of “diclofenac” with the catastrophic crash of three species of raptors. The discovery is the result ofa three-year effort by an international team of scientists. The team was assembled and led by The Peregrine Fund and includedmembers from Washington State University, The Ornithological Society of Pakistan, Bird Conservation Nepal, United StatesGeological Service, Zoological Society of San Diego, and University of California, Davis. “To lose three of the world’s species of raptors would be a tragedy beyond comprehension,” stated Dr. Tom Cade, Founder of The Peregrine Fund. “The speed of the declineis eerily similar to the decline of the Peregrine Falcon in the 1960s,” continued Cade. “We’re in another race against time to savethese species,” finished Cade. In the last decade, population losses of more than 95% of three raptor species have been reported inmany areas. A decline of this magnitude is without precedence among vertebrate species. The three species are the Oriental White- backed Vulture, Long-billed Vulture, and Slender-billed Vulture in South Asia. “This discovery is significant in that it is the firstknown case of a pharmaceutical causing major ecological damage over a huge geographic area and threatening three species withextinction,” said Dr. Lindsay Oaks of Washington State University, the lead diagnostic investigator for The Peregrine Fund’s team.

“Finding that a drug is responsible for the collapse and threatened extinction of these species is helpful yet alarming,” stated Dr. Rick Watson, International Programs Director for The Peregrine Fund. “Helpful, because now we can do something about it and we mayhave time to save these species. Alarming, because this may not be the only pharmaceutical impacting wildlife ,” concluded Watson.Diclofenac is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that has been in human use for pain and inflammation for decades.The veterinary use of diclofenac on livestock in South Asia has grown in the past decade and is now widespread. Livestock that dieshortly after being treated with diclofenac contain sufficient residues to cause kidney failure and death in vultures that consumelivestock carcasses. Like Peregrine Falcons and DDT, vultures in this case are the “canary in the coal miner’s cage” warning of a potentially dangerous environmental health hazard. Vultures are sampling the environment and their deaths and population collapsehave demonstrated a widespread toxic effect. The results are important to toxicologists, conservationists, and drug manufacturersworldwide. “Vultures have an important ecological role in the Asian environment, where they have been relied upon for millennia toclean up and remove dead livestock and even human corpses. Their loss has important economic, cultural, and human healthconsequences,” says Dr. Munir Virani, Biologist for The Peregrine Fund. Virani coordinated the massive field investigations across Nepal, India, and Pakistan. “Declines of this magnitude in once very common species have not been seen since the extinction of theGreat Auk, or the Passenger Pigeon in the 19th century,” stated Dr. Martin Gilbert, veterinarian for The Peregrine Fund. Gilbertconducted and supervised ecological field studies, and vulture necropsy and tissue collection in Pakistan. To expedite this transfer of knowledge and responsibility to the various countries, The Peregrine Fund and partners have organized an international SummitMeeting on 5 and 6 February 2004 in Kathmandu, Nepal. The Kathmandu Summit Meeting will include senior government officialsfrom the affected countries and carries the endorsement of the United States Department of State. In a letter to invitees from JohnTurner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs urged nationalgovernments of the region to participate. The summit will include a briefing on the scientific evidence of the role diclofenac has in thecatastrophic population collapse of these species, potential solutions to mitigate the effects of diclofenac, and a forum to develop astrategic response to this new environmental threat and to begin the effort to restore these species. The Peregrine Fund was founded in1970 and works worldwide to conserve wild populations of birds of prey. Conserving raptors provides an umbrella of protection for entire ecosystems and their biodiversity. The organization is non-political, solution-oriented, hands-on, science-based organization.Goals are achieved by restoring and maintaining viable populations of species in jeopardy; studying little-known species;accomplishing research; conserving habitat, educating students, and developing local capacity for science and conservation indeveloping countries; and providing factual information to the public.

28

http://www.peregrinefund.org/pdfs/Asian%20Vulture%20-%20Oaks%20et%20al%20NATURE.pdf

http://www.peregrinefund.org/pdfs/Asian%20Vulture%20-%20Oaks%20et%20al%20NATURE.pdf




Birds Of Prey Key

Raptors Key To Human SurvivalBjom Carey – LiveScience staff writer – 7/19/2006, "Top predators key to ecosystem survival," MSNBC,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13939039Top-level predators strike fear in the hearts of the animals they stalk. But when a deer is being mauled by a wolf, at least it can knowthat it's giving its life for the greater good. A new study reveals how ecosystems crumble without the presence of top predators bekeeping populations of key species from growing too large. It also provides a cautionary lesson to humans, who often remove top predators from the food chain, setting off an eventual collapse . The study is detailed in the July 20 issue of the journal Nature. Theresearchers studied eight natural food webs, each with distinct energy channels, or food chains, leading from the bottom of the web tothe top. For example, the Cantabrian Sea shelf off the coast of Spain has two distinct energy channels. One starts with the phytoplankton in the water, which are eaten by zooplankton and fish, and so on up to what are called top consumer fish. The secondchannel starts with detritus that sinks to the sea floor, where it's consumed by crabs and bottom-dwelling fish, which are consumed byhigher-up animals until the food energy reaches top-level consumers. The top predators play their role by happily munching away at each channel's top consumers, explained study leader Neil Rooney of the University of Guelph in Canada. "Top predators are kind of like the regulators of the food web—they keep each energy channel in check," Rooney told LiveScience. "The top predator goes back and forth between the channels like a game of Whac-a-Mole," a popular arcade game in which constantly appearing moles are

smacked down with a mallet. Constant predation of the top consumers prevents a population from growing larger than the system cansupport. Boom or bust Removing a top predator can often alter the gentle balance of an entire ecosystem. Here's an example of whatcan happen: When an area floods permanently and creates a series of islands, not all the islands have enough resources to support top predators. Top consumers are left to gobble up nutrients and experience a reproductive boom. The boom is felt throughout the system,though, as the booming species out-competes others, potentially driving the lesser species to extinction and reducing biodiversity.Rooney refers to this type of ecosystem change as a "boom-and-bust cycle," when one species' population boom ultimately meansanother will bust. Bigger booms increased chances of a bust. "With each bust, the population gets very close to zero, and its difficultgetting back," he said. Human role in 'boom-and-bust' Humans often play a role in initiating boom-and-bust cycles by wiping out thetop predator. For example, after gray wolves were hunted to near extinction in the United States, deer, elk, and other wolf-fearingforest critters had free reign and reproduced willy-nilly, gobbling up the vegetation that other consumers also relied on for food. Or,more recently, researchers found that when fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean are over fished, jellyfish populations boom. While jellyfish have few predators, removing the fish frees up an abundance of nutrients for the jellyfish to feast on. Ecosystems provide uswith the food we eat and help produce breathable air and clean water. But they're generally fragile and operate best when at a stableequilibrium, scientists say. "These are our life support systems," Rooney said. "We're relying on them. This study points to theimportance of top predators and that we need to be careful with how we deal with them."

29

http://www.livescience.com/imageoftheday/siod_050425.html





http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=701&gid=46&imgserver=http://images.livescience.com


http://www.livescience.com/fish/

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060306_deepsea_fish.html


http://www.livescience.com/environment/wolf_ecosystem_041209.html



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13939039



http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060710_jellyfish_explosion.html







http://www.livescience.com/fish/

http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060306_deepsea_fish.html








Birds Of Prey Key

Key To Ecological Services Which Are Key To SurvivalMainka, McNeely and Jackson - senior coordinator in the Global Programme Team at IUCN-The World Conservation Union,

chief scientist, and deputy director – 4/08Susan A, Jeffrey A, William J., "Depending on Nature: Ecosystem Services for Human Livelihoods," RedOrbit,http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1290207/depending_on_nature_ecosystem_services_for_human_livelihoods/A new paradigm is emerging in the world of environmental conservation. Conservationists have traditionally spoken of conserving the building blocks of nature-genes, species, and ecosystems, along with the air, water, and land with which these interact. But thisapproach has not captured the interest of those who influence the activities that degrade these building blocks. The drivers of degradation-including habitat loss and fragmentation, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, and climate change- continue their march, and the results have been documented regularly in updates of the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species and other reports onthe status of the environment: continuing loss of biodiversity and accelerating threats to nature. Although the effects of climate changeand the emerging challenge of how to address it are now making front-page headlines, the underlying role of biodiversity, both asvictim and potential solution, has yet to receive adequate attention. Conservationists have been seeking language that will make theimportance of a healthy environment more obvious and relevant to the politicians, economists, business people, and developmentspecialists who make decisions upon which nature's future depends. One such concept is embodied in the idea of ecosystem services

as the benefits that nature provides to people. Ecosystem services incorporate the language of economics and business, through their valuation, and the language of development, through their support for human well-being. Efforts to support the long-term sustainablesupply of those services are as important to human well-being and survival as they are for nature itself. Although the building blocksand processes that sustain human life are nearly as old as our planet, regarding them as "ecosystem services" is a more recent concept.With the book Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Stanford University conservation biologist GretchenDaily and coauthors popularized the concept a decade ago, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005, brought itinto the political mainstream.1 The latter adopted a framework that described these services, analyzed the current state of their delivery, and assessed the drivers that affected their delivery. Why Are Ecosystem Services Important? The benefits of ecosystemservices come in many forms, from the tangible provision of the necessities of life-food, water, medicine, and clean air-to aestheticinspiration for culture and society. These services are the foundation of daily life, and they are available without people necessarily being conscious of the many and complex processes involved in their production and delivery. The Millennium EcosystemAssessment framework provides a clear understanding of the many ways nature supports human well-being (see Figure 1 on page 45).But these services are highly dependent on functioning ecosystems, including both biotic and abiotic components. Therefore, the

quality of biodiversity, air, water, and land forms the bedrock of human welfare.

30

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1290207/depending_on_nature_ecosystem_services_for_human_livelihoods/

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1290207/depending_on_nature_ecosystem_services_for_human_livelihoods/




Birds Of Prey Key

Death Adversely Affects The EcosystemLovgren – staff writer – 426/05

(Stefan, "Without Top Predators, Ecosystems Turn Topsy-Turvy," National Geographic,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0426_050426_strangedays2.html)When the construction of a hydroelectric dam on Venezuela's Caroni River was finally completed in 1986, it flooded an area twice thesize of Rhode Island, creating one of South America's largest human-made lakes: Lake Guri. As floodwaters turned hilltops intoislands, a key group of animals—predators such as jaguars, harpy eagles, and armadillos—disappeared from the islands. Some swamor flew away. Others drowned or starved to death. In the predator's absence, their prey—howler monkeys, iguanas, leaf-cutting ants— began multiplying. Soon these plant-eaters had devoured most of the once pristine forest. It is a classic cautionary tale of the dangersof removing top predators from an ecosystem. "Taking out predators has a cascade of effects on other populations, down to the plantlife," said John Terborgh, a professor of environmental science at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. The Lake Guri story isrecounted in a National Geographic four-part TV series, Strange Days on Planet Earth, which airs this Wednesday on PBS. MassExodus The creation of Lake Guri may have been an ecological disaster. But it offered biologists like Terborgh an unprecedentedopportunity to study the effects of removing top predators from an ecosystem. The first phase of the two-part Guri dam project wascompleted in 1968. It raised the water level over 390 feet (120 meters) above that of the original Caroni River. When the dam's

second phase was finished in 1986, the water level rose steadily over a year by another 164 feet (50 meters), and about a thousandhilltops became islands in a human-made lake. Terborgh found that predators such as pumas, jaguars, anacondas, eagles, armadillos,and some weasels were not able to persist on islands smaller than 37 acres (15 hectares). Some of the animals swam or flew from theislands. Others starved to death. Not surprisingly, the mass exodus of predators had a huge impact on their prey. Populations of howler monkeys, iguanas, and leaf-cutting ants exploded. The booming herbivore populations devoured the islands' vegetation. "Theimpact of massive herbivory [plant eating] was to increase the mortality of trees, especially small saplings," Terborgh said. "Our model showed very dramatically that the vegetation [on the islands in Lake Guri] is in a state of collapse." Return of the Wolves Theloss of top predators could also explain the disappearance of aspens and willows in the oldest national park in the United States:Yellowstone. Scientists determined that aspens stopped regenerating in Yellowstone in the 1930s, around the time that wolves wentextinct in the area. Research suggests that the elimination of Yellowstone's wolves allowed one of their prey animals, elk, to browseaspens and willows undisturbed. This led to the disappearance of trees and streamside vegetation—and the loss of beaver habitat.Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, aspen and willow have begun growing again, and a few beavers havereturned to the park. Algae Invasion Similar phenomena have been observed in the oceans. Overfishing may have caused the populations of hammerhead sharks in the Atlantic Ocean to drop by as much as 90 percent in some places. "Sharks are top predators… they keep their prey in check. And that, in turn, helps their prey's prey," said Mike Heithaus, a marine biology professor at FloridaInternational University in Miami. "These effects cascade through the whole ecosystem." Overfishing may also at least partly explainwhy a suffocating layer of algae now blankets the once vibrant Discovery Bay coral reef in Jamaica. Fisheries in the area firstdecimated top predatory fish, such as sharks, groupers, and jacks. Smaller fish became the next commercial target, including plant-eating species that kept fast-growing algae in check. But the story is more complicated, says Rich Aronson, a senior marine scientistat the Dauphin Island Sea Lab in Alabama. Sampling the fossil record of the reef, Aronson found that the corals stopped growing inthe early 1980s, after a hurricane hit Jamaica and destroyed much of the reef. A few years later a lethal disease swept across theCaribbean Sea, killing the main remaining grazers, sea urchins, and paving the way for the algae to take over. "The combination of killing the corals and the loss of herbivores resulted in this vast goo of seaweed," Aronson said. "It has to be some kind of outsidedisturbance that kills the coral and provides the entrée for the algae."

31

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0426_050426_strangedays2.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0426_050426_strangedays2.html




Turbines Kill Birds

Wind Turbines Kill Birds and BatsD'Agnese – staff writer -7/23/2007 (Joseph, "Wind: The Farmer's New Cash Crop," AlterNet,

http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/ While Maple Ridge was still in the planning stages, Moore hired Paul Kerlinger, a migration biologist who often consults with wind power companies, to document over four years the number of dead birds or bats found beneath the turbines. Kerlinger says the study isnot complete. A preliminary report shows that bird deaths have numbered in the hundreds annually -- but that a potentially moreworrisome number of bats have been killed. No one knows why. One theory is that bats switch off their sonar while migrating. MapleRidge is exploring technology that will make the turbines more obvious, or less attractive, to migrating bats.

Wind Power Kills a Ton Of BirdsEnergy Center of Wisconsin- 2000 ("Wind Power and the Environment" Energy Center of Wisconsin,

www.ecw.org/prod/433-3.pdf )Wind power and the natural environment Despite these benefits, wind power is not completely benign. In some locations, primarilythe Altamont Pass in California, wind turbines have affected bird populations. East of Oakland, California, the windy Altamont Pass isa popular feeding spot for birds of prey, as well as home to 7,000 wind turbines. In 1992, a study of bird mortality at the Altamont Pas

found 182 dead birds over a two-year period, including 119 birds of prey (raptors). About half of the raptor deaths were attributed tocollisions with the wind turbines. After extensive studies it was determined that the leading causes of the bird kills were the latticetowers (that look much like the Eiffel Tower), which allowed the birds to perch, and the high rotational speed of the blades. Since therelease of these studies the wind turbine industry has largely eliminated the use of lattice towers and significantly reduced the speed ofthe rotating blades, each of which has significantly reduced avian mortality. In Wisconsin (and the Midwest in general) wind turbinesseem to have a smaller effect on bird populations than those in more mountainous regions like the Altamont Pass. The landscape isrelatively flat, there no narrow flyways, and birds can maneuver around or over the turbines with relative ease. Indeed, in five years ofresearch, wind turbines in the Midwest have not been found to cause any impact on bird populations. Further, many of the turbines inCalifornia were small and had high rotational speeds. The larger turbines being installed in Wisconsin have slower rotational speeds,so birds can more easily avoid the moving blades. Of course, wind turbines are not the only structures that can kill birds. Radio andtelevision broadcast towers, smokestacks from power plants, and power lines have also been found to kill birds, as do highways, buildings and pollution. Further, coal mining also destroys bird habitat. Nonetheless, wind turbines should be carefully sited to avoidexcessive harm to birds, especially birds that are threatened or endangered.

