c:documents and settingsownermy …gjohnsonenglish.wikispaces.com/file/view/jan+pf.pdf/...given,...

PARADIGMResearch

JANUARY

2008-2009THAT, BY 2040, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANDATETHAT ALL NEW PASSENGER VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS SOLDIN THE UNITED STATES BE POWERED BY ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

PUBLIC FORUM

Position Paper

The Paradigm Research Public Forum Position PaperJanuary 2009by David Cram Helwich

Copyright © 2009 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved.

First Edition Printed In The United States Of America

For information on Paradigm Debate Products:PARADIGM RESEARCHP.O. Box 2095Denton, Texas 76202Toll-Free 800-837-9973Fax 940-380-1129Web /www.oneparadigm.com/E-mail [email protected]

All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic,electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage andretrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, orany portion, is a violation of United States and international copyright laws.

PARADIGM RESEARCH 1PUBLIC FORUM POSITION PAPER JANUARY 2009

INDEX

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

AFFIRMATIVE POSITIONS

ALTERNATIVE FUEL MANDATE DESIRABLE: MODEL 'PRO' OPENING SPEECH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8ALTERNATIVE FUELS DESIRABLE: CLIMATE CHANGE

CATASTROPHIC WARMING WILL HAPPEN BY 2040/MUST ACT BEFORE THEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13TRANSPORTATION KEY TO CLIMATE CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16CLIMATE CHANGE IS HUMAN-CAUSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD/MUST ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

ALTERNATIVE FUELS DESIRABLE: OIL DEPENDENCE/DEPLETIONOIL DEPLETION WILL OCCUR BY 2040 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24TRANSPORTATION KEY TO OIL DEPENDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: AIR POLLUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: LEADERSHIP/NATIONAL SECURITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: MULTIWARRANT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: TERRORISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: WAR/CONFLICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39OIL DEPLETION BAD: COMING SOON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40OIL DEPLETION BAD: GENERAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVEALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: BIODIESEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ELECTRIC CARS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ETHANOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: METHANOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: VEGETABLE OIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

ALTERNATIVE FUELS SOLVENCYGOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: ETHANOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: FLEX-FUEL MANDATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: TECH FORCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

OTHER APPROACHES FAILOTHER APPROACHES FAIL: CARBON TAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69OTHER APPROACHES FAIL: MARKETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

NEGATIVE POSITIONS

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHESALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: CARBON TAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: DOMESTIC DRILLING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: GAS TAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: GOVERNMENT MANDATES FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: HYBRIDS (GAS/ELECTRIC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: HYBRIDS (PLUG-IN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: MARKETS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: SUBSIDIES/INCENTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90


NEGATIVE POSITIONS cont'd

ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAILALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: GENERAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: CLIMATE CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: ETHANOL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: HYDROGEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARYALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "CLIMATE CHANGE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE" . . . . . . . . . 110ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "OIL DEPENDENCE" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "PEAK OIL" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115


INTRODUCTION

RESOLVED: THAT, BY 2040, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANDATETHAT ALL NEW PASSENGER VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS SOLD

IN THE UNITED STATES BE POWERED BY ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

The topic committee has selected the second "cross-over" topic of the Public Forum season, selecting a resolution(following the nuclear power topic) that is largely a sub-set of the 2008/9 high school Policy debate topic. Althoughthis type of topic may encourage higher participation in Public Forum, it also provides a distinct advantage to squadswho participate in both forms of debate. The applicability of many 'policy' arguments to the January Public Forumtopic creates both opportunities and challenges for Public Forum debaters. This essay will analyze some importantcomponents of the resolution and discuss the strongest 'pro' and 'con' positions.

THE RESOLUTION

The wording of the resolution is pretty straight-forward -- the 'federal government' (presumably the United Statesfederal government, headquartered in Washington DC) is the agent of action, and the pro side is required to defend thatthe government 'mandate' (meaning 'require' according to most dictionaries) that all cars and light trucks use alternativefuels by 2040. There are a few terms that require definition. Perhaps the most important phrase is 'alternative fuels,'which is actually defined by the government. Two Department of Energy (DoE) websites provide useful definitions.First, 'alternative fuels' are defined in the negative, for what they are not. According to this source, they include allnon-petroleum fuels:

Alternative fuels are derived from resources other than petroleum. Some are produced domestically,reducing our dependence on imported oil, and some are derived from renewable sources. Often, theyproduce less pollution than gasoline or diesel. [Department of Energy, "Alternative Fuels," no date given,www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/current.shtml, accessed 12-4-08]

A second DoE source provides a list of currently commercialized, and potentially viable, alternative fuels:

Alternative Fuels These fuels are defined as alternative fuels by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and arecurrently, or have been, commercially available for vehicles.

* Biodiesel* Electricity* Ethanol* Hydrogen* Methanol* Natural Gas* Propane* Other Fuels

Several emerging fuels are currently under development. Many of these fuels are also considered alternativefuels and may have other benefits such as reduced emissions or increased energy security.

* Biobutanol* Biogas* Biomass to Liquids (BTL)* Coal to Liquids (CTL)* Fischer-Tropsch Diesel* Gas to Liquids (GTL)* Hydrogenation-Derived Renewable Diesel (HDRD)* P-Series* Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

[Advanced Fuels and Advanced Vehicles Data Center, "Alternative Fuels," Department of Energy, no dategiven, www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/index.html, accessed 12-4-08]


Generally speaking, most teams will choose to define the resolutional mandate as covering all non-petroleum fuels,although it is unclear whether 'pro' teams will have to defend that each possible alternative fuel is desirable. Indeed,this standard seems unreasonable because 'alternative fuels' might be proven desirable on balance, even if some of thealternatives are not deemed viable. A recent law review articles notes that there are six viable alternatives, includingethanol, methanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), bio-diesel, hydrogen, and electricity:

There are presently seven viable fuel sources for automotive use. These options include six alternativesources: ethanol, methanol, compressed natural gas, bio-diesel, hydrogen, electricity, and, of course,petroleum. These fuel resources can be separated by the nature of their production into three categories:(1) fuel sources that must be manufactured (requiring "energy to make energy"); (2) agricultural sources;and (3) fossil fuels. Regardless of the option chosen, legal strategies will play a pivotal role in both thefinal decision and the speed at which the transition is implemented. [Chris Stefan, "Fueling the Future: APolicy-Based Comparison of Alternative Automotive Fuel Choices," SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTLAW & POLICY v. 7, Spring 2007, p.22]

A second phrase requiring some clarification is 'passenger vehicle." According to the Department of Transportation, apassenger vehicle includes any car or truck that is designed to carry passengers. However, a 'passenger vehicle' doesnot include buses or other forms of mass transit. It thus excludes heavy and light trains, and school and coach buses.'Light (duty) trucks' are defined by in the Code of Federal Regulations (v. 40, n. 18) as:

Light-duty truck means any motor vehicle rated at 8,500 pounds GVWR or less which as a vehicle curbweight of 6,000 pounds or less and which has a basic vehicle frontal area of 45 square feet or less, whichis: (1) Designed primarily for purposes of transportation of property or is a derivation of such a vehicle, or(2) Designed primarily for transportation of persons and has a capacity of more than 12 persons, or (3)Available with special features enabling off-street or off-highway operation and use.

The 'mandate' (which should be read as a command-and-control regulation) thus applies to all cars and small trucks.Large vehicles (like tractor-trailers) are not covered by the resolution.

One peculiar part of the resolution is the dictate that the mandate be in place by 2040. The logic behind including thisspecific date in the resolution is a bit unclear, since there is very little literature written about fleet requirements overthirty years from now. Our best guess is that this date (along with 2030 and 2050) is often seen as significant byanalysts who fear that the world is running out of petroleum (which may be depleted by 2040) and/or that significantclimate change is imminent (with the worst effects perhaps felt by 2040). However, you will have a very difficult timefinding advocates who claim that we should have an alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) mandate by this particular date.Fortunately, the resolution does not necessarily require that the pro side defend only 2040 implementation -- rather, themandate simply must be in place by this date, meaning teams can persuasively argue that any proof the mandate shouldbe implemented earlier still demonstrates that the resolution is true.

'PRO' ARGUMENTS

The 'pro' side of the resolution has a number of powerful arguments at its disposal. The two best relate to the limitedsupply of oil and the role of petroleum use in transportation in spurring climate change. This section will outline thesearguments (which are included in the model case), and then provide some information on defending a mandate for thedifferent types of alternative fuels.


The transportation sector uses enormous quantities of oil -- equal to the amount that the U.S. imports every year. Mostanalysts argue that there are a number of serious downsides to our reliance on foreign oil supplies. Generally speaking,these harms can be divided into two broad categories. First, oil is expensive, the price seemingly increases every day aspetroleum futures market set a string of record prices for a barrel of oil. As described above, oil is literally the lifebloodof the American economy. Although there is little credible evidence that we face an absolute oil shortage, the sky-highprice of oil still creates a number of problems. Expensive oil increases the price of products made or transported withoil, fueling inflation. High oil prices also increase the U.S. trade deficit, which puts downward pressure on the value ofthe dollar. High oil prices are particularly damaging for many critical economic sectors, including the auto industry,airlines, and agriculture. There are many analysts who believe that sustained, high oil prices risks driving us into a deeprecession, and that a further spike in the price of oil could tip the economy into a depression, with economicdislocations not seen since the 1930s. This drain on the economy, coupled with a decreased freedom of action indealing with odious states who possess large oil reserves (such as Iran) poses perhaps the greatest contemporarychallenge to American leadership. High oil prices also increase the cost of food aid and threaten the stability of theglobal trading system. The second major problem with relying on petroleum as a major energy source is that oildependence threatens the U.S. economy and national security objectives irrespective of the actual price of oil. Thesethreats can be further subdivided into a few categories. The fact of oil dependence itself poses several additional threatsto the economy. For example, the U.S. government is compelled to spend significant sums on military powerprojection capabilities as part of America's effort to protect its foreign supplies of oil. These fund are a significant drainon the economy. High levels of oil importation also exacerbate the trade deficit, with the negative repercussionsdescribed above. Most significantly, dependence on oil imports leaves the U.S. vulnerable to an embargo or other formof supply shock, which would have enormous economic effects. Second, money the U.S. spends on oil importsprovides revenue for many governments who act in ways that run contrary to American foreign policy interests. Forexample, both the Saudi and Iranian governments use their oil revenues to fund groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda,which are dedicated to the destruction of the United States and/or its allies. Third, the need to import oil from thesestates limits the U.S.'s ability to pursue its national interests in its relations with these countries and their neighbors.For example, the threat of an embargo and subsequent price spike seriously undermine America's diplomatic efforts tohalt the Iranian government's covert nuclear weapons program. Finally, heavy use of oil causes serious environmentalproblems. In addition to being a major source of greenhouses gases that contribute to global warming, oil combustionincreases other forms of oil pollution and contaminates our water supply.

Although fears of oil depletion have been rampant in the oil industry since the time of its birth after the American CivilWar, the first systemic analysis about oil peaks was conducted by M. King Hubbert, who in 1956 used data on reserveestimates, new discoveries, and production levels to predict that oil production in the U.S. would peak around 1970.Subsequent data validated Hubbert's hypothesis, and U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s and has been in steadydecline ever since. "Hubbert's peak" theory has been applied to other oil producing regions, and even to globalproduction, by a number of analysts. There are many prominent pessimists who believe that global oil production hasalready peaked (as early as 2005), or that oil production will peak somewhere between 2010 and 2012. Believers inpeak oil theory were originally viewed with widespread skepticism by academics and analysts around the petroleumindustry, but the decline in discovery of new oil reservoirs and the growing difficulty in increasing oil production hasincreased the credibility and acceptance of peak oil theory. The basic principle driving an oil production peak is thefact that oil is a finite resource, and that no more is being produced on a human timescale. There are very few seriousscholars who contest this fact (although we will discuss a few of them in the negative section ;). This means that oilsupplies will eventually be depleted. The real question is how soon we can expect oil supplies to peak, or even run out.The reason that determining the time of the peak is so important, even more so than determining a likely depletiondate, is the peak in output will likely be followed by a steady and rapid decline in production, with massive economic,social and political consequences. Therefore, the effects of declining oil production will be felt long before the lastbarrel of petroleum is pumped out of the ground. If we fail to shift initiate a major shift away from reliance upon oil asa major energy source, global society could be subjected to massive disruptions. As noted earlier, virtually everythingmanufactured or consumed in our society is affected by petroleum. Oil shortfalls could devastate agriculture,manufacturing, and transportations sectors. As oil availability declines, we are likely to see a shift towards moredangerous and more polluting forms of energy, including nuclear power, coal, and 'unconventional' sources of oil.There is a real risk that our economy could collapse. Faced with the prospect of economic doom, governments willbecome increasingly aggressive in defending their access to dwindling oil supplies.


Major world powers, including the U.S., Russia, China, India, and the states of the EU could find themselves battlingover oil access. This is a recipe for conflict, and there is very good evidence that an unmitigated peak will cause warsin most of the world's major oil producing regions.

In addition to oil dependence and the threat of total depletion by 2040, the use of oil for transportation is responsiblefor a large proportion of America's (and the world's) emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases.There is a strong scientific consensus that (a) warming is happening now and will become much worse in the future;(b) that warming is human-caused; and (c) that this warming will seriously disrupt ecosystems and human social andeconomic systems. The best way that the U.S. can decrease its greenhouse gas emissions is to shift its transportationsector away from fossil fuels (predominantly oil) and towards 'greener' alternative fuels.

Many of the 'alternative fuels' discussed in the above definitions are relatively easy to defend from a public policyperspective. There is very strong evidence that hydrogen, ethanol (particularly from cellulosic sources), methanol, andbio-diesel will be effective transportation fuels. The long timeframe provided by the resolution should allow the proside to argue that most technological barriers to these fuels can be overcome in time to meet the 2040 mandate.However, you should be careful in selecting which alternative fuels you decide to defend. Compressed natural gas andcoal-to-liquids are themselves fossil fuels, and thus a switch to them would do little to address the problems ofgreenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Ethanol from corn-based sources causes serious challenges for theenvironment and food supply, and is thus difficult to defend -- however, most analysts believe that ethanol (andmethanol) derived from cellulosic sources will avoid these problems, and that the technology for commercial-scalecellulosic ethanol will be ready in the near future. However, proving that 'alternative fuels' are good is not enough toshow that the resolution is true. The pro side must also defend the 'mandate' portion of the resolution, meaning theymust show that a government requirement is necessary. We have included a number of pieces of evidence explainingboth how government mandates can drive technological development and innovation AND proving that markets, left totheir own devices, will be ineffective in addressing our collective addition to oil. Given the emerging consensus aboutthe dangers of climate change and oil dependence, this is the part of a case that the con side is most likely to attack, soyou should make sure that you can defend government action as being vital to promoting the use of alternative fuels.

'CON' ARGUMENTS

Teams choosing (or forced) to defend the 'con' side of the resolution have a wide array of strong arguments at theirdisposal. Perhaps the two most powerful arguments are attacks against the need for both 'alternative fuels' as a way toaddress the problem of petroleum over-use and the necessity of a government 'mandate' for the use of those fuels. Thissection will discuss these two strategies, plus walk through some of the most effective arguments against likely pro oildependence and climate change arguments.

First, there are many good reasons to believe that a requirement that all vehicles use alternative fuels by 2040 is eitherunnecessary or counterproductive. There is some very strong evidence that market forces, driven by likely increases inoil prices and public fears of climate change, will compel automobile manufacturers to adopt alternative fueltechnologies on their own. We have included evidence from a number of sources who make this claim in a veryconvincing fashion. This argument is also quite intuitive -- if gasoline costs upwards of $5 or even $10 a gallon,consumers will demand alternatives. This means that there might well be no need for government intervention. In fact,there are strong reasons to believe that government mandates might even make the problem worse because they willforce manufacturers to pick technologies and approaches chosen by distant bureaucrats, instead of allowing themarketplace to correctly 'choose' the best technologies for transportation.

Second, even if government action is necessary, there is no reason to believe that a command-and-control 'mandate' isnecessary. In fact, most analysts argue that a combination of government research grants and appropriate tax incentivescan spur the development of alternative fuels (and other alternative energies). The government could provide taxcredits to either the purchasers or manufacturers of alternative fuels vehicles, avoiding the 'tech forcing' problems of amandate while achieving the same result. Similarly, a tax on carbon emissions, or an increased tax on gasoline, wouldprovide a powerful incentive for consumers to purchase alternative fuel vehicles.


Third, there are many drawbacks to all of the likely alternative fuel technologies. Some, like CNG and coal-to-liquids,rely on scarce fossil fuels, and are thus subject to their own depletion problems while doing little to address theproblems of climate change. Others, like biofuels (ethanol, methanol, biodiesel) and hydrogen, may require fossil fuelsfor their manufacture while carrying their own serious environmental concerns. All of these technologies are quiteexpensive relative to gasoline, and many face substantial barriers to being used on a commercial scale. Quite frankly, ifany of these fuels were 'perfect', they would already be in use.

Fourth, the con side has a pretty broad array of arguments against oil dependence-based pro arguments. There are anumber of strong defensive arguments against the alleged threats from sustained high oil prices. The most basic set ofarguments contest the idea that high oil prices will continue into the future. A growing number of analysts argue thatcurrent oil prices represent a classic investment bubble, created by too much money chasing too little oil. Like mostbubbles, the oil bubble will inevitably burst, to be followed by a collapse in oil prices. Outside of speculation, there areother reasons to believe that oil prices will decline in the near future. High prices are suppressing demand in major oilconsuming nations. High prices are also encouraging additional oil exploration and the development of alternativesources of 'unconventional' oil. Many authors dispute whether there is any risk of an embargo-spurred price shocks,claiming that the global, interconnected nature of oil markets make it impossible for any state to disrupt the supply ofoil to another country. There is also some very strong evidence disputing the purported link between oil dependenceand terrorism, with some interesting cards arguing that terrorism is so inexpensive that sponsoring governments do notreally need large oil revenues to provide meaningful support to these groups

Fifth, there are many objections that can be raised against global warming claims -- there is a wealth of evidence fromrelatively credible sources that contests whether global warming is happening, disputes whether any increase intemperatures is related to human activity, and whether the costs of warming will be outweighed by its potentialadvantages. We have included approximately a dozen pieces of evidence on these questions, and you can find more ifyou backtrack the sources we have utilized -- they include many additional arguments that you can use to craft yourown positions. One important thing to keep in mind is that 'warming true/false' and 'warming good/bad' debates usuallyboil down to source credibility, so you should be well-prepared to defend your authors.

This book covers the biggest drawbacks to oil consumption, and the transportation technologies that are most likely toreplace petroleum. There are certainly other 'harm' areas (like oil spills, sprawl, etc) to our 'petroleum culture,' inaddition to other 'alternative fuels,' so you should probably do a bit of research on these questions before your firstcompetition. However, we have covered the most economically and politically significant portions of the topic, and wehope that the evidence and positions that follow will be of service to you.

Best of luck!


ALTERNATIVE FUEL MANDATE DESIRABLE:MODEL 'PRO' OPENING SPEECH

WE STAND FIRMLY RESOLVED: THAT, BY 2040, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD MANDATETHAT ALL NEW PASSENGER VEHICLES AND LIGHT TRUCKS SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES BEPOWERED BY ALTERNATIVE FUELS

IN DEFENSE OF THE RESOLUTION, WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING THREE CONTENTIONS

I. THE UNITED STATES HAS A SERIOUS OIL DEPENDENCE PROBLEM

A. THE U.S. IMPORTS OVER HALF ITS OIL, PLACING TREMENDOUS STRESS ON OURECONOMY

Margaret J. Jennings, "Bioenergy: Fueling the Future?" DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAWv. 12, Spring 2007, p.207.Each day, the U.S. consumes roughly 20 million barrels of oil. Over half of this (more than 10 millionbarrels) is imported. Importation of this oil comes at a very high price. The Natural Resources DefenseCouncil reports that America spends "more than $ 200,000 per minute -- $ 13 million per hour -- onforeign oil, and more than $ 25 billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone." In fact, "every day the U.S.pays out $ 390 million for foreign oil, with half of every dollar going to OPEC [Organization of PetroleumExporting Countries] and a quarter to the Persian Gulf." Some of this money might make it back to theU.S. economy; however, it is more likely that any money paid out to OPEC will not be reinvested in theU.S. It is projected that in 2025 the U.S. will consume forty-four percent, or 28.3 million barrels, more oilper day than is consumed right now, "with domestic production meeting a mere 30 percent of that need."Thus, sixty percent of U.S. oil will need to be imported.

B. OIL DEPENDENCE IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE U.S. POLICYFAILURE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, RISKING ADDITIONAL, DESTRUCTIVE CONFLICTS

Joe Lauria, journalist, "The Coming War with Iran: It's About the Oil, Stupid," HUFFINGTON POST,4-14-08, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/14/8282/, accessed 5-2-08.The Saudis would not mind seeing the Iranian regime go. But the Saudis may also be on the list. The USmay have to destabilize and control Saudi Arabia some day too. The Wall Street Journal a few years agorevealed that in the 1970s under Nixon, Kissinger had plans drawn up for the US invasion and occupationof the Saudi oil fields. Those plans can be dusted off. The American oil wars are being launched out ofweakness, not strength. The American economy is teetering and without control of the remaining oil it willcollapse. There will be massive chaos in any case, when only enough oil remains for the American eliteand whomever they choose to share it with. That will leave an oil-starved China and India, both withnuclear weapons, with no alternative but to bow to America or go to war. It's not about greed any more.It's about survival. Because the leadership of this country was initially too greedy to switch from oil tosolar, wind, geothermal and other renewable alternatives, it may now be too late. Had the hundreds ofbillions of dollars poured into the invasion and occupation of Iraq been put into alternative energy theworld might have had a fighting chance. Now that is far from certain. What is certain is that these wars arenot about democracy. They are not about WMD. The coming one will not even be about Iran's nuclearweapons project. It's about the oil, stupid.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL MANDATE DESIRABLE:MODEL 'PRO' OPENING SPEECH cont'd

II. THE UNITED STATES ALSO HAS A SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE PROBLEM

A. GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND HAPPENING NOW -- WE MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY IF WEARE TO AVERT A CRISIS

Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change (SEG), CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE: AVOIDINGTHE UNMANAGEABLE AND MANAGING THE UNAVOIDABLE, ed. R.M. Bierbaum, J.P. Holdren,M.C. MacCracken, R.H. Moss & P. H. Raven, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development,Sigma Xi & UN Foundation, 2007,http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2007/0227segreport.pdf, accessed 5-20-08.Global climate change, driven largely by the combustion of fossil fuels and by deforestation, is a growingthreat to human well-being in developing and industrialized nations alike. Significant harm from climatechange is already occurring, and further damages are a certainty. The challenge now is to keep climatechange from becoming a catastrophe. There is still a good chance of succeeding in this, and of doing so bymeans that create economic opportunities that are greater than the costs and that advance rather thanimpede other societal goals. But seizing this chance requires an immediate and major acceleration ofefforts on two fronts: mitigation measures (such as reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and blacksoot) to prevent the degree of climate change from becoming unmanageable; and adaptation measures(such as building dikes and adjusting agricultural practices) to reduce the harm from climate change thatproves unavoidable.



B. A FAILURE TO ACT NOW ON THE THREAT OF CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS IRREVERSIBLEDAMAGE TO THE EARTH'S CLIMATE AND OUR SOCIETY

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), staff, STRATEGIC SURVEY v. 107 n. 1, September2007, pp.33-84A broad consensus is emerging amongst scientists, economists and policy analysts that to avoid the worstconsequences of climate change, long-term warming needs to be limited to 2 degree C above the globalaverage of the eighteenth century, before the industrial revolution, and that to achieve this, concentrationsof greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be stabilised below twice the level of the pre-industrialperiod. The Stern Review concluded that this was the best compromise between stabilisation targets andpotential costs: targeting a lower overall temperature rise is already impractical, and permitting highertemperatures would increase the risk and costs of severe impacts of global warming without acorresponding decrease in the cost of the mitigation effort. The EU and the UK have in effect adopted thistarget, and a similar goal is likely to emerge from negotiations on the future shape of a global 'Kyoto II'regime. At its meeting in Heiligendamm in June 2007, the G8, in consultation with Brazil, China, India,Mexico and South Africa (the G8+5), agreed to 'seriously consider' the EU target - also adopted byCanada and Japan - of cutting emissions by 50% by 2050. It acknowledged the UNFCCC process as theappropriate forum for future negotiations on a new global framework, to begin at the UNFCCC conferencein Bali in December 2007 and to be concluded by 2009. The agreement was a step forward, but referencesto the 2 degrees C target and other specific emissions targets were removed at the insistence of the UnitedStates. Similarly, the EU uses 1990 as a baseline for calculating the 50% reduction, while the UnitedStates proposes using 2007. Nevertheless, this represented a substantive change in stance on the part of theBush administration. The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent arecognition, though this is still by no means universal, that if the emission of greenhouse gases, and henceclimate change, is allowed to continue unchecked, the effects will be catastrophic - on the level of nuclearwar - if not in this century, certainly in the next. As John Ashton, the UK Foreign Secretary's SpecialRepresentative for Climate Change, put it, 'policy failure on any scale is not an option'. Even if theinternational community succeeds in adopting comprehensive and effective measures to mitigate climatechange, there will still be unavoidable impacts from global warming on the environment, economies andhuman security. These could contribute to geopolitical and strategic challenges and have importantimplications for the world's armed forces.



III. AN ALTERNATIVE FUEL MANDATE IS THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THESE PROBLEMS

A. GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE AUTO SECTOR IS GOOD -- WILL 'FORCE' THEDEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.10-11.Moreover, government regulation can be particularly useful for advancing technology in the area ofautomobile equipment and environmental protection. For example, the "technology-forcing" regulationunder the Clean Air Act produced the catalytic converter and the three-way catalyst in the 1970s and1980s. These emissions' technologies helped reduce automobile pollution in the face of increased VMT.As explained in a study by Carnegie Mellon University, manufacturers have little motivation to developnew technologies absent a compliance requirement or certainty in the marketplace. Furthermore,companies are hesitant to invest in research and development (R&D) for fear that, once a technology isdeveloped, others will be able to duplicate it without the additional R&D costs incurred by the companyresponsible for the original development. That company will have reduced its profits by spending on R&Dwhile the other companies that were able to duplicate the technology will not have spent any money onR&D. Regulation requiring a certain technology would force all companies within an industry to developa product to fulfill the requirement, and even lead to better technologies as companies compete for themost efficient and cost effective product on the market.

B. TRANSPORTATION IS THE BEST AREA TO ADDRESS OUR OIL DEPENDENCE PROBLEMS --NEED TO DO MORE TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE FUELS

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump fromMinnesota's Ethanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICYv. 26, 2008, p.355-356.While it is mathematically inevitable that the world's combined oil production will eventually peak, theexact date is subject to a great number of variable factors. Moreover, it is generally agreed that ultimatelypolitical, rather than geological, forces control the price and availability of oil. Nonetheless, the factremains that, whether by virtue of continuing political pressures or simple geological realities, America'scurrent dependence on oil extracts an increasingly costly toll. Reducing domestic consumption of gasolineby automobiles, which account for forty-four percent of all domestic petroleum consumption, presents anexcellent opportunity to address these issues. Current federal energy laws and regulations, as evinced bythe 2005 Energy Policy Act, fail to adequately promote the use of alternative fuels, thereby failing toaddress the problems caused by America's overwhelming reliance on petroleum as an automobile fuel.Ethanol fuels present the most viable alternative to the exclusive use of gasoline as an automobile fuel.



C. FAILURE TO PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE FUELS INCREASES WARMING RISKS -- GASOLINE ISRESPONSIBLE FOR SUBSTANTIAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump fromMinnesota's Ethanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICYv. 26, 2008, p.371-373.EPA II's alternative fuel provisions also fail to adequately address the substantial environmental impactgenerated by current near-exclusive reliance on unblended gasoline fuel. Although EnvironmentalProtection Agency regulations have greatly reduced the amount of automobile-generated domestic airpollution, automobiles are still responsible for a substantial portion of total national air pollutantemissions, mainly in the form of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic matter emissions.Automobiles also produce a substantial portion of domestic carbon dioxide emissions. Beyond pollutiongenerated directly by automobile exhaust, gasoline refineries cause air pollution in the form of sulfurdioxide emissions. Because EPA II fails to generate a substitution of gasoline consumption withalternative fuel consumption, and because Americans continue to drive more miles every year, airpollutant emissions from gasoline consumption by automobiles will only increase.


CATASTROPHIC WARMING WILL HAPPEN BY2040/MUST ACT BEFORE THEN

1. MUST ACT NOW FOR EFFECTIVE ABATEMENT, TO AVOID WORST IMPACTS OF CLIMATECHANGE -- NEED IMMEDIATE ACTION TO HIT 450PPM TARGET, FAILURE TO ACT NOW RISKSCRASH EMISSIONS CUTS IN THE FUTURE

David Hawkins, Director, Climate Center, Natural Resources Defense Council, Testimony before SenateEnvironment and Public Works Committee, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 11-13-07, lexis.On October 24th NRDC President Frances Beinecke testified before the Subcommittee on Public and ConsumerSolutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection on America's Climate Security Act (ACSA). In hertestimony she stated that the time for action on global warming is now. Climate scientists warn us that we mustact now to begin making serious emission reductions if we are to avoid truly dangerous global warmingpollution concentrations. Failure to pursue significant reductions in global warming pollution very soon willmake the job much harder in the future both the job of stabilizing atmospheric pollution concentrations and thejob of avoiding the worst impacts of climate chaos. A growing body of scientific research indicates that we faceextreme dangers to human health, economic well-being, and the ecosystems on which we depend if globalaverage temperatures are allowed to increase by more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit from today's levels. We havegood prospects of staying below this temperature increase if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other globalwarming gases are kept from exceeding 450 ppm CO2-equivalent and then rapidly reduced. To make thispossible requires immediate steps to reduce global emissions over the next several decades, including action tohalt U.S. emissions growth within the next few years and then cut emissions by approximately 80% bymid-Century. This goal is ambitious, but achievable. It can be done through an annual rate of emissionsreductions that ramps up to about a 4% reduction per year. But if we delay and emissions continue to grow at ornear the business-as-usual trajectory for another 10 years, the job will become much harder. In such a case, theannual emission reduction rate needed to stay on the 450 ppm path would double to 8% per year. In short, a slowstart means a crash finish, with steeper and more disruptive cuts in emissions required for each year of delay, orif insufficient action is taken a seriously disrupted climate.

2. MUST ACT NOW: (1) HARDER TO ACT IN FUTURE; (2) MOST CERTAIN WAY TO AVOID IMPACTS

Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council, Testimony before Senate Environment andPublic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming andWildlife Protection, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 10-24-07, lexis.Climate scientists warn us that we must act now to begin making serious emission reductions if we are to avoidtruly dangerous global warming pollution concentrations. Because carbon dioxide and some other globalwarming pollutants can remain in the atmosphere for many decades, centuries, or even longer, the climatechange impacts from pollution released today will continue throughout the 21st century and beyond. Failure topursue significant reductions in global warming pollution now will make the job much harder in the future boththe job of stabilizing atmospheric pollution concentrations and the job of avoiding the worst impacts of a climategone haywire.