Wind Power Kills BirdsJames Taylor - managing editor of Environment & Climate News – 8/1/2006 (James, "California Wind Power Worries

Environmentalists," The Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724) Full Impact Unknown Defenders of Wildlife contends any new wind farms should be required to comply with a long list of sitingconsiderations in addition to the guidelines designed to prevent them from being built in roadless forest areas or avian flyways. Thegroup says species other than birds and bats, while not directly killed by the giant blades of wind turbines, may be significantlyaffected by the turbines. The group says studies must be conducted to determine how industrial wind farms change the behavior of small mammals and migratory species, for example. "We are concerned about where wind farms are placed," said Kim Delfino,California program director for Defenders of Wildlife. "There are some areas that are more sensitive than others. There are also manyimpacts beyond direct bird and bat deaths, especially along migratory bird routes. Very few studies have been done on potentialdisruption of [the migration of] songbirds." Delfino also noted wind farms often require substantial infrastructure, which destroys stillmore pristine wilderness. "Ground-disturbing activities, such as road construction and the clearing of forests for new power lines, also

result from wind farm construction," Delfino said. "We want to make sure that the state maximizes protection for species. We don'twant another Altamont Pass. There are a significant number of wind power projects proposed in California, and the current regulatorysystem is not set up to deal with all of the attendant environmental impacts."

32

http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/

http://www.ecw.org/prod/433-3.pdf

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724



http://www.alternet.org/environment/54682/

http://www.ecw.org/prod/433-3.pdf





Turbines Kill Birds

Wind Power Kills RaptorsWade- staff writer – 10/14/2005, Will, "Unexpected Downside of Wind Power," Wired.com,

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177Thousands of aging turbines stud the brown rolling hills of the Altamont Pass on I-580 east of San Francisco Bay, a testament to oneof the nation's oldest and best-known experiments in green energy. Next month, hundreds of those blades will spin to a stop, in whatappears to be a wind-energy first: Facing legal threats from environmentalists, the operators of the Altamont wind farm have agreed toshut down half of their windmills for two months starting Nov. 1; in January, they will be restarted and the other half will be shutdown for two months. Though the Altamont Pass is known for its strong winds, it also lies on an important bird-migration route, andits grass-covered hills provide food for several types of raptors. "It's the worst possible place to put a wind farm," said Jeff Miller, awildlife advocate at the nonprofit href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org">Center for Biological Diversity. "It's responsible for anastronomical level of bird kills." The dispute at Altamont Pass marks the highest-profile confrontation yet in an unlikely clash betweenwind-power proponents and environmental activists opposed to noncritical wind-farm development. A 2004 report by the CaliforniaEnergy Commission found that 880 to 1,300 raptors are killed at Altamont every year, such as red-tailed hawks and the federally protected golden eagle. Altamont isn't the only scene of a showdown. Environmental groups have already blocked a proposed windpower facility in the Mojave Desert, and opponents of another project, in Nantucket Sound, have cited wildlife concerns in their

lobbying efforts. A recent government report found that sites in other regions could pose a threat to bats. According to the AmericanWind Energy Association, wind farms in 34 states were generating 6,740 megawatts as of January, enough juice to power 1.6 millionhomes. Another 2,500 megawatts of wind power is expected to come on line this year. Though nobody is saying that wildlife issueswill curtail wind development, some environmentalists say that much more care should go into picking locations for wind farms.Miller stressed that the Center for Biological Diversity is not opposed to wind farms, but said they must be built in areas where theywill have minimal impact on wildlife. "We definitely support wind power, but it needs to be sited in appropriate areas." One area thathis group says is definitely not appropriate for wind power is Altamont Pass. Miller said more than 5,000 turbines were installed therein the 1970s without any type of environmental impact study. Steve Stengel, a spokesman for FPL Energy, one of several power companies that collectively operate the Altamont windmills, said the goal is to reduce avian collisions by 35 percent in three years,and to determine which turbines are the most dangerous. "If they aren't running, birds won't fly into them," he said. Stengel also saidthe Altamont site is an anomaly. Besides its poor location, he said many of the turbines there, some decades old, use older designs,with faster-spinning blades that reach closer to the ground than recent models -- where birds are more likely to be flying as they huntfor prey. FPL and its partners are also replacing some turbines with newer ones that the company says are safer for birds, and arerelocating or removing about 100 of the most dangerous windmills from locations such as ridge tops.href="http://www.ecw.org">Energy Center of Wisconsin, said birds are a big issue at Altamont, but not elsewhere, simply becausethere are so many in the area. Raptors are especially vulnerable, she said. "If they are looking for a mouse while they are flying, that'sall they are looking for. They aren't looking for a wind turbine."

Wind Power Has Killed Thousands Of Birds In CATaylor - managing editor of Environment & Climate News – 8/1/2006 (James, "California Wind Power Worries

Environmentalists," The Heartland Institute, http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19724) Under pressure from environmental activist groups such as Defenders of Wildlife and the Los Angeles Audubon Society, theCalifornia Energy Commission on August 10 released bird and bat protection guidelines for local wind power permitting agencies.Although the guidelines are neither mandatory nor enforceable, the move represents growing concern that industrial wind farms aretaking an unacceptable toll on bird and bat populations. The most recent avian mortality studies show between 1,750 and 4,700 birdsare killed every year at California's Altamont Pass wind farm alone. Similar mortality numbers are reported at industrial wind farms in

Solano County and other parts of the state. The Los Angeles Audubon Society says there is a lack of research into how industrial windfarms, many of which are located in migratory flyways, affect songbird flight patterns. The group is seeking a moratorium on turbineoperation for several hours each day during the spring and autumn migration seasons.

33

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177

http://www.awea.org/





http://www.fplenergy.com/




http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2005/10/69177




http://www.fplenergy.com/





Turbines Kill Birds

Avian Fatalities Due To Wind Turbines Are Growing. Every Effort To ReduceDeaths Is Key.

National Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of ExistingStudies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”Data collected to date indicate an average of 2.19 avian fatalities per turbine per year in the U.S. for all species combined and 0.033raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Based on current projections of 15,000 operational wind turbines in the U.S. by the end of 2001,the total annual mortality was estimated at approximately 33,000 bird fatalities per year for all species combined. This estimateincludes 4,500 house sparrows, European starlings and rock doves, and 488 raptor fatalities per year. We estimate a range of approximately 10,000 to 40,000 bird fatalities. The majority of these fatalities are projected to occur in California whereapproximately 11,500 operational turbines exist, and most are older smaller turbines (100- to 250-kW machines). Data collectedoutside California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine per year, and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year.Based on current projections of 3,500 operational wind turbines in the U.S. by the end of 2001, excluding California, the total annualmortality was estimated at approximately 6,400 bird fatalities per year for all species combined. This estimate includes 400 housesparrows, European starlings, and rock doves, and 20 raptor fatalities per year. While there have been numerous single mortalityevents recorded at communication structures that document several hundred avian fatalities in one night, the largest single event

reported at a wind generation facility was fourteen nocturnal migrating passerines at two turbines at the Buffalo Ridge, Minnesota,Windplant during spring migration. Based on current estimates, windplant-related avian collision fatalities probably represent from0.01% to 0.02% (i.e., 1 out of every 5,000 to 10,000 avian fatalities) of the annual avian collision fatalities in the United States. Whilesome may perceive this level of mortality as small, all efforts to reduce avian mortality are important.

34




Turbines Kill Birds

Predatory Bird Fatalities Caused By Wind Turbines Are Effecting OverallPopulations

National Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of ExistingStudies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”The first large-scale wind energy development took place in California. In response to several reported incidents of avian collisions,the California Energy Commission (CEC) obtained data on bird strikes at the Altamont and Tehachapi windplants through interviewsand review of unpublished data collected over a 4-year period from 1984 to 1988 (CEC 1989). This study documented 108 raptor fatalities of seven species. Collisions with windplant structures accounted for most of the avian fatalities (67%), including 26 goldeneagles and 20 red-tailed hawks. Several subsequent studies were initiated to further examine windplant-related fatalities at Californiawindplants. Many of these studies have been conducted at Altamont Pass, where more than 5,000 turbines exist within the WRA. Ingeneral, these studies focused on obtaining raptor fatality estimates with other bird fatalities recorded coincidentally. An early 2-year study documented 182 bird deaths on study plots, 68% of which were raptors and 26% of which were passerines. The most commonraptor fatalities were red-tailed hawk (36%), American kestrel (13%), and golden eagle (11%). Causes of raptor mortality includedcollisions with turbines (55%), electrocutions (8%), and wire collisions (11%) (Orloff and Flannery 1992). Based on the number of dead birds found, the authors estimated that as many as 567 raptors may have died over the 2-year period due to collision with wind

turbines. Further investigations at Altamont continued to document levels of raptor mortality sufficient to cause concern amongwildlife agencies and others. During a study at Altamont, Howell (1997) found 72 fatalities over an 18-month period, of which 44were raptors. Most of the remaining fatalities were passerines. Other avian groups with some mortality at Altamont includedwaterfowl, waterbirds, and doves, especially rock doves. During a one-time search of turbines included in the original 1992 Altamontstudy, Orloff and Flannery (1996) found 20 carcasses, including 15 raptors, two ducks, two rock doves, and one common raven. From1998 to 2000, Thelander (2000, pers. comm.) documented 256 fresh bird carcasses at Altamont. Most (54.3%) of the fatalities wereraptors, 25.0% were passerines, 18.0% were doves, and the remaining 2.8% were waterfowl and waterbirds. Many of the fatalities atAltamont have been golden eagles, and annual golden eagle mortality at this facility has been estimated to range from 25 (Howell andDidonato 1991) to 39 (Orloff and Flannery 1992). Population modeling suggests that the local golden eagle population may bedeclining in the Altamont region, at least in part due to windplant mortality (Hunt et al. 1999), with other sources (e.g., expandedhousing developments and landfills, road and industrial park development and a new reservoir) also considered possible contributors. Not all studies have documented high relative proportions of raptor fatalities compared to other avian groups (e.g., passerines) atAltamont. During an experiment to assess effects of painting turbine blades in an effort to reduce collisions, Howell et al. (1991b)

found 10 dead birds, of which only one was a raptor; however, this study was of short duration and was based on small sample sizes.Avian mortality has also been documented at other California windplants. Researchers estimated 6,800 birds were killed annually atthe San Gorgonio wind facility based on 38 dead birds found while monitoring nocturnal migrants. McCrary et al. (1983,1984)estimated that 69 million birds pass through the Coachella Valley annually during migration; 32 million in the spring and 37 million inthe fall. The 38 avian fatalities were comprised of 25 species, including 15 passerines, seven waterfowl, two shorebirds, and oneraptor.

35




Turbines Kill Birds

Bird And Bat Collisions With Wind Turbines Are A Problem Of UnknownMagnitude

Pandey, A., et al. 2006. Development of a Cost-Effective System to Monitor Wind Turbines for Bird and Bat Collisions—PhaseI: Sensor System Feasibility Study. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2007-004.Bird and bat collisions with wind turbines are of increasing concern to utilities, regulatory agencies, and environmental organizations.Kills have been documented at several wind farms; however, the magnitude of the problem throughout the industry is unknown, inlarge part because there is currently no cost-effective means for monitoring collisions with turbine blades on a regular and widespread basis. An automated collision monitor is needed to provide the basis for meaningful study. Such a monitor would collect theinformation necessary to better define the collision problem and help assess the effectiveness of potential solutions.

8.1 Birds Die Per Megawatt Per Year At Altamont PassPandey, A., et al. 2006. Development of a Cost-Effective System to Monitor Wind Turbines for Bird and Bat Collisions—Phase

I: Sensor System Feasibility Study. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2007-004.A large number of surveys of avian fatalities have been conducted at wind plants in U.S. and Europe (Howell et al. 1991, Johnson etal. 2000, Benner et al. 1993, and Musters 1991, Smallwood and Thelander 2004, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996). Synthesizing theresults of these studies has been problematic due to a number of factors (Sterner 2002). Field survey methods vary, and the bias in thedetection and removal of bird carcasses is sometimes known and often unknown. There has been an emphasis on larger birds such asraptors, despite the knowledge that smaller birds are also affected. Very few studies have been peer-reviewed or published in scientific journals. The design and layout of turbines, as well as the climate, topography, and avian species present vary greatly among the wind plants studied. Finally, the relatively low numbers of observed fatalities in the studies result in inadequate sample sizes. Despite thesedifficulties, consideration of the available data can yield insight into the impacts of wind turbines on avian species. By the end of 2003, there were about 4,700 turbines (producing 4,300 megawatts) installed in the U.S. outside of California, and studies showed anaverage avian fatality rate of 2.3 birds and 3.4 bats per turbine per year and 3.1 birds and 4.6 bats per megawatt per year (NWCC2004). These fatality rates are based on 12 studies and have been adjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenging bias. In California bythe end of 2003, there were about 7,300 turbines (producing 2,100 megawatts) installed (NWCC 2004). Most of these turbines areolder and smaller than those elsewhere in the U.S. Methods used in early California studies of avian fatalities at wind power projects

led to high uncertainty or did not account for searcher efficiency and scavenging bias. Two California studies which have beenadjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger bias report estimates of 2.3 birds per turbine at San Gorgonio and 8.1 birds per megawatt per year at Altamont Pass (NWCC 2004). A report for Tehachapi Pass, California, estimated 0.047 raptor fatalities per turbine per year and 0.25 raptor fatalities per year, unadjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger bias and with a high level of uncertainty resulting from methods used (Anderson et al. 2004). A recent report for San Gorgonio, California, estimated 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year and 0.03 raptor fatalities per megawatt per year, unadjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger biasand with a high level of uncertainty resulting from methods used (Anderson et al. 2005). One recent study at the High Winds project inCalifornia reported avian fatality rates of 2.45 birds per turbine per year and 3.63 bats per turbine per year, adjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger bias (Kerlinger et al. 2006).

36




Turbines Kill Birds

Efforts To Reduce Avian Fatalities Are Top Priority And Can Be EffectiveNational Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of

Existing Studies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”Making projections of the potential magnitude of windpower-related avian fatalities is problematic because of the relative youth of thewind industry and the resulting lack of long-term data. For example, of the existing windplants, only the Altamont Pass, Buffalo Ridgeand Foote Creek Rim wind resource areas(WRA) have been studied for more than two years, and most of the studies at Altamontfocused on raptor mortality. The data collected at Altamont and other older-generation windplants may not be representative of avianmortality of future wind developments. Newer generation windplants incorporate improvements in site planning and changes in thedesign of the wind turbines. For example, turbines at the Foote Creek Rim Windplant were moved back away from the rim edge because baseline data detected a pattern of raptor use along the edge of the rim (Johnson et al. 2000a). Also, many of the newer generation turbines are designed to provide little perching and no nesting structure (tubular towers, enclosed nacelle). Although it's notclear that perching increases risk of collision, the lack of perching and nesting opportunities may discourage some bird species fromusing the WRA. Furthermore, some efforts have been made in Altamont to remove turbine s associated with higher raptor mortality,and re-powering efforts may result in the replacement of many of the older, smaller turbines with fewer larger, newer generationturbines. If these efforts effectively reduce raptor mortality at Altamont, our raptor mortality projections would also be reduced.

Finally, most wind plant developers are required to carry out site evaluations at proposed wind plant sites to determine impacts on birds and other wildlife. While newer generation turbines may be considered more representative of future developments, they haveonly been in operation in the recent past (i.e. <10 years), and less information on avian collision hazards is available for these turbines

Endangered Predatory Birds Collide With Wind TurbinesM. Morrison. White Mountain Research Station. 6/2/2002. “Searcher Bias and Scavenger Rates in Bird/Wind Energy Studies.”

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.The commercial production of electricity using wind power has been increasing in the United States and Europe since the 1970s. The potential environmental impact of wind energy development in regard to birds dying because of collisions with wind turbine bladeshas been an issue of concern. This concern was highlighted because of high rates of collisions at the Altamont Pass Wind ResourceArea (WRA) in California, where an estimated 30–40 golden eagles and hundreds of other raptors are being killed annually (Orloff and Flannery 1992). Although high rates of fatalities have been found in some studies in Europe (AWEA 1995), no other study in North America has documented as high a rate of kill as that at Altamont Pass WRA. Nevertheless, concern by various individuals,

organizations, and government agencies led to the creation of standardized and rigorous methods of evaluating bird fatalities inexisting and planned wind developments (Anderson, Morrison, Sinclair, and Strickland 1999).

37




Ext – Faulty Surveys

Significantly More Birds Are Killed Than Surveys ShowM. Morrison. White Mountain Research Station. 6/2/2002. “Searcher Bias and Scavenger Rates in Bird/Wind Energy Studies.”

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Evaluation of the impact of wind developments on birds (and bats) requires quantification of fatality rates because of collisions withrotating turbine blades. Such quantification requires sampling for dead animals around turbines. However, it is well known thatobservers vary in their ability to detect objects in the field (Morrison, Block, Strickland, and Kendall 2001). Such variation is due, in part, to innate differences in observers (e.g., physical ability or eyesight), training, and interest in the study. Searching for animalskilled by turbines is inherently difficult because it often requires locating small objects in poor condition in dense vegetation (e.g.,grass or shrubs) on steep terrain. Additionally, the ability of even trained observers to locate objects may change because of fatigueand extreme weather. Thus, estimates of animal fatalities in wind developments are biased to unknown degrees by inefficiencies of observers. Estimates of fatalities are also biased by the removal of carcasses by scavenging animals or other actions (e.g., wind, plowing) before their detection by observers. All wind developments will be inhabited by various species of scavengers, primarily birds (e.g., vultures, ravens and other corvids) and mammals (e.g., squirrels, skunks, and coyotes). Thus, infrequent or unplannedsurveys for carcasses can result in extremely biased and likely underestimated quantification of the impacts on animals in thedevelopment. Scavenging activity will vary seasonally because of the movement and activity patterns of the scavengers and the size of

the carcass, further complicating evaluation of the influence of scavenging on collision data.

Fatality Survey Bias Means More Birds Are Killed Than ReportedM. Morrison. White Mountain Research Station. 6/2/2002. “Searcher Bias and Scavenger Rates in Bird/Wind Energy Studies.”

National Renewable Energy Laboratory.This survey indicates that estimates of animal fatalities in wind developments should incorporate correction factors based on observer efficiency and scavenging rates. Because observer efficiency and scavenging are influenced by season and vegetation, these correctionfactors should be calculated based on season- and vegetation-specific data for every study and should not rely on literature values because of substantial variability between studies. Scavenging trials should be conducted for a period of time sufficient to detect whenan asymptote in loss occurs (if indeed an asymptote occurs). These data will thus help determine the optimal period of time betweencarcasses searches. Estimates of total bird or bat fatalities should be determined after correcting for searcher bias and carcass removal bias; Strickland et al. (2000) present methods and calculations. Additionally, before beginning any study, field methods typically usedto locate carcasses and conduct experimental trials of observer and carcass removal biases should be reviewed (e.g., Strickland et al.

2000).

38




Ext – Faulty Surveys

More Predatory Birds Are Killed Than Fatality Surveys Show-SurveyInadequacies Prove

M. Morrison. White Mountain Research Station. 6/2/2002. “Searcher Bias and Scavenger Rates in Bird/Wind Energy Studies.” National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Results of this survey indicate that searcher efficiency is highly variable, with several studies reporting relatively low rates (i.e., 35%– 50%) and several studies reporting relatively high rates (i.e., 75%–85%) of recovery. Few studies considered the influence of vegetation type on searcher efficiency. Studies testing vegetation type indicated that efficiency can, in fact, be influenced by the heightand type of vegetation present. Additionally, the size of the bird used in the trials substantially influenced results. For example,Strickland, Johnson, and Erickson (no date) showed that only about 50% of small birds, compared to about 87% of larger birds(raptors), were recovered. The causes for variations in searcher efficiency during and between studies appears to be a function of (1)observer training, (2) vegetation type (and seasonal effects on plant development), and (3) size of bird. It is evident that relativelysmall birds are being missed at high rates, with most studies likely underestimating the fatality of small birds by 50%–75%. Resultsalso indicate that corrections for observer efficiency need to be based on vegetation type, plant phenology (season), and bird (or bat)size. Studies of scavenging rates were also highly variable and were influenced by bird size and season. Results did show a trendtoward a substantial (50%–75%) loss of carcasses of small to midsize birds within one to four weeks. Few studies followed carcasses

for more than a few weeks, which renders estimates of the eventual fate of larger carcasses difficult. It appears, however, that incertain locations even large raptors will disappear after a month or so.

39




Ecosystems Key

Ecosystem Provides Key BenefitsThe Secretariat of the Convention on Biological - 5/22/2008

("Ecosystem Services for Human Well-Being," CBD, http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-factsheet-01-en.pdf )Healthy ecosystems provide services that are the foundation for human well-being including health. Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems: provisioning services (also known as goods) such as food and water; regulating services suchas flood, pest, and disease control; cultural services such as spiritual and recreational benefits; and supporting services, such asnutrient cycling, that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. Biodiversity underpins ecosystem functioning. Figure 1 taken fromGlobal Biodiversity Outlook 2 demonstrates the link between ecosystem services and human well-being and drivers of change.1 Thedifferent levels (genes, species, ecosystems) and aspects of biodiversity directly and indirectly contribute to ecosystem goods andservices, which not only deliver the basic materials needed for survival but also underlie other aspects of a good life: health, security,good social relations, and freedom of choice. Humans, through social and economic activities and environmental management, createindirect and direct drivers of change that can affect, positively and negatively, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. TheMillennium Ecosystem Assessment, completed in 2005 by more than 1360 scientists working in 95 countries, examined the state of 24services. The assessment concluded that 15 of the 24 services are in decline, including the provision of fresh water, marine fisheries production, the number and quality of places of spiritual and religious value, the ability of the atmosphere to cleanse itself of pollution

and the capacity of agro-ecosystems to provide pest control.

40

http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-factsheet-01-en.pdf

http://www.cbd.int/doc/bioday/2008/ibd-2008-factsheet-01-en.pdf




Ecosystems Key

Retaining Ecosystem Is Top PriorityEnvironment News Service- 5/24/2005

("Humans Undermining the Very Biodiversity Needed for Survival," Environment News Service, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-24-01.asp)In the last 50 years, humans have changed the diversity of life on the planet more than at any other time in history. Human activitieshave lifted many people out of poverty, but at a price - the loss of biodiversity. A new assessment of biodiversity and human well being by top scientists from throughout the world shows that if humanity continues down this road, biological diversity will bedepleted with life-threatening consequences for all, including human beings. "Biodiversity is where the human hunger for resources istaking its heaviest toll, and the inclusion of 15,589 species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is the clearest sign that weneed to change the way we produce and consume,” said Jeff McNeely, chief scientist of the IUCN-World Conservation Union andcontributor to the report. The assessment, launched as part of the celebrations for the International Day for Biological Diversity onMay 22, was conducted by a panel of the Millenium Assessment, a partnership involving some 1,360 scientists who are experts intheir fields. It is supported by 22 of the world’s scientific bodies, including The Royal Society of the United Kingdom and the ThirdWorld Academy of Sciences. The panel defined biodiversity as "the variability among living organisms from all sources, includingterrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part." “Loss of biodiversity is a major

barrier to achieving development goals, and poses increasing risks for future generations,” said Dr. Walter Reid, director of theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment. The second Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report, "Biodiversity and Human Well-being: ASynthesis Report for the Convention on Biological Diversity," finds that although biodiversity is the foundation for human well-being,all of the likely future scenarios in the report lead to a further decline in biodiversity, contrary to the agreed global target to reduce therate of biodiversity loss by 2010. The diversity of life provides the materials humans need for food, clothing and shelter, and also bestows security, health and freedom of choice. But, the assessment found, "the current pace and rhythm of human activities areharming ecosystems, consuming biological resources and putting at risk the well-being of future generations." "If the wetlands,forests, rivers and coral reefs were factories and other ecosystems providing these services were art galleries, universities and the like,it would be considered gross vandalism or arson to damage them in the way we do," said UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer."Our recklessness goes further than this. It is also economic madness," said Toepfer. "The assessment points out that, for example, anintact hectare of mangroves in a country like Thailand is worth more than $1,000. Converted into intensive farming, the value drops toan estimated $200 a hectare."

41

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2005/2005-05-24-01.asp








Ecosystems Key

Human Survival Depends On Stable EcosystemsMillenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”

http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon Earth’s ecosystems. The ways in whichecosystems are affected by human activities will have consequences for the supply of for the prevalence of diseases, the frequency andmagnitude of floods and droughts, and local as well as global climate. Ecosystems also provide spiritual, recreational, educational, andother nonmaterial benefits to people. Changes in availability of all these ecosystem services can profoundly affect aspects of humanwell-being—ranging from the rate of economic growth and health and livelihood security to the prevalence and persistence of povertyHuman demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly. At the same time, humans are altering the capability of ecosystems tocontinue to provide many of these services. Management of this relationship is required to enhance the contribution of ecosystems tohuman well-being without affecting their long-term capacity to provide services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) wasestablished in 2001 by a partnership of international institutions, and with support from governments, with the goal of enhancing thescientific basis for such management.

Global Economies Are Dependent On Stable Ecosystems – Global Economy

Doomed To Fail If Ecosystems Are UnstableMillenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”

http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf All economies depend on ecosystem services. The production and manufacture of industrial wood products in the early 1990scontributed on the order of $400 billion to the global economy (Matthews et al. 2000). The world’s fisheries contributed $55 billion inexport value in 2000 (FAO 2000). Ecosystem services are particularly important to the economies of low-income developingcountries. Between 1996 and 1998, for example, agriculture represented nearly one fourth of the total gross domestic product of low-income countries (Wood et al. 2000). Certain ecosystem services—such as inland fisheries and fuelwood production— are particularlyimportant to the livelihoods of poor people. Fisheries provide the primary source of animal protein for nearly 1 billion people, and all but 4 of the 30 countries most dependent on fish as a protein source are in the developing world (WRI et al. 2000). In Cambodia, for instance, roughly 60 percent of the total animal protein consumed is from the fishery resources of the Tonle Sap, a large freshwater lake. In Malawi, freshwater fisheries supply 70–75 percent of the animal protein for both urban and rural low-income families (WRI etal. 2000). Similarly, more than 2 billion people depend directly on biomass fuels as their primary or sole source of energy, and in

countries like Nepal, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania, woodfuel meets 80 percent or more of total energy requirements (Matthews etal. 2000). Moreover, poor people are highly vulnerable to health risks associated with ecosystems: some 1–3 million people die eachyear from malaria, with 90 percent of them in Africa, where problems of poverty are most pressing (WHO 1997).

42










Ecosystems Key

Ecosystems Key To Preventing Climate Change And The Health Of TheEnvironment

Millenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf Yet many ecosystem services are largely unrecognized in their global importance or in the pivotal role they play in meeting needs in particular countries and regions (Daily 1997a). For example, terrestrial and ocean ecosystems provide a tremendous service byabsorbing nearly 60 percent of the carbon that is now emitted to the atmosphere from human activities (IPCC 2000), thereby slowingthe rate of global climate change. A number of cities—including New York and Portland, Oregon, in the United States, Caracas inVenezuela, and Curitiba in Brazil—reduce water treatment costs by investing in the protection of the natural water quality regulation provided by well-managed ecosystems (Reid 2001). The contribution of pollination to the worldwide production of 30 major fruit,vegetable, and tree crops is estimated to be approximately $54 billion a year (Kenmore and Krell 1998). Even in urban centers,ecosystems contribute significantly to well-being, both aesthetically and economically: Chicago’s trees remove more than 5,000 tonsof pollutants a year from the atmosphere (Nowak 1994). A society’s “natural capital”—its living and nonliving resources—is a keydeterminant of its well-being. The full wealth of a nation can be evaluated only with due consideration to all forms of capital:manufactured, human, social, and natural. (See Figure 1.1.)

Current Demands For Ecosystem Services Are Growing Rapidly – EcosystemsWill Not Be Able To Keep Up If UnstableMillenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”

http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystems_human_wellbeing.pdf Current demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly and often already outstrip capacity. Between 1993 and 2020, worlddemand for rice, wheat, and maize is projected to increase by some 40 percent and livestock production by more than 60 percent(Pinstrup-Andersen et al. 1997). Humans now withdraw about 20 percent of the base flow of the world’s rivers, and during the pastcentury withdrawals grew twice as fast as world population (Shiklomanov 1997; WHO 1997). By 2020, world use of industrialroundwood could be anywhere from 23 to 55 percent over 1998 consumption levels (Brooks et al. 1996). These growing demands canno longer be met by tapping unexploited resources (Watson et al. 1998; Ayensu et al. 2000). A country can increase food supply byconverting a forest to agriculture, but in so doing it decreases the supply of goods that may be of equal or greater importance, such as

clean water, timber, biodiversity, or flood control. Even more significant, humans are increasingly undermining the productivecapability of ecosystems to provide the services that people desire. For example, world fisheries are now declining due to overfishing,and some 40 percent of agricultural land has been strongly or very strongly degraded in the past 50 years by erosion, salinization,compaction, nutrient depletion, biological degradation, or pollution (WRI et al. 2000)

43










Readiness Shell

A. UNIQUENESS – WIND FARMS ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN BECAUSE OFTURBINE SHORTAGES NOW

Charleston Post and Courier, 7/15/07, “Turbine shortage knocks wind out of project,”http://www.charleston.net/news/2007/jul/15/turbine_shortage_knocks_wind_out_projects/The race to build new sources of alternative energy from the wind is running into a formidable obstacle: not enough windmills.

In recent years, improved technology has made it possible to build bigger, more efficient windmills. That, combined with surging political support for renewable energy, has driven up demand. Now, makers can't keep up, mostly because they can't get the parts theyneed fast enough.

B. LINK – PLAN’S RAPID INFLUX OF WIND TURBINES WOULD KILL MILITARY READINESS – THEY DISRUPT RADAR BROADCASTS AND PREVENT TROOPS FROMTRAINING AND TESTING WEAPONSJohn Hartzell [staff writer, Pioneer Press, MN], 9/29/06, “DOD report says wind farms will affect military readiness,”

http://www.windaction.org/news/5428MILWAUKEE - Large turbines generating electricity in a radar line of sight can harm the ability of air defense radars to detect andtrack aircraft or other aerial objects, the U.S. Department of Defense said Thursday in a new study.The only way to make sure that U.S. forces can perform their air defense missions is to avoid putting the wind turbines in the line of sight of the radars, said the report submitted to the Senate and House Armed Services committees.Efforts have started to find other ways but they "require further development and validation" before they can be used, given that some turbines with rotating bladesreach 500 feet high, the report said.

"The numbers, height and rotation of these wind turbines present technical challenges to the effectiveness of radar systems that must be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure acceptable military readiness is maintained," the report said.

At least a dozen wind farm projects in Illinois, Wisconsin and North Dakota have been stalled pending the completion of the military study.Minnesota is fourth in the nation in wind energy installed, and Wisconsin is 20th, according to the American Wind Energy Association, a Washington trade group.