CATASTROPHIC WARMING WILL HAPPEN BY2040/MUST ACT BEFORE THEN cont'd

3. MUST DRASTICALLY CUT EMISSIONS WITHIN NEXT 10 YEARS TO AVOID CRITICAL CLIMATETIPPING POINTS

Mary Christina Wood, Professor, Law, University of Oregon, "Nature's Trust: A Legal, Political and MoralFrame for Global Warming," BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW v. 34,2007, p.586.Unfortunately, we have no latitude for indecision. Hansen states: "[W]e have at most ten years -- not ten years todecide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions." Youmight wonder why the atmosphere is giving us so little time. It is because we have already pumped so muchcarbon into it that we are likely nearing a "tipping point" that will trigger irreversible dynamics. After thattipping point, our subsequent carbon reductions, no matter how impressive, will not thwart long-termcatastrophe. Let me be clear. I do not mean to imply that all climate catastrophes will visit us on January 1 ofYear Eleven from now. The tipping point concept means this: if we continue business as usual, then at somepoint within this coming decade, and probably sooner rather than later, we will effectively place a lock on thedoor of our heating greenhouse and throw out the key. Our children and future generations are trapped in thatgreenhouse with rising temperatures, and they will have no way to get out. This ten-year action window we arenow looking through means that, if we pour resources into the wrong strategy, we will not have time to go backand chart another course before this tipping point has come and gone.


TRANSPORTATION KEY TO CLIMATE CHANGE

1. AUTOS ARE A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF GREENHOUSE GASES, WILL INCREASE IN THE FUTUREUNLESS WE ACT

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.4-5.According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "the global atmospheric concentration of carbondioxide has increased from a pre-industrial age value of about 280 parts per million (ppm) to 379 ppm in 2005."In particular, since direct atmospheric measuring began in 1960, the largest annual growth rate occurred in theten years between 1995 and 2005 (average: 1.9 ppm per year compared to an average of 1.4 ppm per year from1960 to 2005) with growth rates varying from year-to-year. Automobile emissions account for a significantamount of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Specifically, twenty pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted intothe atmosphere for every gallon of gasoline burned by a vehicle. This figure alone makes it a significantcontributor to global warming. According to the EIA, the transportation sector accounted for 33 percent of allU.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2005. The EIA report also found that "almost all (98 percent) of transportationsector emissions result from the consumption of petroleum products" with 60 percent coming from automobilesand light trucks. For a brief time in the 1980s, vehicle carbon dioxide emissions were offset by the fuelefficiencies achieved during that time. However, in the 1990s, there were no improvements to fuel efficiencystandards. Combined with increased VMT, this failure to increase fuel efficiency in vehicles contributed to areturn to higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector. Furthermore, EIA estimatessuggest that the transportation sector's contribution to carbon dioxide emissions will continue to increase basedon continuing increases in gasoline use.

2. TRANSPORTATION IS A SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.287-288.With regard to greenhouse gases, the transportation industry is recognized as a significant contributor.Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and are widely regarded as contributing to global warming.Although many greenhouse gases occur naturally, human activities are responsible for an increasing amount ofgreenhouse gas emissions. A number of greenhouse gases are produced by humans, including methane (CH<4>),NO<2>, fluorinated gases, and most notably, carbon dioxide (CO2). In addition to being credited as the world'slargest consumer of oil, the United States also emits more CO2 than any other nation.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL

1. WARMING IS REAL -- AS CLOSE TO A SCIENTIFIC FACT AS WE CAN GET

Carolyn Pumphrey, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONALSECURITY IMPLICATIONS, ed. C. Pumphrey, May 2008, p.2.Nonetheless, the idea that there is such a thing as climate change is as close to established scientific fact as onecan get. At its last meeting in February 2007, the IPCC concluded that human activity has indeed increasedglobal atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. It further concluded that"warming of the climate system is unequivocal," and "most of the observed increase in globally averagedtemperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhousegas concentrations." It is important to remember that the IPCC is an inherently conservative body. It can onlymake a statement by the unanimous consent of all the scientific representatives of all the world's governments.And it uses its words very precisely -- so when it says "unequivocal," we know that it means exactly 90 percentcertain -- which is very certain indeed.

2. ENERGY IMBALANCE PROVES THAT WARMING IS REAL AND HUMAN CAUSED

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.395-396.In April 2005, James Hansen, director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's ("NASA")Goddard Institute for Space Studies, added: "There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases arethe dominant cause of observed warming." Hansen led a team of scientists that made "precise measurements ofincreasing ocean heat content over the past 10 years," which revealed the earth is absorbing far more heat than itis emitting to space, confirming earlier computer models of warming. Hansen called this energy imbalance the"smoking gun" of climate change. Global concentrations of carbon dioxide, the primary heat-trappinggreenhouse gas, are rising at an accelerating rate in recent years - and they are already higher than at any time inthe past 3 million years. Bob Corell, the lead scientist of the 2004 Arctic Climate Assessment, reports that"Greenland is melting much more rapidly in the past two or three years than anyone imagined possible." Worse,the ocean's heat content will continue re-radiating heat into the earth's atmosphere even after we eliminate theheat imbalance; the planet will continue warming and the glaciers will continue melting for decades after we cutGHG emissions. It is therefore imperative that we act in an "anticipatory" fashion and reduce emissions longbefore climate change is painfully obvious to everyone.

3. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WARMING IS REAL AND HUMAN CAUSED

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), staff, STRATEGIC SURVEY v. 107 n. 1, September 2007,pp.33-84The year to June 2007 saw a coming together of several strands of thinking about climate change. Publicrecognition of the need for action has risen markedly. Perhaps the most significant development was publicationof the latest findings of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose reports are the mostcomprehensive and influential scientific studies on the subject. The Panel said in February 2007 that there wasno doubt that there had been global warming over the past 100 years, that it had accelerated in the second half ofthe twentieth century, and that the majority of the rise was 'very likely' to be due to increased concentrations ofman-made greenhouse gases.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL cont'd

4. WARMING WILL CAUSE A LARGE NUMBER OF PROBLEMS -- MAY SEE TEMPERATURE CHANGESOF UP TO 10 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.5.In summary, the effects of carbon dioxide (along with other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide,and chlorofluorocarbons), include, but are not limited to, increases in global surface temperature, declines insnow cover and mountain glacier, and rises in sea level. Although much depends on regional temperaturechanges, these effects may lead to drought, loss of property from rising sea levels, increased storm intensity, andecosystem disruptions. If sources of greenhouse gas emissions do not change (the "business-as-usual" scenario),scientists predict that "annual global emissions will reach 14 billion tons per year by 2055" and will raise globaltemperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, which may cause irreversible and potentiallydramatic changes.

5. OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS PROVES THAT WARMING IS TRUE -- THEIR AUTHORSARE STOOGES OF FOSSIL FUELS INDUSTRIES

Mary Christina Wood, Professor, Law, University of Oregon, "Nature's Trust: A Legal, Political and MoralFrame for Global Warming," BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW v. 34,2007, p.587-589.These are not the voices of Chicken Little and Henny Penny. If someone dismisses climate warming to you as"sky is falling" kind of talk, go back and read the book Chicken Little and see if you can find any intelligentcomparison between mounting atmospheric heat-trapping gases and an acorn falling on a little chicken's head.The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report in February 2007,stating that climate change is "unequivocal." A second report was issued in draft form in March 2007, discussingthe catastrophic impacts of unchecked global warming. These United Nations (U.N.) reports compile theconclusions of more than 1200 authors and 2500 expert reviewers, reflecting scientific expertise from more than130 countries. To be sure, there are those few global warming "contrarians" dismissing the threat, but before youplace the future of your children in their hands, check out their affiliations with the fossil fuel industry. When theU.N. report came out in February ending any debate on whether global warming existed, the Exxon-fundedAmerican Enterprise Institute responded with an ad offering $ 10,000 to any scientist who could refute it. Let usthink about a logical way to process these contrarian views. If several doctors diagnosed your child withlife-threatening bacterial meningitis, you would likely not waste time going back to debate the germ theory ofmedicine with them. You would start the antibiotics and hope or pray for the best. The urgent warnings comingfrom all branches of science are intended to focus society on reaching a decision, now.

6. UNCERTAINTIES FAVOR THE AFFIRMATIVE -- THINGS COULD BE A LOT WORSE THAN WEPREDICT, SO WE CANNOT IGNORE ACTION

Carolyn Pumphrey, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONALSECURITY IMPLICATIONS, ed. C. Pumphrey, May 2008, p.3.What complicates the problem when it comes to the science of climate change, however, is that the devil is in thedetails. Although our instruments are improving and our data base enlarging, scientists have come up with manydifferent scenarios as to how changes will play out over the next century. Timing is a case in point. Mostestimates suggest a somewhat gradual timeline for change. However, there are some who fear that our currentestimates fail to take into consideration what may happen if crucial tipping points are reached. If, for example,the Siberian tundra melts and releases its methane, this could act as a catalyst to climate change and make thingshappen a lot faster than expected. Some scenarios envisage sea-level rise sufficiently great to end civilization aswe know it. While we may acknowledge that these outcomes are less likely than some others, we ignore suchpossibilities at our peril.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL cont'd

7. NATURAL INDICATORS PROVE THAT WARMING IS REAL AND THREATENS OUR SURVIVAL

Jonathan Donehower, "Analyzing Carbon Emissions Trading: A Potential Cost Efficient Mechanism to ReduceCarbon Emissions," ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 38, Winter 2008, p.184.Climate change increasingly threatens the way of life and health of billions of people across the globe, and onlyinternational action can address its cause. Evidence of climate change is increasingly apparent in weatherpatterns and environmental changes experienced throughout the world. In 2006, a retreating glacier exposed anewly discovered island in Greenland. Events like this render many geographic maps out of date: "Now wherethe maps showed only ice, a band of fast flowing seawater ran between a newly exposed shoreline and theaquamarine-blue walls of a retreating ice shelf." In another example of the effects of climate change, theEuropean Alps 2006 World Cup ski events were cancelled because of a lack of snow. In the Italian Alps, onlyfifty percent of the ski slopes were open, in what has been called the warmest alpine temperatures in 1300 years.These problems may seem small and isolated from each other, but they signal a larger, more dramatic shift thatrequires the cooperation of the international community. The UNFCCC "recognizes that the climate system canbe a shared resource whose stability is affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases." The global effects are seen in the melting glaciers in Greenland, which is covered by 630,000cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by twenty-three feet. The melting of Greenland's icecorresponds to the increasing rise in ocean levels currently threatening millions of people.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS HUMAN-CAUSED

1. SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS SAYS THAT WARMING IS REAL AND HUMAN-CAUSED

Tony Dutzik, Frontier Group and Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, Environment North Carolina,Research & Policy Center, RISING TO THE CHALLENGE: SIX STEPS TO CUT GLOBAL WARMINGPOLLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES, Summer 2006. Available from the World Wide Web at:www.environmentnorthcarolina.org/uploads/Ue/Sz/UeSzbzUzGX8deYBF1HJ0fg/Rising_to_the_Challenge.pdf,accessed 10/10/06.Human Activities Are Causing Global Warming The changes described above are consistent with the kinds ofwidespread climatic shifts scientists believe will occur as a result of global warming. They are also signs thathuman activities have already begun to affect the climate through the release of pollutants (known as greenhousegases or global warming pollutants) that exacerbate the earth's natural greenhouse effect. In 2001, theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global body charged with assessing the scientific record onglobal warming, concluded that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been dueto the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

2. THERE IS A VERY STRONG SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT WARMING IS REAL AND HUMANCAUSED

Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change (SEG), CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE: AVOIDING THEUNMANAGEABLE AND MANAGING THE UNAVOIDABLE, ed. R.M. Bierbaum, J.P. Holdren, M.C.MacCracken, R.H. Moss & P. H. Raven, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Sigma Xi &UN Foundation, 2007, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2007/0227segreport.pdf,accessed 5-20-08.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was organized in 1988 as a joint effort of the WorldMeteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme to summarize the state of scientificknowledge about climate change in a periodic series of major assessments. The first of these was completed in1990, the second in 1995, and the third in 2001 (IPCC, 2001a). The IPCC will complete its Fourth AssessmentReport in 2007. The three preceding assessments have carefully documented the scientific basis for increasingconfidence that climate change is happening, that this change is being primarily driven by human activities(mainly the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas, and deforestation), and that continuing to base most of theworld's energy supply on technologies that burn coal, oil, and natural gas and release the resulting carbondioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere will lead to much greater climate change in the future. While the projectionsof future change cannot be precise, as much because they depend on how society will evolve and generate itsenergy as on limitations in scientific understanding of the climate system, there is very high confidence in thescientific community that significant change is underway and that the world is on a path to much more climatechange over coming decades and centuries. The analyses in the first three IPCC assessments, along with morerecent scientific findings and assessments (ACIA, 2004; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a), form thebasis for the rest of this chapter. Collectively, the scientific evidence makes clear that human activities havealready caused significant changes in the climate. In addition, a substantial fraction of the CO2 added to theatmosphere by human activities stays there for decades to centuries. Because a similar interval is required for theEarth's climate system to achieve a new equilibrium with a change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, theworld is committed to nearly as much additional warming as the amount already experienced, even without anyfurther emissions (e.g., Meehl et al., 2005). Sea-level rise will continue for at least several centuries.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS HUMAN-CAUSED cont'd

3. WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED, WILL HAPPEN IN A NON-LINEAR FASHION

Maxine Burkett, Associate Professor, Law, University of Colorado, "Just Solutions to Climate change: AClimate Justice Proposal for a Domestic Clean Development Mechanism," BUFFALO LAW REVIEW v. 56,April 2008, p.175-176.Human beings, and in particular U.S. citizens, are responsible for this dramatic change. Global atmosphericconcentrations of greenhouse gases - including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons -have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now "far exceed" pre-industrial values.These activities include land-use changes and, most importantly, the combustion of fossil fuels. As a result, thecurrent concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the highest in at least a million years. The changesthat result from the concentrations are non-linear, such that positive feedback loops accelerate the adverse effectsthat climate change sets in motion. These changes will continue for centuries because of the "timescalesassociated with climate processes and feedbacks." In other words, even if anthropogenic emissions were tostabilize at this very moment, the average time for removal of added carbon dioxide from the atmosphere ismeasured in centuries, during which climate change effects will continue to manifest.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD/MUST ACT

1. WARMING IS REAL, RISKS MAKING MANY PARTS OF THE PLANET UNINHABITABLE

Terry J. Allen, journalist, "Climate Change Refugees," IN THESE TIMES, 9-4-07,www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2007/0904refugees.htm, accessed 5-20-08.Even though specific events often cannot be pinned to global warming, the scientific evidence that climatechange is radically remapping our planet forms a cumulative, consistent and alarming pattern. Everyone but thehead-in-the-sand dolt and the hand-in-the-industry-pocket hack understands that as large areas of the planetbecome unsuitable for human life, the sad stream of climate refugees will become a torrent. As a resident of thesmall South Pacific island of Tuvalu recently told NPR's "Living on Earth," a man needs only two skills: how toclimb a coconut tree and how to catch a fish. On this remote atoll, halfway between Hawaii and Australia, wherethe land crests a few meters above the sea, the shoreline is visibly receding. Salt from rising tides is poisoningthe palms; bleached and dying coral reefs no longer support the fish that support the people. New Zealand, oneof the few countries to acknowledge and plan for the coming flood of climate immigrants, has agreed to acceptall 11,000 Tuvaluans, starting with a limited number each year. Many Tuvaluans live in Auckland, lonely andlost, without the support of community and culture, or the skills to survive an urban life based on money.

2. COMBINATION OF WARMING AND PEAK OIL RISKS THE COLLAPSE OF OUR CIVILIZATION

Jack Santa Barbara et al., Director, Sustainable Scale Project, International Forum on Globalization, THEFALSE PROMISE OF BIOFUELS, September 2007,www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2007/09falsepromise.pdf, accessed 5-20-08.THE BURGEONING REALITY OF GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, rooted in a century of over-consumptionof fossil fuels, is merging with another crisis with the same basic root cause -- the looming depletion ofinexpensive oil and gas supplies ("peak oil"). Combined, they bring the world to an unprecedented andprofoundly dangerous moment that threatens global environmental and social crises on an epic scale. Thesecrises potentially include a breakdown of the most basic operating structures of our society, even industrialismitself, at least at its present scale. Long distance transportation, industrial food systems, complex urban andsuburban systems, and many commodities basic to our present way of life -- autos, plastics, chemicals,pesticides, refrigeration, et al. -- are all rooted in the basic assumption of ever-increasing inexpensive energysupplies. (See Manifesto on Global Economic Transitions, published by IFG).

3. WARMING IS REAL AND HAPPENING NOW -- MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY IF WE ARE TO AVERTCATASTROPHE

Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change (SEG), CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE: AVOIDING THEUNMANAGEABLE AND MANAGING THE UNAVOIDABLE, ed. R.M. Bierbaum, J.P. Holdren, M.C.MacCracken, R.H. Moss & P. H. Raven, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Sigma Xi &UN Foundation, 2007, http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2007/0227segreport.pdf,accessed 5-20-08.Global climate change, driven largely by the combustion of fossil fuels and by deforestation, is a growing threatto human well-being in developing and industrialized nations alike. Significant harm from climate change isalready occurring, and further damages are a certainty. The challenge now is to keep climate change frombecoming a catastrophe. There is still a good chance of succeeding in this, and of doing so by means that createeconomic opportunities that are greater than the costs and that advance rather than impede other societal goals.But seizing this chance requires an immediate and major acceleration of efforts on two fronts: mitigationmeasures (such as reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases and black soot) to prevent the degree of climatechange from becoming unmanageable; and adaptation measures (such as building dikes and adjustingagricultural practices) to reduce the harm from climate change that proves unavoidable.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD/MUST ACT cont'd

4. FAILURE TO STOP WARMING NOW RISKS MASSIVE, FAST SEA LEVEL RISE

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.396.The planet has warmed about 0.8 [degrees] C in the past century, primarily because of human-generated GHGemissions. If we don't sharply reverse the rise of global GHG emissions within the next decade, we will becommitting the world to an additional 1 [degrees] C of warming, probably by mid-century. The last time theearth was more than 1 [degrees] C warmer than it is today, sea levels were twenty feet higher. That occurredduring the Eemian interglacial period about 125,000 years ago, when Greenland appears to have been largelyice-free. How fast can the sea level rise? Following the last ice age, the world saw sustained melting that raisedsea levels more than a foot per decade. James Hansen believes we could see such a catastrophic melting ratewithin the century. Moreover, sea levels ultimately could rise much more than twenty feet. If we do not sharplyreverse the rise of global greenhouse gas emissions, we would be headed towards an additional 3 [degrees] Cwarming; temperatures not seen for millions of years, when sea levels were fifty to eighty feet higher. It takeslittle imagination to appreciate the profound effects an eighty-foot sea level rise would have on the Californiacoastline.

5. CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS WAR, TERRORISM, AND SLAVERY, WHILE THREATENINGDEMOCRACY

Richard Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Testimony before House Select committee on EnergyIndependence and Global Warming, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 4-18-07, lexis.Should climate change be treated as a national security matter? The short and clear answer is "yes." Countriesare unlikely to go to war over levels of greenhouse gas emissions, but they may well go to war over the results ofclimate change, including water shortages and large-scale human migration. Climate change, by contributing todisease, extreme weather, challenges from insects that attack both food production and people, water shortages,and the loss of arable land, will also contribute to state failure, which in turn provides opportunities for activitiessuch as terrorism, illegal drugs, and slavery that exploit "sovereignty deficits." Development, democracy, andlife itself will not thrive amidst such conditions.

6. GLOBAL WARMING THREATENS OUR SOCIETY -- MULTIPLE MECHANISMS

Gary C. Bryner, Professor, Public Policy Program, Brigham Young University, "Carbon Markets: ReducingGreenhouse Gas Emissions Through Emissions Trading," TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW JOURNAL v.17, Summer 2004, p.267-268.The widespread agreement among scientists that the buildup of carbon and other emissions from human activitywill result in disruptive and perhaps even catastrophic changes to the earth's climate has led to internationalenvironmental agreements that promise to begin to reduce the threat. These agreements are aimed at reducinggreenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere and cause warming beyond the natural greenhouseeffect that is essential for life on earth. The threat of global warming is not the gradual increase in temperaturesin and of itself. In fact, global warming may produce some benefits in northern regions, such as longer growingseasons and milder weather. Rather, the greater fear is that changes in climate will wreak havoc in some regionsby increasing the intensity of heat waves, droughts, and storms; produce warming trends that harm agricultureand biodiversity; stimulate the spread of disease; cause the melting of glaciers and rise of sea level in coastalareas; and result in a host of other problems.


CLIMATE CHANGE IS BAD/MUST ACT cont'd

7. GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD, WILL CAUSE ANY NUMBER OF PROBLEMS

German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), WORLD IN TRANSITION -- CLIMATE CHANGE ASA SECURITY RISK, Earthscan, London, January 2008, p.15, www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_engl.pdf, accessed3-16-08.Climate change is advancing rapidly. Without resolute counteraction, a global increase in temperature of 2-7degrees C relative to pre-industrial levels can be expected to occur by 2100. This will cause more frequent andmore severe extreme weather events such as heavy rains, drought, heatwaves and storms. There is also a dangerof tropical cyclones not only becoming stronger but also occurring with greater frequency in extratropicalregions. At the same time, sea levels are continuing to rise. These direct impacts of climate change will havefar-reaching effects upon societies and the lives of people around the world. If climate change continuesunabated, agricultural yields will decline significantly in many regions of the world, especially Africa and SouthAsia, and poverty will grow accordingly; drought will make it difficult for many millions of people worldwide togain access to clean drinking water; extreme weather events will continue to gain destructive force and mayconfront governments and societies with major issues of adaptation, for instance in Central America, but also onthe east coasts of China and India. Many states that are already weak and fragile will be faced with additional'environmental stress'. Comprehensive changes in biogeophysical conditions will jeopardize the livelihood basesof people in the particularly affected regions of the world and will trigger migration. The present report examineswhether the emerging trends may contribute in the future to a destabilization of societies, regions or even thewhole international system.


OIL DEPLETION WILL OCCUR BY 2040

1. A MULTITUDE OF FACTORS PROVE THAT WE WILL SOON HIT PEAK OIL

Michael Hamlyn, journalist, "Doomsday Scenario for Oil," IAFRICA, 3-18-08,http://business.iafrica.com/news/306952.htm, accessed 3-25-08.Peak oil will be earlier than most expect, Skrebowski told delegates. And he explained that global productionfalls when loss of output from countries in decline exceeds gains in output from those that are expanding. Andhe cited eight key pieces of evidence that we are close to peak: a falling discovery rate; few large discoveries;ever more countries in sustained depletion; companies struggling to hold production; non-geologic threats tofuture oil supply; the current lack of incremental flows; few countries with real growth potential; the age of thelargest fields; and sustained high oil prices "The oil companies are already struggling to hold production," hesaid. "In the third quarter of 2007, only Total recorded oil production gains. For the last 12 quarters oilproduction has drifted down for the five super-majors; has flat-lined for the 10 largest quoted companies and hasflat-lined for the 24 largest quoted companies. Quoted companies' share of production is now declining, notablyfor the super-majors."

2. 'EASY' OIL HAS ALREADY PEAKED, TOTAL PRODUCTION WILL PEAK BY 2011

Daniel Howden, "World Oil Supplies Set to Run Out Faster than Expected, Warn Scientists," THEINDEPENDENT, 6-14-07, http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/14/1874/, accessed 5-2-08.Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil iscoming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit. BP's Statistical Review of WorldEnergy, published yesterday, appears to show that the world still has enough "proven" reserves to provide 40years of consumption at current rates. The assessment, based on officially reported figures, has once againpushed back the estimate of when the world will run dry. However, scientists led by the London-based OilDepletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering asteepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live ourlives. According to "peak oil" theory our consumption of oil will catch, then outstrip our discovery of newreserves and we will begin to deplete known reserves. Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said:"It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and thefaster you drink it the quicker it's gone." Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a stringof oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - thecheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficultto extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as2011, he says.

3. PRODUCTION WILL BE IN RAPID DECLINE BY 2015

Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow, Post Carbon Institute, "The Great Coal Rush (and Why It Will Fail),"MUSELETTER n. 190, 2-08, http://globalpublicmedia.com/heinberg_museletter190, accessed 3-25-08.However, during the past three years, global production of crude oil has remained static, despite demand growth- especially from Asian economies. And there is every indication that worldwide petroleum production willbegin an inexorable, inevitable decline beginning around 2010. This is the often-discussed phenomenon of PeakOil (explained, for example, in the present author's The Oil Depletion Protocol). In the quarter century from1980 to 2005, world oil use grew at an average rate of roughly two percent annually. During most of this period,prices were low - usually in the range of $US10 to $20. However, in the three years since May 2005, the rate ofextraction of conventional crude oil has stalled, while prices have shifted to the $60 to $100 range. Manyanalysts believe that by 2015 oil production will be declining at an annual rate of over two percent per year andprices may be in the multiple hundreds of dollars per barrel.


TRANSPORTATION KEY TO OIL DEPENDENCE

1. TRANSPORTATION TAKES UP 70% OF ALL AMERICAN OIL USE

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.3.As of 2006, the U.S. consumed approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day. This amount includes a total of14.36 million barrels of oil per day by the transportation sector, of which 8.69 million barrels per day areconsumed by light duty vehicles. At the current rate of consumption, and with little change in policy, the U.S.Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that U.S. demand for oil will increaseto 26.9 million barrels per day by 2030. Projections rank transportation sector consumption at 73 percent of allliquid fuels, of which 98 percent is petroleum.

2. AUTOMOBILES ARE AT THE CENTER OF U.S. OIL DEPENDENCE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.545.Before addressing the problems associated with fossil fuel use, it is important to note that improvements in thefuel efficiency of our personal vehicles will go a long way toward remedying oil dependency, which is thehighest it has ever been in the history of the United States. Over 80% of people now drive to work in whatRoberta Mann describes as a "low-density, petroleum intensive lifestyle" that, she argues, has taken root eversince Frank Lloyd Wright popularized the concept of the single-family home. Furthermore, the damage thatpersonal automobiles do in the United States is substantial: they are the single greatest polluters in the country.Thus, the personal automobile plays an extremely large role -- perhaps the most substantial -- in U.S. oildependence.

3. INCREASING FUEL DIVERSITY IS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS OIL DEPENDENCE

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.282.Given that the United States consumes more petroleum and consequently produces "more harmful gases than anyother country, it is imperative that it work[] domestically to reduce" its dependence on petroleum and decreaseharmful emissions. The United States could best reduce its consumption of petroleum by supporting a renewablefuel policy directed at diversifying the United States' fuel supply to the greatest extent possible.

4. U.S. OIL DEPENDENCE IS HIGH -- OVER 60% OF TOTAL USE

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.268.Today, even more than in the 1970s, the Middle East is situated to force the world into economic recession.While the eleven OPEC nations control over 40% of the world's oil and three-quarters of the world's proven oilreserves, the United States has come to rely on imported oil more than ever. When the 1973 oil embargooccurred, the United States imported about 30% of its oil. Presently, oil imports represent approximately 60% ofthe United States' oil supply - 46.2% of which comes from OPEC nations.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: AIR POLLUTION

1. PETROLEUM-POWERED AUTOS CAUSE SERIOUS POLLUTION PROBLEMS -- SMOG, NOX, VOCs,CARBON DIOXIDE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.545-546.First, the burning of fossil fuels creates hydrocarbon emissions, which are the precursors to smog. Vehicleemissions account for about 29% of hydrocarbons in the air. Second, personal vehicles release nitrogen oxides,resulting in the creation of ground level ozone and acid rain. Vehicle emissions are responsible for 34% ofnitrogen oxide in the air. Third, about 90% of carbon monoxide, a poisonous gas, is produced by mobiletransportation in America's urban areas. In total, vehicle emissions account for about 51% of carbon monoxide inthe atmosphere. Finally, personal vehicles produce carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that is in large partresponsible for the global warming effect. Thus, not only do personal vehicles emit matter that is harmful to theenvironment, but they also emit a volume of environmentally harmful compounds into the air that makes themone of the most -- if not the most -- egregious polluters.

2. PARTICULATE POLLUTION FROM GASOLINE KILLS 40,000 PEOPLE A YEAR, IMPOSES BILLIONSIN ANNUAL HEALTH COSTS

Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer, "Achieving Energy Victory," THE NEW ATLANTIS, Fall 2007,www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/achieving-energy-victory, accessed 5-15-08.According to the Environmental Protection Agency, smoke, soot, and other particulate pollution from carscurrently causes approximately 40,000 American deaths per year from lung cancer and other ailments. And as aresult of fuel leaks and spills, incomplete combustion, and fumes from ordinary refueling operations, vastamounts of carcinogens and mutagens are released every day, causing an increased incidence of cancer amongthe general public. The result is many deaths and billions of dollars in health-care costs inflicted on the nationevery year. Alcohol fuels do not produce smoke, soot, or particulates when burned in internal combustionengines, and neither methanol nor ethanol causes cancer or mutations.

3. OIL COMBUSTION RELEASE MANY DEADLY CHEMICALS INTO THE AIR -- COSTS SOCIETYNEARLY $200 BILLION A YEAR

Lauren Poole, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Oil: More Costly than You Think," ECO IQMAGAZINE, Summer 2000, http://www.ecoiq.com/magazine/features/feature71.html, accessed 5-15-08.Air Pollution. When oil is burned in our cars and buses, a variety of pollutants are emitted. Complex chemicalreactions occur between these emitted pollutants, which gives the distinctive brown haze to our air known assmog. Smog is made up, in large part, of ozone gas. When most people think of ozone, they think of theprotective layer of ozone in the earth's upper atmosphere that protects us from harmful ultraviolet rays. At theground level, however, ozone is a toxic gas. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments to combathigh emission levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, which react to form ground-level ozone. Yetmany Americans still live in cities not meeting at least one federal air quality standard. The effect smog has onhumans is worse than you may think. Air pollution has a enormous effect on public health. Recent studies havelinked ground level ozone pollution with increases in hospital admissions for respiratory conditions, especiallyamong children with asthma, the elderly, and people with heart and lung disease. According to the AmericanLung Association, air pollution contributes to lung disease -- including asthma, lung cancer, and respiratory tractinfections -- and close to 335,000 people in the United States die from lung disease every year. Public healthcosts due to air pollution account for over three-quarters of total pollution-related health costs and could be ashigh as $182 billion annually.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: AIR POLLUTION cont'd

4. GASOLINE EMISSIONS CAUSE ENORMOUS HEALTH PROBLEMS -- ASTHMA, SHORTENEDLIFESPANS

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.546.Aside from the detrimental environmental effects caused by the burning of fossil fuels by personal automobiles,serious health effects can also arise. In addition to all of the other harmful substances produced throughpetroleum-based internal combustion, particulate matter can substantially damage physical well-being. Around28% of Americans live in areas where there are unhealthy levels of short-term particle pollution, which canshorten life up to one to three years. Furthermore, smog and ground-level ozone can lead to higher incidences ofasthma, especially in children. Vehicle emissions, then, should not only be a concern for environmentalists andconservationists. At the least, fossil fuel use should produce anxiety for the large portion of Americans who livein urban areas where vehicle emissions have the potential to shorten human life.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ECONOMY

1. OIL DEPENDENCE SERIOUSLY HURTS OUR ECONOMY -- PRICE SPIKES, DEMANDDISPLACEMENT, AND TRADE DEFICITS

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008,p.369-370.EPA II's failure to adequately replace imported oil consumption with domestically-produced alternative fuelgives rise to a host of negative outcomes. To begin with, over-reliance on oil has the potential to wreak havoc onthe U.S. economy, and in many ways has done so already. According to the Department of Energy, "there iswide agreement that high oil prices have negative effects on U.S. macroeconomic variables," with most of themajor economic downturns in the United States since the 1970s being preceded by sudden increases in crude oilprices. Specific negative outcomes of oil price increases include the transfer of domestic consumer spendingfrom domestic goods and services to foreign oil, disruptions to domestic transportation and shipping industries,decreased purchasing power of U.S. national income due to trade imbalances, and increases in the price ofpetroleum substitutes which experience higher demand as oil price increases. These effects will only worsen asdemand for oil increases and foreign imports continue to make up a larger portion of domestic consumption, andwill degenerate further as demand for oil in emerging economies such as India and China complicates the worldmarket.