Testing has demonstrated that wind farms can "degrade target tracking capabilities" because they can cause shadowing and clutter onradar, said the study, which was requested in the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress late last year.Randall Swisher, executive director of the trade group, said he was disappointed in the Defense Department report, calling it incomplete and lacking mention of ways to

mitigate wind turbines' effects on radar, such as relocating turbines or upgrading radar systems.Decades of experience indicate that wind turbines and radar can coexist, Swisher said."The American wind energy industry will continue to work collaboratively with government and others on efforts to constructively address challenges and refinesolutions," he said. "We need to further develop clean, renewable energy sources like wind to reduce dependence on imports and increase our energy security."The association said it welcomed recent Federal Aviation Administration approval of 614 applications for individual wind turbines in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois andSouth Dakota that will produce more than 1,000 megawatts of power, enough to power about 250,000 homes.

The Department of Defense study said wind turbines located close to military training, testing and development sites and ranges would"adversely affect" the military's ability to perform those missions.

44

http://www.windaction.org/news/5428





Readiness Shell

C. IMPACT – MILITARY READINESS IS KEY TO PREVENT LOSS OF LEADERSHIPJack Spencer [policy analyst – Heritage Foundation], 9/15/00, http://www.heritage.org/Research/MissileDefense/BG1394.cfm

Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United States is notprepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interest

inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness ismore likely to deter potentially hostile nat

from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace. Readiness Defined. Readiness measures the ability of military unit, such as an Army division or a carrier battle group, to accomplish its assigned mission. Logistics, available spare parts, training,equipment, and morale all contribute to readiness. The military recognizes four grades of readiness. 7 At the highest level, a unit is prepared tmove into position and accomplish its mission. At the lowest level, a unit requires further manpower, training, equipment, and/or logistics toaccomplish its mission. There is evidence of a widespread lack of readiness within the U.S. armed forces. Recently leaked Army documents rthat 12 of the 20 schools training soldiers in skills such as field artillery, infantry, and aviation have received the lowest readiness rating. Theydisclose that over half of the Army's combat and support training centers are rated at the lowest readiness grade. 8 As recently as last Novembtwo of the Army's 10 active divisions were rated at the lowest readiness level, and none were rated at the highest. 9 Every division requiredadditional manpower, equipment, or training before it would be prepared for combat, due largely to the units' commitments to operations in thBalkans. 10 And 23 percent of the Army's Chinook cargo helicopters, 19 percent of its Blackhawk helicopters, and 16 percent of its Apaches anot "mission-capable." 11 In other words, they are not ready. The Facts about Military Readiness The reduction in forces of the U.S. armed fo

began in the early 1990s. After the end of the Cold War, the Bush Administration began to reduce the size of the military so that it would beconsistent with post-Cold War threats. 12 Under the Clinton Administration, however, that reduction in forces escalated too rapidly at the samtime that U.S. forces were deployed too often with too little funding. The result was decreased readiness as personnel, equipment, training, anlocation suffered. Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has been deployed on over 50 peacekeeping and peace-enforcementoperations. 13 Yet the resources available to fund these missions have steadily decreased: The number of total active personnel has decreasednearly 30 percent, and funding for the armed services has decreased 16 percent. The strain on the armed forces shows clearly now as the reduforces deploy for too long with insufficient and antiquated equipment. The result is indisputable: Readiness is in decline. Because the securitythe United States is at stake, it is imperative to present the facts about military readiness: FACT #1. The size of the U.S. military has been cutdrastically in the past decade. Between 1992 and 2000, the Clinton Administration cut national defense by more than half a million personnel$50 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars. 14 (See Table 1.) The Army alone has lost four active divisions and two Reserve divisions. Because osuch cuts, the Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff, although its missions have increased significantly throughothe 1990s. In 1992, the U.S. Air Force consisted of 57 tactical squadrons and 270 bombers. Today the Air Force has 52 squadrons and 178

bombers. The total number of active personnel has decreased by nearly 30 percent. In the Navy, the total number of ships has decreasedsignificantly as well. In 1992, there were around 393 ships in the fleet, while today there are only 316, a decrease of 20 percent. The number o

Navy personnel has fallen by over 30 percent. In 1992, the Marine Corps consisted of three divisions. The Corps still has three divisions, but 1992, it has lost 22,000 active duty personnel, or 11 percent of its total. The Clinton Administration also cut the Marine Corps to 39,000 reser

personnel from 42,300 in 1992. Effect on Readiness. In spite of these drastic force reductions, missions and operations tempo have increased,resulting in decreased military readiness. Because every mission affects far greater numbers of servicemen than those directly involved, most

operations other than warfare, such as peacekeeping, have a significant negative impact on readiness. For each service[person]man who

participates in a military operation, two others are involved in the mission: one who is preparing to take the participant's place, andanother who is recovering from having participated and retraining. Therefore, if 10,000 troops are on peace operations in the Balkan30,000 troops are actually being taken away from preparing for combat. Ten thousand are actively participating, while 10,000 arerecovering, and 10,000 are preparing to go. Coupled with declining personnel, increased tempo has a devastating effect on readines

Morale problems stemming from prolonged deployments, equipment that wears out too quickly, and decreased combat traininglevels heighten when troops are committed to non-combat operations. Further exacerbating the military's declining readiness is th

tendency to take troops with special skills from non-deployed units. Thus, a mission may affect non-deployed units as well becausethey will not be able to train properly. The soldiers integral to the non-deployed mission are not present, and there is no one to take the

place. A mission's spillover effects are clearly illustrated by a July 2000 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) on the Ucommitments in the Balkans: In January 2000 ... four active divisions and one Guard division were affected by these operations [in theBalkans]. Among the active divisions, the 1st Cavalry Division was recovering from a 1-year deployment in Bosnia, the 10th MountainDivision was deployed there, and elements of the Guard's 49th Armored Division were preparing to deploy there. At the same time, theEuropean-based 1st Infantry Division was deployed to Kosovo, and the 1st Armored Division was preparing to deploy there. Althoughnone of these divisions deployed in its entirety, deployment of key components--especially headquarters--makes these divisions

unavailable for deployment elsewhere in case of a major war.

45




Readiness Shell

D. THIS CAUSES GLOBAL NUKE WARZalmay KHALILZAD [RAND Corporation], 1995, Losing the Moment?, Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84

Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to

avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would

therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

46




Uniqueness

WIND POWER WON’T EXPERIENCE GROWTH –TOO MUCH RED TAPE ANDOPPOSITION

Kristin Dispenza [freelance writer, architecture and design], 6/24/08, Cities Look Into Changing Zoning Laws to AccommodateWind Power Generators, http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/24/cities-look-into-changing-zoning-laws-to-accommodate-windpower-generators/ Even though the residential wind power sector has seen tremendous growth over the last decade, an article in The Arizona Republicestimates that there are still only 4,000 residential wind turbines nationwide. The primary reason that wind energy has been slow totake hold is that wind turbines are fairly visible, and therefore highly controversial, installations. According to the American WindEnergy Association, small wind systems (100 kilowatts or less) need to be at least 30 feet above barriers which might break the forceof the air currents reaching the turbine. Right now, the industry recommends wind turbines only for sites that are at least one 1 acre insize. Consequently, wind turbines in urban areas are still quite rare. (In a September 2007 post, earth2tech featured a San Franciscohome which sports a turbine, and pointed out that this may be the first urban wind turbine in the country.)Unfortunately, individual efforts to experiment with wind power, even in outlying areas, have encountered a lot of roadblocks.Proposed turbine installations are usually evaluated by local governments on a case by case basis, since most city zoning laws haveheight restrictions which would implicitly prohibit turbines. Oftentimes, even if permission is granted and a turbine is erected,

neighbors unite to fight the decision. (For individual turbine projects that have made news for seeking exceptions to local codes, seethese articles on Wayne, New Jersey and Atlanta, Georgia

47

http://greenbuildingelements.com/2008/06/24/cities-look-into-changing-zoning-laws-to-accommodate-wind-power-generators/









Link Ext.

WIND FARMS KILL BASE SECURITY AND JEOPARDIZE IMPORTANT MILITARY ACTIVITIES

DoD, 2006, “REPORT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES: The Effect of Windmill Farms On MilitaryReadiness,” http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf In some circumstances, wind farm developments near Department facilities and sites may pose temporary or long-term security risksof various degrees. Similar to other large construction projects near Department installations, the increased level of personnel andactivity during construction requires increased monitoring for security purposes. Additionally, similar to other tall verticaldevelopment, wind turbines can provide increased visual and sensor access to sensitive Department areas and activities.

WIND TOWER RADAR INTERFERENCE CAN JEOPARDIZE PLANE TRACKINGMISSIONSNational Wind Coordinating Committee, 7/27/06, Issue Forum Brief, www.nationalwind.org

Interference occurs because wind towers, nacelles, and blades all reflect radar energy. Energy transmitted by the radar is reflected off of the blades, generator, and tower and returned to the radar as interference. The rotation of blades causes Doppler reflections. In an

instance where a wind farm is in front of radar, with an airplane on the other side, the interference will create ghosting. Whenghosting occurs, other impacts can be created like dead zones and shadowing. When trying to track airplanes, this type of interferencecan influence a mission.

WIND POWER KILLS MILITARY READINESS AND DISRUPTS TOP-SECRETEQUIPMENT AT AREA 51Review-Journal, 8/9/03, “Arbitration Sought: Lawsuit Filed Over Wind Farm,” Keith Rogers,http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-09-Sat-2003/news/21910142.html A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration's Nevada Operations Office in North Las Vegas, declined to commenton the lawsuit Friday.The project to build 545 wind turbines for generating electricity was abruptly canceled in July 2002 after Air Force officials, withoutexplanation, expressed national security concerns relating to the mission of the National Nuclear Security Administration for DefenseDepartment to train, test and develop tactics in an unfettered environment.

A Nellis Air Force Base spokesman at the time explained that turbine blades whirling atop Shoshone Mountain would disrupt radar signals during training exercises.A week later, sources with knowledge of Air Force operations on the outskirts of the test site said the turbines would disrupt sensitivesound-tracking equipment at the government's secrete installation along the dry Groom Lake bed, widely known as Area 51.

48

http://www.nationalwind.org/


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-09-Sat-2003/news/21910142.html


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Aug-09-Sat-2003/news/21910142.html




Link Ext.

WIND FARMS DISRUPT RADAR, KILLING MILITARY READINESSUS News & World Report, 7/30/06, “Ill winds blowing,” Bret Schulte, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-

HdjWip8RYoJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060730/7wind.htm+Wind+farms+disrupt+radar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us As the year began, Michael Polsky was poised to plant wind farms in the fields of Wisconsin, Illinois, and South Dakota that would power some 3,000 homes. But in March, the CEO of Invenergy received a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration saying the projects could disrupt the radar signals of nearby military installations.The letter recommended he delay the projects pending results of a Defense Department study. Polsky was stunned, but he's complyingAs many as 12 other proposed wind farms received similar warnings. "I can't imagine how turbines located 12 to 40 miles away caninterfere with radar," Polsky says.Plenty of other wind-energy producers are baffled, too. With President Bush pushing for alternative energy and with generous taxcredits in place, 2006 was supposed to be a banner year for wind power. Instead, experts say, the industry is faltering while it awaitsthe results of the study mandated in this year's defense authorization bill by Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed ServicesCommittee.Wind turbines, which can reach 400 feet high, have cluttered radar signals in the United Kingdom, where wind power is more

prevalent. Experts say that while older American systems are susceptible to similar problems, they can be fixed by hardware andsoftware upgrades. Warner says an analysis of the problems is necessary to answer questions about radar interference. But critics decrythe study as a political maneuver aimed at derailing one project in particular: Cape Wind, a proposed farm of 130 turbines off theshores of Cape Cod. "What we're seeing here," says Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, "is the NIMBY phenomenon playing out against green technology." The result is a Washington maelstrom that has jumbled party alliances and left thefuture of wind power in limbo.

WIND POWER DISRUPTS RADAR AND KILLS MILITARY READINESSReview-Journal, 7/13/02, “Air Force concerns thwart Nevada Test Site wind farm,” Keith Rogers,http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-13-Sat-2002/news/19179321.htmlA $130 million Nevada Test Site wind power project was abruptly canceled Friday after Air Force officials said turbine bladeswhirling atop Shoshone Mountain would disrupt radar signals during training exercises.The decision by the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency that operates the test site for the Department of Energy,

halted years of work by public- and private-sector leaders during the final stage of the project's approval process."We had clearly hoped this project could come to fruition," said Kathleen Carlson, the manager of the administration's NevadaOperations Office in North Las Vegas. "However, we must support the mission requirements of the Air Force to train, test and developtactics in an unfettered environment."Darwin Morgan, a local spokesman for the administration, said the Air Force made its position clear this week.The announcement was another blow to environmentalists and Nevada's congressional delegation, coming three days after the Senateapproved the placement of a high-level nuclear waste repository inside the test site at Yucca Mountain. Parties involved with the project, including the consultant for the NTS Development Corp., the public-private venture behind the renewable energy project, saidthe timing of the termination announcement was coincidental.Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who led Tuesday's unsuccessful battle on the Senate floor to stop the Yucca Mountain Project, expresseddisappointment the wind farm project was terminated."He's going to keep working to see where we can do this (wind-power) project and move forward with it," Reid spokeswoman TessaHafen said late Friday. She said there was no connection between the Air Force decision on the wind-power site and the Senateapproval of Yucca Mountain.She said Reid, who chairs the energy and water subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, spoke earlier this week withSecretary of the Air Force James G. Roche. Reid was told the wind farm can't go forward "because of national security concerns thatare classified," Hafen said.

49

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:-HdjWip8RYoJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060730/7wind.htm+Wind+farms+disrupt+radar&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us



http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-13-Sat-2002/news/19179321.html








Link Ext.

WIND POWER UNAVOIDABLY SUCKS – EVEN CHANGING MATERIALS STILL LEADSTO RADAR JAMMING IN TOP-SECRET AREAS

Review-Journal, 7/13/02, “Air Force concerns thwart Nevada Test Site wind farm,” Keith Rogers,http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Jul-13-Sat-2002/news/19179321.html Nellis Air Force Base spokesman Mike Estrada said the Shoshone Mountain wind farm "would severely degrade our abilities to traincrews and conduct testing and tactics development out there." Nellis Air Force Range flanks the Nevada Test Site on three sides, and the top-secret Groom Lake installation, described by former workers there as an area where U.S. military aircraft are tested against foreign radar systems, sits near the northeast corner of the testsite."Basically anytime an aircraft has its radar turned on and is pointed anywhere near the direction of the proposed wind farm, it would jam his radar," Estrada said. "If DOE decides to look at other locations, we will assist them in determining if it would have impacts."Estrada said the Air Force conducted studies to determine whether any other material besides metal could be used for the turbine blades, but even fiberglass would have caused problems.

WIND TURBINES HAVE A HUGE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON RADAR OPERATING

CAPABILITIESDoD, 2006, “REPORT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES: The Effect of Windmill Farms On MilitaryReadiness,” http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf The report begins with a brief introduction of the key principles of radar systems, describes in what circumstances wind farms mightcause problems for the Department and under what circumstances such wind farms would not cause problems. Radar test results frommultiple flight trials near wind farms performed by the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence are discussed. The results from thoseflight trials documented that state-of-the-art utility-class wind turbines can have a significant impact on the operational capabilities of military air defense radar systems. The results demonstrated that the large radar cross section of a wind turbine combined with theDoppler frequency shift produced by its rotating blades can impact the ability of a radar to discriminate the wind turbine from anaircraft. Those tests also demonstrated that the wind farms have the potential to degrade target tracking capabilities as a result of shadowing and clutter effects.

50







Readiness Brink

READINESS IS ON THE BRINK NOWHuffington Post, 2/8/08, “War Demands Strain US Military Readiness,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-

demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html# WASHINGTON — A classified Pentagon assessment concludes that long battlefield tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with persistent terrorist activity and other threats, have prevented the U.S. military from improving its ability to respond to any new crisis,The Associated Press has learned.Despite security gains in Iraq, there is still a "significant" risk that the strained U.S. military cannot quickly and fully respond toanother outbreak elsewhere in the world, according to the report.Last year the Pentagon raised that threat risk from "moderate" to "significant." This year, the report will maintain that "significant" risklevel _ pointing to the U.S. military's ongoing struggle against a stubborn insurgency in Iraq and its lead role in the NATO-led war inAfghanistan.The Pentagon, however, will say that efforts to increase the size of the military, replace equipment and bolster partnerships overseaswill help lower the risk over time, defense officials said Friday. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified report.Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has completed the risk assessment, and it is expected to be delivered toCapitol Hill this month. Because he has concluded the risk is significant, his report will include a letter from Defense Secretary Robert

Gates outlining steps the Pentagon is taking to reduce it.The risk level was raised to significant last year by Mullen's predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.On Capitol Hill this week, Mullen provided a glimpse into his thinking on the review. And Pentagon officials Friday confirmed thatthe assessment is finished and acknowledged some of the factors Gates will cite in his letter."The risk has basically stayed consistent, stayed steady," Mullen told the House Armed Services Committee. "It is significant."He said the 15-month tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are too long and must be reduced to 12 months, with longer rest periods at home."We continue to build risk with respect to that," he said.Other key national security challenges include threats from countries that possess weapons of mass destruction, as well as the need toreplace equipment worn out and destroyed during more than six years of war.On a positive note, Mullen pointed to security gains in Iraq, brought on in part by the increase in U.S. forces ordered there byPresident Bush last year. There, "the threat has receded and al-Qaida ... is on the run," he said. "We've reduced risk there. We've gotmore stability there as an example."The annual review grades the military's ability to meet the demands of the nation's military strategy _ which would include fightingthe wars as well as being able to respond to any potential outbreaks in places such as North Korea, Iran, Lebanon or China.The latest review by Mullen covers the military's status during 2007, but the readiness level has seesawed during the Iraq war. For example, the risk for 2004 was assessed as significant, but it improved to moderate in 2005 and 2006.Last year, when Pace increased the risk level, a report from Gates accompanying the assessment warned that while the military isworking to improve its warfighting capabilities, it "may take several years to reduce risk to acceptable levels."

51

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/08/war-demands-strain-us-mil_n_85797.html#







Readiness Good

GROUND FORCE READINESS IS CRITICAL TO EXTERNAL PERCEPTIONS OF THESTRENGTH OF THE US MILITARY. OVEREXTENSION RISKS ENCOURAGING

ADVERSARIAL AGGRESSIONPerry 06 - Senior Fellow @ Hoover Institution [William, The US Military: Under Strain and at Risk, The National Security AdvisoryGroup, January 2006, pg. National_Security_Report_01252006.pdf]• In the meantime, the United States has only limited ground force capability ready to respond to other contingencies. The absenceof a credible strategic reserve in our ground forces increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to challenge theUnited States. Since the end of World War II, a core element of U.S. strategy has been maintaining a military capable of deterringand, if necessary, defeating aggression in more than one theater at a time. As a global power with global interests, the United Statesmust be able to deal with challenges to its interests in multiple regions of the world simultaneously. Today, however, the UnitedStates has only limited ground force capability ready to respond outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters of operations. If the Army were

ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today, its only option would be to deploy units at readiness levels far below what operational plans would require – increasing the risk to the men and women being sent into harm's way and to the success of the mission. As stated rather blandly in one DoD presentation, the Army

"continues to accept risk" in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. Although the United States can still deploy air, naval,and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression, the visible overextension of our ground forces has the potential tosignificantly weaken our ability to deter and respond to some contingencies. pg. 1

52




Readiness Good

STRONG MILITARY READINESS IS CRITICAL TO MAINTAIN U.S. HEGEMONY Owens – associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College – 2006 (Mackubin Thomas,

in Newport, R.I., as well as a senior fellow of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, E-Notes, "A Balanced Force Structure to Achieve a LiberalWorld Order," January 20, www.fpri.org/enotes/20060120.military.owens.balancedforcestructure.html)

Primacy and the Logic of Force Planning A strategy of primacy requires a balanced force that can be employed across the spectrum ofconflict and prevail under diverse circumstances against adversaries employing a variety of strategies, including conventional,irregular, catastrophic, and disruptive approaches. These forces must be able not only to prevail in war, but also reassure friends andallies and generally influence actors in those parts of the world of the greatest importance to the US, especially Eurasia.These forces must be capable of operating jointly in all operational environments: land, sea, air, space, and across the electromagnetic spectrum, both now and in the

future. Accordingly, while remaining of sufficient size and composition both to fight and win major theater wars and carry outconstabulary operations in the present, this force structure must also be flexible enough to exploit new technologies, doctrine,organization, and operational concepts in order to maintain military preeminence in the future.

ARMY IS CRITICAL TO OUR FORWARD DETERRENT POSTURE. US WITHDRAWALRISK TRANSFORMING ETHNIC CONFLICTS INTO FULL-SCALE WARS

Crane 02 - Research Fellow @ Strategic Studies Institute [Conrad C. Crane, Former Professor of History at the U.S. MilitaryAcademy., Facing the Hydra: Maintaining Strategic Balance While Pursuing A Global War Against Terrorism, Strategic StudiesInstitute, May 2002]Consequently, one result of the global war on terrorism will undoubtedly be to increase American involvement in peace operations such as those in the Balkans. At the

same time, there is no sign that current peacekeeping missions can go away without adverse strategic impacts. Understanding this realitythe QDR Report states that "these long-standing commitments will, in effect, become part of the U.S. forward deterrent posture."22Unless soldiers continue to perform security and nation-building tasks in the Balkans, the recent increases in ethnic violence can easilyescalate again into full-scale war.23 The Bush administration has reassured NATO allies that the United States will not prematurely pull out of these Balkan

missions, although Rumsfeld has proposed reductions of all peacekeepers in Bosnia "because the police work there has begun to strain armies needed to fightterrorism."24 He would also like to withdraw American troops from the multinational observer force in the Sinai Peninsula.25 These peace operations remain very

important for regional stability. Even while the Army initiates new operations against terrorism, it should be wary of any calls to endanger these peacekeeping missions to provide resources for the new war. pg. 7

53

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060120.military.owens.balancedforcestructure.html







Earthquake Module

WIND FARMS GENERATE SEISMIC ACTIVITY THAT INTERFERES WITH EQUIPMENTTHAT DETECTS EARTHQUAKES AND NUCLEAR BLASTS

Canadian Wind Energy Association, April 2007, “Technical Information On The Assessment of the Potential Impact Of Wind Turbines On Radio Communication, Radar And Seismoacoustic Systems,” http://www.rabc-cccr.ca/Files/RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok-RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok1.pdf An extensive study of micro seismic and infrasonic effects of low frequency noise and vibrations from wind farms has shown thatwind turbines have a negative impact on seismo acoustic (seismological and infrasound) recording equipment that can reduce their sensitivity and hence effectiveness for monitoring earthquakes and nuclear explosions. Wind turbines generate detectable seismicvibrations in the earth, and low-frequency acoustic signals in the atmosphere, which increase with wind speed. The greater the numberof wind turbines, the higher the level of seismic and acoustic noise.

SILENT EARTHQUAKE DETECTION IS KEY – ONLY WAY TO PREDICT THE MEGA-QUAKES THAT FOLLOWScienceDaily, 7/6/06, “Silent Earthquakes May Foreshadow Destructive Temblors, Study Finds,”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060706100045.htmThese swarms of micro-earthquakes are a clear sign that the silent temblor is adding stress to the fault zone, say the authors, and someday might provide an early warning that a harmless silent event is likely to trigger a destructive mega-earthquake of M8 or larger.Global hazardsUnlike seismic earthquakes, which release sudden shock waves, silent temblors are too slow to cause ground shaking and thus are notconsidered hazardous. However, some researchers have speculated that silent quakes may be precursors of M8 and M9 mega-temblorsthat regularly occur in subduction zones--seismically active regions where one tectonic plate is constantly diving ("subducting") beneath another. Some of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded have occurred in subduction zones, including the devastating M9.2Sumatra temblor in 2004, which generated huge tsunamis that killed more than 200,000 people."Silent earthquakes have recently been discovered in subduction zones in the Pacific Northwest, Japan, Mexico and elsewhere," Segalsays. "It is likely that as these silent slow-slip events occur, the probability of a bigger seismic quake goes up."

THESE MEGA-EARTHQUAKES RISK EXTINCTIONAl-Ahram Weekly, January 2005, “The post-earthquake world,” http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm

Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how globalwarming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception haschanged following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of EastAfrica, on 26 December.This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief thatthe end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the notion that the extinction of thehuman race will not occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in anyway. We are now forced to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.

54

http://www.rabc-cccr.ca/Files/RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok-RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok1.pdf





http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060706100045.htm








Wind -> Earthquakes

WIND FARMS GENERATE SEISMIC ACTIVITY THAT INTERFERES WITH EQUIPMENTTHAT DETECTS EARTHQUAKES AND NUCLEAR BLASTS

Canadian Wind Energy Association, April 2007, “Technical Information On The Assessment of the Potential Impact Of Wind Turbines On Radio Communication, Radar And Seismoacoustic Systems,” http://www.rabc-cccr.ca/Files/RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok-RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok1.pdf An extensive study of microseismic and infrasonic effects of low frequency noise and vibrations from windfarms has shown that windturbines have a negative impact on seismoacoustic (seismological and infrasound) recording equipment that can reduce their sensitivity and hence effectiveness for monitoring earthquakes and nuclear explosions. Wind turbines generate detectable seismicvibrations in the earth, and low-frequency acoustic signals in the atmosphere, which increase with wind speed. The greater the numberof wind turbines, the higher the level of seismic and acoustic noise.

WIND FARMS SERIOUSLY HARM SEISMOLOGICAL EQUIPMENT AND MAKE ITIMPOSSIBLE TO DETECT EARTHQUAKES AND UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR BLASTS

Canadian Wind Energy Association, April 2007, “Technical Information On The Assessment of the Potential Impact Of Wind Turbines On Radio Communication, Radar And Seismoacoustic Systems,” http://www.rabc-cccr.ca/Files/RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok-RABC%20CANWEA%20Wind%20Turbine%20Guidelines%20Final_ok1.pdf Low frequency noise/vibration from wind turbines can seriously hamper the ability of a seismological monitoring station to detect andrecord low-ampitude ground motion signals related to distant earthquakes or underground nuclear explosions. Similarly, theintroduction of low-frequency noise into the atmosphere can reduce the ability of infrasound monitoring equipment to detect andrecord atmospheric explosions.

55




















Earthquake Detection Key

EARTHQUAKE EARLY DETECTION IS KEY Lamit Company, 2004, http://www.lamit.ro/earthquake-early-warning-system.htm

Earthquakes and seismic activity have always been a hot issue. Attention is stimulated time and again by disasters such as theearthquakes in Turkey, Taiwan, and Iran. It has become apparent that the power of an earthquake is not something we are currently prepared to handle. Much of the problem is that the damaging earthquake waves seem to come out of nowhere without warning.However, this is not truly the case...Earthquakes, if analysed properly, can actually give warning of their incipient occurrence, even before the ground starts shakingheavily. A critical objective is to quickly identify the precursors of the destructive waves of the earthquake in time to initiate an alarm.

SENSITIVE SEISMIC EQUIPMENT IS KEY FOR MONITORING SILENTEARTHQUAKES THAT CAN CAUSE DEVESTATING TSUNAMISScienceDaily, 2/28/02, “Silent Earthquake In Hawaii Offers Clues To Early Detection Of Catastrophic Tsunamis,”http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020228072840.htm "We don't know how common silent earthquakes are because, up until now, we haven't had the capability or tools to measure them,"Segall explained.

He pointed out that detecting the silent quake on Kilauea would have been impossible a few years ago, before Stanford and the USGSestablished a permanent network of instruments capable of monitoring millimeter-sized movements on the volcanic surface on a daily basis."Now that we have the networks in place, we're finding that silent earthquakes are popping up in all kinds of surprising places - likevolcanoes - that we didn't know about before," Segall added. "This event did not produce a tsunami, but if we can detect potentiallycatastrophic ground motion in its early stages, we might be able to issue tsunami warnings in the future."Ward agreed, noting that the silent earthquake detected by Segall and his colleagues could be interpreted as the early stage of acatastrophic flank collapse that may occur one day on Kilauea.

56

http://www.lamit.ro/earthquake-early-warning-system.htm









Readiness = Iraq Withdrawal

A. A RAPID DECLINE IN MILITARY READINESS WILL LEAD TO IRAQ PULLOUTThe Times, 9/9/07, “Petraeus urged to pull out troops,”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2414620.ece Petraeus is hoping for time to build momentum in Anbar province and Baghdad for greater local reconciliation – “an emerging area ofconsiderable importance” – and the establishment of “provisional units of neighbourhood security volunteers”.Critics claim the policy is creating local warlords, encouraging the defacto partition of Iraq into Sunni, Shi’ite and Kurdish areas, and building up sectarian militias.A powerful trio, made up of General Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral William Fallon, the head of CentralCommand, and General William Casey, the chief of the army, are concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are overstretchingthe American armed forces.They believe Petraeus and Odierno naturally want to keep every last soldier they can for the surge, but fear they are losing sight of theneed for overall military readiness in the event of an unexpected international crisis.Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute, said: “If we were to draw down our forces dramatically in ashort period of time, the Iraqi security forces would collapse.”

B. IRAQ PULLOUT WOULD CAUSE MASSIVE CIVIL WAR, TERRORISM, IRAN RISETO POWER, AND COLLAPSE OF HEGJames Jay Carafano [Senior Research Fellow, Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Heritage Foundation],

10/5/06, “The dangerous consequences of cutting and running in Iraq,” http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/em1012.cfm

Consequence #1: An Army Up for Grabs. A sudden U.S. withdrawal would raise the risks of full-fledged civil war and disintegrationof the army into hostile factions. The defection of soldiers to various militias, taking with them their heavy equipment, would bolster the militias’ firepower and capacity to seize and hold terrain. The result would be a bloody and protracted civil war such as the conflicin Bosnia following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.Consequence #2: Energy Uncertainty. Growing anarchy in Iraq and the possible breakup of the country into autonomous regionswould severely affect Iraq’s oil exports. In 2005, Iraq produced about 1.9 million barrels per day (MBD) of oil and exported about 1.4MBD. By June 2006, Iraqi oil production had risen to 2.5 MBD, and the govern–ment hopes to increase produc–tion to 2.7 MBD bythe end of the year. A U.S. withdrawal would undermine the security of oil pipelines and other facilities and increase the vulnerabilityof Iraqi oil production to sabotage. The resulting drop in Iraqi oil exports would increase the upward pressure on world oil prices in an

already tight oil market. Energy uncer–tainty would be increased further if Iraq splintered and Iran gained domination over a Shia-dominated rump state in the oil-rich south.Consequence #3: Allies in Jeopardy. The chief bene – ficiary of a rapid U.S. pullout would be Iran , which has considerable influenceover the dominant Shiite political parties, which represent most Iraqi Shiites: about 60–65 percent of the population. If Iraq imploded,Iran quickly could gain dominance over an emerging “Shiastan” rump state endowed with the bulk of Iraq’s oil reserves. This wouldgive Iran additional resources and a staging area to escalate subversive efforts targeted at the Shiite majority in Bahrain and Shiiteminorities in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. These and other countries look to the United States to serve as a guarantor against anaggressive Iran. If the United States fails to follow through on its commitment to establish a stable government in Iraq, it will severelyundermine its credibility. Abandon – ing Iraqi allies would erode the confidence of other allies in U.S. leadership and further fuelconspiracy theories about American plots to carve up Iraq to keep Arabs weak and divided.Consequence #4: Al-Qaeda Triumphant. Osama bin Laden would trumpet an abrupt U.S. withdrawal as a victory for al-Qaeda and proof that America is a “paper tiger,” just as he claimed after the U.S. with–drawal from Somalia in 1994. An unstable, failed state inIraq would also provide al-Qaeda and other radical groups with a sanctuary for recruiting a new generation of suicide bombers and a

strategically located staging area for deploying terrorists for attacks on Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and elsewhere aroundthe world. The recently declassi–fied “key judgments” of the April 2006 National Intelligence Estimate, “Trends in Global Terrorism:Implications for the United States,” pointed out that a perceived victory for jihadists in Iraq would boost their strength and ability tothreaten Americans.