2. OIL DEPENDENCE PLACES A LARGE BURDEN ON OUR ECONOMY -- HEALTH COSTS, BILL FORDEFENDING OIL SUPPLIES

Samantha A. Krasner, "America's Addiction to Oil: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Our Nation'sDependence," CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW v. 40, November 2007, p.212.Our current over-consumption and overuse of oil has caused serious damage to our environment and our nation'sbudget. The U.S. military's cost of protecting Middle East oil supplies runs around $ 50 billion a year.Congestion costs the United States $ 63 billion a year in lost time and wasted fuel - losing about 5.6 billiongallons of gasoline idling in traffic. Additionally, vehicle exhaust contributes to countless hospitalizations forasthma attacks, lung disease, heart attacks, and a variety of other illnesses. Vehicles alone contribute to 20% ofthe U.S. greenhouse gas burden, approximately 4% of the world's annual burden of greenhouse gases. Makingchanges to our current pattern of gasoline consumption can not only save the United States a significant amountof money, but also improve the quality of our environment and health and lessen current political pressure.

3. OIL DEPENDENCE ACCOUNTS FOR NEARLY HALF OF THE TRADE DEFICIT

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.290.Further, nearly half of this nation's trade deficit is attributable to oil imports. At the United States' current rate ofconsumption, this figure will only increase as imported oil is predicted to account for 60% to 70% of the nationaltrade deficit in the next ten to twenty years. Moreover, it is estimated that by 2025, the Middle East will controlhalf of the world's remaining oil, which will increase the cost of obtaining oil exponentially, both in terms ofmoney and security. According to the DOE and Congressman Mac Thornberry, "the rise in expenditures onforeign oil corresponds to a decrease in domestic oil production and a loss in American jobs."


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ECONOMY cont'd

4. NEW OIL CAPACITY WON'T KEEP UP WITH DEMAND -- ENSURES HIGH PRICES FROM HERE ONOUT

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.3-4.Projections anticipate that global consumption demands for oil will reach 120 billion barrels per day by 2025.Discovery and production are expected to peak and then decline sometime between 2004 and 2010. In 2006,forecasts of U.S. oil production alone indicate that domestic production will peak at 5.8 million barrels per dayin 2017 and fall to 4.6 million barrels per day by 2030. In contrast, U.S. consumption of all liquid fuels willincrease. Partly because of this supply and demand problem, the price of oil will remain high, conflicts willcontinue, and oil companies will take bigger risks at higher costs. For example, the search for extractable oil hasbecome more risky and expensive as oil companies have to dig deeper and search longer to find it.

5. DEPENDENCE LEAVES THE U.S. VULNERABLE TO PRICE SPIKES THAT THREATEN THEECONOMY

Richard Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Testimony before House Select committee on EnergySecond, the fact that the United States imports roughly 60% of the oil it consumes leaves the U.S. economyvulnerable to supply interruptions that even in small amounts can cause price increases and in larger amountscause not only price increases but economic disruption. The United States would be vulnerable economically tosupply interruptions (and price spikes) even if it imported far less oil given the extent to which others arevulnerable and the degree to which U.S. economic fortunes are tied to those of others.

6. OIL IMPORTS BLOAT THE TRADE DEFICIT, WEAKENING THE DOLLAR

Richard Haas, President, Council on Foreign Relations, Testimony before House Select committee on EnergyIndependence and Global Warming, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 4-18-07, lexis.Third, the need to pay for oil imports exacerbates the already considerable current account deficit, which in turnfurther weakens the dollar and makes the United States more dependent on (and vulnerable to) the decisions ofother governments. Approximately one-third of the annual current account deficit, or some $250 billion, isattributable to oil imports.

7. OIL DEPENDENCE FORCES ENORMOUS MILITARY EXPENDITURES

Raci Oriona Spaulding, "Fuel from Vegetable? A Modern Approach to Global Climate Change,"TRANSNATIONAL LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS v. 13, Spring 2003, p.301.Second, the cost to the U.S. military of protecting its oil interests in the Middle East is tremendous. Each year,the United States spends as much as $ 57 billion protecting its interests in the Middle East. As some experts havesaid, "if only military and energy security costs were taken into consideration, the cost of oil would be as high as$ 100 per barrel - or $ 5 a gallon." This amount does not even include "the lives sacrificed in military conflicts tomaintain our "cheap' oil supplies."

8. OIL IMPORTS DRAIN THE ECONOMY, UNDERMINE OUR COMPETITIVENESS

Robert D. Hormats, Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs (International), Testimony before the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 1-10-07, lexis.Even under normal conditions, oil dependence has severe economic consequences. In 2005, direct outlays forimported oil accounted for a third of the country's $800 billion current account deficit. In 2006 prices, theseoutlays have gone still higher. By diverting funds away from domestic consumption and investment, oil importsput a drag on U.S. economic growth and undercut the nation's long-term competitive position. Oil dependencealso adds billions to our defense expenditures by making overseas protection of oil supplies a high strategicpriority.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ECONOMY cont'd

9. THE U.S. IMPORTS OVER HALF OF ITS OIL, CREATING AN ENORMOUS DRAIN ON THE ECONOMY

Margaret J. Jennings, "Bioenergy: Fueling the Future?" DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW v. 12,Spring 2007, p.207.Each day, the U.S. consumes roughly 20 million barrels of oil. Over half of this (more than 10 million barrels) isimported. Importation of this oil comes at a very high price. The Natural Resources Defense Council reports thatAmerica spends "more than $ 200,000 per minute -- $ 13 million per hour -- on foreign oil, and more than $ 25billion a year on Persian Gulf imports alone." In fact, "every day the U.S. pays out $ 390 million for foreign oil,with half of every dollar going to OPEC [Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries] and a quarter to thePersian Gulf." Some of this money might make it back to the U.S. economy; however, it is more likely that anymoney paid out to OPEC will not be reinvested in the U.S. It is projected that in 2025 the U.S. will consumeforty-four percent, or 28.3 million barrels, more oil per day than is consumed right now, "with domesticproduction meeting a mere 30 percent of that need." Thus, sixty percent of U.S. oil will need to be imported.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ENVIRONMENT

1. OIL PRODUCTION HURTS THE ENVIRONMENT -- DESTROYS HABITAT, UNDERMINES WATERQUALITY

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.5-6.In addition to carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles, oil exploration, extraction, and transportation haveequally negative impacts on the environment. These activities result in damage to land, water, air, health, and thequality of life. First, the exploration and extraction of oil disturbs or destroys the habitat of the plant and animalspecies that live in the area. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported a specific example of thisimpact in a 2005 study. The study examined the effect of increased oil and gas leases on the Bureau of LandManagement's ability to mitigate the impacts of oil and gas drilling on federal lands. The environmental impactsreported in the study range from site specific, such as damage to vegetation from oil well installation, to thosethat affect a much larger area, such as large-scale habitat interruption. Second, the 2005 GAO report alsoindicated that oil and gas development sometimes affect local air and water quality. Construction of new roadsand the use of diesel engines at drill sites can degrade air quality due to increased dust and the presence ofnitrogen oxides. Water quality may be impacted from runoff and/or accidental spills. The mere presence ofdrilling and production equipment can negatively impact aesthetics and change "a natural setting to an industrialzone." Finally, all the drilling activity at a site, from noisy equipment to unnatural lighting, tends to negativelyimpact nearby habitat, both human and wildlife.

2. OIL CONSUMPTION CAUSES A MULTITUDE OF PROBLEMS

Lauren Poole, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Oil: More Costly than You Think," ECO IQMAGAZINE, Summer 2000, http://www.ecoiq.com/magazine/features/feature71.html, accessed 5-15-08.Every time gas prices rise, there is a public outcry to reduce the cost of oil. What most Americans don't realize,however, is that they have been paying a very high price for oil - but only a fraction at the gas pump - for years.Fueling our automobiles and other transportation vehicles with oil has many costs. These include polluting theair in our cities and contaminating our water and land, contributing to global warming, and damaging our publichealth, our economy, and our country's energy security. None of these costs are reflected in the market price ofoil.

3. OIL COMBUSTING CREATES SO2, SPURRING ACID RAIN AND DAMAGING AGRICULTURE ANDECOSYSTEMS, HURTING BIODIVERSITY

Lauren Poole, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Oil: More Costly than You Think," ECO IQMAGAZINE, Summer 2000, http://www.ecoiq.com/magazine/features/feature71.html, accessed 5-15-08.Acid Rain. Oil contains sulfur, and when it's burned, the sulfur in the fuel is emitted into the atmosphere assulfur dioxide (SO2). In the atmosphere, SO2 becomes an aerosol of sulfuric acid that is commonly known asacid rain. When the SO2 concentrations are very high in rainfall, they can cause severe respiratory damage tohumans and substantial damage to buildings. Fortunately for humans, most of this sulfur falls back onto the earthin unpopulated regions. Unfortunately, the areas that do get damaged are our agricultural regions, forests, andlakes. Acidic rain causes an estimated $2 to $3 billion of damage to agricultural crops in the United States eachyear. Natural forests die from the acid rain, along with their biologically diverse species. Thousands of lakes inthe U.S. and Canada have suffered serious losses of aquatic life due to acidic rain.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: ENVIRONMENT cont'd

4. OIL DEPENDENCE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OIL SPILLS, WHICH ARE DEVASTATING FOR OCEANECOSYSTEMS

Lauren Poole, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, "Oil: More Costly than You Think," ECO IQMAGAZINE, Summer 2000, http://www.ecoiq.com/magazine/features/feature71.html, accessed 5-15-08.Water Pollution. Almost a billion gallons of oil are spilled into the world's oceans and waterways each year.Acute oil spills, such as the Exxon Valdez marine oil spill in Alaska in 1989, can damage individual organismsand wipe out entire populations of marine and coastal species. Even more alarming, however, is that marine oilspills such as the Valdez spill are not nearly as damaging to the environment as the thousands of smaller spillsthat are reported annually. Pipeline spills reported to the U.S. Department of Transportation average 12 milliongallons of petroleum products per year. The Exxon Valdez Spill, by comparison, spewed out 11 million gallons.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: LEADERSHIP/NATIONAL SECURITY

1. OIL DEPENDENCE POSES SERIOUS THREATS TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY -- MULTIPLESCENARIOS

Robert D. Hormats, Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs (International), Testimony before the Senate Committee onEnergy and Natural Resources, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 1-10-07, lexis.There are several national economic and security consequences of this situation: If the situation in Iraq continuesto deteriorate and other oil producing nations become more involved, the risks increase to oil supplies not onlyfrom disruptions in Iraq but also from greater tensions between the Sunni nations on the western side of thePersian Gulf and the Shiites on the eastern side, with oil facilities and shipments becoming increasinglyvulnerable. Moreover, added western pressures on Iran over its nuclear program could lead to oil disruptions orthreats thereof; The American economy remains highly vulnerable to supply disruptions in oil exporting nations;these could result from acts or terrorism, political instability, efforts to use oil as leverage, or natural calamities;High oil prices resulting from strong demand from countries such as the U.S. and other major importers givecountries such as Iran and Venezuela added resources to take actions inimical to American interests;Oil-dependent friends and allies feel more vulnerable to the pressures and potential use of oil leverage fromsupplying countries and therefore are reluctant to side with the U.S. on key issues affecting those suppliers;Oil-related tensions and competition are likely to intensify as countries such as China seek to lock up scarcesupplies or make political deals to solidify long-term supply relationships, or suppliers such as Russian and Iranuse oil as leverage to extract political concessions from consumers.

2. OIL DEPENDENCE THREATENS OUR HEGEMONY -- OUR MILITARY IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ONOIL

The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGYINDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p.xvi.The U.S. military uses between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels of fuel each day to defend our nation (primarily jetfuel and some diesel). The dramatic run up in the cost of fuel, and the elevated risk of supply disruptions andshortages, threatens military readiness. Protecting oil shipping and transportation corridors and productionfacilities abroad requires a massive U.S. military presence in the Middle East, costing billions of taxpayer dollarsand stretching military resources. As competition for oil intensifies, international confrontation and conflict willbecome more likely as nations attempt to secure needed oil supplies. Further, U.S. funds tendered to purchaseimported oil are sometimes used to fund terrorist organizations. Military leadership recognizes that nationalsecurity is seriously threatened by dependence on imported oil. That is why the Department of Defense is soactively championing the rapid development of domestic sources of reliable, cost-competitive, high-performance, low emissions alternative fuels for military vehicles, aircraft, and ships.

3. OIL DEPENDENCE UNDERMINES U.S. INTERESTS -- EMPOWERS STATES THAT HAVEANTI-AMERICAN AGENDAS

John M. Deutch, Professor, MIT, Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, CQCONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 3-22-07, lexis.Oil import dependence has a serious national security cost. Most fundamentally, dependence on oil importslimits the leverage of the United States and its allies, necessary to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Oilrevenues enable producer countries to pursue policies that are not in the interest of the United States. I citeseveral examples: Iran. The possibility that Iran might interrupt the 2.5 million barrels of oil per day (of its 4.0million barrels per day production) that it exports must be taken into account when considering sanctions againstIran for its nuclear weapons activities or for its intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq. Russia has made clearits intention to use its considerable oil and gas reserves to promote its global interests. The recent actions ofRussia to threaten interruption of gas supplies to Eastern European states must give Europe pause, because of itsdependence on natural gas imports from Russia.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: LEADERSHIP/NATIONAL SECURITY cont'd

4. OIL DEPENDENCE CONTRIBUTES TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY PROBLEMS IN THE MIDEAST

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.546.A third problem with oil dependence is from where the oil is coming. A large portion of the oil consumed by theUnited States comes from the Middle East, where American involvement in Iraq has given rise to anti-Americansentiments. Bush addressed this concern, noting that "[b]reakthroughs on new technologies will help us reachanother great goal: to replace more than [seventy-five] percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."Hence, current political tensions between the United States and the Middle East present another strong reason tocut fossil fuel consumption.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: MULTIWARRANT

1. OVER-RELIANCE ON PETROLEUM CAUSES A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS -- CLIMATE CHANGE,TERRORISM, ECONOMIC VULNERABILITY FROM PRICE SWINGS

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008,p.353-354.America's over-reliance on petroleum fuels has figured prominently in recent major American disasters. Theterrorist attacks of 2001, the Iraq war, environmental problems associated with global climate change, and therecent devastation to the Gulf Coast region have led to heightened concerns over energy security, a vulnerableenergy infrastructure, and the need to develop alternatives. Interspersed between these disasters, the everydayreality of soaring gas prices has led to public outcry for progressive energy policy. Supporting these concerns isthe statistical reality of the current decade, which shows that oil prices are not only getting higher, but that theyare also fluctuating more drastically than they have in prior decades. A small but vocal minority attribute thecurrent trend of increasingly high, volatile oil prices to the Peak Oil theory.

2. OIL DEPLETION IS INEVITABLE, AND OUR DEPENDENCE SPURS TERRORISM AND GLOBALWARMING

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.257-258.The world is running out of oil. It took centuries for the planet's oil reserves to naturally form; but, at the world'scurrent rate of consumption, oil reserves will be exhausted in less than 100 years. The United States is theworld's leading consumer of oil, annually burning approximately one-quarter of the world's oil supply despiteaccounting for only 5% of the global population. Nonetheless, the United States has come to rely on imported oilmore than ever. As global oil reserves continue to dwindle, extraction costs will continue to rise not only ineconomic terms, but also in terms of security and the environment. In this regard, United States Presidents havecharacterized our dependence on foreign oil as one of the single greatest threats to our nation's security. Indeed,it has been cited as an impetus for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as for the war in Iraq.Some commentators even suggest that spending on Middle-Eastern oil indirectly finances terrorism. Thevulnerability of the United States' domestic petroleum infrastructure is further evidenced by the effects ofHurricane Katrina on offshore drilling and the Alaskan pipeline leak in 2006. Finally, the severe environmentaland health implications of petroleum consumption, such as global warming and air pollution, are finally beingrealized.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: MULTIWARRANT cont'd

3. DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL PRESENTS AN ENORMOUS THREAT TO OUR LIBERTY ANDFREEDOM

Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer, ENERGY VICTORY: WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR BYBREAKING FREE OF OIL, 2007, p.251.The enemy's control of the global oil supply is a threat to the freedom of all people around the world. Indeed, theworst victims are the populations of the petrotyrannies themselves, for by giving their governments unlimitedexpense accounts, it endows the powerful with the ability to trample their subjects at will. Gifts make slaves. InEuropean history, the acquisition of vast unearned New World treasure by Spain led to the degradation of theenterprising classes and caused the abortion of the development of representative institutions in that country. Incontrast, the need of England to develop its sources of revenue through commerce and manufacturing forced theBritish monarchy to consult with Parliament and enact measures suitable for growing the productive powers ofthe nation. Similarly, in the Middle East today, those nations with the least oil have the most literacy, education,and freedom. The people of Arabia will never be free so long as their rulers have no need of their humancapacities. The enemy control of oil also threatens our own freedom, in three different ways. On the one hand,there are those who would use the need to counter the oil cartel as a pretext to demand measures of economicstrangulation, thereby furthering their quest to expand state power at the expense of the individual. On another,there are those who would respond to the perils posed by the terrorists funded by the enemy oil with ever moreintrusive police actions. The Bush administration has already begun to enact measures along such lines, andmore will certainly follow, regardless of who is in power, if the terror attacks are allowed to continue. It is anaxiom of political science that liberty will not thrive in a state of siege.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: TERRORISM

1. OUR OIL DEPENDENCE FUNDS TERRORISTS THAT WILL DESTROY OUR CIVILIZATION

Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer, "The Hydrogen Hoax," THE NEW ATLANTIS, Winter 2007,www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax, accessed 5-15-08.Nearly everyone in American politics believes we face an energy crisis, and nearly everyone believes we need atechnological solution that will make America "energy independent." Americans are, as President Bush put it inhis 2006 State of the Union address, "addicted to oil," and in this case our addiction is enriching andempowering those who seek to destroy us. We are funding, if indirectly, the madrassahs that teach vile hatred ofWestern civilization and the backward cultures that create death-seeking soldiers for Islam. We are, ifunwittingly, arming those who wish to kill us. To cure this self-destructive addiction, the Bush administrationhas placed a major bet on the so-called "hydrogen economy," both in policy and in rhetoric.

2. OIL DEPENDENCE MEANS WE ARE FINANCING THE ENEMY IN THE WAR ON TERROR

Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer, ENERGY VICTORY: WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR BYBREAKING FREE OF OIL, 2007, p.11.America is losing the war on terror. For the past thirty-five years, we have allowed the enemy's power to grow,and as a result, a cult that was once an anachronistic curiosity has now become a worldwide menace. SaudiArabia is the primary global financier of the Islamist terror cult. In 1972, Saudi foreign exchange earnings were$2.7 billion. In 2006 they topped $200 billion. Over the same period, the United States' dependency upon foreignoil grew from 30 percent to 60 percent and our annual oil import bill grew from less than $4 billion to more than$260 billion. As a result of our failure to enact a competent energy policy, our country is being looted, and theenemy's power has been fabulously multiplied. We are financing a war against ourselves. And with the rapidindustrialization of China and India increasing global demand for oil, prices are set to soar even higher.

3. THE U.S. IS HEAVILY DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL -- INCREASES VULNERABILITY TOTERRORISM, DISCOURAGES DEMOCRATIC REFORMS IN PETRO-STATES

L. Leon Geyer, Professor, Phillip Chong, Research Assistant and Bill Hxue, Research Associate, Department ofAgricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech University, "Ethanol, Biomass, Biofuels and Energy: AProfile and Overview," DRAKE JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL LAW v. 12, Spring 2007, p.62.What complicates the energy situation in the United States is two-fold in nature. First, natural resource energy isfinite. Second, there is an imbalance of oil stocks and reserves due to geological circumstances beyond control.According to the Energy Information Agency, an estimated 1.32 trillion barrels of oil are left in the world; andonly 1.6% of that amount resides in the United States. More significantly, of the 1.32 trillion barrels of oil, 6% isin Venezuela, 8.7% is in Iraq, 10.3% is in Iran, and 19.9% is in Saudi Arabia. This petroleum imbalance hascreated a world where the use of energy as an overt weapon is no longer a theoretical threat of the future, buthappening now. The 2007 State of the Union address by President George W. Bush expressed America'sdependence on foreign oil and the fact that it "leaves us America more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and toterrorists - who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to oureconomy." This geo-political situation has allowed regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela to avoiddemocratic reforms and insulate themselves from international and domestic pressures. Furthermore, as ThomasFriedman states, "it has fostered a counterwave - a new wave of authoritarian leaders who are not only able toensconce themselves in power because of huge oil profits but also to use their oil wealth to poison the global[political and economic] system."


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: TERRORISM cont'd

4. OIL PAYMENTS ARE USED TO FUND TERRORISM

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.290.Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been increased interest in reducing the UnitedStates' dependence on foreign oil. Presently, the United States consumes over a quarter of the world's oil, butproduces only 9% of it. To compensate for this disparity, the United States spends approximately $ 97 billioneach year to import oil. Some commentators suggest that a considerable amount of this money is used tosubsidize terrorism.


OIL DEPENDENCE BAD: WAR/CONFLICT

1. GROWING OIL DEMAND RISKS GLOBAL CONFLICTS, INCLUDING ONE WITH CHINA

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.8-9.Conflicts with Middle Eastern countries may not be the only military cost the U.S. faces to maintain access to oilsupplies. As demand for oil increases around the world and developing countries expand and develop their owneconomies, the cost to maintain access to oil supplies may lead to conflicts with these countries. For example,one prediction indicates that "the growing demand for oil will most likely lead to growing global conflicts, ofwhich the Gulf War, the 9/11 attack, and the current war in Iraq are just the first three skirmishes. Theseconflicts pale in comparison to the potential conflict over oil with China." A potential conflict with China is ascary prediction, but it is just one example of potential conflicts that will arise, as developing countries requiremore and more oil to fuel their growing economies. To be precise, developing countries with lower per capitaincome levels will be using more oil as they become more prosperous.

2. RESOURCE SHORTAGES RISK WAR -- THE EMPIRICAL RECORD PROVES THIS

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.7-8.A role of government is to ensure the adequate distribution of resources to its citizens. When those resourcesbecome scarce, governments often resort to extreme measures and armed conflict erupts: "by one accounting,there have been 127 wars and violent internal conflicts since 1945." In addition, "the causes of warfare areexceedingly complex, but 'the global or regional shortage, or perceived shortage, of one or more naturalresources [may contribute to] the onset of war.'" Currently, the U.S. imports approximately 63.5 percent of theoil it consumes, and approximately 40.4 percent of this oil comes from member countries of the Organization ofthe Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and approximately 16.2 percent from other Persian Gulf countries.Remaining imports come from non-OPEC countries. Defense of unfettered access to oil became national policyin 1980 with the introduction of the Carter Doctrine. During the State of the Union Address in 1980, PresidentCarter announced that, "any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be regarded as anassault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and will be repelled by any means necessary,including military force." Since 1980, the U.S. has been involved in at least four conflicts in the Middle East: theIran-Iraq war (1980-88), the 1991 Gulf war, the subsequent containment of Saddam Hussain, and the 2003 Iraqwar.


OIL DEPLETION BAD: COMING SOON

1. MULTIPLE INDICATORS PROVE THAT WE ARE NEARING THE PEAK

National Coal Council, COAL: AMERICAN'S ENERGY FUTURE v. 1, March 2006, p.23.Since 1999, however, non-OPEC crude oil production has stagnated at roughly 35 million barrels per day whileworld oil production increased nearly 8 million barrels per day between 1999 and 2004. Non-OPEC crude oilproduction contributed only 12% of this increase, fewer than 1 million barrels per day. The former Soviet Unioncontributed nearly half the increase with OPEC supplying the remaining 40% of the increase. In short, the worldis becoming increasingly dependent upon OPEC and the former Soviet Union territories for crude oil. A growinggroup of scientists and economists are voicing concern over the possibility that world oil production capacity ispeaking. Expanding decline rates, harder-to-find reserves, aging large oil fields, and increased capital costs forthe same production have resulted in global issues that mirror the U.S. production-related issues for oilbeginning in the 1970s and NG in the 1990s. Concern ranges from published works by experts such as MatthewSimmons (Twilight in the Desert) and Kenneth Deffeyes (Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak) to reportsby the Department of Energy (Hirsch, Bezdek and Wendling's "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts,Mitigation and Risk Management").

2. THE PEAK IS NEAR -- DECLINING PRODUCTION, DISCOVERY RATES PROVE

Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow, Post-Carbon Institute, "What Will We Eat as the Oil Runs Out?"MUSELETTER n. 188, December 2007, www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/188, accessed 3-25-08.How near is the global peak? Today the majority of oil-producing nations are seeing reduced output: in 2006,BP's Statistical Review of World Energy reported declines in 27 of the 51 producing nations listed. In someinstances, these declines will be temporary and are occurring because of lack of investment in productiontechnology or domestic political problems. But in most instances the decline results from factors of geology:while older oil fields continue to yield crude, beyond a certain point it becomes impossible to maintain existingflow rates by any available means. As a result, over time there are fewer nations in the category of oil exportersand more nations in the category of oil importers. Meanwhile global rates of discovery of new oilfields havebeen declining since 1964. These two trends (a growing preponderance of past-peak producing nations, and adeclining success rate for exploration) by themselves suggest that the world peak may be near.

3. CONSENSUS SAYS THAT PEAK THEORY IS REAL -- FORMER ENERGY SECRETARIES, OILEXECUTIVES

Mark Hertsgaard, fellow, The Nation Institute, "Running on Empty," THE NATION, 4-25-08,http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/04/25/8522/, accessed 5-2-08.Though largely unnoticed by the world media, a decisive moment in the peak oil debate came last September,when James Schlesinger declared that the "peakists" were right. You don't get closer to the Americanestablishment and energy business than Schlesinger, who has served as chair of the Atomic Energy Commission,head of the CIA, Defense Secretary, Energy Secretary and adviser to countless oil companies. In a speech to aconference sponsored by the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Schlesinger said, "It's no longer the case thatwe have a few voices crying in the wilderness. The battle is over. The peakists have won." Schlesinger addedthat many oil company CEOs privately agree that peak oil is imminent but don't say so publicly. One who doesis Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell. Without using the term "peak oil," van der Veer warned inJanuary, "After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand." Ofcourse, peak oil could arrive sooner than 2015; columnist George Monbiot has claimed in the Guardian that aCitibank report calculates the date at 2012. But even 2015 leaves a very short time in which to prepare, becausemodern societies were built on cheap, abundant oil.


OIL DEPLETION BAD: GENERAL IMPACTS

1. WE HAVE ALREADY HIT THE PEAK, WILL SOON ENTER PERIOD OF STEEP DECLINE -- FAILURETO ADAPT RISKS COLLAPSE OF CIVILIZATION

Ashley Seagar, journalist, "Steep Decline in Oil Production Brings risk of War and Unrest, Says New Study,"THE GUARDIAN, 10-22-07, www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/22/4737/, accessed 5-2-08.World oil production has already peaked and will fall by half as soon as 2030, according to a report which alsowarns that extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown. The German-based EnergyWatch Group will release its study in London today saying that global oil production peaked in 2006 - muchearlier than most experts had expected. The report, which predicts that production will now fall by 7% a year,comes after oil prices set new records almost every day last week, on Friday hitting more than $90 a barrel. "Theworld soon will not be able to produce all the oil it needs as demand is rising while supply is falling. This is ahuge problem for the world economy," said Hans-Josef Fell, EWG's founder and the German MP behind thecountry's successful support system for renewable energy. The report's author, Joerg Schindler, said its mostalarming finding was the steep decline in oil production after its peak, which he says is now behind us. Theresults are in contrast to projections from the International Energy Agency, which says there is little reason toworry about oil supplies at the moment. However, the EWG study relies more on actual oil production datawhich, it says, are more reliable than estimates of reserves still in the ground. The group says official industryestimates put global reserves at about 1.255 gigabarrels - equivalent to 42 years' supply at current consumptionrates. But it thinks the figure is only about two thirds of that. Global oil production is currently about 81mbarrels a day - EWG expects that to fall to 39m by 2030. It also predicts significant falls in gas, coal and uraniumproduction as those energy sources are used up. Britain's oil production peaked in 1999 and has already droppedby half to about 1.6 million barrels a day. The report presents a bleak view of the future unless a radicallydifferent approach is adopted. It quotes the British energy economist David Fleming as saying: "Anticipatedsupply shortages could lead easily to disturbing scenes of mass unrest as witnessed in Burma this month. Forgovernment, industry and the wider public, just muddling through is not an option any more as this situationcould spin out of control and turn into a complete meltdown of society." Mr Schindler comes to a similarconclusion. "The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will betriggered by declining fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of our daily life."

2. OUR SOCIETY DEPENDS ON OIL -- SHORTAGES RISK RECESSIONS AND GLOBAL WARS

Justin Stolte, "The Energy Policy Act of 2005: The Path to Energy Autonomy?" JOURNAL OF LEGISLATIONv. 33, 2006, p.121-122.In contrast to Drake's world, today's society is dependent on a plentiful and relatively cheap supply of oil.Petroleum is used everyday of our lives - it is not only the predominant form of energy used to fuel ourautomobiles and heat our homes, but is also used to generate electricity. Moreover, all plastic is petroleum-basedand is used in several products: cars, houses, computers, toys, and clothing. Other uses for petroleum includeasphalt, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, furniture, and paint. In other words, without petroleum, our current wayof life would cease to exist. As history shows, the dependence on black gold has significantly affected the UnitedStates. Shortages of oil have created recessions in our economy and have been the basis for many globalconflicts.