Insert Impact

57

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2414620.ece


http://www.heritage.org/Research/Iraq/em1012.cfm







Terrorism Module

WIND FARMS LEAD TO SECURITY BREACHES AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONSDoD, 2006, “REPORT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEES: The Effect of Windmill Farms On Military

Readiness 2006,” http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf In some circumstances, wind farm developments near Department facilities and sites may pose temporary or long-term security risksof various degrees. Similar to other large construction projects near Department installations, the increased level of personnel andactivity during construction requires increased monitoring for security purposes. Additionally , similar to other tall verticaldevelopment, wind turbines can provide increased visual and sensor access to sensitive Department areas and activities.

SECURITY BREACHES MAKE MILITARY BASES VULNERABLE TO TERRORISTATTACKSDave Ahearn [editor, Defense Daily], March 2008, Safeguarding Facilities in a Time of Terrorism:

An Immense Task Barely Begun, http://www.defensedaily.com/books/safeguardingfacilities.html Many experts have said it is not a question of if, but only when, terrorists once again strike a staggering blow inside the United States.And at present, many prospective targets remain wide open and vulnerable to attack, including aircraft, deepwater ports, government

centers, military installations, urban areas, communications centers, chemical refineries, power plants, and more. What does thisimminent threat mean for the owners of enormous, and enormously costly, public and private facilities that may wind up in thecrosshairs of a lethal terrorist attack?

Insert Impact

58

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/WindFarmReport.pdf



http://www.defensedaily.com/books/safeguardingfacilities.html







Inefficient disad?

WIND BAD – SO SPACE-INEFFICIENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO TURN ALL OFTEXAS INTO A WIND FARM TO POWER THE COUNTRY

ScienceDaily, 7/25/07, “Renewable Energy Wrecks Environment, According to Researcher,”http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070724160209.htmOn this basis, he argues that technologies succeed when economies of scale form part of their evolution. No economies of scale benefit renewables. More renewable kilowatts require more land in a constant or even worsening ratio, because land good for wind,hydropower, biomass, or solar power may get used first.A consideration of each so-called renewable in turn, paints a grim picture of the environmental impact of renewables. Hypotheticallyflooding the entire province of Ontario, Canada, about 900,000 square km, with its entire 680,000 billion liters of rainfall, and storingit behind a 60 meter dam would only generate 80% of the total power output of Canada's 25 nuclear power stations, he explains. Putanother way, each square kilometer of dammed land would provide the electricity for just 12 Canadians.Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spareland for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."

Turning to wind Ausubel points out that while wind farms are between three to ten times more compact than a biomass farm, a 770square kilometer area is needed to produce as much energy as one 1000 Megawatt electric (MWe) nuclear plant. To meet 2005 USelectricity demand and assuming round-the-clock wind at the right speed, an area the size of Texas, approximately 780,000 squarekilometers, would need to be covered with structures to extract, store, and transport the energy.One hundred windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, could power an electric lamp or two, but not the laundryequipment, microwave oven, plasma TV, and computer. New York City would require every square meter of Connecticut to become awind farm to fully power all its electrical equipment and gadgets.

59




Marine Ecosystems Module

A. Wind Turbines Have A Devastating Affect On Marine WildlifeU.S. Department of the Interior – 5/2006

("Technology White Paper on Wind Energy Potential on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf," OCS Alternative Energy and Alternate UseProgrammatic EIS, http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/wind/index.cfm)Potential impacts on the environment that may occur during construction, operations, and decommissioning of offshore wind facilitiesare highlighted below. Marine life. Foundations can act as artificial reefs with a resultant increase in fish populations from the newfood supply. These increases in fish population may also have stimulating effects on bird populations in the area, which could causecollisions between birds and towers or rotors. Migrating birds. Besides potential collisions (bird strikes), it is possible that the birdswould need to consume more energy to avoid collisions and maintain their orientation when navigating around the turbines. Tower illumination may also cause navigational disorientation for birds. Interference with navigation for endangered and threatened species.Electromagnetic fields created by the electric cables running from the turbines and underwater noises and vibrations could affectorientation and navigational ability. Potential alteration of natural environments and diminution of habitats. Underwater support pilings, anchoring devices, scour-protection materials, and electromagnetic fields could cause a decrease in benthic communities, alter natural environments, and possibly affect migration patterns. Emissions. Each unit of electricity generated from the wind that saves aunit generated from fossil fuels, which will help reduce greenhouses gases, pollutants, and waste products that result from fossil fuel

use.

60

http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/wind/index.cfm






Marine Ecosystems Module

B. Marine Ecosystems Are Key To Human SurvivalUS EPA – 7/10/2008, "Marine Ecosystems," EPA, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iBupBZU-

LowJ:www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/marine.html+marine+ecosystems+are+key+to+human+survival&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=usMarine ecosystems are a part of the largest aquatic system on the planet, covering over 70% of the Earth's surface. The habitats thatmake up this vast system range from the productive nearshore regions to the barren ocean floor. Some examples of important marineecosystems are: Oceans Estuaries and Salt Marshes Coral Reefs and Other Tropical Communities (Mangrove Forests) Coastal areaslike Lagoons, Kelp and Seasgrass Beds and Intertidal systems (rocky, sandy, and muddy shores) Marine ecosystems are home to a hosof different species ranging from tiny planktonic organisms that comprise the base of the marine food web (i.e., phytoplankton andzooplankton) to large marine mammals like the whales, manatees, and seals. In addition, many fish species reside in marineecosystems including flounder, scup, sea bass, monkfish, squid, mackerel, butterfish, and spiny dogfish. Birds are also plentifulincluding shorebirds, gulls, wading birds, and terns. Some marine animals are also endangered including whales, turtles, etc. Insummary, many animal species rely on marine ecosystems for both food and shelter from predators. Marine ecosystems containseveral unique qualities that set them apart from other aquatic ecosystems, the key factor being the presence of dissolved compoundsin seawater, particularly salts. This total gram weight of dissolved substances (salts) in one kg of seawater is referred to as salinity. Ingeneral 85% of the dissolved substances are Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl) in seawater. On average seawater has a salinity of 35 parts

per thousand grams (ppt) of water. These dissolved compounds give seawater its distinctive "salty" taste, affect species composition of particular marine habitats, and prevent oceans from freezing during the winter. Daily changes in factors such as weather, currents, andseasons as well as variations in climate and location will cause salinity levels to vary among different marine ecosystems. In areassuch as estuaries, tidal marshes, and mangrove forests, tidal and freshwater influences from river and streams makes it necessary for marine organisms to adapt to a wide range of salinity levels. These organisms such as mussels, clams, and barnacles, are calledeuryhaline (salt tolerant) organisms. Other organisms, in particular finfish, are unable to tolerate such changes in salinity. Theseorganisms are considered to be stenohaline (salt intolerant). These species require more constant levels of salinity, forcing them toeither migrate to new areas when fluctuations in salinity levels occur or to seek out areas where salinity change is minimal (e.g., thedeep ocean). Like other aquatic ecosystems, marine ecosystems require nutrients and light to produce food and energy. However, bothnutrients and light are limiting factors in marine ecosystem productivity. Like many other aquatic plants, photosynthetic marineorganisms (i.e., phytoplankton) rely upon sunlight and chlorophyll a to absorb visible light from the sun as well as nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and silicon (Si) to generate food and promote growth and reproduction. However, the amount of light penetrating theocean surface tends to decrease with increasing water depth, therefore photosynthesis can only take place within a small band near thesurface of the water (called the photic zone). In addition, nutrient availability often varies significantly from place to place. For example, in the open ocean, nutrient levels are often very poor causing primary production to be very low. In contrast, nearshorewaters such as estuaries and marshes are often rich in nutrients, allowing primary production to be very high. In some instances,nearshore ecosystems have an excess of nutrients due to runoff and other terrestrial sources. Excess nutrients can cause an over-stimulation of primary production, depleting oxygen levels and causing eutrophic conditions to occur in coastal habitats. Marineecosystems are very important in to the overall health of both marine and terrestrial environments. According to the World ResourcesCenter, coastal habitats alone account for approximately 1/3 of all marine biological productivity, and estuarine ecosystems (i.e., saltmarshes, seagrasses, mangrove forests) are among the most productive regions on the planet. In addition, other marine ecosystemssuch as coral reefs, provide food and shelter to the highest levels of marine diversity in the world. The diversity and productivity of marine ecosystems are also important to human survival and well-being. These habitats provide us with a rich source of food andincome, and support species that serve as animal feed, fertilizers for crops, additives in foods (i.e., ice-cream) and cosmetics (i.e.,creams and lotions). Areas such as mangroves, reefs, and seagrass beds also provide protection to coastlines by reducing wave action,and helping to prevent erosion, while areas such as salt marshes and estuaries have acted as sediment sinks, filtering runoff from theland. Despite the importance of marine ecosystems, increased human activities such as overfishing, coastal development, pollution,

and the introduction of exotic species have caused significant damage and pose a serious threat to marine biodiversity.

61

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:iBupBZU-LowJ:www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/aquatic/marine.html+marine+ecosystems+are+key+to+human+survival&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/oceans/index.html


http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/about1.htm


http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/coral/index.html


http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/














Climate Change Module

A. Wind power alters the energy patterns of wind, causing climate changes

Kemm- Ph.D. in nuclear physics and CEO of STRATEK Business Strategy Consultants – 2/22/2008

(Kelvin, "Wind farms more harmful to the environment than power stations," Engineering News,http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=126614)There is a theory in physics called the Chaos Theory. It turns out now that this theory was badly named, because a great deal has beenlearned since it was first proposed. But we are stuck with the name. If you watch a lit cigarette lying on an ashtray, you will noticethat, in still air conditions, the smoke goes straight up for about 15 cm. Then what happens is that the smoke breaks up into substantiaturbulence. The same effect is seen with water coming out of a tap slowly - it gets turbulent after a relatively short distance. For manyyears, this cigarette smoke phenomenon puzzled scientists because it did not match the maths of the time. The turbulence should nothave occurred, according to that maths. But it did. Well, after such thinking by some bright folks, the Chaos Theory was discovered,and it explains the cigarette smoke pattern. Now a considerable amount of work has been done on the theory, and it is amazing howmany applications it now has. It even fits certain stock exchange patterns. The Chaos Theory explains the size and distribution of earthquakes around the world - that seems reasonable. But not so reasonable is that it also indicates personal income distributionsaround a country, and the resulting effect that this pattern has on the local economy. One of the factors that comes out of the ChaosTheory is that a very small disturbance, called a perturbation in physics, which happens at the front end of a sequence of events can

lead to dramatically different answers at the end. One writer described a butterfly under a tree, and pointed out that, if the butterflyflapped its wings, it would alter the air pattern, which would then move up through the leaves of the tree. Each leaf would alter the air flow again, and at the top of the tree an air pattern would emerge. The theory says that this air pattern can then slightly alter a gentlewind direction and, some time later, it could rain 1 000 km away, instead of raining at some other place. In other words, a minor front-end perturbation can result in a dramatically different final result. This whole image of the butterfly flapping its wings has now become quite a poetic image, and many people use it without any idea of where it came from. You hear people saying: "Well, if the butterfly flaps its wings . . .", and you get a knowing look. Now to wind energy - it is quite surprising to me that nobody seems tohave commented on how wind energy can affect the environment. To my mind, large-scale wind energy can do more to alter theclimate than any coal-fired power station. The wind farms are becoming quite large now. Some of them are pulling megawatts of electricity out of the air. What this means is that the energy pattern of the wind has been altered. We are not talking of one butterflyhere, but rather a major alteration in the wind energy pattern. Think about it - if some wind always blew inland from the sea, usuallycarrying a significant amount of water vapour, and the wind had a certain energy content then that wind with its water vapour wouldend up at some place. Now some wind farmers pitch up and erect a wind farm that extracts some megawatts of power out of thatwind. The wind is now weaker. It will not end up in the same place as before. Therefore, it could dump its water vapour in the form of rain, in a completely different place than before. If one wants to look for some mechanism to alter climate, then this is it. One doesnot have to wait a hundred years to see the result. Pulling megawatts of energy out of a particular wind pattern will alter that wind andits consequences immediately. So, if you are looking for some energy extraction method that can result in climate change, then, to mymind, wind farms are far more likely to do so than fossil-fuelled power stations. Give this some thought, folks. We are talking of butterflies by the billion.

62

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=126614

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article.php?a_id=126614





B. Climate Change Will Lead To Inevitable Ecosystem ChangesNational Science Foundation – 9/30/2004

("Climate change plus human pressure caused large mammal extinctions," University of California,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ztFqI9t8IEgJ:www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6653+climate+changes+lead+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us)A University of California, Berkeley, paleobiologist and his colleagues warn that the future of the Earth's mammals could be as dire asit was between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, when a combination of climate change and human pressure resulted in the extinction of two-thirds of all large mammals on the planet. Paleobiologist Anthony D. Barnosky and his colleagues reached this conclusion after review of studies of the extensive large mammal, or megafauna, extinctions that occurred in the late Pleistocene, when animals such asmammoths and mastodons, the saber-toothed cat, ground sloths and native American horses and camels went extinct. In the forensicquest for who done it, many have pointed fingers squarely at humans. But in a review appearing in the Oct. 1 issue of Science,Barnosky and his colleagues conclude that climate change also played a big role in driving these extinctions. Barnosky's colleaguesin the study are Paul Koch, professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz; Scott Wing, a paleobotanist in the Department of Paleobiology at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History; UC Berkeley graduate student Alan Shabel; andrecent UC Berkeley Ph.D. Bob Feranec, now a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford University. "There's been a lot of talk about people

causing the extinction of the megafauna by killing everything they saw, like a blitzkrieg," said Barnosky, professor of integrative biology and a curator in UC Berkeley's Museum of Paleontology. "But if you look at all the evidence, it's clear that while humans hada major role in these extinctions, in many cases climate change was a key part of the recipe. "Humans and climate change were theone-two punch that drove extinction between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago, and the same thing is happening in a major way today."Because climate change is occurring more rapidly today than even in the late Pleistocene, when the majority of megafauna wentextinct, serious consequences for many large animal species that weathered the Pleistocene extinction could be just down the road,Barnosky said. And the impact could be even greater today because of impoverished large animal populations and surging populationsof humans taking over former large-animal habitats. "Human activities today, combined with climate change, probably are going toresult in inevitable extinction of many more species and unpredictable ecosystem changes," he said. The authors' warnings are basedon a review of previous studies of Pleistocene animal extinctions around the world, from Australia to Europe to North America. ThePleistocene, a period starting about 1.8 million years ago, was a time of glacial comings and goings, with more than 20 cycles of cooling and warming that concluded only about 10,000 years ago with the end of the last ice age. In previous studies of animalremains layered in caves in the American West, Barnosky has found that during some of the last few glacial/interglacial cycles between 1 million and 600,000 years ago, the number of small, medium and large mammals in a given community remained fairlystable, though different species may have filled the various ecosystem niches. In the late Pleistocene, however, something happened tomake the number of large mammals nosedive continent-wide. This new analysis of archeological, climatic, ecological and simulationstudies shows that these extinctions happened around the world. Of more than 150 genera of megafauna - that is, animals weighingmore than 44 kilograms (97 pounds) - living on Earth 50,000 years ago, at least 97 were extinct by 10,000 years ago. If you look atlocalized extinctions instead of global extinctions, 121 genera disappeared from at least one continent. Those blaming humansascribe the extinctions to human hunting, either through overkill - hunting that could have led to extinction in about 1,500 years - or through a "blitzkrieg" of hunting that could have knocked off a species in less than 500 years. Another suggestion, dubbed "sitzkrieg"after the term for a "sitting" war that shows slow or no progress, is that humans caused extinction through long-term habitat alteration.Barnosky and his colleagues found sparse evidence outside Australia that humans were the sole cause of extinction. Data are sketchyfor the Australian continent, Barnosky cautioned, but little climate change was going on at the time of extinction between 40,000 and50,000 years ago. However, humans were certainly on the scene, and some scientists think that fires set by humans had as much to dowith extinction as direct hunting. Over a few thousand years, Barnosky said, an extended sitzkrieg may have led to the extinction of large mammals such as kangaroos, wombats, the marsupial lion (Thylacoleo carnifex) and the largest ever marsupial, the 2 1/2-ton