OIL DEPLETION BAD: GENERAL IMPACTS cont'd

3. THE PEAK WILL LEAD TO INTENSE RESOURCE COMPETITION THAT RISKS WAR

Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow, Post-Carbon Institute, "The View from Oil's Peak," MUSELETTER n. 184,August 2007, www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/184Economic impacts to transport, trade, manufacturing, and agriculture will in turn lead to internal social tensionswithin importing countries. In exporting countries the increasing value of remaining oil reserves will exacerbaterivalries between political factions vying to control this source of wealth. Also, increased competition betweenconsuming nations for control of export flows, and between importing nations and exporters over contracts andpipelines, may lead to international conflict. None of these impacts is likely to be transitory. The crisis of PeakOil will not be solved in days, weeks, or even years. Decades will be required to re-engineer modern economiesto function with a perpetually declining supply of oil.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: BIODIESEL

1. BIODIESEL IS A PERFECT SUBSTITUTE FOR DIESEL

Brandon E. Durrett, "The New Organic "Texas Tea?": National Energy Security Implications of a "Clean Fuel"Regulatory Ban on Texas Biodiesel," TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW v. 40, Summer 2008, p.1005.Biodiesel's energy efficiency is similar to regular petroleum diesel, and both fuels produce roughly the same fueleconomy, torque, and horsepower. Biodiesel also provides numerous performance benefits over petroleumdiesel, such as a higher cetane number and increased lubricity. Although a new fuel, biodiesel is a viable marketcompetitor with petroleum diesel in terms of retail price. In fact, the average nationwide per-gallon price of B20for October 2007 was three cents cheaper than petroleum diesel.

2. BIODIESEL REPLACES REGULAR DIESEL, REQUIRES VIRTUALLY NO CHANGES IN EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURE

Brandon E. Durrett, "The New Organic "Texas Tea?": National Energy Security Implications of a "Clean Fuel"Regulatory Ban on Texas Biodiesel," TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW v. 40, Summer 2008, p.1005.Biodiesel is a cleaner-burning, alternative diesel fuel produced from natural, renewable sources-mainly vegetableoils and animal fats. Soybean oil is the most common biodiesel feedstock in the United States, but a variety ofother sources are available, such as corn, cottonseed, animal fats, and fry grease. Biodiesel is a completesubstitute for petroleum-based diesel fuel and requires little or no changes to the diesel retail infrastructure.Low-level biodiesel blends, which are the most commonly marketed forms of biodiesel, can be used in standarddiesel engines with little or no engine modification. Retail diesel dealers can also store and pump biodiesel usingtheir existing petroleum diesel facilities.

3. BIODIESEL LOWERS AIR POLLUTION EMISSIONS

Brandon E. Durrett, "The New Organic "Texas Tea?": National Energy Security Implications of a "Clean Fuel"Regulatory Ban on Texas Biodiesel," TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW v. 40, Summer 2008, p.1005-1006.In addition to its growing market presence, biodiesel offers a wide array of environmental benefits. Compared toregular petroleum diesel, engine exhaust emissions from B20 blends are substantially lower in most CAA criteriapollutants. B20 is 20.1% lower in particulate matter, 11.8% lower in unburned hydrocarbons, and 14.0% lowerin carbon monoxide (CO); B100 produces even more dramatic reductions. Biodiesel is dramatically lower inemissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), which are precursors to ground-level ozone. Unlike petroleumdiesel, biodiesel contains almost no sulfur and virtually eliminates sulfur dioxide emissions, a major contributorto acid rain. Biodiesel is also nontoxic and biodegradable, and thus causes far less damage than petroleum dieselif released into the environment. The reduction in CAA criteria pollutants from increased biodiesel use will notonly promote public health and environmental integrity, but it will significantly aid states in reaching CAAattainment goals.

4. BIODIESEL DECREASES CO2 OUTPUT RELATIVE TO PETROLEUM DIESEL

Brandon E. Durrett, "The New Organic "Texas Tea?": National Energy Security Implications of a "Clean Fuel"Regulatory Ban on Texas Biodiesel," TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW v. 40, Summer 2008, p.1006.Given the recent surge of concern about global climate change, biodiesel's low carbon output is a particularlyattractive feature. An increase in greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2), is generallyaccepted as a major contributor to global climate change. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for about 80% of theCO2 released into the atmosphere. Because biodiesel produces 78.5% less CO2 than petroleum diesel, thedisplacement of petroleum diesel by biodiesel will dramatically cut CO2 emissions, and thus mitigate globalwarming. In addition to reduced carbon emissions, the increased cultivation of feedstock for biodiesel offers anadditional carbon sequestration "sink." More feedstock crops for biodiesel, like soybeans, means more CO2 willbe absorbed or "sequestered" by the plants as part of the biological carbon cycle, and less CO2 will be emittedinto the atmosphere.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: BIODIESEL cont'd

5. THEIR STUDIES ARE WRONG -- BIODIESEL DOES NOT INCREASE NOX EMISSIONS

Brandon E. Durrett, "The New Organic "Texas Tea?": National Energy Security Implications of a "Clean Fuel"Regulatory Ban on Texas Biodiesel," TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW v. 40, Summer 2008, p.1010-1011.Among the numerous and compelling benefits of increased biodiesel use, the only significant drawback to thefuel is the uncertainty surrounding its NOx emissions. NOx is a CAA criteria pollutant and a substantialcontributor to ground-level ozone, which causes serious respiratory problems and contributes to global warming,among other hazards. In October 2002, the EPA produced a draft report of biodiesel exhaust emissions studies,which surveyed data from existing studies. Among numerous emissions benefits, the draft report found that B20was about 2% higher in NOx emissions than petroleum diesel. Studies included in the draft report only testedvehicle models from 1983 to 1997 and only used older diesel fuel formulations as blend stock rather than newermandated formulations like ultra-low sulfur diesel. The draft report specifically stated that its findings aresubject to reevaluation at any time and should not be used to design state air quality plans or clean fuelprograms. In October 2006, the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) compared NOx emissions from B20and petroleum diesel in a study designed to simulate on-road driving conditions for eight heavy-duty dieselvehicles. Although results for B20 emissions varied some between engines and test cycles, the study found nosignificant difference in NOx emissions between B20 and petroleum diesel and concluded that the use of B20has no net impact on NOx emissions. The NREL study also criticized the EPA's 2002 draft report as beingskewed by an unrepresentative data set. Specifically, NREL pointed out that because the draft report relied onemissions data for engines made mostly by a single manufacturer and within a small range of model years, thedraft report "cannot be considered to be representative of on-highway engines in the United States" because NOxemissions vary widely depending on engine manufacture and design. NREL recommended that the EPA not baseits emission control strategies on the draft report.

6. MULTIPLE STUDIES DISPROVE THEIR NOx CLAIMS

Brandon E. Durrett, "The New Organic "Texas Tea?": National Energy Security Implications of a "Clean Fuel"Regulatory Ban on Texas Biodiesel," TEXAS TECH LAW REVIEW v. 40, Summer 2008, p.1011-1012.Several other studies have yielded results similar to the 2006 NREL study. A three-year research projectcompleted by the U.S. Department of Defense in 2006 also found no statistically significant increase in NOxemissions. A Texas A&M University study found that the effect of B20 on NOx emissions in a Texas school busfleet were insignificant compared to low emission diesel. A North Carolina State University study actually founda 10% decrease in NOx emissions from B20 compared to petroleum diesel when using portable emissionsmeasuring systems on 1,000 test vehicles to evaluate actual on-the-road emissions. Similarly, another NRELstudy in 2005 recorded a 4% reduction in NOx emissions compared to petroleum diesel in five transit bussesover a seven-month period. Yet another NREL study in 2003 found that even if B20 were used exclusively inevery heavy duty diesel vehicle in certain major air sheds, there would be no detectable change in NOxemissions because "[t]he changes in air pollutant concentrations are below the resolution of the measurementsthat are typically reported to the State and EPA compliance data bases." In addition, increased use of biodieselwould significantly reduce VOC emissions, which could potentially offset any marginal increase in NOxemissions. In sum, current research indicates little or no difference in NOx emissions between biodiesel andpetroleum diesel, and studies indicating an increase in emissions from biodiesel may be attributable tounrepresentative testing. Still, biodiesel NOx emissions remain a controversial issue and require additionalstudy. In response to the controversy, the EPA is currently developing a Collaborative Biodiesel Emission TestProgram to accurately determine the effect of biodiesel on NOx emissions, which will be a valuable tool increating state and federal fuel regulations.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS

1. MUST EXPAND DOMESTIC LIQUID FUELS PRODUCTION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF OILDEPENDENCE

The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGYINDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p.8-9.The U.S. faces the prospect of extended oil supply shortages, rising prices, growing trade deficits, and economicand national security vulnerability unless industry and government act decisively to develop unconventionalU.S. liquid fuel supplies. There are four factors that highlight our vulnerability, and may very well define ourfuture: America is dangerously dependent on the OPEC cartel and other oil suppliers that have instituted recordprices over the past several years, manipulating markets to maximize their profits, at great cost to the U.S. ò Asnoted, a growing number of experts, including some major oil companies, believe that within the next decadeworld conventional oil production will peak and begin a steady decline. Some contend that we have alreadyreached the peak. ò The U.S. faces unprecedented global competition for oil from China, India, and othernations. This competition grows more intense every quarter as supplies tighten and oil importing countries striveto secure oil supplies. ò The current U.S. liquid fuels infrastructure is vulnerable to natural disasters and toterrorism. To insure against these risks, and to provide for price stability and future economic prosperity andnational security, America must reduce its growing dependence on foreign oil suppliers by producing its ownliquid fuels. The opportunities created by a transition toward energy security and independence will be immense.This study focuses on the rapid development of an alternative oil and liquid fuels production base in Americautilizing our vast domestic resources of coal, oil shale, and biomass. It also recognizes the need for increasedU.S. transportation fuel efficiency, sensible conservation, and improved domestic oil recovery programsemphasizing C02- enhanced oil recovery and sequestration. America's future may hinge on the choices we makeregarding liquid fuels. There are key factors that dictate that we must take action to counter these threats or riskhigh, volatile oil prices and supply shortfalls over long periods resulting in dire economic consequences. Will wecontinue to tolerate the instability, high economic costs, and national security risks of growing reliance onimported oil? Or will we choose to establish an aggressive path toward energy security and independence bydeveloping a solid base of alternative liquid fuels production from our own vast resources -- as outlined in thisstudy?

2. WE CAN USE DOMESTIC LIQUID FUELS PRODUCTION TO END OIL DEPENDENCE

The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGYINDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p.xvi-xvii.The American Energy Security (AES) Study shows that the United States can eliminate dependence on oilimports entirely by 2030. It establishes a bold plan to replace approximately five percent of imported oil eachyear for 20 years, beginning in 2010 (see Figure EX-1 below). Assuming aggressive implementation beginningin 2007, under the SSEB American Energy Security initiatives domestic liquid fuels production andtransportation efficiency savings begin gradually after 2010 and ramp up to produce most of the nation's liquidfuels requirements by 2030 (see Figure EX-2). U.S alternative resources of coal, biomass and oil shale are thelargest in the world, rivaling conventional world oil resources. This tremendous resource base serves as thefoundation of our plan. Numerous low and near-zero emissions alternative liquid fuel plants will need to bebrought online each year to manufacture clean fuels from America's vast domestic resource endowment.Substantial improvements in transportation energy efficiency will also be necessary. Clearly, an enormous effortwill be required from industry, the financial community, government, and the American people. Though a veryambitious goal, the study shows how it can be achieved, why it must be achieved, and the tremendous economic,national security and environmental benefits that will result beginning almost immediately.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS cont'd

3. LIQUID COAL TECHNOLOGY CAN EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS OIL DEPENDENCE

National Coal Council, COAL: AMERICAN'S ENERGY FUTURE v. 1, March 2006, p.6.On the other hand, America's thirst for oil has dramatically grown as a transportation fuel. The United Statesnow imports 58% of its petroleum supply, as compared to 22% in 1970. A great deal of the imported oil weconsume comes from either the same countries that embargoed oil in the 1970s or from countries that are hardlystable U.S. allies. The United States must break its addiction to foreign sources of oil. Fortunately, we have thedomestic coal reserves and existing technologies to transform coal into transportation fuels to displace energyimports. There is one additional critical difference in today's situation and that of the 1970s -- the phenomenalrecent and projected economic growth in Asia, especially China and India. Simply put, there is no precedent inhuman history for the magnitude of change that Asia and its rapid economic growth and industrialization willstimulate.

4. COAL WILL SOON BE ABLE TO PRODUCE ENERGY WITHOUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Jeffrey Jarrett, Assistant Secretary of Energy, "Technology Making Fossil Fuels Less Polluting and MoreEfficient," SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 9-10-06, p.OP1.The story of energy is mainly that of the fossil fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- that are the source of 85percent of the energy consumed in the United States and the world. How fossil fuels came to underpin modernlife is largely a story of technology. That will not change soon. The experts project that fossil fuels in 2030 willstill account for 85 percent of domestic and worldwide energy. Why? Because they are abundant, wellunderstood, affordable and supported by an amazingly complex infrastructure and continual technologicaladvances. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes these realities and advocates or mandates research anddevelopment projects that should produce important new technologies for fossil energy, as well as for other vitalenergy efficiency, renewable energy and nuclear energy technologies designed to re-draw today's energy picture.Coal, for example, is fast evolving into an energy resource that will produce virtually no polluting or greenhousegas emissions, the primary goal of President Bush's $2 billion, 10-year commitment to clean coal research. Thecenterpiece of current clean coal R&D is "FutureGen," a full-scale, 275-megawatt technology provingground/test facility that should be up and running by the year 2012. (A commercial 275 megawatt power plantwould serve more than 215,000 homes.) At a cost of approximately $700 million to the taxpayer spread overseveral years, with an additional $300 million contributed by industry and foreign government participants,FutureGen will generate affordable electricity, manufacture hydrogen and useful byproducts, virtually eliminatepolluting emissions and use "carbon sequestration" technology to capture and permanently store carbon dioxideemissions underground. The result will be secure, clean, coal-based energy that can continue supplying morethan half our national electricity needs while producing fuel to help supply the fleet of hydrogen-poweredvehicles projected to begin appearing on American roads in 2020. Department of Energy investment: $700million. Return on investment: priceless.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS cont'd

5. COAL-TO-LIQUIDS TECHNOLOGY IS READY AND COST EFFECTIVE

National Coal Council, COAL: AMERICAN'S ENERGY FUTURE v. 1, March 2006, p.16.In July 2001, the U.S. Department of Energy reported results of its direct coal liquefaction developmentprogram. Following are excerpts from its Summary Report: "The DOE direct liquefaction program produced asurprisingly mature technology. The intensive effort between 1976 and 1982 (Phase I), when 90% of theprogram funds were expended, resulted in a demonstration of the technical feasibility of the major processcomponents. The Phase I processes, however, were deficient in terms of product yield and quality. Thisstimulated further research and development work between 1983 and 1999 (Phase II). The Phase II work wassignificantly less costly than earlier demonstration projects but resulted in substantial improvements in processperformance and economics. It now is possible to produce liquids of high quality at high yields that approach thetheoretical maximum. At the same time, the cost for a barrel of product dropped by 50% because of processoptimization and increased yields. Economics and engineering studies conducted throughout Phase II havereduced the uncertainty, and therefore the risk associated with commercial deployment of the technology. "Thecurrent technology is well defined in terms of cost and performance. It represents a technically available optionfor the production of liquid fuels. It can be used domestically in the United States to limit our exposure to oilprice increases in the international market or to offset supply reductions. It also can be used by other nations whochoose to use domestic coal to meet their transportation fuel needs, thus reducing demands on conventionalpetroleum sources. It can be used with coal alone, or to co-process a variety of lower value feedstocks. Theresults of the DOE program allow direct coal liquefaction to be accurately assessed in context to the costs andrisks associated with other options for securing liquid fuel supplies should the need arise."

6. COAL-TO-LIQUIDS FUEL IS READY AND EMPIRICALLY EFFECTIVE

The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGYINDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p.xx-xxi.Proven technologies are commercially available today to produce mass quantities of ultra-clean alternative liquidfuels from coal and biomass competitively at a profit in today's marketplace. Highly promising oil shale andbiomass-to-fuel technologies are rapidly emerging. ò Commercial coal-to-liquid fuels (CTL) technologies haveexisted for decades. Sasol, a South African company, currently provides almost 30 percent of that country'sliquid fuel needs through coal gasification and follow-up Fischer-Tropsch conversion of the syngas intopremium, ultra-clean liquid fuels. It does so, profitably, in the open market. Sasol was created with support fromgovernment to decrease dependence on foreign oil. The company quickly outgrew its need for governmentassistance and is highly profitable today. The U.S. can and should follow the Sasol model, which clearlydemonstrates that it is not only possible but also highly profitable to rapidly ramp-up production of ultracleanliquid fuels from domestic coal.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ELECTRIC CARS

1. MAKING PLUG-IN HYBRIDS THE STANDARD FOR TRANSPORTATION WILL COMPLETELY ENDTHE GRIP OF FOREIGN OIL

Anne Korin, Chair of Set America Free Coalition, FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE.com, "Symposium: EnergyIndependence and the Terror War", 5.2.2008, accessed 5.10.2008:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx? GUID=7DFE9F38-493C-4887-9E33-4D267570E830We need to remove the ridiculous 54 cent a gallon import tariff on sugarcane ethanol - we don't tax oil imports,so why are we taxing imports of an alternative fuel? It's not because of the oil industry, it's because of cornethanol protectionists who'd rather be big fish in a small pond than open the dam and turn the pond into a sea. AsGal notes, it is also critical to get electricity into the transportation fuel market. Flex fuel plug in hybrids willmean the Saudis will need to figure out how to monetize sand. Perhaps they can learn to blow glass.

2. NUMEROUS STUDIES SHOW THAT EMISSIONS WILL DECREASE EVEN WITH ADDITIONALELECTRICITY USAGE

Yet-Ming Chiang, Professor at MIT, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY, "Technologies for ReducingGreenhouse Gas Emissions", 5.9.2007, p.lexisNumerous studies have also shown that emissions will drop significantly even after accounting for thegeneration of additional electricity. With charging occurring predominantly in the off-peak evening hours, alarge percentage of this generation is made up of no emission, constantly running nuclear and hydro resources.The remainder comes from coal, which will continue to be baseloaded until cleaned up or replaced, with orwithout a plug-in revolution. The bottom line is that today's state-of-the-art baseload generating mix is far moreefficient in terms of emissions than an individual tailpipe, and the policy choices we are in the process of makingto improve the emissions profile of our electric generation grid will only improve that advantage.

3. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS CAN REDUCE EMISSIONS BY 60 PERCENT

Leslie Goldman, President of A123 Systems, STATES NEWS SERVICE, "Reid, Kerry, Bayh Join Leaders InNew Energy Technologies To Discuss How Democratic Energy Bill Will Sharpen America's Competitive Edge",6.20.2007, p.lexisSaid Goldman: "We are proud to have developed the American battery technology breakthrough that can turntoday's ordinary hybrids into 150 MPG plug-in hybrids through the simple installation of our soon-to-bemass-produced supplemental battery module. With your political will and the continuing development andcommercialization of this technology, an American-led plug-in hybrid revolution - with 80 percent oil and 60percent emissions reductions - can now begin."

4. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS COULD MEAN THAT MANY AMERICANS WON'T USE ANY GASOLINE AT ALL

Eric Evarts, staff writer, CONSUMER REPORTS, "Fuel Economy Law Promotes Plug-in Hybrids", 1.11.2008,accessed 5.10.2008: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2008/01/plug-in-hybrids.htmlPlug-in hybrids, like the Chevrolet Volt concept and some Toyota Prius aftermarket conversions, work just likeregular full hybrids -- operating on gas, electric power, or both. But plug-ins have much larger batteries, andinstead of recharging them only with the gas engine in the vehicle, they may also be charged from a home oroffice electrical outlet. The idea is that if the cars had enough battery power to go 40 miles on a charge, withoutstarting the engine, 78 percent of Americans could drive all week without using any gasoline at all. MostAmericans drive less than 27 miles a day, and the cars could go that far on electricity alone by charging up everynight.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ELECTRIC CARS cont'd

5. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS ARE ESSENTIAL TO END OIL CONSUMPTION IN AUTOMOTIVE MARKETS

David Sandalow, Brookings Institute, ENDING OIL DEPENDENCE, 1.22.2007, accessed 5.10.2008:www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdfTo reduce oil dependence, nothing would do more good more quickly than making cars that could connect to theelectric grid. The United States has a vast infrastructure for generating electric power. However, thatinfrastructure is essentially useless in trying to cut oil dependence, because modern cars can't connect to it. If wecould build cars that ran on electricity and plugged into the grid, the potential for displacing oil would beenormous. Fortunately, we can. Several small companies are already doing this, with a first generation of"plug-in hybrid" engines designed to run both on gasoline and electricity from the grid. General Motors recentlyannounced plans to produce light duty plug-ins.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ETHANOL

1. BEST MODEL SHOWS THAT CELLULOSE DECREASES GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS BY 90 PERCENT

Brian Jennings, Executive Vice President, American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE), Testimony before the SenateEnergy and Natural Resources Committee, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 2 -- 7 -- 08, lexis.The Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation (GREET) model developed byDr. Wang of the U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratory, establishes an objective and reliableframework for comparing the lifecycle GHG emissions from various fuels and feedstocks. GREET examinesdirect land use changes, and recognizes that biofuel feedstock crops such as corn recycle carbon emissions. On aper-gallon basis, GREET indicates that dry-mill corn-based ethanol (from natural gas powered facilities) reducesGHG emissions by 18 to 29 percent over gasoline. It is estimated that biomass-fired dry- mill corn-based ethanolfacilities can reduce GHG emissions by as much as 54 percent compared to gasoline. According to GREET,cellulosic ethanol can reduce GHG emissions by as much as 90 percent.

2. AN ETHANOL MANDATE WILL DISPLACE OIL USE, DECREASING OUR DEPENDENCE

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008, p.375.Most importantly, mandating ethanol blends for distributors could be most effective at replacing domestic oilconsumption with alternative fuel consumption, thereby ameliorating many of the negative outcomes that oildependence generates. As Minnesota's experience has shown, mandating an ethanol blend has resulted in a farhigher incidence of E85-compatible vehicles and E85 fueling stations, which has overcome the market forcesthat arrest ethanol expansion at E10. This has essentially required the private sector to take advantage of federalincentives that make commercial ethanol fuel and vehicle sales economically viable. As a result, Minnesota hasmet its own ethanol needs and can export ethanol to other states. By amending EPA II to mandate that all fuelscontain ten percent ethanol at a reasonably distant point in the future, with further mandates of the availability ofhigher level blends at later dates, the federal government can similarly get through the economic roadblock atE10 and begin to replace oil consumption with higher level blend ethanol fuel consumption.

3. ETHANOL MANDATES DECREASE THE RISK OF OIL-PRICE INDUCED ECONOMIC SHOCKS

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008,p.375-376.In addition to ameliorating oil dependence-related problems by virtue of lowering domestic oil consumption,higher ethanol usage directly addresses these problems through ethanol's own relative benefits. Supplying moreof the nation's fuel requirements with domestically-produced ethanol can provide substantial protections to theU.S. economy. Although the ethanol industry is similarly vulnerable to feedstock price fluctuations, the federalgovernment can promote price stability with its own regulations, instead of relying on the actions of foreigngovernments to keep oil prices stable. Even where price increases negatively affect consumers, the money spenton ethanol fuels goes to domestic companies, and to domestic employees of those companies who keep thosefunds within our own economy.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ETHANOL cont'd

4. ETHANOL SHIFT WILL DRAMATICALLY CUT OIL IMPORTS AND THE TRADE DEFICIT --PROVIDES A SUBSTANTIAL BOOST TO THE ECONOMY

David W. Monsma, rapporteur and John A. Riggs, Program Executive Director, Program on Energy, theEnvironment, and the Economy, the Aspen Institute, A HIGH GROWTH STRATEGY FOR ETHANOL, 2006,www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdfaccessed 8-5-08.Increasing global demand and a lack of spare production capacity, exacerbated by hurricane damage to U.S.production facilities and turmoil in some exporting countries, have contributed to recent high oil prices andthreatened economic growth. Substituting domestically produced ethanol for a large portion of our gasoline usecan dramatically reduce our oil imports and our balance of trade deficit. If oil averages $60 per barrel for 2006and imports are over 12.5 million barrels per day, we will send about a quarter of a trillion dollars abroad for oil-- nearly a third of last year's record trade deficit. Reducing our oil addiction can thus contribute to resolvingsome of our most difficult current economic problems as well as reduce our vulnerability to the economicdevastation of future oil price shocks.

5. ETHANOL BOOSTS THE ECONOMY -- INCREASES VITAL FARM INCOME

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008,p.376-377.Additionally, ethanol usage benefits the U.S. economy by increasing the income of American farmers. Already,increased production of ethanol encourages capital investment and economic development in rural America byproviding "high paying jobs, capital investment opportunities, increased local tax revenue, and value-addedmarkets for area farmers." Rural America also benefits from increased ethanol production as a "result of farmerinvestment in ethanol production facilities." Farmers with ownership interests in ethanol production benefit intwo ways: by creating a consistent, value-added market for the crops they grow, and the opportunity to earndividends from profit-sharing. Rural ethanol investment already has produced substantial results. Since 1990,farmer-owned facilities have been responsible for fifty percent of new ethanol production capacity, andfarmer-owned ethanol plants now account for more than one-third of all ethanol production. Increased ethanolconsumption also promotes national security. The General Accounting Office has stated that "developingalternative fuels, increasing fuel efficiency in transportation, and continuing development of the StrategicPetroleum Reserve" would likely increase U.S. energy security more than additional oil and gas tax incentives.As Brazil has shown, the development of large-scale ethanol usage goes hand in hand with healthy petroleumreserve levels, negating the need to purchase additional foreign oil to fend off price disruptions. More directly,funds spent on ethanol fuels go to domestically owned and regulated corporations, and not to unstable foreigndictatorships, ruthless multinational conglomerates, or terrorist organizations.

6. ETHANOL WILL DRASTICALLY REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008, p.377.Ethanol-blended fuels also generate far fewer pollutants than exclusively petroleum fuels. Conclusive evidenceshows that ethanol produces a drastic reduction in greenhouse gases. Studies also show that ethanol usage canreduce carbon monoxide emissions by as much as thirty percent, volatile organic matter emissions by thirteenpercent (mass) and twenty-one percent (potency), and particulate matter emissions by fifty percent. On thewhole, increased ethanol usage drastically reduces EPA-monitored pollutant emissions.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: ETHANOL cont'd

7. PEER-REVIEWED STUDIES PROVE THAT ETHANOL IS NET-ENERGY POSITIVE

James Bixby, "The 2005 Energy Policy Act: Lessons on Getting Alternative Fuels to the Pump from Minnesota'sEthanol Regulations," WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY v. 26, 2008,p.367-368.The great weight of scientific evidence available indicates that ethanol is a viable alternative to unblendedgasoline. In order to be considered a viable alternative energy source, ethanol must first be able to produce apositive Energy Return On Investment ("EROI"). According to research done using the GREET model at theArgonne National Laboratory, ethanol produces more energy than it consumes (a positive EROI), making it aviable investment from a mathematical perspective. This data is supported by other peer-reviewed studies.Beyond that, ethanol also generates competitive gas mileage when compared with gasoline; E10 produces only avery slight drop-off, while E85 produces a noticeably lower but still practical mileage. Moreover, ethanolproduces a host of benefits that makes it the ideal alternative candidate to the current near-exclusive use ofgasoline fuel, for reasons discussed below.

8. CELLULOSE TRANSITION WILL BOOST THE ECONOMY -- BOOSTS CHEMICAL INDUSTRY,INCREASES EMPLOYMENT, DECREASES TRADE DEFICIT

Bruce Dale, Professor, Chemical Engineering, Michigan State University, "Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on theFarm Economy," A HIGH GROWTH STRATEGY FOR ETHANOL, 2006, the Aspen Institute,www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf,accessed 8-5-08.As a full scale U. S. cellulosic ethanol industry takes hold and grows, it will transform our economy in at leasttwo ways. First, the domestic fuels and chemicals industry will be revitalized, with many new jobs being createdand new wealth generated. Given the wide distribution and bulky nature of biomass resources these new jobsand new wealth will largely be produced in rural America, rather than near oil production/importing sites on thecoast. Second, the entire U. S. economy will benefit by a strengthened fuels and chemicals sector. We will beable to retain more of our fuel dollars at home and our economy will be much better insulated from shocks due tohigh petroleum prices and uncertain availability.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: HYDROGEN

1. HYDROGEN WILL DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCE, SHIELD US FROM PRICE SPIKES

Keith Guy, Professor & Institution of Chemical Engineers, "Who's Getting High on Hydrogen? Some," POWERENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL v. 15 n. 10, 12-07, pp.37-39.Thirdly, at a strategic level, the increased use of hydrogen would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels frommarkets such as the Middle East, spreading the risk and shielding economies from oil price hikes. And finally,hydrogen can be produced at virtually any location as long as electricity and water are present. In fact, it couldeven be produced in individual homes with relatively simple technology. There is increasing noise coming fromthe hydrogen sector as the world starts to get behind this alternative fuel source. The environmental challengesof fossil fuels combined with technology breakthroughs in fuel cell technology are enabling us to take the firststeps towards this new approach to energy.

2. HYDROGEN IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE TO REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS --SUPERIOR TO OTHER RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVES

Fritz Gautschi, "The Hydrogen Reaction," POWER ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL v. 13 n. 11, 11-05,pp.59-61.Part of the solution is reducing the consumption of fossil fuels and/or increasing the net efficiency of theconversion process. The hurdle to the latter has been, and remains, the need for a quick economical payback ofthe additional hardware costs to increase the net efficiency. This largely depends on the level of the fuel prices.An important contribution to a solution could come from renewable energies like wind and solar power.Although strongly improving, renewable energies cannot yet meet the demand to cover the supply that fossilfuels currently provide. In the US less than two per cent (8 GW) of installed electrical generating capacity iswind power. Though in Europe the number is higher (26 GW), it is still not enough to become a viablealternative to replace fossil fuels in the mid-term. As far as solar power is concerned, its first costs today are stilltoo high to make it functional past the small niche application it inhabits. Given that renewable energy (wind,solar power) cannot fill the gap in the mid-term to cover additional needs for energy or replace existing energysources, hydrogen is the leading alternative with the necessary characteristics to overcome the above listedchallenges that confront fossil fuels. Hydrogen can be produced in quantities large enough to replace some of thefossil fuels. Hydrogen combustion is considered an emission free combustion (except for concerns regardingpossible hydrogen leaks into the stratosphere). In addition, the use of a hydrogen fuel cell can transformchemical energy into electrical/mechanical energy with twice the efficiency that occurs during the combustion ofgasoline in an internal combustion engine.

3. HYDROGEN DECREASES AIR AND GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS ACROSS THE ENTIRE ECONOMY

Jerome Hinkle, President, National Hydrogen Association, HYDROGEN: SUPPLY AND DEMANDOPPORTUNITIES, 2-22-07,www.hydrogenassociation.org/members/policy/updates/21jun07_supplyAndDemand.pdf, accessed 9-2-08.Global air and greenhouse gas emissions could be substantially reduced with a H2E when deploying the fullrange of advanced stationary and mobile technologies. There is a large domestic market potential for home,commercial, industry and the transportation sector. One third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from thetransportation sector, about the same as that from coal-fired powerplants -- creating further market opportunitiesfor U.S. products worldwide and increasing U.S. competitiveness.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: HYDROGEN cont'd

4. A HYDROGEN TRANSITION IS VITAL TO ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE

Seth Dunn, WorldWatch Institute, "Hydrogen Futures: Next Term Toward a Sustainable Energy System,"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY v. 27 n. 3, 3-02, p.235-264.The policy portfolio for cutting carbon emissions has four main components. The first is to accelerate the shifttoward lower-carbon fossil fuels, from coal and oil to natural gas, by phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, couplingcarbon levies with reduced labor and wage taxes, and creating a market for trading carbon domestically andinternationally. Another is to improve energy intensity -- the energy required per unit of economic output -- byenacting incentives and standards to improve the efficiency of power plants, industry, appliances, cars, andbuildings, and by encouraging the shift to service economies and less energy-intensive activities. Yet another isto jumpstart renewable energy markets through research and development; tax subsidies for owners; taxincentives and price guarantees for developers; and purchasing requirements for utilities. But the ultimate step inclimate stabilization is to facilitate the production and use of pure hydrogen as a carrier of energy. The WorldEnergy Assessment points to "the strategic importance of hydrogen as an energy carrier", particularly because anincreasing share of carbon emissions is expected to come from petroleum use for transportation -- rising from 47percent in 1995 to 60 percent in 2100. Having a near-zero-emitting hydrogen energy system, the reportconcludes, "would provide society with the capacity to achieve, in the longer term, deep reductions in CO2emissions and thereby help make it possible to limit the CO2 level in the atmosphere to twice the pre-industriallevel or less in response to climate change concerns".

5. SHIFT TO A HYDROGEN ECONOMY IS KEY TO U.S. LEADERSHIP

Seth Dunn, WorldWatch Institute, "Hydrogen Futures: Next Term Toward a Sustainable Energy System,"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY v. 27 n. 3, 3-02, p.235-264.The geopolitical implications of hydrogen are enormous as well. Coal fueled the 18th- and 19th-century rise ofGreat Britain and modern Germany; in the 20th century, oil laid the foundation for the United States'unprecedented economic and military power. Today's US superpower status, in turn, may eventually be eclipsedby countries that harness hydrogen as aggressively as the United States tapped oil a century ago. Countries thatfocus their efforts on producing oil until the resource is gone will be left behind in the rush for tomorrow's prize.As Don Huberts, CEO of Shell Hydrogen, has noted: "The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones,and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil." Access to geographically concentrated petroleum has alsoinfluenced world wars, the 1991 Gulf War, and relations between and among western economies, the MiddleEast, and the developing world. Shifting to the plentiful, more dispersed hydrogen could alter the powerbalances among energy-producing and energy-consuming nations, possibly turning today's importers intotomorrow's exporters.

6. HYDROGEN TRANSITION IS KEY TO ECONOMY -- WILL REVERSE ANY PEAK-RELATED DECLINE

S.Z. Baykara, Chemical Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical University, "Hydrogen as Fuel: A CriticalTechnology," INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN v. 30 n. 5, 4-05, pp.545-553.Environmental stress and depletion of natural resources will lead to a decline in global economy following apeak during the first half of the 21 century. Hydrogen energy system is emerging as the main, long-term, finalenergy system which could reverse this negative trend. Especially hydrogen produced from water using solarenergy is the most suitable fuel and energy carrier for sustainable development. In such an economy, puregrowth may be limited, however development will continue assuming that the steady-state level is proportionalto the rate of utilisation of solar energy, available in a quantity which is several orders of magnitude greater thanthe present energy demand, and the competence to convert solar energy into more useful forms of energy.Technologies (like hydrogen by renewable sources) enabling such conversions are critical technologies.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: HYDROGEN cont'd

7. HYDROGEN IS NECESSARY TO SOLVE A LITANY OF PROBLEMS -- CUTS EMISSIONS, EXPANDSAND DECENTRALIZES OUR ENERGY SYSTEM -- IS THE KEY TO DECARBONIZING OURECONOMY

Seth Dunn, WorldWatch Institute, "Hydrogen Futures: Next Term Toward a Sustainable Energy System,"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY v. 27 n. 3, 3-02, p.235-264.Hydrogen cannot, on its own, entirely solve each of these complex problems, which are affected not only by fuelsupply but also by factors such as population, over- and under-consumption, sprawl, congestion, and vehicledependence. But hydrogen could provide a major hedge against these risks. By enabling the spread ofappliances, more decentralized "micropower" plants, and vehicles based on efficient fuel cells, whose onlybyproduct is water, hydrogen would dramatically cut emissions of particulates, carbon monoxide, sulfur andnitrogen oxides, and other local air pollutants. By providing a secure and abundant domestic supply of fuel,hydrogen would significantly reduce oil import requirements, providing the energy independence and securitythat many nations crave. Hydrogen would, in addition, facilitate the transition from limited non-renewable stocksof fossil fuels to unlimited flows of renewable sources, playing an essential role in the "decarbonization" of theglobal energy system needed to avoid the most severe effects of climate change. According to the World EnergyAssessment, released in 2000 by several UN agencies and the World Energy Council, which emphasizes "thestrategic importance of hydrogen as an energy carrier", the accelerated replacement of oil and other fossil fuelswith hydrogen could help achieve "deep reductions" in carbon emissions and avoid a doubling of pre-industrialcarbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere -- a level at which scientists expect major, andpotentially irreversible, ecological and economic disruptions. Hydrogen fuel cells could also help address globalenergy inequities -- providing fuel and power and spurring employment and exports in the rural regions of thedeveloping world, where nearly 2 billion people lack access to modern energy services.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: METHANOL

1. ALCOHOL-BASED FUELS SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING BY REDUCING C02 EMISSIONS

Robert Zubrin, PhD, Nuclear Engineering, ENERGY VICTORY, 2007, p.110.Ethanol is made from plant material and methanol can be. All fuel so produced acts in two ways as a counter toglobal warming. In the first instance, since plant material is derived from carbon dioxide drawn from theatmosphere, burning it produces no net CO2 increase. Methanol made from natural gas that would otherwise bevented or flared, or from municipal waste that would otherwise be decomposed by microbes, is alsoglobal-warming neutral. In addition, however, the very act of growing plants acts as a powerful mechanism foractive global cooling. This is so because the leaves of plants create an enormous amount of surface area for thetranspiration and evaporation of water, in the process absorbing large amounts of heat from the environment.(That is why it feels cooler on a hot day to stand on the lawn rather than the pavement.) This heat is thenincorporated into water vapor, which transports it high up into the stratosphere. When the vapor condenses, theheat is released, and most of it is lost to space. The promotion of agriculture is thus the key to fighting globalwarming. This can most effectively be done through the alcohol economy, which will transfer trillions of dollarsof business per year from the OPEC terror patrons to the world's farmers.

2. ALCOHOL-BASED FUELS DRAMATICALLY IMPROVE AIR QUALITY

Robert Zubrin, PhD, Nuclear Engineering, ENERGY VICTORY, 2007, p.109.Ozone smog is created when sunlight drives the reaction of nitrogen oxide and hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.As noted above, alcohol fuels produce less NOx than gasoline does. In addition, however, the reactivity ofalcohol molecules (which might be released by incomplete combustion or evaporative emissions) with NOx inthe atmosphere is less than a tenth as great as typical gasoline components. Not only that, but because of theirsolubility in water, alcohol molecules are readily swept out of the atmosphere by rain. Methanol can also bereadily dehydrated to produce dimethyl ether-DME, chemical formula (CH3 ) 2 0 . 1 0 Commonly used inaerosol spray cans, DME is an excellent diesel fuel with a cetane rating of 60. This compares quite favorably toabout 45 to 50 for typical conventional diesel fuel. (The cetane rating is the measurement used to assess thequality of diesel fuel, in much the same way as the octane rating is used for gasoline.) Like the alcohols -- andvery much unlike conventional diesel fuel -- DME produces no soot, particulate smoke, or sulfur dioxide, andvery little of nitrogen oxides. Replacing conventional diesel fuel with DME would thus drastically cut airpollution from trucks, trains, ships, construction machinery, and portable stationary power generators. Suchimportant additional air quality improvements would be an ancillary benefit of transitioning to a methanol-basedfuel economy. In the longer-term future, methanol might potentially be used to power fuel cell vehicles that haveno pollution emissions of any kind. However, well before that, if used as gasoline and diesel replacements inordinary cars and trucks, alcohol fuels and their derivatives could go a very long way toward cleaning up the air.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: METHANOL cont'd

3. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION FOR FLEX FUEL VEHICLES CAN CREATE A MARKET FOR ALCOHOLENERGY -- PUTTING SAUDI ARABIA OUT OF BUSINESS -- THUS WINNING THE WAR ON TERROR

Robert Zubrin, PhD, Nuclear Engineering, ENERGY VICTORY, 2007, p.249.In order for us to regain control over our foreign policy, reduce our vulnerability to supply disruptions and curbthe flow of petrodollars to unfriendly regimes, a new and central objective should be added to our foreign policy:leading the world on an accelerated shift, enabled by modem technology, toward a global transportation systembased on next-generation, nonpetroleum fuels and the cars and tracks that can run on them. The method fordoing so is clear. Congress needs to pass a law mandating that all new cars sold in America be flex-fueled. Thiswill force all automobiles produced worldwide to be made flex-fueled, thereby creating a huge global market foralcohol fuels. Some of these fuels, such as methanol, can already be produced substantially more cheaply thangasoline, and only need the market provided by a flexfuel mandate to drive enormous production capabilitiesinto existence. Others, such as ethanol, are potentially vulnerable to OPEC pricing maneuvers and may needtariff protection to prevent periodic Saudi dumping from derailing them. When necessary, such protection shouldbe provided. We should not sell our freedom for a mess of potage. If we adopt such a deliberate goal-drivenpolicy to grow the alcohol economy, we can make OPEC's oil unnecessary. We will then be in a position todictate the terms of capitulation to the terror bankers. Instead of being their shield, the enemy's petroleum willbecome their greatest vulnerability. Under such conditions, it will probably prove superfluous to actually strikethe Saudi oil facilities. In a game of chess, the struggle ends not with the taking of the enemy king, but with hisentrapment. Once we are energy independent, the enemy will be rendered helpless, and, one way or another,their oil for terror game will have to fold. Call it checkmate. Call it victory.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: VEGETABLE OIL

1. VEGETABLE OIL FUEL WILL IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT, DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCE, ANDBOOST THE ECONOMY

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.285.Presently and for the foreseeable future, the use of straight vegetable oil will be limited to a small, niche marketof consumers. While vegetable oil is not a viable alternative to petroleum diesel on a large scale, even a marginalreduction in petroleum consumption offers a number of benefits. The discernable benefits of a national fuelpolicy encouraging vegetable oil as a renewable fuel source include improving the global environment andhuman health, increasing domestic and foreign security by reducing our reliance on imported oil, and expandingthe domestic economy.

2. VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCES FAR LESS POLLUTION THAN DOES DIESEL

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.285-286.Historically, environmental concerns did not drive the study of vegetable oil as an alternative fuel source, nordid it drive the study of renewable fuel sources in general. However, for the last forty years, "the associationbetween energy and the environment [has been] so strong that the nation's environmental agenda has becomeindivisible from its energy policy." Mounting evidence of the negative human health and environmental effectsassociated with vehicle pollutants has contributed to the continuing need to replace petroleum with clean energysuch as vegetable oil. Unfortunately, there are limited scientific studies on the environmental effects of burningstraight vegetable oil as a fuel. However, the picture that emerges indicates that vegetable oil is anenvironmentally superior substitute to petroleum diesel because it reduces the aggregate amount of harmfulpollutants from vehicle emissions. Accordingly, for environmental reasons, including human health, the EPAshould accommodate the use of straight vegetable oil as an alternative to petroleum diesel.

3. VEGETABLE VIRTUALLY ELIMINATES DANGEROUS AIR POLLUTANTS

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.286-287.Harmful emissions from motor vehicles have declined dramatically since the enactment of the CAA. Today,motor vehicles "produce[] 60 to 80 percent less pollution than cars in the 1960s." Nonetheless, motor vehicleemissions presently account for half of the hazardous pollutants found in the air. The combustion of diesel fuelproduces dangerous particle emissions of sulfur, nitrogen oxide (NO<2>), and carbon. Collectively, thesepollutants are either known or suspected to cause serious illnesses, including cancer. In addition, the EPA hasidentified a direct correlation between the inhalation of diesel exhaust and serious respiratory illnesses. Incontrast to petroleum diesel, straight vegetable oil is non-carcinogenic and eliminates virtually all sulfuremissions. Furthermore, the EPA has reported that straight vegetable oil reduces dangerous hydrocarbon andparticle emissions. European studies have similarly suggested that rapeseed oil produces 40% less particulatematter than petroleum diesel. Although there is a tendency toward slightly higher nitrogen oxide emissions fromvegetable oil, any negative effects are offset by its other environmental benefits.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: VEGETABLE OIL cont'd

4. MODIFIED DIESEL ENGINES CAN RUN ON PURE VEGETABLE OIL

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.271-272.When Rudolf Diesel demonstrated his engine running on peanut oil, it was not modified in any way. In the onehundred years since, Diesel's invention has been fine-tuned to run on petroleum diesel. With some modification,however, modern diesel engines can run on a variety of different fuels. In the spirit of Rudolf Diesel's originalengine, a growing number of motorists are illegally modifying automobiles to run on straight vegetable oil(SVO). Vegetable oil, as the name suggests, is fatty oil derived from vegetables (and some fruits) and ispredominantly used for human consumption. However, vegetable oil also has energy-producing potential. As apreliminary matter, straight vegetable oil should not be confused with biodiesel, which, as previously noted, is aderivative of vegetable oil. In contrast to biodiesel, vegetable oil is used in diesel engines directly, without firstreducing its viscosity through the transestrification process. Because vegetable oil is naturally thicker thanbiodiesel, modern diesel engines require some engine and fuel system modifications to operate on it.

5. VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCES FAR LESS POLLUTION THAN DOES PETROLEUM

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.289.Air quality is only one environmental concern. In contrast to petroleum, vegetable oil is both nontoxic, as isevidenced by the fact that vegetable oil is primarily used for human consumption, and biodegradable. Accordingto water hazard classifications, both biodiesel and petroleum are categorized as water hazards on par with crudeoil. By comparison, vegetable oil is categorized as harmless to groundwater. Vegetable oil also biodegradesupwards of 98% as opposed to petroleum, which biodegrades anywhere from 20% to 40%. Clearly, had theExxon Valdez been carrying vegetable oil instead of petroleum crude oil, the results would have been far lesscatastrophic.

6. VEGETABLE OIL FUELS ARE CARBON NEUTRAL

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.288.Burning almost any fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Both straight vegetable oil and petroleum diesel arecarbon-based fuels with comparable CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, vegetable oil substantially reduces overallcarbon dioxide emissions because it operates on what has been characterized as a "closed-carbon" cycle. CO2released from carbon-based petroleum was extracted from beneath the Earth's surface where it had been buriedfor millions of years. By contrast, the plants used to produce vegetable oil absorb CO2 as they grow, whichalmost completely offsets the CO2 released into the air from burning vegetable oil as a fuel.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS EFFECTIVE: VEGETABLE OIL cont'd

7. BIOTECH WILL MAKE VEGETABLE OIL A MORE VIABLE FUEL

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.274-275.To remedy these drawbacks, a single-tank system has been designed that enables diesel engines to burn straightvegetable oil without any petroleum diesel or biodiesel. Rather than requiring a parallel fuel line for petroleumdiesel, an electric heating device is used to preheat the oil and reduce its viscosity. The single-tank enginefunctions just like an automobile fueled exclusively with petroleum diesel; that is, it does not require the driverto toggle between petroleum diesel and vegetable oil. Furthermore, technology continues to evolve in an effort tomake straight vegetable oil a more viable alternative. Promising biotech developments have the potential toimprove the commercial viability of vegetable oil both as an alternative fuel and as a supplement to petroleumdiesel. For instance, recent advances from the United States Department of Agriculture (DOA) have resulted inthe successful chemical modification of the structure of vegetable oil to make it more resistant to temperaturechanges.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS

1. WE HAVE THE BUILDING BLOCKS IN PLACE TO REPLACE OIL WITH ALTERNATIVE FOSSILFUELS -- PROVIDES MULTIPLE BENEFITS

The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGYINDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p.xiii.Another purpose of the study is to bring better awareness to the American people, industry, the financialcommunity, the media, governors, and legislators and political leadership at the national, state and local levels.America now faces a crisis of historic proportion: a liquid transportation fuels crisis. Oil, the lifeblood of oureconomy, is in increasingly short supply and oil and derivative product prices have recently soared to recordlevels. Yet few realize the great possibilities that lie within our borders: ò America has the world's largestalternative liquid fuels resource base of coal, biomass, and oil shale to substitute for conventional oil imports. òExciting technologies are available to harness these resources in an environmentally respectful and economicallyrewarding manner. ò Capital is available in unprecedented quantities for good projects. These enviable buildingblocks can be assembled to substantially reduce and ultimately eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Insupport, federal and state legislatures are encouraged to champion and enact the legislative measures called forin this study without further delay. Embarking on a national mission to achieve energy security and move towardliquid fuels independence will not only reduce risk and lower oil prices and oil price volatility, it also willfacilitate an industrial boom, create millions of jobs, foster new technology, enhance economic growth, help toeliminate the trade and budget deficits, ensure affordable energy for citizens and strategic fuels for the military,and establish a reliable domestic energy base on which to rebuild U.S. industries to be globally competitive.

2. GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE KEY -- NECESSARY TO BREAK THE INFLUENCE OF OPEC

The Southern States Energy Board, AMERICAN ENERGY SECURITY: BUILDING A BRIDGE TO ENERGYINDEPENDENCE AND TO A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, July 2006, p.xxix.Some argue that the free markets will provide solutions to our liquid fuels crisis. Unfortunately, the oil marketsare anything but free. They are controlled by a cartel of oil producing nations (many unfriendly to the U.S.) andby the multinational oil companies. Both groups are making record profits under current market conditions. Bothhave tremendous market and political influence, and are expected to use this influence to prevent competitivealternative oil and liquid fuels production from developing significant market share. Government policies areclearly necessary to ensure against market manipulation and other predatory business practices by OPEC and themultinationals. These practices create a risky business environment, and will prevent alternative oil and liquidtransportation fuel production from developing to any significant degree.

3. COAL IS THE IDEAL FUEL, SHOULD PURSUE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY

Tim Vail, President, Synthesis Energy Systems, "New Life for Old Coal Plants," ELECTRIC LIGHT &POWER, May-June 2007, p.32+.Power executives and engineers face growing demands for economical electric power as a mainstay of U.S.productivity. They also face evermore stringent environmental standards. But renewables such as wind andbiomass make up a very small percentage of base load power supply and new natural gas units are notcompetitive. Nuclear power is mired in community acceptance and regulatory issues. At the same time, threefactors -- economics, the size and security of U.S. coal reserves, and U.S. environmental needs -- will convergeto force a clean-coal solution to growing electricity demand. Economically, there is a compelling case forbuilding a sustainable domestic clean-coal industry with domestic jobs and reducing the balance-of-payments forenergy. Equally compelling is the case for using low-rank coals and lignites rather than paying premium pricesfor natural gas and imported oil. Environmentally, the promise of gasification to reduce NOx, SOx andparticulate emissions, and prepare for the at-the-source removal of greenhouse gases is a giant step towardregaining U.S. environmental leadership. We believe the only safe bet for future productivity in a changingworld is clean coal and the operational and environmental advantages of coal gasification.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: ETHANOL

1. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT IS VITAL TO CELLULOSE DEVELOPMENT -- PUBLIC R&D IS KEY

David W. Monsma, rapporteur and John A. Riggs, Program Executive Director, Program on Energy, theEnvironment, and the Economy, the Aspen Institute, A HIGH GROWTH STRATEGY FOR ETHANOL, 2006,www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/FINALEthanolText.pdf,accessed 8-5-08.Catalyze greatly expanded ethanol production by providing appropriate government incentives to farmers andethanol producers. To commercialize production of ethanol from cellulose, adequate government incentives areneeded both for the biorefineries and for the early production of dedicated energy crops to supply thebiorefineries. This new ethanol-from-cellulose technology will require government support until such time as itis commercialized to a significant degree, perhaps 5-10 years. Dedicated energy crops may take several years tomature for harvest. Landowners and operators will need sufficient incentives to begin to grow and harvest thesecrops. Building new ethanol plants or retrofitting existing ones to produce ethanol from cellulose will alsorequire tax credits or loan guarantees initially. Public R&D investments will be needed along multiple technicalpathways for pretreatment and conversion of cellulose.

2. HIGH RISK AND CAPITAL COSTS ARE THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENT TO CELLULOSEDEVELOPMENT -- ONLY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION CAN SOLVE

Charles E. Wyman, "What Is (and Is Not) Vital to Advancing Cellulosic Ethanol," TRENDS INBIOTECHNOLOGY v. 25 n. 4, 4-07, p.153-157.High capital costs coupled with the high cost of capital stymie the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol.Although cellulosic ethanol technology has low operating costs, its current projected capital costs are high -- anddriven much higher by the over-design of initial projects to compensate for lack of large-scale experience withthe technology. In addition, financial institutions expect high returns on capital for technology that has not beenproven, to compensate for perceived risk. To compound these factors, ethanol is a commodity product with tightmargins and must compete on price with gasoline and corn ethanol, both of which have substantial learningcurves behind them. These aspects present huge obstacles to the initial commercialization of all newtechnologies and clearly stand in the way of realizing the benefits and learning curve improvements of cellulosicethanol. It appears that only government policy promoting first-of-a-kind applications can overcome these majorimpediments for current technologies, just as the petrochemical industry grew, out of necessity, throughgovernment support during World War II.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: ETHANOL cont'd

3. NEED TO EXPAND FUNDING OF CELLULOSE ETHANOL TO ENSURE THAT THE TECH ISADEQUATELY DEVELOPED

Charles E. Wyman, "What Is (and Is Not) Vital to Advancing Cellulosic Ethanol," TRENDS INBIOTECHNOLOGY v. 25 n. 4, 4-07, p.153-157.In his State-of-the-Union address on 31 January, 2006, President George W. Bush acknowledged that cellulosicethanol could have a vital role in overcoming the 'addiction' of the USA to imported oil. Although his statementmight have been a revelation to many, the uniqueness of cellulosic ethanol as a sustainable, liquid transportationfuel, which can be produced in the high volumes and at the low costs essential for appreciable effect, and itsmany powerful benefits have been known for decades. However, controversy about ethanol from other sources,misinformation in the press, public apathy and entrenched political interests have held back its timelydevelopment. This new awareness could finally trigger substantial research, development, and deploymentprograms that bring cellulosic ethanol to commercial reality. But, such efforts must be aggressively funded atmuch higher levels than to date, well targeted and appropriately led; otherwise this important opportunity will belost. We must also not dilute its impact through reinventing the wheel, pursuing concepts with limited potentialor promoting ill-conceived commercial ventures that taint the technology as not viable or too risky. Tocomplicate matters, the recent prominence of cellulosic ethanol has spawned instant experts, who think that thetechnology is simple and its needs obvious. Others would unknowingly tackle issues that are either unimportantor have been resolved already. Still others make bold statements about economic competitiveness andperformance based on little relevant experience. I offer, here, perspectives gained through almost a lifetime ofinterest in renewable energy and in excess of 25 years of experience as a leader in cellulosic ethanol, with thehope of helping to clarify the vital needs and to focus funds where they will have the most effect in realizing itsamazing benefits.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: FLEX-FUEL MANDATE

1. REGULATION IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE INCENTIVE -- IT REMOVES MARKET UNCERTAINTYENTIRELY -- WHICH EMPIRICALLY CREATES INCENTIVES FOR TECHNOLOGICALDEVELOPMENT

Elias Blowie, Venture Capital Specialist for Alternative Energies at Heller Ehrman LLP, "How Turn CleanEnergy Into a Powerhouse," with Alison Freeman-Gleason and Todd Glass, Business Week Online; 9/5/2007,p2., Academic Search Premier, Accessed 5/05/08.The federal government needs to establish a floor for renewable-energy use to provide predictable marketswhere investors and companies know demand will exist for their products. With these predictable markets andincreased demand, capital investment will flow, and all will gain the benefits of decreased costs from largervolumes. So far, more than 20 states have told utilities that a certain percentage of their entire electric powerrequirements need to come from renewable sources. Among these programs, there is a wide disparity about howsuch goals are to be met, which leads to risk and ultimately increased costs for utility customers. The U.S. needsto be more forward-thinking. Although it is fair to speculate about its implementation, China's nationalrenewable-energy law, passed in February, 2006, is more aggressive in setting mandates for the development anduse of renewable energy than any U.S. federal law. The U.S. needs to create a ready market for innovation inrenewable energy generation.

2. A FLEX FUEL MANDATE FOR NEW CARS WOULD CREATE A VAST MARKET FOR BIO-FUELS

Robert Zubrin president of aerospace engineering and research firm Pioneer Astronautics, 2006, "An EnergyRevolution: A Breakthrough that Could Preclude Future Wars -- by Defunding our Enemies." The AmericanEnterprise, Ebscohost Business Source, Accessed 5/10/08, p.16+.To liberate ourselves from the threat of foreign economic domination, undercut the financiers of terror, and giveourselves the free hand necessary to deal with Middle Eastern extremists, we must devalue their resources andincrease the value of our own. We can do this by taking the world off the petroleum standard and putting it on analcohol standard. This may sound like a huge and impossible task, but with gasoline prices well over $2 pergallon, the means to accomplish it are now at hand. Congress could make an enormous step toward Americanenergy independence within a decade or so if it would simply pass a law stating that all new cars sold in theU.S.A. must be flexible-fuel vehicles capable of burning any combination of gasoline and alcohol. The alcoholsso employed could be either methanol or ethanol. The largest producers of both ethanol and methanol are all inthe western hemisphere, with the United States having by far the greatest production potential for both. Ethanolis made from agricultural products. Methanol can also be made from biomass, as well as from natural gas orcoal. American coal reserves alone are sufficient to power every car in the country on methanol for more than500 years. Ethanol can currently be produced for about $1.50 per gallon, and methanol is selling for $0.90 pergallon. With gasoline having roughly doubled in price recently, and with little likelihood of a substantial priceretreat in the future, high alcohol-to-gasoline fuel mixtures are suddenly practical. Cars capable of burning suchfuel are no futuristic dream. This year, Detroit will offer some two dozen models of standard cars with a flex-fueloption available for purchase. The engineering difference is in one sensor and a computer chip that controls thefuel-air mixture, and the employment of a corrosion-resistant fuel system. The difference in price from standardunits ranges from $100 to $800.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: FLEX-FUEL MANDATE cont'd

3. THIS WOULD CATALYZE A GLOBAL SHIFT IN ENERGY USAGE -- BREAKING THE OIL CARTEL

Robert Zubrin president of aerospace engineering and research firm Pioneer Astronautics, 2006, "An EnergyRevolution: A Breakthrough that Could Preclude Future Wars -- by Defunding our Enemies." The AmericanEnterprise, Ebscohost Business Source, Accessed 5/10/08, p.16+.Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) offer consumers little advantage right now, because the high-alcohol fuels whichthey could employ are not generally available for purchase. This is because there are so few such vehicles that itdoesn't pay gas station owners to dedicate a pump to cater to them. Were FFVs made the standard, however, thefuel they need would quickly be made available everywhere. If all cars sold in the U.S. had to be flexible-fueled,foreign manufacturers would also mass-produce such units, creating a large market in Europe and Asia as well asthe U.S. for methanol and ethanol -- much of which would be produced in America. Instead of being the world'slargest fuel importer, the United States could become the world's largest fuel exporter. A large portion of themoney now going to Arabs and Iranians would instead go to the U.S.A. and Canada, with much of the rest goingto Brazil and other tropical agricultural nations. This would reverse our trade deficit, improve conditions in theThird World, and cause a global shift in world economic power in favor of the West.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: HYDROGEN

1. GOVERNMENT ACTION IS NECESSARY TO 'FORCE' HYDROGEN AND AVOID THE INEFFECTIVE,INCREMENTAL APPROACH -- IS ABSOLUTELY VITAL

Seth Dunn, WorldWatch Institute, "Hydrogen Futures: Next Term Toward a Sustainable Energy System,"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY v. 27 n. 3, 3-02, p.235-264.The societal and environmental advantages of the cleaner, more secure path to hydrogen point to an essential --and little recognized -- role for government. Indeed, without aggressive energy and environmental policies, thehydrogen economy is likely to emerge along the more incremental path, and at a pace that is inadequate fordealing with the range of challenges posed by the incumbent energy system. Neither market forces norgovernment fiat will, in isolation, move us down the more direct, more difficult route. The challenge is forgovernment to guide the transition, setting the rules of the game and working with industry and society towardthe preferable hydrogen future. This catalytic leadership role would be analogous to that played by governmentin launching another infrastructure in the early years of the Cold War. Recognizing the strategic importance ofhaving its networks of information more decentralized and less vulnerable to attack, the US government engagedin critical research, incentives, and public/private collaboration toward development of what we now call theInternet. An equally, and arguably even more, compelling case can be made for strategically laying thegroundwork for a hydrogen energy infrastructure that best limits vulnerability to air pollution, energy insecurity,and climate change. Investments made today will heavily influence how, and how fast, the hydrogen economyemerges in coming decades. As with creating the Internet, putting a man on the moon, and other great humanendeavors, it is the cost of inaction that should most occupy the minds of our leaders now, at the dawn of thehydrogen age.