Diprotodon. Elsewhere, human activities combined to a greater or lesser degree with climate change to lead to extinctions. In Europeand parts of Asia, mammals such as the giant Irish deer or Irish elk died out broadly toward the end of the late Pliestocene, in someareas before humans were present. Earlier, though, warm-adapted megafauna such as straight-tusked elephants (Palaeoloxodon) andhippos, which were abundant during preceding interglacials, disappeared with the cooling of the last ice age, starting around 45,000years ago and persisting up to the height of the glacial period 20,000 years ago. "This is a very clear case of climate-causedextinction without the significant input of humans," Barnosky said. Similarly, in Alaska and the Yukon, the disappearances of short-faced bears, such as the grizzly-like Arctodus simus, the largest land carnivore ever to

63

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ztFqI9t8IEgJ:www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6653+climate+changes+lead+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us








<Card continues, no text removed>inhabit North America; mammoths; and two horse species occurred before apparent signs of human contact. A second pulse of climate-caused extinctions began in Europe and Asia about 12,000 years ago as cold-adapted animals - the wooly rhino and themammoth - died out with warming temperatures. But it's possible, Barnosky said, that the rise of modern humans - Homo sapiens

sapiens - with their broad variety of tools and diverse diet, negatively impacted these animals to an extent not seen in Europe withearlier human species, such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals. North America, in particular, is an example of a place where humansspeeded the process of climate-caused extinction, in many cases by overkill. Evidence of mammoth kills date from near the firstappearance of stone spearheads made by the human Clovis civilization 11,400 years ago. Only mammoths and mastodons have beenfound with incontrovertible evidence that they were killed by humans in North America, though human artifacts have been found inassociation with extinct megafauna fossils on all continents, including Africa. Over a period of, at most, 1,500 years, following theappearance of Clovis-style hunters, camels and horses, rhinos and peccaries, short-faced bears and saber-toothed tigers, as well as thearmadillo-like glyptodonts and the giant ground sloths (Megatheriadae), all disappeared from the North American continent."Humans and climate change came together at exactly the same time" to lead to these great megafauna extinctions, Barnosky said.The case in South America is still muddled, he noted, but there, too, human incursions combined with climate change possiblycoincided with the departure of large mammals, such as a variety of armadillos and llama- and camel-like animals, in a case similar tothat in North America. In Africa, as well, it is unclear why any large mammals went extinct, since humans arose in concert with these

animals and, by some arguments, they should have been in balance with one another. There, as in South America, the uncertaintycomes from lack of data. In these fairly recent large-mammal extinctions, Barnosky sees lessons for the future. "Humans tend toimpact the bigger animals, with the smaller animals as collateral damage," he said. "Climate change is just the opposite - it affects thelittle guy first and then, through them, the big guys. Today, we see humans taking out the bigger animals and climate change affecting the smaller animals, so we can expect tosee some pretty dramatic changes in the ecosystem." One major problem today is that, because of human encroachment, there are norefuges for animals that might want to relocate because of climate change. "One thing we can do, as conservationists, is to create andconnect natural areas" to allow animals to move around, he added. "Because species can no longer do this by themselves, maybe thesolution is to do it for them."

C. Human Survival Depends On Stable EcosystemsMillenium Assessment Board – 2003. “ Ecosystems and Human Well-Being.”


Human well-being and progress toward sustainable development are vitally dependent upon Earth’s ecosystems. The ways in whichecosystems are affected by human activities will have consequences for the supply of for the prevalence of diseases, the frequency andmagnitude of floods and droughts, and local as well as global climate. Ecosystems also provide spiritual, recreational, educational, andother nonmaterial benefits to people. Changes in availability of all these ecosystem services can profoundly affect aspects of humanwell-being—ranging from the rate of economic growth and health and livelihood security to the prevalence and persistence of povertyHuman demands for ecosystem services are growing rapidly. At the same time, humans are altering the capability of ecosystems tocontinue to provide many of these services. Management of this relationship is required to enhance the contribution of ecosystems tohuman well-being without affecting their long-term capacity to provide services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) wasestablished in 2001 by a partnership of international institutions, and with support from governments, with the goal of enhancing thescientific basis for such management.

64







Wind = Climate Change

Large Scale Wind Power Alters Global Climate; Energy Flow Is Altered AndDisrupted

Keith, et al, DeCarolis, Dekenberge, Lenschow, Malyshev, Pacala, Rasch – Departments of Chemical and Petroleum Engineeringand Economics at University of Calgary and Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University - 9/14/04,

David W. Joseph F., David C. , Donald H. , Sergey L., Stephen, and Philip J., "The influence of large-scale wind power on globalclimate," PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/46/16115.pdf Large-scale use of wind power can alter local and global climate by extracting kinetic energy and altering turbulent transport in theatmospheric boundary layer. We report climate-model simulations that address the possible climatic impacts of wind power at regionalto global scales by using two general circulation models and several parameterizations of the interaction of wind turbines with the boundary layer. We find that very large amounts of wind power can produce nonnegligible climatic change at continental scales.Although large-scale effects are observed, wind power has a negligible effect on global-mean surface temperature, and it woulddeliver enormous global benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 and air pollutants. Our results may enable a comparison between theclimate impacts due to wind power and the reduction in climatic impacts achieved by the substitution of wind for fossil fuels. Globalwind-power capacity is growing by _8GW_yr_1, making wind the fastest growing nonfossil source of primary energy (1). The cost of electricity from wind power is now _40 dollars per MW_h_1 at the best sites, and costs are declining swiftly (2). Wind power could

play a substantial role in global energy supply when CO2 emissions are strongly constrained to limit anthropogenic climatic change.Although the local environmental and aesthetic impacts of wind power have been explored, there has been little assessment of theclimatic impacts of wind turbines. Wind power is a renewable resource, but the rate of its renewal is finite and, in some respects,comparatively small. The yearly average horizontal flux of kinetic energy at the_100-m hub heights of large wind turbines can be_1kW_m_2. These large power fluxes enable the economic extraction of wind power, but an array of wind turbines cannot extract this power arbitrarily because turbines interfere with their neighbors by slowing local winds. Most of the kinetic energy that drives windturbines originates with the generation of available potential energy at planetary scales, which fuels winds throughout the atmosphere.Within the atmospheric boundary layer, turbulent mixing transports momentum downward to the surface and converts kinetic energyto heat by means of viscous (frictional) dissipation. The downward flux of kinetic energy averages _1.5 W_m_2 over the global landsurface (3). Ultimately, this small downward flux of kinetic energy limits the power that can be extracted by wind-turbine arrays (4).Although the generation and dissipation of kinetic energy is a minor (_0.3%) component of global energy fluxes, the winds mediatemuch larger energy fluxes by transporting heat and moisture. Therefore, alteration of kinetic energy fluxes can have much greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by an equal magnitude (3, 5).

65

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/46/16115.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/46/16115.pdf




Wind -> Climate Change

Wind turbines could affect nearby temperatures and weather conditionsScience Daily – 12/20/07, "Wind Turbines Produce 'Green' Energy And Airflow Mysteries," Science Daily,

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QLSVKzf9r4IJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071215212425.htm+wind+power+alters+wind+patterns&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=usUsing smoke, laser light, model airplane propellers and a campus wind tunnel, a team led by Johns Hopkins University researchers istrying to solve the airflow mysteries that surround wind turbines, an increasingly popular source of “green” energy. The NationalScience Foundation recently awarded the team a three-year, $321,000 grant to support the project. The rise in oil prices and a growingdemand for energy from non-polluting sources has led to a global boom in construction of tall wind turbines that convert the power ofmoving air into electricity. The technology of these devices has improved dramatically in recent years, making wind energy moreattractive. For example, Denmark is able to produce about 20 percent of its electric energy through wind turbines. But importantquestions remain: Could large wind farms, whipping up the air with massive whirling blades, alter local weather conditions? Couldchanging the arrangement of these turbines lead to even more efficient power production? The researchers from Johns Hopkins andRensselaer Polytechnic Institute hope their work will help answer such questions. “With diameters spanning up to 100 meters across,these wind turbines are the largest rotating machines ever built,” said research team leader Charles Meneveau, a turbulence expert inJohns Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering. “There’s been a lot of research done on wind turbine blade aerodynamics, but few

people have looked at the way these machines interact with the turbulent wind conditions around them. By studying the airflowaround small, scale-model windmills in the lab, we can develop computer models that tell us more about what’s happening in theatmosphere at full-size wind farms.” To collect data for such models, Meneveau’s team is conducting experiments in a campus wind

tunnel. The tunnel uses a large fan to generate a stream of air moving at about 40 mph. Before it enters the testing area, the air passesthrough an “active grid,” a curtain of perforated plates that rotate randomly and create turbulence so that air currents in the tunnelmore closely resemble real-life wind conditions. The air currents then pass through a series of small model airplane propellersmounted atop posts, mimicking an array of full-size wind turbines. The researchers gather information on the interaction of the air currents and the model turbines by using a high-tech procedure called stereo particle-image-velocimetry. First, they “seed” the air inthe tunnel with a form of smoke—tiny particles that move with the prevailing airflow. Above the model turbines, a laser generates twosheet-like pulses of light in quick succession. A camera captures the position of particles at the time of each flash. “When the imagesare processed, we see that there are two dots for every particle,” said Meneveau, who is the university’s Louis M. Sardella Professor ofMechanical Engineering. “Because we know the time difference between the two laser shots, we can calculate the velocity. So we getan instantaneous snapshot of the velocity vector at each point. Having these vector maps allows us to calculate how much kineticenergy is flowing from one place to another, in much greater detail than what was possible before.” Raul B. Cal, a Johns Hopkins postdoctoral fellow who is working on the project with Meneveau, said this data could lead to a better understanding of real wind

farm conditions. “What happens when you put these wind turbines too close together or too far apart? What if you align themstaggered or in parallel?” he asked. “All of these are different effects that we want to be able to comprehend and quantify, rather than just go out there and build these massive structures, implementing them and not knowing what’s going to happen.” Meneveau pointedout that dense clusters of wind turbines also could affect nearby temperatures and humidity levels, and cumulatively, perhaps, alter local weather conditions. Highly accurate computer models will be needed to unravel the various effects involved. “Our research will provide the fluid dynamical data necessary to improve the accuracy of such computer models,” Meneveau said. “We’d better knowwhat the effects are in order to implement wind turbine technology in the most sustainable and efficient fashion possible.” Meneveauand Cal are collaborating with Luciano Castillo, associate professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Hyung S. Kang, an associate research scientist in the Department of MechanicalEngineering at Johns Hopkins. The project’s funding was provided through the National Science Foundation’s Energy for Sustainability Program.

66

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:QLSVKzf9r4IJ:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071215212425.htm+wind+power+alters+wind+patterns&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us







Climate Change = Extinction

Climate Change Leads To Species ExtinctionsBirdLife International-2004

("Climate change will soon threaten many more species with extinction," BirdLife International,http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bny5pY5QE8kJ:www.birdlife.org/action/science/sowb/pressure/48.html+climate+changes+lead+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us )Climate change will reduce, and force shifts in, the ranges of many species. Many will not be able to move fast enough, or in concertwith other species. This will result in extinctions. Whether we lose a few species or huge numbers will depend critically on the degreeof warming. We must act now to minimise this. Many species will suffer from range shifts and losses Modelling studies show that theranges occupied by many species will become unsuitable for them as climate changes. The climate space that is suitable for particular species may shift (in latitude or altitude: see box 1), contract (boxes 2 and 3), or even disappear (box 4). Species whose climate space both contracts and shifts substantially will be of particular concern (box 5). Climate change will result in many extinctions Studiessuggest that many species will not be able to keep up with their changing climate space. As species move at different rates, thecommunity structure of ecosystems will also become disrupted. Both local and global extinctions are likely, even of species currentlyconsidered safe. One recent global study estimated that 15–37% of species could be committed to extinction by 2050 as a consequenceof climate change. The most susceptible species will be those with restricted ranges, bounded distributions (on the edges of continents

mountain-tops or small islands), specialised habitat requirements, poor dispersal abilities or small populations. While bird speciesdiffer greatly in dispersal abilities, most are relatively mobile compared to other organisms—which will be impacted even moreseverely. The extent of warming will be critical The size of the extinction crisis caused by climate change will be directly related tothe degree of global warming (box 4). A global average temperature rise of 2°C in the next century will lead to numerous extinctions, but leave open some practical management options for the conservation of biodiversity. Temperature rises beyond this level are predicted to lead to catastrophic extinction rates, with few management options and a bleak future for both biodiversity and people.

67

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:bny5pY5QE8kJ:www.birdlife.org/action/science/sowb/pressure/48.html+climate+changes+lead+to+extinction&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us








Wind Power Hurts Environment

WIND POWER IS INEFFICIENT, EXPENSIVE, AND DESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENTThe Guardian, 2/26/05, “Report doubts future of wind power,”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy Critics of wind energy in Germany said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renewexisting power stations."The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don't need electricity. The electricity then has to bemoved somewhere else," Klaus Lippold, a Christian Democrat opposition MP, said."There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape."

WIND POWER WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENTThe Engineer, 2/9/05, “A bad case of too much wind,”

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266062/A+bad+case+of+too+much+wind.htm Too much wind in public places can be a bad thing. So when the Friends of the Forest saw that their legally elected representatives onthe County Council were giving the thumbs up to the development of large Wind Farms across the county, they decided to take thematter into their own hands.

They felt, you see, that all of these new fangled turbines would not only destroy the look and feel of their green and pleasant neck of the woods, but make life miserable for the wildlife population into the bargain. And, seemingly oblivious to the importance of globalwarming, they weren't about to just sit around and let these enormous erections happen in their back yard without putting up a fight.

WIND FARMS ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT AND DESTROY ECOSYSTEMSThe Guardian, 4/21/08, “Scottish government rejects plans for Lewis wind farm,”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/21/windpower.renewableenergyThe Scottish energy minister, Jim Mather, said this morning that the 181-turbine project, which would have dominated the moors of northern Lewis, would have had "significant adverse impacts" on rare and endangered birds living on the peatlands – a breach of European habitats legislation.The decision to turn down the proposals from Amec and British Energy was greeted with delight by local opponents and environmentgroups, and dismay by the developers. Nearly 11,000 islanders had objected to the scheme, which had been supported by the WesternIsles council and the island's main community trust.

Dina Murray, a crofter who farms part of the moor affected, said: "I'm absolutely delighted, and I'm delighted for the people of Lewiswho fought long and hard against this, on the same grounds as the wind farm has been rejected. The environment, the landscape andthe peatlands are worth far more than any wind farm."