2. A $100 BILLION INVESTMENT WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEMS OF HYDROGEN, JUMPSTART THEINDUSTRY AND CREATE THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, Global Business Network, "How Hydrogen Can Save America," WIRED, 4-03, http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen_pr.html, accessed 3-10-08.How much money? How about the amount spent to put a man on the moon: $100 billion in today's dollars. Withthat investment, the nation could shift the balance of power from foreign oil producers to US energy consumerswithin a decade. By 2013, a third of all new cars sold could be hydrogen-powered, 15 percent of the nation's gasstations could pump hydrogen, and the US could get more than half its energy from domestic sources, puttingindependence within reach. All that's missing is a national commitment to make it happen. It'd be easy - too easy- to misspend $100 billion. So the White House needs a plan. The strategy must take advantage of existinginfrastructure and strengthen forces propelling the nation toward hydrogen while simultaneously removingobstacles. There are five objectives: 1. Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem 2. Encourage mass production offuel cell vehicles. 3. Convert the nation's fueling infrastructure to hydrogen. 4. Ramp up hydrogen production. 5.Mount a public campaign to sell the hydrogen economy. By pursuing all five at once, the government can createa self-sustaining cycle of supply and demand that gains momentum over the coming decade and supplants theexisting energy market in the decades that follow. Rather than waiting to build a hydrogen infrastructure fromscratch, the US can start building the new fuel economy immediately by piggybacking on existingpetroleum-based industries. Once customers are demanding and producers are supplying, there will be time tocreate a cleaner, more efficient hydrogen-centric infrastructure that runs on market forces alone.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: HYDROGEN cont'd

3. THE MARKET CANNOT PROVIDE THE NEEDED CAPITAL/INFRASTRUCTURE -- REQUIRESGOVERNMENT ACTION

Keith Guy, Professor & Institution of Chemical Engineers, "Who's Getting High on Hydrogen? Some," POWERENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL v. 15 n. 10, 12-07, pp.37-39.But, what we'll also need to see is a move from natural gas-based hydrogen, which is being used during themarket development phase, to industrial-level hydrogen production using renewable resources on an economicbasis. This will require further development, both in the public and private sector, if we're to see any significantprogress. At a political level, there is a real need for a common worldwide approach to the adoption of hydrogenif we are to succeed along the path towards the hydrogen economy. National and international governmentorganizations must get behind the technology and provide the support for research and ultimately thecommercialization of hydrogen if we are to succeed in developing a viable and green alternative to fossil fuels.There will also be a requirement for significant investment in the infrastructure to support the more widespreadadoption of hydrogen. As the figures involved are significant and require a large initial capital cost, it is unlikelythat the private sector will be able to fully support such a move. Therefore, governments will have a critical roleto play in the provision of funds.


GOVERNMENT ACTION NECESSARY: TECH FORCING

1. COMMAND-AND-CONTROL ACTUALLY SPURS DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Wendy E. Wagner, Professor, Law, Case Western Reserve University, "Innovations in Environmental Policy:Triumph of Technology-Based Standards," UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, 2000, p.84.Professor Wagner responds to the critics of technology-based standards by showing that these standards aregenerally more efficient as base innovations than alternative approaches, such as cost/benefit-or market-basedcontrols. In addition, she argues that, rather than freezing technology, the standards can create incentives topioneer the development of new technologies. Finally, Professor Wagner points to the untapped capabilities andpotential breadth of the future applications of technology-based standards as reasons to embrace these standardsas a trustworthy approach to environmental protection.

2. TECH STANDARDS DO NOT FREEZE TECHNOLOGY -- STILL HAVE INCENTIVE TO MAKECOMPLIANCE TECH MORE CHEAPLY

Wendy E. Wagner, Professor, Law, Case Western Reserve University, "Innovations in Environmental Policy:Triumph of Technology-Based Standards," UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, 2000, p.108-109.The technology-freezing aspects of technology-based standards have also been highlighted as a majordisadvantage of employing these types of standards. Generally, the technology-freezing concern applies only tothe extent that the firms utilizing the pollution control technologies are the same firms responsible for (or largelyin control of) pollution control innovations, a condition that may be the exception more often than the rule. Evento the extent that pollution sources find themselves responsible for leading innovation in control technologies,there are competitive advantages for the sources to stay ahead of the compliance curve and pioneer thedevelopment of new and improved control technologies. For example, industries have incentives to developtechnologies that meet existing requirements more inexpensively than the currently available technology. In anycase, even if technology-based standards do dampen incentives for innovation in pollution control technologies,there are a number of ways that the incentives can be restored with only slight adjustments to the standards orthe regulatory program more generally.

3. TECH-BASED STANDARDS PRODUCE POSITIVE RESULTS -- FOUR REASONS

Wendy E. Wagner, Professor, Law, Case Western Reserve University, "Innovations in Environmental Policy:Triumph of Technology-Based Standards," UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, 2000, p.94.With regard to the results achieved, technology-based standards excel in four important respects that, when takentogether, cause these standards to reign supreme over their base innovation competitors in most, but not all,pollution circumstances. First, they are relatively easy to promulgate and thus accomplish pollution reductionsexpeditiously. In addition, they tend to be superior with regard to their enforceability and predictability,even-handed in their application to various regulated entities, and adaptable to additional refinements usingother, very different types of regulatory tools. Each of these qualities is discussed in turn.


OTHER APPROACHES FAIL: CARBON TAX

1. CARBON TAX WON'T SOLVE -- TOO HARD TO ADJUST TO HIT AN EMISSIONS CAP

Andrew P. Morriss, Professor, Law, University of Illinois, "Beware: Taxing Carbon Imposes Extra Costs onPractically Everything," THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE, 11-20-06, p.A5.And finally, Congress isn't smart enough to tax carbon. Carbon tax proponents argue that people buy less ofthings that cost more. If carbon emissions harm the environment, tax enthusiasts reason that they can get peopleto emit less carbon by raising the price through a tax. Carbon-tax enthusiasts are vague about how much of a taxto impose. That detail matters a great deal. HOW MUCH harm does releasing the carbon in a gallon of gasolinecause? No one knows and no one seriously believes an accurate assessment is possible. Set the tax too high andwe'll use too little of carbon-based fuels; too low and we'll use too much. We've tried allowing politicians to setenergy prices before. The energy price controls of the 1970s produced long lines at gasoline stations, natural gasshortages, and Jimmy Carter in a cardigan. We can't afford any of those experiences again. Carbon emissionsmay be bad for the environment. If they are, cutting carbon emissions is not something to be done on the backsof the poor through a regressive tax nor should it be done by sending the economy into a tailspin through a taxon everything.

2. AN IMPROPERLY CALIBRATED CARBON TAX CAN RESULT IN ENORMOUS ECONOMIC LOSSES

Robert P. Murphy, economist, Institute for Energy Research, "Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus' Dubious Case for aCarbon Tax," June 2008,www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/2008-06_rolling_the_dice_murphy.pdf,DICE-2007 contains simulations not just of the baseline (no controls) and the optimal carbon tax scenarios, butof many other policies as well. The results show that the dangers from an overly ambitious and/or inefficientlystructured policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted one (i.e. theoptimal carbon tax scenario). As Table 4 indicates, Nordhaus' optimal plan yields net benefits of some $3 trillion(consisting of $5 trillion in reduced climatic damages and $2 trillion of abatement costs). Yet some of the otherpopular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. The worst is Gore's 2007 proposal to reduceCO2 emissions 90 percent by 2050; DICE-2007 estimated this plan would make the world more than $21 trillionpoorer than if there were no controls on carbon.

3. A CARBON TAX WOULD DEVASTATE THE U.S. AND WORLD ECONOMIES

Andrew P. Morriss, Professor, Law, University of Illinois,"Gore Plan Would Shatter Economy," AUGUSTACHRONICLE, 4-23-07, p.A5.Replacing payroll taxes with carbon taxes: Let's pretend that Congress would actually eliminate payroll taxeswhen it enacted a carbon tax, instead of simply adding the carbon tax. Carbon taxes are a bad idea, first, becauseeverything we consume requires energy to make and transport and, second, because non-carbon-emitting formsof energy are not currently capable of replacing more than a tiny fraction of our energy needs. A carbon tax iseffectively a tax on everything. Such a tax would be devastating to the U.S. and world economy. And a carbontax would fall more heavily on the poor than on the rich because the poor spend a higher proportion of theirincomes on energy-related products. Taxing the poor more than the rich is simply wrong.


OTHER APPROACHES FAIL: CARBON TAX cont'd

4. CARBON TAX WILL DESTROY OUR ECONOMY AND HURT THE POOR THE MOST

Andrew P. Morriss, Professor, Law, University of Illinois, "Beware: Taxing Carbon Imposes Extra Costs onPractically Everything," THE AUGUSTA CHRONICLE, 11-20-06, p.A5.Did you enjoy $3 a gallon gasoline last summer? Some members of Congress have plans for a carbon tax thatwill get you even higher prices. By taxing the carbon content of fuels, they hope to steer Americans towardsmaller cars, mass transit and city living, and away from SUVs, highways and suburbs. This is an astonishinglybad idea, one that will harm the economy while hitting the poor the hardest. When you think about it, a tax ontransportation is a tax on everything. A key reason for our economic success is that Americans have access to abroad market for the things we need and the products we make. The logistics revolution of the past 20 years -centered on innovations like "just in time" production - reduced manufacturers' costs and contributes to ourprosperity. Because our food, clothes and the materials with which we build our homes are drawn from thisnational market, a tax on fuels is a tax on everything. Raising taxes on everything we buy is a quick way tosicken our economy.


OTHER APPROACHES FAIL: MARKETS

1. MARKETS FAIL -- EXTERNALITIES, LACK OF VALUES, KNOWLEDGE GAPS ARE PARTICULARLYTRUE IN THE CASE OF PETROLEUM

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.9-10.The U.S. economy operates in a free market and generally relies on market forces to maintain its strength andcontinued growth. While markets are excellent for determining what commodities will sell and at what price,markets are not perfect. Markets cannot account for externalities, markets do not always reflect the values ofpopulations, and markets can fail due to a variety of reasons, such as lack of knowledge, old habits, andmisconceptions. Specifically, a flaw in a market analysis of the automobile and oil industries is the existence ofwhat economists call externalized costs. Two externalized costs of using petroleum as vehicle fuel, as notedabove, are the environmental impacts of vehicle emissions and the cost of continuing military support tomaintain access to petroleum sources. The market deems these costs "externalized" because the cost of theresulting environmental damage and the cost of protecting access to oil are not borne by those who produce theoil, but by others not involved in production. Therefore, the costs are not reflected in the price of oil or gasolinesold on the market. Legislation aimed at reducing U.S. dependency on oil and reducing automobile emissions isnecessary because there is little, if any, cost-based economic incentive for the automobile and oil industries tochange their behavior voluntarily. Namely, the oil industry does not currently pay for the pollution its productproduces or the military costs of continuing conflicts in the Middle East.

2. FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES OF OIL JUSTIFIES GOVERNMENTINTERVENTION

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.10.Conversely, the benefits of reducing vehicle emissions and oil consumption are also external and therefore notreflected in the calculation of automobile manufacturer or oil company profits or losses. Consumption of thebenefit is collective or simultaneous because once a person receives the product (preserved land, clean water andair, stabilized climate, reduced taxes or increased government services due to reduced defense spending), it is noteffectively possible to exclude others from enjoying it as well. The non-excludability characteristic of collectivegoods causes the market system to produce less of the good. The presence of externalized costs and collectivebenefits in vehicle use and oil consumption limits the usefulness of a free market analysis in this area, therebyrequiring government intervention in the form of regulation.


OTHER APPROACHES FAIL: MARKETS cont'd

3. WE NEED GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE FUELS AND SHIFT US AWAYFROM PETROLEUM DEPENDENCE -- MARKETS ALONE ARE NOT ENOUGH

Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General, Maryland Environmental Service, "Oil and theEnvironment: Reducing Oil Dependency in the Automotive Sector," UNIVERSITY OF BALTIMOREJOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 15, Fall 2007, p.1-2.Factors such as peak oil, the effects of global warming, and the cost to the U.S. economy from the instability ofoil prices and maintaining access to oil drive the timeline to achieve oil independence, and the market alonecannot make the change quickly enough. Since vehicle use consumes significant amounts of oil and emitssignificant amounts of greenhouse gases, legislation is necessary to create a market for alternative and renewablevehicles and fuels, facilitate the development of new and affordable technologies and distribution infrastructurefor renewable and alternative fuels, and encourage land use patterns that reduce U.S. dependence on cars andultimately on oil. This article argues that gradually reducing oil dependency is appropriate given theenvironmental harm oil causes, the global conflicts in which the U.S. must engage to maintain access to oil, andthe simple fact that extractable oil is a finite resource. Many argue that market forces are sufficient to enableU.S. oil independence without harming the economy, and that the current level of regulation is sufficient. Thispaper argues that current and proposed legislation is inadequate, and that more incentives and federal assistanceare required because the market has been unable to make the move to alternative and renewable vehicles andfuels a reality. This paper focuses on legislation and policies concerning vehicle use, because it is the largestconsumer of oil and a significant contributor to global warming and other environmental harms.

4. MONITORING IS MORE DIFFICULT UNDER MARKET SYSTEMS THAN IN ACOMMAND-AND-CONTROL FRAMEWORK

Peter Berck, Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC-Berkeley and Gloria E. Helfland, AssociateProfessor, Environmental Economics, University of Michigan, "The Case of Markets versus Standards forPollution Policy," NATIONAL RESOURCES JOURNAL . 45, Spring 2005, p.356-357.Understanding environmental impacts requires the ability to measure them. Monitoring emissions levels undereither CAC or MBI is rarely easy, but monitoring under MBI may be more difficult. For a price of each unit ofpollution to be an effective incentive for a pollution source to abate, the source must believe that each unit ofpollution subject to that price will be measured accurately. If pollution is only measured occasionally, a sourcecan argue that its emissions were low or zero during the time that it was not monitored, and it does not need topay for unmeasured pollution. In China and Poland, for instance, emissions are primarily self-reported;Blackman and Harrington note that the probability of underreporting being detected and punished is low. Theeffective price for pollution thus may be much lower than the actual price, and actual emissions may be higherthan expected. It is argued that continuous monitoring has contributed to the success of the sulfur dioxide tradingprogram. Meanwhile, the absence of continuous monitoring has led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'sOffice of the Inspector General to express concerns over the environmental effectiveness of some state emissionstrading programs.


OTHER APPROACHES FAIL: MARKETS cont'd

5. TECH-BASED STANDARDS ARE MORE PREDICTABLE, EASIER TO ENFORCE

Wendy E. Wagner, Professor, Law, Case Western Reserve University, "Innovations in Environmental Policy:Triumph of Technology-Based Standards," UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, 2000, p.100-101.Technology-based standards are also more enforceable and predictable than most alternative approaches topollution control. From the standpoint of the regulated entities, technology-based standards provide unparalleledpredictability with respect to compliance obligations. New and existing companies need only look up theirindustry category in the Code of Federal Regulations or related national guidelines to become apprised of whatwill be expected of them. This predictability and ease of compliance stands in stark contrast to most and perhapsall other approaches to pollution control. Alternative harm-or cost/benefit-based standards typically tetherrequirements to the regulators' vision of what reductions are needed to protect the environment or to balancecosts and benefits. As a result, such standards are difficult to predict and, even after becoming codified into anoperational permit, may leave sources with the uncomfortable feeling that the next permit could be considerablymore stringent due to additional industry operating in the area or changes in environmental science or local ornational politics. Even markets (at least as they operate today) cannot give sources a dependable outlay ofpollution abatement costs over the future, since the cost of pollution permits can vary dramatically from year toyear. These factors may explain why industry seems to have embraced technology-based standards as thepreferred base innovation, even though these standards may require more pollution abatement from someindividual sources than is economically justified.

6. TECH-BASED STANDARDS LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD ACROSS INDUSTRIES AND STATES,AVOID A 'RACE TO THE BOTTOM'

Wendy E. Wagner, Professor, Law, Case Western Reserve University, "Innovations in Environmental Policy:Triumph of Technology-Based Standards," UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW, 2000, p.104-105.Technology-based standards level the playing field not only for competitors within an industry class but alsobetween states and their citizens. The "race to the bottom" that is still very much at issue in environmentalregulation (although its significance may be debated) is avoided at least as far as this base innovation goesbecause industries must comply with a nationally determined standard. Although states are generally permittedto make standards more stringent than technology-based standards, they cannot induce industry to locate in theirstate by establishing lower standards. Accordingly, citizens of all states enjoy at least some protection from highconcentrations of pollution. Any resulting hot spots of pollution - caused by the combined insult of concentratedindustries, environmental conditions that do not maximize the dispersion of pollutants, and technology-basedstandards that prove insufficient to protect public health - are generally undiscriminating about where they occur.Although these residual hot spots may have a disproportionate impact on communities of color or of lowersocioeconomic status, to the extent that insufficient technology-based standards are to blame, these problems areat least inadvertent and essentially color-blind. This, of course, does not mean that the hot spots ordisproportionate impact should be forgotten or forgiven, but it does remove these standards from the list of tools,like siting decisions or permissive permits, that may countenance more overt forms of environmental injustice.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: CARBON TAX

1. A CARBON TAX MUST BE THE CENTERPIECE OF ANY CLIMATE-REDUCTION STRATEGY -- IT ISTHE ONLY WAY TO INCENTIVIZE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

Carbon Tax Center, non-profit, non-governmental organization formed in 2007 by economist Charles Komanoffand attorney Dan Rosenblum, "Introduction," April 13, 2008, accessed 5/5/08 athttp://www.carbontax.org/introduction/A carbon tax must be the central mechanism for reducing carbon emissions. Currently, the prices of gasoline,electricity and fuels in general include none of the costs associated with devastating climate change. Thisomission suppresses incentives to develop and deploy carbon-reducing measures such as energy efficiency (e.g.,high-mileage cars and high-efficiency heaters and air conditioners), renewable energy (e.g., wind turbines, solarpanels), low-carbon fuels (e.g., biofuels from high-cellulose plants), and conservation-based behavior such asbicycling, recycling and overall mindfulness toward energy consumption. Conversely, taxing fuels according totheir carbon content will infuse these incentives at every chain of decision and action -- from individuals' choicesand uses of vehicles, appliances, and housing, to businesses' choices of new product design, capital investmentand facilities location, and governments' choices in regulatory policy, land use and taxation. A carbon tax won'tstop global climate change by itself -- other, synergistic actions are required as well. But without a carbon tax,even the most aggressive regulatory regime (e.g., high-mileage cars) and "enlightened" subsidies (e.g., taxcredits for efficiency and renewables) will fall woefully short of the necessary reductions in carbon burning andemissions.

2. EVEN A MODEST CARBON TAX WOULD CAUSE A MASSIVE DECREASE IN GREENHOUSE GASEMISSIONS

Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar, Steven F. Hayward, F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, and Kevin A. Hassett,senior fellow and director of economic policy studies, all at the American Enterprise Institute, "Climate Change:Caps vs. Taxes," ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY OUTLOOK, AEI Online, June 1, 2007, accessed 5/15/08 athttp://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26286/pub_detail.aspA modest carbon tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted would result in an 11 percent decline in CO2 emissions,while raising non-coal-based energy forms modestly. Coal-based energy prices would be affected more strongly,which is to be expected in any plan genuinely intended to reduce GHG emissions. A number of possiblemechanisms are available to refund the revenues raised by this tax. On net, these tools could significantly reducethe economic costs of the tax and quite possibly provide economic benefits. For these reasons, we conclude thatif aggressive actions are to be taken to control GHG emissions, carbon-centered tax reform -- not GHG emissiontrading -- is the superior policy option.

3. CARBON TAXES STOP TERRORISM BY UNDERCUTTING OIL SUPPLIERS

Carl Milsted, Jr. Ph.D., "A Conservative Case for a Carbon Tax," Stop Global Warming, 2008, accessed 5/5/08at http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/ConservativeCase.phpA carbon tax would hurt our enemies. Today, radicalized Islam gets its funding from oil. When they U.S. buysoil, U.S. funds go to radical mosques around the world. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian, yet westill call Saudi Arabia an ally, because we are so dependent on their oil. It is long past time to stop buyingArabian oil and billions of military dollars keeping the oil lanes open.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: CARBON TAX cont'd

4. A CARBON TAX IS CRITICAL TO INCREASE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND ALTERNATIVEENERGY

Kevin A. Hassett, senior fellow and director of economic policy studies at AEI, and Gilbert E. Metcalf, professorof economics at Tufts University and research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, "AnEnergy Tax Policy for the Twenty-First Century," ON THE ISSUES, AEI Online, August 9, 2007, accessed5/15/08 at http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26625/pub_detail.aspThe United States' energy tax policy is rooted in a twentieth-century objective to encourage the development ofthe domestic energy sector. With the new geopolitical realities of the twenty-first century, it is an opportune timeto revisit our policies. Current federal energy tax policy is premised in large part on a desire to achieve energyindependence by promoting domestic fossil fuel production. This, we argue, is a mistake. The policy also reliesheavily on energy subsidies, most of which are socially wasteful, inefficient, and driven by political rather thanenergy considerations. Finally, the energy taxes that are in place could be more precisely targeted to specificmarket failures, and these higher taxes themselves would encourage the production of alternatives moreefficiently than current subsidies.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: DOMESTIC DRILLING

1. CONSIDERABLE QUANTITIES OF OIL AND GAS ON FEDERAL LANDS ARE CURRENTLY OFFLIMITS

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, "Interior's Energy Inventory: Abundant DomesticSupplies Off-Limits," WEBMEMO n. 1285, 12-12-06,www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1285.cfm, accessed 2-26-08.But "just 3 percent of onshore Federal oil and 13 percent of onshore Federal gas are accessible under standardlease terms," according to the BLM report. In other words, only this tiny percentage of energy can be accessedwithout serious legal or regulatory impediments. In addition, "46 percent of onshore Federal oil and 60 percentof onshore Federal gas may be developed subject to additional restrictions, including no surface occupancy."Most disturbing of all, "51 percent of the oil and 27 percent of the gas are presently closed to leasing." Thisenergy is completely off-limits.

2. ARE 40 BILLION BARRELS OF OIL ON FEDERAL LANDS/IN COASTAL WATERS

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, "Don't Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, ButTap Elsewhere," WEBMEMO n. 1774, 1-15-08,www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1774.cfm, accessed 2-26-08.The SPR is not additional oil that could be introduced into the marketplace; it is 700 million barrels previouslytaken out of the marketplace and stored for an emergency. The real answer is to unlock the United States'genuinely new sources of domestic oil. Recent studies conducted by the Department of the Interior estimate thatfederal lands contain more than 20 billion barrels of untapped oil -- most of which is currently off limits -- andthat another 20 billion barrels exist in federally restricted offshore areas. It should be noted that initial energyestimates often prove to be low -- sometimes by a wide margin. Thus, the amount of federally restricted domesticoil is well into the tens of billions of barrels -- and could be upwards of 100 times more than the amount of oil inthe SPR.

3. ANWR WILL PRODUCE ENOUGH OIL TO MAKE A CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE IN TIGHT ENERGYMARKETS

Charles Krauthammer, journalist, "Energy Independence?" WASHINGTON POST, 1-26-07, p.A21.Second, immediate drilling to recover oil that is under U.S. control, namely in the Arctic and on the outercontinental shelf. No one pretends that this fixes everything. But a million barrels a day from the Arctic NationalWildlife Refuge is 5 percent of our consumption. In tight markets, that makes a crucial difference. We willalways need some oil. And the more of it that is ours, the better. It is tautological that nothing more directlyreduces dependence on foreign oil than substituting domestic for foreign production. Yet ANWR is now sopolitically dead that the president did not even mention it in the State of the Union or in his energy address thenext day.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: DOMESTIC DRILLING cont'd

4. DRILLING IN ANWR IS ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN, DECREASES OIL DEPENDENCE

Charli E. Coon, JD & Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, "Tapping Oil Reserves in a Small Part ofANWR: Environmentally Sound, Energy Wise," EXECUTIVE MEMORANDUM n. 763, 8-1-01,www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/EM763.cfm, accessed 2-26-08.The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on oil and gas exploration in the ArcticNational Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as a provision of the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001 (H.R.4), a comprehensive energy package. The proposal, H.R. 2436 (the Energy Security Act), already has beenapproved by the House Resources Committee. Regrettably, some Members of Congress are hoping to delete theprovision that authorizes drilling in ANWR. Such a move would be shortsighted and misguided. U.S.dependence on foreign oil rose after the Arab oil embargo in 1973 from approximately 35 percent to more than52 percent last year. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that this figure will increase to64 percent by 2020 if domestic supplies do not increase. Drilling in the ANWR will not threaten that naturalpreserve and will increase U.S. energy independence. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimatethat drilling in ANWR could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil -- an amount roughly equal to 30 years of oilimports from Saudi Arabia. Such a resource would increase the nation's energy security as well. Members ofCongress should resist any effort to delete oil and gas exploration in ANWR from H.R. 4.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: GAS TAX

1. INCREASED GAS TAX WOULD PROVIDE AN IMMEDIATE INCENTIVE TO DECREASECONSUMPTION

Samantha A. Krasner, "America's Addiction to Oil: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Our Nation'sDependence," CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW v. 40, November 2007, p.231.An increase in the federal tax on gasoline would give consumers an immediate and direct incentive to reducegasoline consumption. A fuel tax, unlike the criticism levied against raising CAFE standards, does not "workagainst itself" by encouraging people to drive more. A tax increase raises the cost of driving, for new andexisting vehicles, and therefore consumers would have an increased incentive to drive less, purchase morefuel-efficient cars, and undertake other activities that could lead to lower gasoline use. As a general proposition,people engage in these types of activities up to the point at which the cost of the activities equals the savings ingasoline spending. If consumers are forced to pay higher gasoline prices, as a corollary it seems that consumerswould in turn attach a higher value to fuel economy. In the short run, consumers would primarily respond to agas price change by adjusting their driving behavior, while in the long run consumers would fully adapt to a gastax by replacing their old vehicles and placing a higher value on fuel economy in new vehicles.

2. A CONSENSUS IS EMERGING THAT WE SHOULD INCREASE THE GAS TAX TO DECREASECONSUMPTION

Samantha A. Krasner, "America's Addiction to Oil: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Our Nation'sDependence," CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW v. 40, November 2007, p.235-236.Many groups have realized the potential a gasoline tax could have in the United States to decrease consumptionwhile also increasing revenue. Prior to the 1993 tax increase, the Association of International AutomobileManufacturers (AIAM), comprising twenty-one Asian and European automakers, joined with domesticautomakers in supporting higher U.S. gasoline taxes. Virtually all automakers selling vehicles in the UnitedStates back higher gas taxes. The Big Three - General Motors, Ford Motor, and DaimlerChrysler - have alwaysbeen steadfast supporters of a gas tax hike. Manufacturers complain that without some type of regulatoryincentive for consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.Automakers are not alone; economists and policy experts also agree that raising taxes on gasoline would be agood thing. Although perhaps the toughest critics of the gasoline tax are in the legislature, there are supporters inboth parties for an increase in the gasoline tax. Even the general public, a group that is usually one of theharshest critics of taxation, as a recent New York Times poll indicates, is beginning to support a gasoline tax if itwould reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil and reduce global warming. Although 85% of the publicopposed an increased federal tax on gasoline, the same group approved, by 55%, the same tax if it would reduceour nation's dependence on foreign oil. Fifty-nine percent of the public approved of the tax if it would cut downon energy consumption and reduce global warming. The group strongly disapproved of the tax, by a 71%margin, if it would help pay for the war on terrorism.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: GAS TAX cont'd

3. BEST WAY TO DECREASE GASOLINE CONSUMPTION IS TO INCREASE THE TAX ON IT UNTIL THECOST REFLECTS GAS'S ACTUAL IMPACT ON SOCIETY

Samantha A. Krasner, "America's Addiction to Oil: A Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Our Nation'sDependence," CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW v. 40, November 2007, p.229-230.Critics of our current motor fuel taxation policy argue that consumers essentially are receiving a half-price salewhen they fill up at the pump, in that what consumers are paying per gallon does not reflect the real cost of thegasoline. Although studies vary, the true cost of gasoline has been estimated to be somewhere between $ 5 toover $ 14 per gallon. America's current policy regarding gasoline prices has resulted in little consumer demandfor efficiency and more demand for super-sized vehicles. Over the past decade, vehicle acceleration from zero tosixty has improved over 40% with the average weight of vehicles also increasing by 30%. Manufacturers aremerely giving consumers what they want. As one journalist noted: Don't blame the manufactures; they're justgiving the people what they want. Send someone with a sweet tooth to the grocery store; he or she is more likelyto come back with doughnuts than with broccoli. It's the same with gasoline. The government says, "Eat yourbroccoli" while it subsidizes the price of doughnuts. The truth of the matter is: If you want people to smoke less,you tax cigarettes. If you want them to drink less, you tax alcohol. Guess what you should do if you want themto consume less gasoline? That's right: Tax gasoline.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: GOVERNMENT MANDATES FAIL

1. MANDATES ARE INFERIOR -- STIFLE INNOVATION, THREATEN THE ECONOMY AND AREUNDEMOCRATIC BECAUSE THEY BUREAUCRATIZE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Robert Stavins, journalist, "New, Cost-Conscious Environmentalism: Challenge is to 'Harness Power ofMarkets'," ROLL CALL, 5-3-93, npg.For two decades, we have improved the quality of our air, water, land, and natural resources through "commandand control" regulations that essentially have told firms which pollution-control technologies to use and howmuch pollution they could emit. But now, in an era of new environmental challenges and heightened sensitivityto regulatory compliance burdens, market forces can offer a more powerful, far-reaching, efficient, anddemocratic tool than centralized regulations for protecting the environment. The challenge in the 1990s is toharness the power of markets to achieve increases in environmental protection at lower costs. Command andcontrol regulations were powerful in the early battles against environmental degradation, but they have begun toreveal many of the same limitations that led to the collapse of command and control economies around theglobe. They can be inefficient. They hamper innovation in pollution-control methods. They ignore importantdifferences among individuals, firms, and regions. And command and control regulations, such as technologicalproduct and process requirements, tend to make the environmental debate a closed, technical discussion amongbureaucrats and vested interest groups rather than an accessible public dialogue. The days when the US couldafford to consider environmental protection without regard to its costs have ended. The EnvironmentalProtection Agency estimates we now spend more than $130 billion annually to comply with federalenvironmental laws and regulations, and there is heightened concern over the impact of these regulations on thestrength of our national economy and our ability to compete in international markets. As a result, policymakersare eager to hold regulatory burdens to a minimum. While there is strong and increasing support among thepublic for environmental protection, citizens and policymakers are giving increased attention to making the mostof scarce resources and maximizing returns on the resources we invest - business costs, regulatory effort,political capital, and taxes - to improve the quality of our environment.