68

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/feb/26/sciencenews.renewableenergy


http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266062/A+bad+case+of+too+much+wind.htm


http://www.theengineer.co.uk/Articles/266062/A+bad+case+of+too+much+wind.htm





WIND POWER DESTROYS IMPORTANT ECOSYSTEMS AND INCREASE CARBONEMISSIONS

The Guardian, 4/21/08, “Scottish government rejects plans for Lewis wind farm,”http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/21/windpower.renewableenergyYet the conflict over the Lewis proposal, which would have generated 650MW of electricity - roughly 10% of Scotland's electricityneeds - has exposed some of the most significant tensions and challenges facing onshore wind farms.Lewis Wind Power, the joint venture company set up by Amec and British Energy, said it was "bitterly disappointed" by the decision.The farm would have brought 400 jobs to Lewis, injected £6m a year in rental payments and other benefits to the island, and meant acrucial "interconnector" to take electricity to the mainland would have been built."Sadly all of this has been lost because of the government decision which, we believe, represents a huge missed opportunity," the firmsaid.Wind power opponents are now focusing on the frequent use of peatlands, particularly in Scotland, for major new schemes. Theyargue that "industrialisation" of peat moors risks destroying these habitats and will release the carbon stored in the peat througherosion and drainage.The Scottish Tory MEP Struan Stevenson urged European commission officials last week to develop a more coherent strategy for

locating wind farms on land, claiming that Scotland's 1.9m hectares of peat and bog were part of the planet's "airconditioning system".Murray said many crofters fully supported his criticisms. "You can't replace peat with concrete, and ever hope to get away with it.There are thousands and thousands of years of vegetation growing and rotting, year after year after year. That's how it was intended to be. But I would fully support going offshore as long as it doesn't have any marine conservation consequences."

WIND POWER DISRUPTS DELICATE ANIMAL HABITATS AND ALTER ANIMALBEHAVIOR PATTERNSConor Milhell [staff writer, Sault Star], 6/28/08, "Despite their benefits, wind farms aren't without environmental baggage,"

Industrial Wind Action Group, http://www.windaction.org/news/16568 Building roads, erecting towers and installing transformer stations and transmission lines destroys forest habitat, and the noise andturbulence and vibrations of spinning turbines may alter the behavioural patterns of wildlife, said Mark Nash, the president of theCanadian Peregrine Foundation, a nongovernmental raptor protection group based in Toronto. Nash admits that preliminary research in Ontario has shown "no evidence that (wind turbines) are having an impact on bird mortality."

But a survey of a 120-turbine development in New York in 2006 estimated that each turbine killed 23 birds and 59 bats per year."Thirty years of wind farming in Europe have shown that turbines kill birds," said Nash. "I predict that as we get more and more of these big projects we're going to see the same high level of mortality that's been documented in Europe." Nash is particularly concerned about the impacts of developing large wind farms in ecologically sensitive bird migration, staging andnesting areas, like much of Lake Superior's north shore. Prince Township, for instance, is a part of an important corridor for thousandsof migrating birds that cross Lake Superior at the narrows between Michigan's Whitefish Point and Ontario's Gros Cap peninsulaevery spring and fall.

69








WIND GENERATORS CAN’T WORK WITHOUT WIND – INEFFICIENT, CO2-PRODUCING BACKUPS ARE USED

Joseph DeCarolis and David Keith – Ph.D. correspondent for the Atmospheric Protection Branch of the U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency's Office of Research and Development and thesis adviser – 7/31/2004, "The economics of large-scale wind power

in a carbon constrained world," Elsevier, http://pathsoflight.us/musing/?p=251What if the use of wind does increase rapidly enough to provide one third or more of electricity? How much will this cost, and what problems need to be solved?Several problems. Utility operators need to use a minute-to-minute method to balance electricity made with electricity taken from thegrid. Backup capacity must exist to deal with days forecast for slow wind, and there must be some backup capacity capable of dealingwith hourly changes in plans. Inefficient fossil fuel plants, and hydroelectric, are the most common backup, as it doesn’t make sense touse costly efficient natural gas plants.The costs of dealing with intermittency aren’t well known when wind is a major contributor; the Danish and German models don’tapply because those wind plants are part of the European grid. The existence of several types of wind subsidies and other reasonsmakes wind costs difficult to calculate, but hour-to-hour and minute-to-minute variations add up to 0.3 ¢/kWh to the cost of wind power.

Wind blows a lot of some days, not so much on most days, and many days hardly at all. Intermittency affects cost today because itcuts into reserve power. Handling intermittency is a central issue of ramping wind supply up to high levels.

WEAK GAS BACK-UP GENERATORS MAKE WIND MORE EXPENSIVE AND EMITMORE CARBONThe Register, 7/3/08, Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought,

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/03/wind_power_needs_dirty_pricey_gas_backup_report/page3.htmlOswald is an expert on gas turbines, having worked for many years at Rolls Royce*. He says that most people, in allowing for gas backup to wind farms, assume that the current situation of gas-turbine usage applies. Not so, he says. Gas turbines used to compensatefor wind will need to be cheap (as they won't be on and earning money as often as today's) and resilient (to cope with being throttledup and down so much). Even though the hardware will be cheap and tough, it will break often under such treatment; meaningincreased maintenance costs and a need for even more backup plants to cover busted backup plants. Thus, the scheme overall will bemore expensive than the current gas sector. And since people won't want to thrash expensive, efficient combined-cycle kit like this,less fuel-efficient gear will be used - emitting more carbon than people now assume.

70




Wind Power = FF Use

FOSSIL FUELS ARE USED AS BACK-UP FOR VOLATILE WIND FARMSThe Telegraph, 6/29/08, “Report blows hole in wind power plan,”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml "Simultaneously, the wind output in neighbouring countries can also be very low, and this suggests that intercontinental transmissiongrids will be hard to justify."The authors used data on wind speeds and electricity demand from the past six years to work out what impact 25 Gigawatts - about 16 per cent of Britain's needs - would have had on the national grid if it had been supplied by wind farms.The results show wind is highly volatile. In January 2005, for example, wind speeds varied so much that demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56GW.In that month, a 1,000MW fossil fuel plant would have had to come on and offline a total of 23 times to make up the shortfall. At 6pmon February 2 2006 - the point of peak electricity demand for the whole year - wind farms would have been unable to provide any power at all, researchers found.

71

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml






AFF Answers

Fatal Bird Collisions With Turbines Caused By Poor Planning, Out-ModedTechnology, and Poor Siting. Fatalities Caused By Wind Turbines Are

Insignificant When Placed In ContextEWEA (European Wind Energy Association) 2004. “Wind Energy and the Environment.”

Wind-related avian collision Collisions with turbines have been an issue at some older wind farm sites form the 1980s, especially theAltamont Pass in California – a result of poor siting, out-moded turbines and tower technology. Subsequent experiences in Germanyand Denmark show that such effects can be avoided by responsible planning practice. Proper siting of turbines is important if adverseimpacts are to be avoided. In the United States, a study in 2001 estimated an average of 2.2 fatalities for each turbine. By comparison, between 100 and 1,000 million birds are estimated to die each year in the US from colliding with vehicles, buildings, power lines andother structures. That is wind-related avian collision fatalities represent 0.01 - 0.02% of annual avian fatalities in the US. In Spain, astudy in the province of Navarre showed that 0.13 birds had died per year per turbine. The impact of birds must be placed in context.99% of threats to birds are human related, from habitat loss to industrialization, over exploitation of natural resources, hunting, the pettrade, pollution, etc. Habitat loss is the single greatest threat to birds, and 12% of the world’s 9,800 bird species face extinction.

Bird Fatalaties from Turbine Collisions Insignificant Compared To OtherMortality FactorsNational Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing

Studies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”It has been estimated that from 100 million to well over 1 billion birds are killed annually in the United States due to collisions withhuman-made structures, including vehicles, buildings and windows, powerlines, communication towers, and wind turbines. Althoughwind energy is generally considered environmentally friendly (because it generates electricity without emitting air pollutants or greenhouse gases), the potential for avian fatalities has delayed and even significantly contributed to blocking the development of some windplants in the U.S. Given the importance of developing a viable renewable source of energy, the objective of this paper is to put the issue of avian mortality associated with windpower into perspective with other sources of avian collision mortality across theU.S. We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in the United States: • Vehicles: 60million - 80 million • Buildings and Windows: 98 million - 980 million • Powerlines: tens of thousands - 174 million • CommunicationTowers: 4 million - 50 million • Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 - 40,000 The large differences in total mortality from these sourcesare strongly related to the differences in the number (or miles) of structures in each category. There are approximately 4 million milesof road, 4.5 million commercial buildings and 93.5 million houses, 500,000 miles of bulk transmission lines (and an unknown numberof miles of distribution lines), 80,000 communication towers and 15,000 commercial wind turbines (by end of 2001) in the U.S.However, even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely cause no more than a few percent of allcollision deaths related to human structures. There are also other sources that contribute significantly to overall avian mortality. For example, the National Audubon Society estimates avian mortality due to house cats at 100 million birds per year. Pesticide use, oilspills, electrocution, disease, etc. are other significant sources of unintended avian mortality. Due to funding constraints, the scope of this paper is limited to examining only fatalities resulting from collisions with human-made obstacles. Recognize that the cumulativeimpacts of all mortality factors on birds continue to increase as the human population climbs and resource demands grow. Every effort by all industries to reverse avian mortality trends and minimize the number of bird deaths is important. Many of the studies of buildings, communication towers, and powerlines were conducted in response to known or perceived problems with avian collisions,and therefore may not be representative of all structures in the United States. As a consequence, using averages of these estimates to project total avian fatalities in the U.S. would be biased high. The estimates provided for the sources of avian mortality listed above,except wind generation facilities, are based on subjective models and are very speculative.

72




AFF Answers

Even If Windplants Were Numerous, Bird Fatalities From Collisions Would StillBe Insignificant

National Wind Coordinating Committee. August 2001. “Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: A Summary of ExistingStudies And Comparisons To Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States”Our review indicates that avian collision mortality associated with windplants is much lower than other sources of collision mortalityin the United States. We believe there are reasons for the relatively low mortality rates at most windplants. The primary reason is thatthere are far fewer windplants and that many of the windplants are located in areas with relatively low bird and raptor use. However,even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely cause no more than a few percent of all collisiondeaths related to human structures. It appears from the available data that siting windplants in areas with low bird and raptor use iscurrently the best way to minimize collision mortality. The apparently high raptor mortality levels at Altamont can mostly be attributedto high prey base for raptors, large populations of raptors, topography and the large size of the windplant. Other factors such as older turbine designs may also contribute to the raptor mortality levels, but such factors are less understood. Windplants sited in areas of high bird use can expect to have higher fatality rates than many of those reported in this document although other factors such astopography, prey abundance, and species composition also likely influence mortality. For example, in the Netherlands, where turbinesare often sited near coastal areas, estimates of collision rates have been as high as 37 birds per turbine per year (Winkelman 1994).

The results of our review and updated estimates indicate that avian collision mortality attributable to windpower at the current level of production in the U.S. is minor in comparison to other sources of collision mortality. The current levels of mortality caused bywindplants do not appear to be causing any significant population impacts (except possibly for golden eagles at Altamont (Hunt et al.

1999), although several possible contributors to this decline have been proposed). Due to recent declines in many species of birds,especially some raptors and many neotropical migrants, however, any additional mortality may be a cause for concern. Monitoring programs in place at many of the newer generation windplants will continue to provide information to better understand avianmortality levels and to continue to determine factors important for siting windplants. Because the cumulative impacts of all mortalityfactors on birds continue to increase as the human population climbs and resource demands grow, efforts by every industry areimportant to reverse avian mortality trends and to minimize bird deaths.

AFF: DECADES OF EXPERIENCE SHOW THAT WIND TURBINES HAVE NO ADVERSEEFFECT ON RADARRandall Swisher [executive director of the American Wind Energy Association], 11/1/06, “Can wind turbines and military radar co-

exist?,” http://www.compositesworld.com/columns/can-wind-turbines-and-military-radar-co-exist.aspx [abby]Most important, however, decades of experience tell us that wind turbines and radar can co-exist. The busy Logan InternationalAirport in Boston, Mass., for example, has no difficulty with nearby turbines. Perhaps most telling is that the U.S. Air Force is thelargest nonutility purchaser of "green power"in the U.S., and several active military installations have working wind turbines that provide electrical power. These include F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming and the U.S. Navy installation at Guantanamo Bay,Cuba. Since radar and wind farms coexist at these locations, AWEA is confident that acceptable solutions can be found in nearly everycase. The key is to continue the case-by-case review of projects and consultation that has led to these mutually beneficial solutions.Clearly, the wind energy industry does not want to be part of a problem, but rather wants to be perceived as a solution to energyindependence. We look forward to working with the U.S. government to address this issue so that the wind industry can work for the benefit of the environment and energy security.

73

http://www.compositesworld.com/columns/can-wind-turbines-and-military-radar-co-exist.aspx

http://www.compositesworld.com/columns/can-wind-turbines-and-military-radar-co-exist.aspx




AFF Answers

Tech solves for bird death—long and slower bladesRich Heidorn Jr, Inquirer Staff Writer, 8/16/98, “ELECTRICITY PRODUCERS ARE CATCHING THE WIND / WIND-POWER

DEMAND IS ON THE RISE. PENNSYLVANIA HAS VIABLE SITES FOR GENERATION.,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. Lexis

The American Wind Energy Association says Altamont's older turbines are being replaced by new machines with longer, slower-moving blades that are easier for birds to see. The turbines are being mounted on either solid tubular towers or towers with diagonal bracing, eliminating the horizontal supports that attracted the birds as roosting places. New wind farms also are being sited away fromavian flight paths, association spokeswoman Michelle Montague said.

Repowering windmills solves for bird deathCharles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writer, 1/2/08, “THE DEADLY TOLL OF WIND POWER; Despite yearlong effort to curb bird

deaths by turbines on the Altamont Pass, many still have perished,” p. Lexis

The problem is not simply birds running into spinning blades. Many dead birds have been found around turbines that were turned off.Some have been electrocuted by live wires near operating turbines, while others apparently were killed by predators. Despite the

perplexing data, many experts agree that a chief cause of bird deaths is the sheer number of windmills at Altamont, which featuresmany old, small turbines in the 100-kilowatt range. More modern wind farms employ taller, more powerful machines able to generate1 to 3 megawatts. Replacing the many old turbines with fewer, more powerful ones - a process termed "repowering" - is officialcounty policy and would be "a big part of the solution," Murdock said. The idea is that bigger turbines would not only dramaticallyreduce the spinning blades to about one-tenth of their current number but also turn more slowly and be higher off the ground, presumably moving them farther away from raptors that dive for mice and other prey. "Repowering is supposedly the silver bullet,

if there is one," said Chris Gray, chief of staff for Alameda County Board of Supervisors President Scott Haggerty, whose districtincludes Altamont.

Flight path observation solvesPittsburgh Post-Gazette, 1/14/07, “ON THE WINGS OF EAGLES; AVIARY TRACKING RAPTORS TO FIND SAFE SITES FOR WIND TURBINES,” p. Lexis

Two golden eagles that soared along the Allegheny Front ridge in Central Pennsylvania late last year and are now gliding over the hillsof West Virginia and Kentucky might one day help determine where new windmills will be built in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in theEast. The wide-winged raptors are wearing tiny radio telemetry transmitters that allow National Aviary researchers to track their migration routes and eventually develop the first bird's-eye-view data showing where electric wind turbines should be built and not built to minimize the killing of eagles and other big birds. Most wind turbine development has occurred without any scientificresearch on the consequences to migrating birds, according to Todd Katzner, director of conservation and field research at the NationalAviary on the North Side. That has increased the risk that the turbine blades, some more than 100 feet long, will become bird slicersand dicers. "Our broader goal is to identify ways in which wind power can be developed safely," Mr. Katzner said. "To say that we'relooking at the effect of wind power on birds is partially true, but we're really trying to identify areas of high and low risk for windmilldevelopment."

142 ss renewables disads redux

Documents