2. 'PICK THE WINNER' APPROACHES ARE RISKY -- COULD STICK US WITH AN INFERIOR TECH ORWASTE A LOT OF RESOURCES

Lynne Kiesling, Director, Economic Policy, Reason Foundation & Senior Lecturer, Economics, NorthwesternUniversity, "Can the Government Pick Technology Winners? Can Anyone?" REASON ONLINE, 3-28-03,http://www.reason.org/commentaries/kiesling_20030328.shtml, accessed 4-9-08.Furthermore, it's important to remember that for hydrogen generation, storage, transport, fuel cells, fuelinginfrastructure, and so on, there are several competing technologies all innovating simultaneously. We don't knowwhich one in each area is the most commercializable, and even if we have some ranking of them, a suddendiscovery in one technology could upend that ranking in an instant. If the government is going to subsidize them,will they pick one in each area, the one that their scientists perceive as most likely to succeed? Or will they fundparallel duplicate research on competing technologies? Picking one in each area, the "picking-the-winner"approach, is very risky -- what if the one they pick is not the winner? Multiply that problem by the fact that weare looking at technologies in at least five different connected areas from generation to fueling, and theprobability of picking the combination of those technologies that will succeed technologically and commerciallyis pretty slim. If the government attempts to pick winners through targeted subsidies and picks wrong, then weare stuck with that bad, costly mistake. This mistake becomes particularly costly once, say, companies startbuilding hydrogen fueling stations, investing in a lot of fixed infrastructure of very specific assets, and then itturns out that the most commercially viable way to deliver the hydrogen is not compatible with those specificassets. That's a lot of wasted investment, and if subsidized, a lot of wasted taxpayer money.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: GOVERNMENT MANDATES FAIL cont'd

3. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PICKING WINNERS -- SHOULDBE INDUSTRY-DRIVEN

David Prend, Managing General Partner, RockPort CapitalPartners, Testimony before House Select Committeeon Energy Independence and Global Warming, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 4-16-08, lexis.Embracing the innovation curve - NVCA supports a technology- neutral approach to innovation and agrees thatthe federal government should not pick winners and losers, but there should be recognition that there is a highvalue in the government helping an industry "ride the learning curve" and reach market potential. This dynamicwas particularly relevant in the silicon and semiconductor industries. Early support by the federal governmenthelped these industries leverage the learning curve and reach their potential. In the case of solar and wind power,this support would be particularly helpful to drive the cost out of these technologies in the medium term andeliminate the need for subsidies in the longer term.

4. ATTEMPTING TO PICK THE WINNER/SET TECH MANDATES ONLY INCREASES COSTS

Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies,Heritage Foundation, "The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy," WEBMEMO n. 1640,9-26-07, www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1640.cfm, accessed 3-25-08.It is not good that the federal government is working to pick winners and losers in the energy market. The resultswill surely be increased costs and limited choices for U.S. consumers. Instead, once a set of goals and prioritiesare set following adequate public debate, the government should remain technology-neutral. In the currentpolitical climate, however, this may be unrealistic. If the government is not able to be neutral, it should at leastdo as little harm as possible. Federal laws, programs, and regulations should recognize nuclear power as anemissions-free, domestic energy source just like wind, solar, and other favorites of the environmentalcommunity. Furthermore, nuclear energy is abundant. Whether or not it fits the strict definition of "renewable,"the fact is that known uranium stocks will last for a very long time -- perhaps centuries or even millennia, withcertain fuel recycling technologies.

5. COMMAND-AND-CONTROL IS HIGHLY INEFFICIENT -- FORCES UNIVERSAL COMPLIANCE

David Miller, journalist, "The Market Solution to Reduce Pollution," INDEPENDENT, 7-29-90, p.8.Since it costs some firms much more than others to meet targets, uniform limits spread the cost of controllingpollution inefficiently. Say companies A and B have both been ordered to cut their production of a pollutantfrom 200 tonnes to 100 tonnes, but that it costs B four times as much to meet the target. A could reduce itsemissions to, say, 75 tonnes, and sell 25 tonnes of its quota to B, which would not have to spend so much tomeet the higher quota of 125. Both firms would save money, but the reduction in pollutants would be the same.Pollutant credits could also be shifted to different factories within the same company, between differentemissions outlets within a factory, or saved for future use.

6. COMMAND-AND-CONTROL STIFLES INNOVATION -- INDUSTRIES KNOW BEST HOW TO MEETSTANDARDS

Bruce Geiselman, journalist, "Give Me Government, or Give Me Less," WASTE NEWS, 3-28-05, p.15.Command-and-control regulations are more expensive and less effective than allowing firms to decide forthemselves how best to control pollution, Taylor said. Plant managers have more incentive to discover the mostefficient ways to control pollution at their facilities than do EPA technicians and consultants. Cato wants theSuperfund program eliminated and contaminated properties turned over to private parties for cleanup orcontainment. It also believes RCRA is "incredibly prescriptive and excessively costly," stipulatingcradle-to-grave management standards for thousands of substances. Instead, Cato advocates replacing it with aminimal discharge standard to protect groundwater. Violators could be fined or shut down, according to theirplan.



7. RIGID REGULATION STIFLES INNOVATION

Jonathan Lash & David T. Buzzelli, editorialists, "Beyond Old-Style Regulation," JOURNAL OF COMMERCE,2-28-95, p.8A.Rigid regulation is both costly and an obstacle to environmental progress. It removes the incentive to improveperformance beyond what the law requires and makes it difficult and expensive to introduce innovativetechnologies. Why spend to voluntarily eliminate the sources of pollution if you still have to endure the samelong permitting process, continue the same wasteful record- keeping and use the same end-of-pipe pollutioncontrols as before? After a quarter-century of this, environmentalists and industry can agree that it's time to dobetter. We need to make our environmental goals, and the laws that implement them, an incentive fortechnological innovation, not an obstacle to it. This requires major change.

8. TECHNOLOGY MANDATES BACKFIRE, INCREASE COSTS

Jonathan H. Adler, Law Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, "Free & Green: A NewApproach to Environmental Protection," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 24, Spring2001, p.689-690.Broad technology mandates or permit schemes operate as ecological drift nets. Such approaches achievepollution reductions more through their scope than their efficiency, and as a result, they tend to produceenvironmental improvements at the expense of innocent individuals who have not contributed to the harm. Evenwhen the impacts of water or airborne emissions are extremely difficult to control, environmental protection andsimple justice are better served when pollution reduction efforts focus on the true sources of pollution and ensurethat it is the polluters who pay for the damage. Consider the case of air pollution. It is well-established that asmall fraction of automobiles are responsible for the vast preponderance of auto-related emissions. Indeed, halfof the emissions in California are generated by only ten percent of the cars on the road. This means that for everyten cars, the dirtiest one pollutes as much as the other nine. Nonetheless, federal officials insist upon imposingsignificant costs on the owners of all cars through "clean fuel" requirements, periodic emissions inspections, andsimilar regulations in order to meet federal air quality standards. If emission reductions are necessary in someregions to protect human health (a debatable proposition), targeting the dirtiest portion of the automobile fleetwill reduce pollution more efficiently and more equitably. The majority of car owners whose vehicles are inclean-running condition should not be forced to pay for the pollution caused by an irresponsible minority.(Additionally, it is questionable whether the federal government should tell local communities what level of airemissions is acceptable.) Making the polluter pay should not entail trying to eliminate the generation of wastesand byproducts of a modern, industrial society, nor does it mean regulating every emission, every industrialprocess, indeed every aspect of economic life. Making the polluter pay means focusing environmental protectionefforts on the greatest sources of harm and ensuring that polluters pay for the costs of the harms they inflict uponothers.

9. REGULATIONS PLACE AN IMPOSSIBLE INFORMATION BURDEN ON REGULATORS

Jerry Taylor, Director, Environmental Studies, Cato Institute, "Environmentalism and Liberty: Where the TwainMight Meet," Speech before the Board of Directors, Natural Resources Defense Council, 3-12-97,www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6846, accessed 3-8-08.There are inherent problems with this approach that stymies the achievement of avoid environmental objectives.First, command-and-control regulations -- which require regulators to determine exactly which technologies andwhat manufacturing methods are to be adopted for pollution control in every single facility in the nation -- placean informational burden on public officials that is impossible to meet in the real world. Every facility is different.Every air and water shed has different carrying capacities for different pollutants. There simply isn't enoughmanpower or expertise to carefully weigh the most efficient mandates or the most optimal controls necessary foreach plant in each pollution shed.



10. STRICT REGULATIONS ACTUALLY DISCOURAGE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

Jonathan H. Adler, Law Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, "Free & Green: A NewApproach to Environmental Protection," HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & PUBLIC POLICY v. 24, Spring2001, p.680.Federal regulations, even environmental regulations, can cause environmental harm as well. Detailed rules thatdictate how companies must meet particular projects leave little room for environmental innovation."Regulations that are overly prescriptive can lock in existing technologies to the detriment of other technologiesthat might meet or exceed requirements," concluded the Office of Technology Assessment in a 1995 report. TheEnvironmental Law Institute reached similar conclusions in a recent study: "Technology-based emission limitsand discharge standards, which are embedded in most of our pollution laws, play a key role in discouraginginnovation." At the same time, regulations that "grandfather" existing facilities can artificially prolong the livesof older, less efficient facilities, increasing pollution levels above what they would otherwise be.

11. REGULATION FAILS -- GOVERNMENTS WILL NOT CONTINUE TO ACT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Tibor Machan, Professor, Business Ethics & Free Enterprise, Chapman University, "Environmentalism WithoutGovernment," MISES DAILY ARTICLE 6-20-05, https://mises.org/story/1844, accessed 3-9-08.Consider the proposal that current champions of free-market environmentalism often make, a proposal thatdefenders of the politicization of environmental problems oppose almost automatically. This proposal boilsdown to the very general principle, namely, that it is better all around for land and other property to be ownedprivately than publicly. Common or public ownership results, in other words, in what has been dubbed thetragedy of the commons. This occurs when everyone in a given society is convinced that some realm belongs tous all, so that we all are entitled to make use of it to our hearts' content. This leads to depletion of resources. Theremedy champions of politicized environmentalism offer, namely, that the government ration our use of publicor common resources, will not work. Environmentalists may gain temporary advantages from governments, butsoon other interests take over. Imagine how it might have been had the free-market idea been made part of basiclaw: all land would be owned by individuals and any use made of the land would require the agreement of theowners. This would have made it nearly impossible to implement massive technological projects such asbuilding railways, highways, airports, sports and recreational arenas unless complete consent had been given bythe owners over whose property these projects would have had to be constructed.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: HYBRIDS (GAS/ELECTRIC)

1. HYBRIDS ARE THE BEST SHORT-TERM SOLUTION TO OIL DEPENDENCE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.569.Vehicle emissions are a significant environmental concern. They account for a large portion of the air pollutionpresent in our environment and can lead to serious health problems. However, the United States, as noted byPresident George W. Bush in his State of the Union address, is "addicted to oil." This note proposes that theshort-term answer to this addiction is the hybrid car. It achieves markedly better gas mileage than itscounterparts, its technology is already viable and mass produced, and it requires no additional infrastructure.While fuel-cell cars are probably the solution of the future, hybrids are the solution of today.

2. HYBRIDS ARE SUPERIOR -- TECH IS READY NOW, REQUIRES NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.550.Hybrids are the best short-term solution to American oil dependency because the technology is viable now anddoes not require new infrastructure. Car manufacturers currently offer a wide range of hybrid vehicles that arebuilt to run on standard gasoline. While cost might be somewhat prohibitive -- hybrids can cost up to one thirdmore than their standard internal combustion counterparts -- Munoz insists that "Americans are warming up tothe idea of purchasing these vehicles based on concerns about fuel prices, the United States' dependency onforeign oil, concern over the environment, and the new Federal Clean Fuel Vehicle Tax Deduction." Thus,hybrids presently have the potential to carve out a large place in the automobile market.

3. ENCOURAGING HYBRIDS WILL ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF FOSSIL FUEL USE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.546-547.It is easy to look at these problems and view them as insurmountable. True, Americans are reluctant to cut theirrampant fossil fuel use; however, it is possible to achieve positive change and to do so may not require as muchwork as one would expect. For instance, Mann notes that when Atlanta implemented more restrictive trafficregulations during the 1996 Summer Olympics, hospitalizations for acute asthma attacks decreased by 40%according to Georgia Medicaid claims files. In conjunction with health benefits, peak ozone rates declined 25%during the Games, and there were also noticeable declines in carbon monoxide and particulate matter. Thesebenefits were all achieved simply by "increas[ing] available public transportation, limit[ing] downtown motorvehicle use (especially in the mornings), and encourag[ing] telecommuting and alternate work hours forbusinesses." Considering the drastic results that can be achieved even without encouraging environmentallyfriendly vehicles, it will become clear that success in encouraging hybrid use will go a long way towardremedying the problems associated with fossil fuel use. Furthermore, fulfilling some objectives associated withreduction in fossil fuel use is not unreasonable. Matthew Wald notes that if cars were using 80% of the fuel thatthey do today -- that is, the amount of fuel they were using in 1987 -- "[t]hat alone would get the country nearlyhalfway to the goal President Bush set in his State of the Union address: to cut U.S. oil consumption enough tonearly eliminate the need to import from the Middle East." In short, it is not idealistic to believe that theenvironmental, health, and political detriments associated with fossil fuel use can be decreased, even withouthybrid vehicles. Therefore, with hybrid vehicles, the potential for improvement in these areas increasessignificantly.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: HYBRIDS (GAS/ELECTRIC) cont'd

4. HYBRIDS ARE THE BEST OPTION -- CAN BE QUICKLY INTEGRATED INTO OUR SOCIETY

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.548-549.There are many reasons, however, that the Sierra Club and other environmental groups recognize the hybridvehicle as one of the "best solutions to global warming and air pollution" and Mann cites hybrids as "[t]he firstpractical step to cleaner vehicles." These reasons are linked to problems associated with the other fuel-savingtechnologies, none of which the hybrid vehicle possesses. The efficacy of hybrids lies not only in their ability tosave gas, but also in their ability to quickly, and relatively cheaply, become integrated into our society.

5. HYBRIDS ARE THE BEST WAY TO DECREASE OIL DEPENDENCE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.547-548.President Bush outlined a wide array of solutions to America's oil dependence in the context of the personalvehicle. In fact, his main focus has been on moving away from a petroleum economy altogether with thedevelopment of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles through his FreedomCAR program. Ramish criticizes thisprogram as allocating a "disproportionate amount of resources to hydrogen research over hybrid research." Hispoint has merit; this note argues that the best way to subdue oil dependence in the present is through the massuse of hybrid vehicles. This is because hybrid technology is unique amongst other technologies in that it isreadily available, relatively affordable, and requires no changes in infrastructure.

6. HYBRIDS SAVE A TON OF ENERGY -- RESULT IN A HUGE BOOST IN FUEL EFFICIENCY

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.548.Hybrid vehicles contain both a typical internal combustion engine and an electric engine and run on regulargasoline, making them the most readily available fuel-efficient vehicles. Ramish describes three ways that hybridtechnology saves energy: First, it employs 'regenerative braking,' which harnesses energy normally wasted bycoasting and braking. Second, the electric motor can 'assist the engine in accelerating, passing or hill climbing'(when a vehicle needs extra power), allowing the use of 'a smaller, more efficient engine.' Third, rather thanwasting energy by idling, many hybrid engines automatically shut off when stopped, and start up again with apress of the accelerator." These advantages allow the hybrid to achieve vastly better gas mileage than itscounterparts with internal combustion engines. Still, this is true of other new technologies. For instance, fuel cellcars operate "without harmful vehicle emissions," which is not true of the fuel-efficient, yet still gas-sipping,hybrid. Furthermore, electric vehicles "are zero-emissions have low costs, are extremely quiet and provide asmooth ride." Alternative fuel vehicles, another substitute to hybrids, use fuel such as methanol or ethanol, andrun cleaner than regular gasoline vehicles. Finally, diesel fuel, which has been used for decades, also burnscleaner than standard gasoline. In other words, all of these technologies offer either increased or completeindependence from petroleum.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: HYBRIDS (PLUG-IN)

1. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS ARE THE MOST PROMISING ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.394.The most promising AFV pathway is a hybrid that can be connected to the electric grid. These so-called plug-inhybrids or e-hybrids "will likely travel three to four times as far on a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity asfuel cell vehicles." Ideally these advanced hybrids would also be a flexible fuel vehicle capable of running on ablend of biofuels and gasoline. Such a car could travel 500 miles on one gallon of gasoline (and five gallons ofcellulosic ethanol) and have under one-tenth the GHG emissions of current hybrids.

2. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS HAVE MULTIPLE ADVANTAGES OVER ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDINGHYDROGEN VEHICLES

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.407-408.In contrast to the hydrogen vehicles, there is another AFV technology that appears to have clear environmentalbenefits, including substantially lower GHG emissions, a much lower annual fuel bill, a much longer range thancurrent cars (with the added ability to fuel at home), and far fewer infrastructure issues than traditional AFVs.This AFV is the plug-in hybrid, also called the e-hybrid. A straightforward improvement to the currentgeneration of hybrids allows them to be plugged into the electric grid and run in an all-electric mode for alimited range between recharging. Since most vehicle use is for relatively short trips, such as commuting,followed by an extended period of time during which the vehicle is not being driven and could be charged, evena relatively modest all-electric range of 20 or 40 miles could allow these vehicles to replace a substantial portionof gasoline consumption and tailpipe emissions. If the electricity were from CO2-free sources, then thesevehicles would also have dramatically reduced net GHG emissions.

3. PLUG-IN HYBRIDS ARE SUPERIOR -- GREATER RANGE, NO RE-CHARGE TIME

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.408.Because they have a gasoline engine, and are thus a dual-fuel vehicle, e-hybrids avoid two of the problemsfacing pure electric vehicles. First, they are not limited in range by the total amount of battery charge. If theinitial battery charge runs low, the car can run on gasoline and on the charging possible from the regenerativebraking. Second, electric vehicles take many hours to charge, so that if for some reason owners were unable tocharge the car - either due to a lack of time between trips to charge or a lack of local charging capability - thenthe pure-electric car could not be driven. Thus, e-hybrids combine the best of both hybrids and pure electricvehicles. Battery improvement will lead to increased functionality for e-hybrids. Reductions in cost andincreases in cycle life (durability) will make plug-in hybrid electric vehicles ("PHEV") more affordable.Adequate safety is a requirement. Operating temperature is important, but batteries with unusual operatingtemperatures may be considered if other benefits are demonstrated. Convenience of recharging is crucial, but thedefinition of "convenience" varies by user. A full recharge overnight from an ordinary home outlet is generallyconsidered to be sufficient for a personal e-hybrid.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: MARKETS

1. FREE MARKET APPROACHES ARE FAR SUPERIOR -- MAXIMIZE LIBERTY AND HUMAN WELFAREWHILE PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Jonathan H. Adler, Professor, Law, Case Western Reserve University, "Climate Change As if Property RightsMattered," Reason Roundtable: Climate Change and Property Rights, 6-12-08,http://www.reason.org/commentaries/adler_20080612.shtml, accessed 6-14-08.For most libertarians the best thing that policy makers can do to advance environmental values is to protectproperty rights from both government and private harm. Landowners should be free to make productive use oftheir property so long as they do not unduly infringe upon the rights of their neighbors. Government regulationsshould not restrain private landowners from engaging in non-harmful land uses, but legal recourse should beavailable to those whose property is actually damaged by industrial or other activity. The strength of such anapproach is that it makes environmental protection part and parcel of protecting individual rights. On the onehand, it makes addressing environmental side-effects that harm someone's property a matter of justice -anchoring environmental goals in far stronger normative grounds than those offered by the modern-dayenvironmental movement. On the other, it allows for the maximum possible exercise of an individual's propertyrights consistent with others' use of theirs. By emphasizing property rights, this approach, called Free MarketEnvironmentalism or FME, produces the most optimal balance between economic activity and environmentalprotection, maximizing human welfare. Yet its ultimate commitment is not to utilitarian outcomes - but toproperty rights properly enforced. FME theorists, such as Terry Anderson, Donald Leal, Fred L. Smith, Jr., R.J.Smith, and Richard Stroup, believe that most environmental problems can be solved through the recognition andprotection of property rights in natural resources. When property rights are transferable and protected by law,individual property owners can make voluntary agreements to transfer resources to their most valued uses, aswell as to protect shared resources and resolve conflicts between neighboring land uses. Such "private ordering"or arrangements allow for the evolution and emergence of non-governmental approaches to conservation.Because a system of property rights and market exchange makes it possible to take advantage of dispersedeconomic and ecological knowledge possessed by individuals about their own circumstances and subjectivevalue preferences, as well as the relative scarcity of given resources, it offers a far more effective way ofenvironmental conservation than contemporary command-and-control environmental regulations and ecologicalcentral-planning. Property-rights-based institutions have outperformed prescriptive regulations in addressingmany environmental concerns, from over-fishing and species preservation to water scarcity and pollutioncontrol. Take fishing, for example. Whereas open-access fisheries fall prey to the "tragedy of the commons," andregulatory prescriptions encourage wasteful practices, the adoption of private fishing rights or "IFQs" (individualfishing quotas) has encouraged greater stewardship of ocean fisheries by giving fishermen a stake in the healthof the underlying resource, as demonstrated by successful rights-based fishery management in Iceland, NewZealand, and British Columbia, among other places.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: MARKETS cont'd

2. CORPORATIONS ARE ALREADY PURSUING CARBON ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY ON THEIROWN

Jane S. Shaw, Senior Fellow, PERC, ""Business and the Environment," Business Economics, January 2005,http://www.perc.org/articles/article538.php, accessed 3-7-08.Profit-seeking businesses want to reduce waste for the sake of the bottom line. That is why aluminum cans getthinner - cans in 1994 used 27 per cent less aluminum than in the 1960s. According to two engineers, each onepercent reduction in aluminum saves $20 million a year (Hosford and Duncan, 1994, p.48). Prices of metals havedropped in real terms because technology changed - fiber optics as a substitute for copper, for example. Theamount of steel in skyscrapers has gone down by 35 percent over two decades (Scarlett and Shaw, 1999, p.3).All this makes for cleaner, more efficient production with less waste. Currently, industrial companies areexploring ways to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in case global warmingshould become an overriding danger. Among other technologies, they are studying more efficient combustion;the use of hydrogen and other alternative fuels; and methods of carbon sequestration, which prevents carbonfrom mixing with the air to form carbon dioxide. Research is being conducted inhouse and in cooperativeprograms with independent researchers. For example, four major companies are sponsoring a ten-year researchproject at Stanford University to explore such innovative technologies (Stanford University Global Climate andEnergy Project, 2004).

3. MARKETS ARE FAR MORE EFFICIENT AT REACTING TO PETROLEUM PRICES AND SCARCITY

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "Myth Five -- Price Signals are Insufficient to Induce EfficientEnergy Investments," ENERGY AND AMERICAN SOCIETY: THIRTEEN MYTHS, 2007,www.cato.org/pubs/articles/myth9.pdf, accessed 6-10-08.The strongest positive argument against government intervention is that markets are more capable thangovernment of reacting quickly and efficiently to declines in petroleum production. True declines, rather thantemporary shocks, will permanently increase oil prices, which will induce investments in alternative energysources and conservation. But what about temporary (albeit multiyear) price shocks? If low prices most of thetime and high prices some of the time are a problem, is there a market solution? Indeed there is. Long-term oilfutures contracts are available to those worried about future price spirals. The fact that marketers have not triedto offer long-term stable prices to consumers by arbitraging between the futures and retail markets suggests thatmost consumers believe that they benefit by accepting low prices most of the time in return for unpleasantly highprices some of the time. Said differently, we are "dependent" on oil exported from unstable countries rather thandomestic oil or alternative sources of energy -- and don't attempt to contract our way out of that instability --because it is cheaper in present value terms to do so.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: MARKETS cont'd

4. FREE MARKETS ARE THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT -- ENCOURAGEEFFICIENCY, PUNISH WASTE, CREATE DEMAND FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

Jerry Taylor, Director, Natural Resource Studies, Cato Institute, "Happy Earth Day? Thank Capitalism," NEWYORK SUN, 4-22-03, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3073, accessed 3-8-08.Earth Day (April 22) is traditionally a day for the Left -- a celebration of government's ability to deliver theenvironmental goods and for threats about the parade of horribles that will descend upon us lest we rededicateourselves to federal regulators and public land managers. This is unfortunate because it's businessmen -- notbureaucrats or environmental activists -- who deserve most of the credit for the environmental gains over thepast century and who represent the best hope for a Greener tomorrow. Indeed, we wouldn't even haveenvironmentalists in our midst were it not for capitalism. Environmental amenities, after all, are luxury goods.America -- like much of the Third World today -- had no environmental movement to speak of until livingstandards rose sufficiently so that we could turn our attention from simply providing for food, shelter, and areasonable education to higher "quality of life" issues. The richer you are, the more likely you are to be anenvironmentalist. And people wouldn't be rich without capitalism. Wealth not only breeds environmentalists, itbegets environmental quality. There are dozens of studies showing that, as per capita income initially rises fromsubsistence levels, air and water pollution increases correspondingly. But once per capita income hits between$3,500 and $15,000 (dependent upon the pollutant), the ambient concentration of pollutants begins to declinejust as rapidly as it had previously increased. This relationship is found for virtually every significant pollutant inevery single region of the planet. It is an iron law. Given that wealthier societies use more resources than poorersocieties, such findings are indeed counterintuitive. But the data don't lie. How do we explain this? The obviousanswer -- that wealthier societies are willing to trade-off the economic costs of government regulation forenvironmental improvements and that poorer societies are not -- is only partially correct. In the United States,pollution declines generally predated the passage of laws mandating pollution controls. In fact, for mostpollutants, declines were greater before the federal government passed its panoply of environmental regulationsthan after the EPA came upon the scene. Much of this had to do with individual demands for environmentalquality. People who could afford cleaner-burning furnaces, for instance, bought them. People who wantedrecreational services spent their money accordingly, creating profit opportunities for the provision ofuntrammeled nature. Property values rose in cleaner areas and declined in more polluted areas, shifting capitalfrom Brown to Green investments. Market agents will supply whatever it is that people are willing to spendmoney on. And when people are willing to spend money on environmental quality, the market will provide it.Meanwhile, capitalism rewards efficiency and punishes waste. Profit-hungry companies found ingenious ways toreduce the natural resource inputs necessary to produce all kinds of goods, which in turn reduced environmentaldemands on the land and the amount of waste that flowed through smokestacks and water pipes. As we learnedto do more and more with a given unit of resources, the waste involved (which manifests itself in the form ofpollution) shrank. This trend was magnified by the shift away from manufacturing to service industries, whichcharacterizes wealthy, growing economies. The latter are far less pollution-intensive than the former. But theformer are necessary prerequisites for the latter.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: SUBSIDIES/INCENTIVES

1. MARKETS ARE SUPERIOR TO COMMAND-AND-CONTROL REGULATIONS -- MULTIPLE REASONS

Robert Stavins, journalist, "New, Cost-Conscious Environmentalism: Challenge is to 'Harness Power ofMarkets'," ROLL CALL, 5-3-93, npg.Market-based policies start with the notion that the best way to protect the environment is to give firms andindividuals a direct and daily self-interest in doing so. They aim to strengthen environmental protection bychanging the financial incentives that face millions of firms and individuals in their private decisions about whatto consume, how to produce, and where to dispose of their wastes. As a result, market-based policies, whichinclude green charges, tradeable permit systems, and a range of other approaches, offer many importantadvantages: - They enable environmental protection to be pursued at a lower cost of compliance to privateindustry, and thereby at a lower cost to consumers. - They give firms a constant incentive to find new and bettertechnologies for combating pollution rather than locking one kind of pollution-control technology into place. -They can move environmental rules out of the exclusive domain of scientists, economists, lawyers, and lobbyistsand open the process to the public. - They make the incremental cost of environmental protection more visible,and thus can focus public debate on the most efficient ways to protect the environment, rather than simply on theevils of pollution. - And because some market-based approaches, such as pollution charges, raise substantialrevenues, they enable government to reduce "distortionary" taxes - ones that reduce market efficiency by taxingdesirable activities, such as investment and labor - and replace them with levies that discourage sociallyundesirable behavior, such as pollution and degradation of natural resources.

2. TAX CREDITS ARE POPULAR, AND CAN BE USED EFFECTIVELY TO INCREASE ALTERNATIVEFUEL USE

Chris Stefan, "Fueling the Fuutre: A Policy-Based Comparison of Alternative Automotive Fuel Choices,"SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY v. 7, Spring 2007, p.24.One of the easiest ways to encourage alternative fuel vehicle purchases is to increase the price of petroleumproducts. However, taxes on petroleum products are politically unpopular. Absent large changes in political will,this policy decision is unlikely to be chosen. Tax credits and deductions are politically popular, and could have alarge effect on encouraging consumer transition to alternative fuel sources. In the Energy Policy Act of 2005,dollar for dollar tax credits are allowed for purchasers of new alternative powered vehicles, or highly efficientvehicles. The policy implications of this Act is that consumers who can afford to purchase new alternativefuel-powered vehicles may be rewarded for doing so. Some states have also enacted similar tax incentives for thepurchase of alternative vehicles. However, the downstream market of used-vehicles purchases is largelyunaffected, limiting the overall impact that such policies may have. Regardless, tax credits and deductions arestill mechanisms for policymakers to convince American consumers to consider alternatively poweredautomobiles.

3. MINOR LOCAL INCENTIVES CAN ENCOURAGE ALTERNATIVE FUEL USE

Chris Stefan, "Fueling the Future: A Policy-Based Comparison of Alternative Automotive Fuel Choices,"SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY v. 7, Spring 2007, p.24.Other laws can be enacted to provide small incentives to encourage more consumers to utilize alternative fuels.For example, many states have carpool lanes in metropolitan areas, designed to relieve traffic congestion. InCalifornia, owners of alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles are allowed to use the carpool lanes regardlessof the number of passengers. Similar programs in other metropolitan areas, along with the inclusion of all kindsof alternative vehicles in these programs, could provide further encouragement. Additionally, minor local taxincentives can encourage parking lots to allow preferential parking for alternative fuel vehicles, or cities couldwaive parking meter payments for alternative vehicle owners. Even though such policies would requireenforcement mechanisms to be instituted to protect against fraud, the fines collected from offenders could helpto mitigate the program's costs.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: SUBSIDIES/INCENTIVES cont'd

4. SUBSIDIES WILL INCREASE THE VIABILITY AND USE OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Chris Stefan, "Fueling the Fuutre: A Policy-Based Comparison of Alternative Automotive Fuel Choices,"SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY v. 7, Spring 2007, p.24.Another method to promote a policy change is to encourage the government to support the development ofalternatives as viable substitutes. Absent major breakthroughs in research, all of the renewable energy sourceswill require government subsidies in order to develop into permanent solutions. At the federal level, the EnergyPolicy Act of 2005 is subsidizing alternative energy development by slowly increasing the minimum percentageof alternative automotive fuel sold or dispensed to consumers. Grants have been authorized to fund research onimproving hybrid utilization, improving traditional fuel efficiency, as well as other programs. Fundingalternative fuel infrastructure and development will continue to increase, as it becomes a more prevalent concernamong the electorate. Hydrogen and ethanol have received the lion's share of the distributed subsidy funds. Thismay reflect that these alternative fuel sources are favored by interest groups capable of influencing the politicalsystem; it may also reflect piqued consumer interest.

5. MARKET INCENTIVES ARE FAR SUPERIOR TO COMMAND-AND-CONTROL REGULATIONS --BETTER PROMOTE GROWTH

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, "For Green Solutions, Earth Needs a Right Turn," ATLANTAJOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 5-6-07, p.1C.Of course it's easy to talk about achieving lofty environmental goals without damaging either our liberty or oureconomy. But how do we actually make Green Conservatism a reality? We do so by taking advantage of marketsand incentives to achieve our environmental goals far more effectively than is possible through higher taxes. Weemphatically reject as ineffective the liberal environmentalists' focus on bureaucratic command-and-controlregulations to preserve our natural world. Instead, Green Conservatism believes that we can realize morepositive environmental outcomes faster by shifting tax code incentives and shifting market behavior than ispossible from litigation and regulation. The United States is ideally suited to achieving tremendousenvironmental progress precisely because we have such a dynamic and economically efficient free enterprisesystem. In this way, Green Conservatism builds on our inherent strengths as a nation, whereas liberalenvironmentalism actually undermines the very economic growth and efficiencies that so decisively contributeto environmental progress.

6. GREEN INCENTIVES ARE THE MOST ECONOMICAL WAY TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, "For Green Solutions, Earth Needs a Right Turn," ATLANTAJOURNAL-CONSTITUTION, 5-6-07, p.1C.Americans excel at using the power of the free market to make our lives better. Green Conservatism uses thisstrength by seeking the least economically destructive and least governmentally empowering ways to protect theenvironment. Our generation faces the extraordinary challenge of bringing to bear science and technology,entrepreneurship and the principles of effective markets in order to enable people to have both a good lifeeconomically and a good life environmentally. Conservatism shouldn't ignore this challenge, we should embraceit. After all, we can stand toe to toe with liberals anywhere in America when it comes to wanting to build a betterfuture for ourselves and our families. America's 400-year experience of sound science, entrepreneurship and freemarkets to create better solutions for a better future has far outstripped what the lawyers and bureaucrats haveever done. It's no different when it comes to the environment. Green Conservatism is an idea whose time hascome.


ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES SUPERIOR: SUBSIDIES/INCENTIVES cont'd

7. INCENTIVES ARE MORE LIKELY TO ENCOURAGE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

Peter Berck, Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, UC-Berkeley and Gloria E. Helfland, AssociateProfessor, Environmental Economics, University of Michigan, "The Case of Markets versus Standards forPollution Policy," NATIONAL RESOURCES JOURNAL . 45, Spring 2005, p.352.Additionally, MBI are more likely than standards to provide greater incentives for technological innovation.While a standard provides an incentive to innovate in order to reduce pollution abatement costs, the costassociated with pollution due to MBI provides an additional incentive absent with a standard. In contrast,Wagner argues that technological innovation from MBI is likely to be much easier once standards are already inplace. That is, it is easier to innovate after an initial step has been taken than if markets started with norequirements in place. For continued innovation, though, MBI are likely to dominate standards.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: GENERAL

1. AFVs ARE NOT VIABLE -- CANNOT COMPETE WITH HIGH-TECH GASOLINE VEHICLES

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.401.Moreover, all AFVs face the increasing competition from improved gasoline-power vehicles. Indeed, twodecades ago when tailpipe emissions standards were being developed requiring 0.02 grams/mile of NitrogenOxide ("NOx"), few suspected that this could be achieved by internal combustion engine vehicles running on we[sic] formulated gasoline. The new generation of hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape hybrid, havesubstantially raised the bar for future AFVs. These vehicles lack many of the aforementioned problems because:they can be fueled everywhere; possess no different safety concerns than other gasoline cars; generate asubstantially lower annual fuel bill; provide greater range; promise a forty to fifty percent reduction in GHGemissions, and a ninety percent reduction in tailpipe emissions. The vehicles do cost a little more, but that ispartly offset by a federal government tax credit for fuel-efficient hybrids and the large reduction in gasolinecosts, even ignoring the performance benefits. "Compare that to many AFVs, whose environmental benefits, ifany, typically come at the expense not merely of a higher first cost for the vehicle, but a much higher annual fuelbill, a reduced range, and other undesirable attributes from the consumer's perspective."

2. ALTERNATIVE FUELS FAIL -- TANKS ARE TOO LARGE, NO FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.549.The same infrastructure problems that are at issue with fuel cell vehicles pervade alternative fuel vehicles anddiesel fuel vehicles. Alternative fuel vehicles require larger fuel tanks than normal vehicles and lack "adequatedistribution centers." Even in Japan, where research and development of new vehicle technology is of the highestpriority, there are only 123 natural gas filling stations in the entire country, most of which are concentrated inlarge urban areas. Diesel fuel is prohibitively expensive compared to standard fuel, and even if it were the sameprice, it could not be produced in large enough quantities to satisfy an entire population making the switch fromtraditional gasoline. Leonardo Maugeri sums up the main problem both diesel and alternative fuel faces,claiming that, "even with real oil prices at their highest levels in [twenty] years, no alternative can compete headto head with fossil fuels on a scale broad enough to challenge their market dominance."

3. ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES HAVE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THAT BLOCK MARKETUTILIZATION

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.400.All AFVs that have so far been promoted with limited success - electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, methanolvehicles, and ethanol vehicles have each suffered from some or all of these barriers. According to the 2004report, any one of these barriers can be fatal for an AFV or an alternative fuel, even where other benefits aredelivered: Electric vehicles deliver the clear benefit of zero tailpipe emissions, and can even have lower per milecosts than gasoline cars, but range, refueling, and first cost issues have limited their success and caused mostmajor auto companies to withdraw their electric vehicles from the marketplace.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: GENERAL cont'd

4. LACK OF FUELING INFRASTRUCTURE BLOCKS AFV ADOPTION -- BIGGEST BARRIER

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.400.The chicken & egg problem - who will build and buy the AFVs if a fueling infrastructure is not in place and whowill build the fueling infrastructure before the AFVs are built - remains the most intractable barrier. Considerthat there are millions of flexible fuel vehicles already on the road capable of running on E85 (85% ethanol, 15%gasoline), 100% gasoline, or just about any blend, for about the same price as gasoline-powered vehicles, and yetthe vast majority of them run on gasoline and there have been very few E85 stations built.

5. ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROMOTION PROGRAMS FAIL NOW -- VEHICLES ARE CURRENTLYINFERIOR AND TOO EXPENSIVE

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.399.The federal government and others, such as California, have tried to promote transportation fuels other thangasoline for many years. These fuels include natural gas, methanol, ethanol, propane, electricity, and bio-diesel.AFVs operate on these fuels, although many are dual-fueled, that is, they can also run on gasoline. The 1992Energy Policy Act established the goal of having "alternative fuels replace at least ten percent of petroleum fuelsused in transportation by 2000, and at least thirty percent in 2010." Currently, alternate fuels consumed in AFVssubstitute for less than one percent of total consumption of gasoline. A significant literature has emergedexplaining this failure. As the June 2004 report by the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions detailed:Alternative fuel vehicles and their fuels face two central problems. Primarily, they typically suffer from severalmarketplace disadvantages compared to conventional vehicles running on conventional fuels. Hence, theyinevitably require government incentives or mandates to succeed. Second, they typically do not providecost-effective solutions to major energy and environmental problems, which undermine the policy case forhaving the government intervene in the marketplace to support them.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: CLIMATE CHANGE

1. GASOLINE SUBSTITUTES WOULD ONLY HAVE A MODEST IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GASEMISSIONS

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.399-400.On the second point, in September 2003 the United States Department of Transportation Center for ClimateChange and Environmental Forecasting released its analysis, Fuel Option for Reducing Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles. The report assesses the potential for gasoline substitutes to reduce GHGemissions over the next twenty-five years. It concludes that "the reduction in GHG emissions from most gasolinesubstitutes would be modest" and that "promoting alternative fuels would be a costly strategy for reducingemissions." Besides the question of whether AFVs deliver cost-effective emissions reductions, there havehistorically been several other barriers to AFV success, including: the high first cost for vehicle; on-board fuelstorage issues (i.e. limited range); safety and liability concerns (not addressed in this Article); high fueling cost(compared to gasoline); limited fuel stations; chicken and egg problem regarding fueling infrastructure;improvements in the competition (better, cleaner gasoline vehicles).

2. IPCC CONCEDES THAT ANY ACTION WILL STILL LEAVE US WARMING FOR DECADES --MOMENTUM

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), staff, STRATEGIC SURVEY v. 107 n. 1, September 2007,pp.33-84The IPCC's Summary for Policymakers on the scientific basis for climate change, released in February 2007,concluded that global surface temperature increased by 0.57-0.96 degrees C from the second half of thenineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first, with the rate accelerating to 0.10-0.16 degrees C perdecade over the last 50 years. Eleven of the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest years since 1850.According to the IPCC report, warming will inevitably continue and raised temperatures will persist forcenturies, even with the best possible efforts at mitigation, since there is a lag between emissions and warmingand since important greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.

3. WARMING IS INEVITABLE, EVEN IF WE CUT EMISSIONS

Bill McKibben, Scholar in Residence, Middlebury College, "Warning on Warming," NEW YORK REVIEW OFBOOKS, 3-15-07, www.tomdispatch.com/post/167460/mckibben_the_real_news_about_global_warming,accessed 4-25-08.The IPCC has always avoided taking political positions -- it doesn't recommend specific policies -- and itcontinues this tradition with its new report. In its discussions of the momentum of climate change, however, itdoes introduce one particularly disturbing statistic. Because of the time lag between carbon emissions and theireffect on air temperature, even if we halted the increase in coal, oil, and gas burning right now, temperatureswould continue to rise about two tenths of a degree Celsius per decade. But, the report writes, "if all radiativeforcing agents [i.e., greenhouse gases] are held constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming trend wouldoccur in the next two decades at a rate of about 0.1 degree C per decade." Translated into English, this means, toput it simply, that if world leaders had heeded the early warnings of the first IPCC report, and by 2000 had donethe very hard work to keep greenhouse gas emissions from growing any higher, the expected temperatureincrease would be half as much as is expected now. In the words of the experts at realclimate.org, where themost useful analyses of the new assessment can be found, climate change is a problem with a very high"procrastination penalty": a penalty that just grows and grows with each passing year of inaction.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS

1. SYNTHETIC FUEL MANUFACTURING WILL DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT

James Ridgeway, journalist, "From I.G. Farben to Barack Obama: The Long Con on Synthetic Fuels,"COUNTERPUNCH, 5-30-07, http://www.counterpunch.org/ridgeway05302007.html, accessed 4-11-08.Global warming is well on its way to being a godsend for the coal industry. Lobbyists are busily trying to turndirty coal into a pleasing green alternative promoted by such Democratic luminaries as Presidential hopefulBarack Obama and former House Speaker turned lobbyist Dick Gephardt. In the background, always ready tohelp, is veteran infighter former Senate Majority leader West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. Members ofCongress are falling all over themselves writing legislation that would pump millions of taxpayer dollars intoschemes that promise to turn coal into synthetic gas, develop oil shale, and the most popular at the moment,plans to transform coal into a liquid oil. If any of this were to happen, huge hunks of the fragile western plainswould be transformed into modern mining camps, wrecking fragile ecosystems, exhausting and polluting watersupplies. Manufacture of synthetic fuels would subject workers, and the general nearby populations to cancercausing chemicals.

2. CLEAN COAL FUNDING WILL DERAIL RENEWABLES AND GREEN CHEMISTRY INDUSTRIES

Peter Montague, journalist, "The Coming of Liquified Coal," COUNTERPUNCH, 3-21-08,http://www.counterpunch.org/montague03212008.html, accessed 4-11-08.As the price of oil rises, coal company executives smell a huge opportunity: they are planning to ramp up a newglobal industry to turn coal into liquid fuels (diesel, kerosene and jet fuel), plus basic feedstocks for the chemicalindustry to make plastics, fertilizers, solvents, pesticides, and more). The coal-to-chemicals industry is alreadygoing gangbusters in China. U.S. coal companies like Peabody and Arch plan to combine well-knowncoal-to-liquids technology and rapidly-evolving coal-to-chemicals technologies with untested methods ofcapturing carbon dioxide (or CO2, the main global-warming gas), compressing it into a liquid, and injecting it amile below ground, hoping it will stay there forever. (Burying CO2 is called "carbon capture and storage" orCCS.) If coal executives succeed in convincing the public to pay for all this, low- carbon renewable energysystems and waste-free "green chemistry" will be sidelined for decades to come.

3. LIQUID COAL IS UNECONOMICAL, INCREASES GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS

Sierra Club, staff, "Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global Warming," Fact Sheet, 2007,http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/downloads/2007-04liquidcoalfactsheet.pdf, accessed 12-3-08.Liquid coal, or coal that has been converted to liquid fuel, is being promoted as a cure-all to our nation's energyproblems by Big Coal and its allies. However, these polluting giants fail to tell the real story. The truth is thatliquid coal is plagued with economic and environmental downsides from the time the coal is mined until longafter the liquid is burned. Beyond the conventional pollution long associated with coal, liquid coal also releasesalmost double the global warming emissions per gallon as regular gasoline. In addition to being a globalwarming snafu, the powers behind liquid coal want the government to funnel billions in subsidies and tax breaksto artificially create an entirely new industry. At a time when we need to be reducing our carbon emissions,liquid coal represents perhaps the dirtiest, most expensive, and most dangerous energy gamble we could take.Fortunately, however, there are real solutions like efficiency and renewables that can lead us to a cleaner,healthier energy future.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: COAL-TO-LIQUIDS cont'd

4. LIQUID COAL WILL CAUSE AN ARRAY OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS

Sierra Club, staff, "Liquid Coal: A Bad Deal for Global Warming," Fact Sheet, 2007,http://www.sierraclub.org/coal/downloads/2007-04liquidcoalfactsheet.pdf, accessed 12-3-08.In addition to the serious implications of liquid coal for global warming, liquid coal would cause a range of otherenvironmental problems. More than 4 gallons of water are needed for every gallon of transportation fuelproduced, threatening our limited water supplies. The potential for water shortages is even greater in the Westwhere water is scarcer, and where unfortunately there has been a growing interest in building coal-to-liquidplants. Beyond water problems, liquid coal requires vast inputs of coal that would limit the amount of fuel thatcould be produced. If we were to replace only 10 percent of our nation's transportation fuels with liquid coal wewould have to increase coal mining by over 40 percent. Coal mining in our country already relies on destructivetechniques, like mountaintop removal mining. Destructive mining practices put communities at risk bycontaminating drinking water supplies, destroying streams, and permanently reshaping and damaging theecosystem and landscape. And, despite industry claims to the contrary, reclamation of coal mines and clean up ofcoal wastes only lead to other environmental problems.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS

1. SHIFT TO CNG WILL INCREASE NATURAL GAS PRICES, DELAY TRANSITION TO BETTERALTERNATIVES

Chris Stefan, "Fueling the Fuutre: A Policy-Based Comparison of Alternative Automotive Fuel Choices,"SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY v. 7, Spring 2007, p.23-24.Compressed natural gas is a fossil fuel, and because it is a finite resource, it is subject to price fluctuations andeventual depletion. If used as automobile fuel, it will likely increase natural gas utility prices and furthercomplicate the larger energy and climate picture. In addition, increasing the value of natural gas would lead to anincrease in expeditions to find potential sources of natural gas, which is often found in areas rich in crude oil.Discoveries of sources of crude oil usually leads to lower prices for products derived from it, such as gasoline,diesel, and jet fuel. These discoveries and the subsequent price decrease of gasoline would slow the transitionand stagger investment in alternative fuels. Given these drawbacks, the costs of creating a compressed naturalgas infrastructure appear unjustified. Additionally, while fossil fuels represent the cheapest source of automotivefuel at the current time, policy-makers must remember that fossil fuels are exhaustible resources, and thateventual depletion is possible.

2. DOMESTIC GAS SHORTAGES WILL CAUSE A SHIFT TO LNG IMPORTS, WHICH ARE VULNERABLETO ACCIDENTS AND TERRORISM

Michael T. Klare, Professor, Peace and World Security Studies, Hampshire College, "The Permanent EnergyCrisis," TOMDISPATCH.COM, 2-10-06, www.commondreams.org/views06/0210-20.htm, accessed 5-2-08.A chronic shortage of oil would be hard enough for the world community to cope with even if other sources ofenergy were in great supply. But this is not the case. Natural gas -- the world's second leading source of energy --is also at risk of future shortages. While there are still major deposits of gas in Russia and Iran (potentially theworld's number one and two suppliers) waiting to be tapped, obstacles to their exploitation loom large. TheUnited States is doing everything it can to prevent Iran from exporting its gas (for example, by strong-armingIndia into abandoning a proposed gas pipeline from Iran), while Moscow has actively discouraged Europe fromincreasing its reliance on Russian gas through its recent cutoff of supplies to Ukraine and other worrisomeactions. In North America, the supply of natural gas is rapidly disappearing. In a reflection of our desperate (anddemented) condition, Canada is now starting to divert some of its remaining natural gas to the manufacture ofsynthetic oil from tar sands, so as to ease the pressure on supplies of conventional petroleum. Given theprohibitive cost of building gas pipelines from Asia and Africa, the only practical way to get more gas suppliesto North America would be to spend several hundred billion dollars (or more) on facilities for converting foreignsources of gas into liquified natural gas (LNG), shipping the LNG in giant doubled-hulled vessels across theAtlantic and Pacific, and then converting it back into a gas in "regasification" plants in American harbors.Although favored by the Bush administration, plans to construct such plants have provoked opposition in manycoastal communities because of the risk of accidental explosion as well as the potential for inviting terroristattacks.

3. DOMESTIC GAS PRODUCTION IS DECLINING, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO MEET DEMAND

National Coal Council, COAL: AMERICAN'S ENERGY FUTURE v. 1, March 2006, p.34.Natural gas is an important source of energy in the United States, consistently meeting more than one-fifth of thenation's energy demand -- from 23% in 1985 to 24% in 2000 to a projected 21% in 2025. For many years, thestrength of NG was that 90% of U.S. needs could be met through domestic production and the remainder wasreadily available from secure fields in Canada. Steady, stable production led to a consistent price. But domesticNG resources are rapidly becoming insufficient to meet the energy needs of the American people and the U.S.economy. International NG supply is equally problematic, even assuming that unproven reserves do exist insufficient size to meet growing international demand.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: ETHANOL

1. CELLULOSIC ETHANOL WILL NEVER HAPPEN -- ISN'T COST-COMPETITIVE WITH CORN OR EVENLIQUID COAL

Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute, "13 Lies About Ethanol," Comments before "Biofuels: The Good, theBad and the Ugly," Heartland Institute's Energy Summit, 3-17-07, www.heartland.org/pdf/21230.pdf, accessed7-21-08.Claim #9 -- Switchgrass (aka, "cellulosic ethanol") will set us free. Guy Caruso, the head of the EIA, noted in aspeech last November that the capital costs associated with cellulosic ethanol production were 5 times greaterthan those associated with conventional corn ethanol production. Since the USDA estimates that the capital costsassociated with corn ethanol production work out to about $1.50 per gallon, that suggests that cellulosic ethanolwould cost about $7.50 per gallon before we even consider the price of the feedstock. Estimates like that are abit soft, however, because there is no cellulosic ethanol industry in existence at present, so data is hard to comeby. While the costs associated with cellulosic ethanol might well come down over time, it is far lesseconomically competitive than any number of gasoline alternatives such as synthetic fuel from coal. Predictionsabout the "fuels of the future" have been uniformally wrong over time and there's little reason to pick "cellulosicethanol" rather than any number of gasoline alternatives as our best.

2. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH CORN, WILL ONLY DRIVE UP FOOD PRICES

William P. Hoar, "Ethanol's Concealed Costs," THE NEW AMERICAN, 3-19-07, pp.42-43.Rhetoric may be cheap, but government mandates and subsidies are not. Moreover, notes Peter Grossman in theIndianapolis Star, "corn-derived ethanol simply cannot provide a significant substitute for oil.Last year we used14 percent of our corn crop to produce about 3 percent of all transportation fuel. To get to President Bush's goalby 2017 with corn ethanol, we'd need to use more than 100 percent of our current corn crop just for fuel." Aneconomic professor at Butler University, Grossman notes that the expansion of ethanol production will"not onlysock taxpayers with a gigantic bill, it will also push up the price of food. Corn is, after all, used everywhere. It'sin animal feed, syrup, cooking oil and so on." Increases in the prices of chicken and pork, for example, aretypical examples -- part of the hidden cost of government meddling. The law of unintended consequences keepsbeing replayed: when the government pushed more alternative fuels and additives on Detroit, it drove up theprice of tortillas in Mexico. Indeed, with corn prices rising about 70 percent in the last six months, corn tortillaprices also have been jumping dramatically.

3. CANNOT RELY ON ETHANOL OR BIO-DIESEL -- TRADES OFF WITH FOOD PRODUCTION

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.269-270.In the interim, the two alternative renewable fuels that have generated the most attention are ethanol, analternative to gasoline, and biodiesel, an alternative to petroleum diesel, which is compatible with diesel engines.Because the United States' fuel economy is primarily powered by gasoline engines, ethanol, which is primarilymade from corn, has been the most popular renewable fuel source. As previously discussed, biodiesel is arenewable fuel source, which is derived from vegetable oil that has been thinned through the transestrificationprocess. Despite the potential of ethanol and biodiesel as renewable fuels, in order for either to replace theUnited States' current petroleum consumption, the agricultural sector would need to dedicate a disproportionateamount of farmland to growing "feedstock." Committing such a significant portion of the nation's farmland toenergy crops would severely impair the nation's ability to produce food. Accordingly, biodiesel and ethanol havenot been widely considered as replacements, but rather as additives to existing petroleum-based fuels.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: ETHANOL cont'd

4. ETHANOL SUBSTANTIALLY CUTS GAS MILEAGE -- MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE THANGASOLINE

William P. Hoar, "Ethanol's Concealed Costs," THE NEW AMERICAN, 3-19-07, pp.42-43.The efficacy of ethanol as a fuel has also been called into question. An article in Consumer Reports last fall,entitled "The Ethanol Myth," reported that making a switch from cars that use 10 percent ethanol blended withgasoline to heralded vehicles that can run on E85, which has 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, may cutgas mileage by 27 percent. On a gasoline-equivalent basis, this fuel would cost about $4 a gallon. As difficultieswith corn-based ethanol crop up, the government is responding to the problems it created. Livestock producershave gotten the ear of the government, because their feed costs have skyrocketed, so the Department ofAgriculture is now encouraging, with our money, the production of cellulosic ethanol from biomass, usingproducts such as switch grass to make the ethanol. Consumer Reports has pegged the gasoline-equivalent pricefor such fuel at more than $6 a gallon.

5. THERE SIMPLY IS NOT ENOUGH BIOMASS TO COME EVEN CLOSE TO REPLACING PETROLEUM

Alice Friedemann, systems architect/engineer, "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels are NotSustainable and a Threat to America's National Security -- Part II," ENERGY PULSE 5-8-07,www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1479, accessed 7-31-08.The government believes there is a billion tons of biomass "waste" to make cellulosic biofuels, chemicals, andgenerate electricity with. The United States lost 52 million acres of cropland between 1982 and 2002 (NCRS2004). At that rate, all of the cropland will be gone in 140 years. There isn't enough biomass to replace 30% ofour petroleum use. The potential biomass energy is miniscule compared to the fossil fuel energy we consumeevery year, about 105 exa joules (EJ) in the USA. If you burned every living plant and its roots, you'd have 94 EJof energy and we could all pretend we lived on Mars. Most of this 94 EJ of biomass is already being used forfood and feed crops, and wood for paper and homes. Sparse vegetation and the 30 EJ in root systems areeconomically unavailable -- leaving only a small amount of biomass unspoken for (Patzek June 2006).

6. CELLULOSE DOESN'T SOLVE -- TECH IS NOWHERE NEAR READY, REMOVING CROP RESIDUESDESTROYS THE ENVIRONMENT

Frances B. Smith, Adjunct Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute, "Corn-Based Ethanol: A Case Study in theLaw of Unintended Consequences," CEI ISSUE ANALYSIS n. 5, 6-07, www.heartland.org/pdf/CEI1.pdf,accessed 7-21-08.Many biofuel proponents point to the "next generation" of fuels that will be manufactured from cellulosicbiomass and other crop residues, from fast-growing grasses such as switchgrass, and from forestry wastes. Yetthere are no manufacturing plants capable of producing cellulosic ethanol in other than demonstration quantities,and prominent agriculturists have demurred from endorsing this approach by noting some of the negativeecological effects. Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba has noted: The [biofuels] prospect does not changeradically by using crop residues to produce cellulosic ethanol: Only a part of these residues could be removedfrom fields in order to maintain key ecosystemic services of recycling organic matter and nitrogen, retainingmoisture and preventing soil erosion. Some advances are being made with the use of bioengineered enzymes thatwould break down the cellulose more rapidly. However, those are still in the laboratory.



7. CELLULOSE WILL CAUSE WARMING -- SOIL RELEASES, DEFORESTATION

Alice Friedemann, systems architect/engineer, "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels are NotSustainable and a Threat to America's National Security -- Part I," ENERGY PULSE 5-7-07,www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1478, accessed 7-31-08.Soils contain twice the amount of carbon found in the atmosphere, and three times more carbon than is stored inall the Earth's vegetation (Jones 2006). Climate change could increase soil loss by 33% to 274%, depending onthe region (O'Neal 2005). Intensive agriculture has already removed 20 to 50% of the original soil carbon, andsome areas have lost 70%. To maintain soil C levels, no crop residues at all could be harvested under manytillage systems or on highly erodible lands, and none to a small percent on no-till, depending on crop productionlevels (Johnson 2006). Deforestation of temperate hardwood forests, and conversion of range and wetlands togrow energy and food crops increases global warming. An average of 2.6 million acres of cropland were pavedover or developed every year between 1982 and 2002 in the USA (NCRS 2004). The only new cropland isforest, range, or wetland. Rainforest destruction is increasing global warming. Energy farming is playing a hugerole in deforestation, reducing biodiversity, water and water quality, and increasing soil erosion. Fires to clearland for palm oil plantations are destroying one of the last great remaining rainforests in Borneo, spewing somuch carbon that Indonesia is third behind the United States and China in releasing greenhouse gases.Orangutans, rhinos, tigers and thousands of other species may be driven extinct (Monbiot 2005). Borneo palmoil plantation lands have grown 2,500% since 1984 (Barta 2006). Soybeans cause even more erosion than cornand suffer from all the same sustainability issues. The Amazon is being destroyed by farmers growing soybeansfor food (National Geographic Jan 2007) and fuel (Olmstead 2006). Biofuel from coal-burning biomass factoriesincreases global warming (Farrell 2006). Driving a mile on ethanol from a coal-using biorefinery releases moreCO2 than a mile on gasoline (Ward 2007). Coal in ethanol production is seen as a way to displace petroleum(Farrell 2006, Yacobucci 2006) and it's already happening (Clayton 2006). Current and future quantities ofbiofuels are too minuscule to affect global warming (ScienceDaily 2007).

8. CELLULOSE SHIFT WOULD HAPPEN ONLY AFTER WE DEFORESTED THE ENTIRE PLANET

Alice Friedemann, systems architect/engineer, "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels are NotSustainable and a Threat to America's National Security -- Part II," ENERGY PULSE 5-8-07,www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1479, accessed 7-31-08.Many plants want animals to eat their seed and fruit to disperse them. Some seeds only germinate after goingthrough an animal gut and coming out in ready-made fertilizer. Seeds and fruits are easy to digest compared tothe rest of the plant, that's why all of the commercial ethanol and biodiesel are made from the yummy parts ofplants, the grain, rather than the stalks, leaves, and roots. But plants don't want to be entirely devoured. They'vespent hundreds of millions of years perfecting structures that can't easily be eaten. Be thankful plants figured thisout, or everything would be mown down to bedrock. If we ever did figure out how to break down cellulose inour back yard stills, it wouldn't be long before the 6.5 billion people on the planet destroyed the grasslands andforests of the world to power generators and motorbikes (Huber 2006)

9. EVEN CELLULOSE IS HIGHLY NET-NEGATIVE ON ENERGY OUTPUT

David and Marcia Pimental, Cornell University, "Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol Cause Major Problems,"ENERGIES v. 1, 2008, pp.35-37.Cellulosic ethanol is being touted as the replacement for corn ethanol. Unfortunately, cellulose biomass containsonly minimal amounts of starches and sugars and therefore requires major fossil energy inputs to release thesetightly bound starches and sugars. With existing technology, about 170% more energy (oil and gas) is required toproduce ethanol from cellulosic biomass than is in the ethanol produced. The production of corn ethanol ishighly subsidized by U.S. government by more than $6 billion per year according to a 2006 report, "Biofuels --at What Cost? Government Support for Ethanol and Biodiesel in the United States," released by the InternationalInstitute for Sustainable Development in Geneva. These subsidies for a gallon of ethanol are more than 60 timesgreater those for a gallon of gasoline.



10. CELLULOSE WILL DESTROY SOIL FERTILITY, THREATENING OUR SURVIVAL

Alice Friedemann, systems architect/engineer, "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels are NotSustainable and a Threat to America's National Security -- Part I," ENERGY PULSE 5-7-07,www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1478, accessed 7-31-08.Fertile soil will be destroyed if crops and other "wastes" are removed to make cellulosic ethanol. "We stand, inmost places on earth, only six inches from desolation, for that is the thickness of the topsoil layer upon which theentire life of the planet depends" (Sampson 1981). Loss of topsoil has been a major factor in the fall ofcivilizations (Sundquist 2005 Chapter 3, Lowdermilk 1953, Perlin 1991, Ponting 1993). You end up with acountry like Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, where 75% of the farmland is a salty desert. Fuels from biomass arenot sustainable, are ecologically destructive, have a net energy loss, and there isn't enough biomass in Americato make significant amounts of energy because essential inputs like water, land, fossil fuels, and phosphate oresare limited. Soil Science 101 -- There Is No "Waste" Biomass Long before there was "Peak Oil", there was"Peak Soil". Iowa has some of the best topsoil in the world. In the past century, half of it's been lost, from anaverage of 18 to 10 inches deep (Pate 2004, Klee 1991). Productivity drops off sharply when topsoil reaches 6inches or less, the average crop root zone depth (Sundquist 2005).

11. BURNING BIOMASS RELEASES TOXIC CHEMICALS INTO THE AIR, INCREASES WARMING

Alice Friedemann, systems architect/engineer, "Peak Soil: Why Cellulosic Ethanol and Other Biofuels are NotSustainable and a Threat to America's National Security -- Part II," ENERGY PULSE 5-8-07,www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1479, accessed 7-31-08.Wood is a crop, subject to the same issues as corn, and takes a lot longer to grow. Burning wood in your stove athome delivers far more energy than the logs would if converted to biofuels (Pimentel 2005). Wood was scarce inAmerica when there were just 75 million people. Electricity from biomass combustion is not economic orsustainable. Combustion pollution is expensive to control. Some biomass has absorbed heavy metals and otherpollutants from sources like coal power plants, industry, and treated wood. Combustion can release chlorinateddioxins, benzofurans, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, lead, nickel, and zinc.Combustion contributes to global warming by adding nitrogen oxides and the carbon stored in plants back intothe atmosphere, as well as removes agriculturally essential nitrogen and phosphate (Reijnders 2006)


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: HYDROGEN

1. HYDROGEN IS NOT VIABLE -- TECH ISN'T READY, TOO EXPENSIVE, USES FOSSIL FUELS

Zachary W. Silverman, "Hybrid Vehicles: A Practical and Effective Short-Term Solution to PetroleumDependence," GEORGETOWN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REVIEW v. 19, Spring 2007,p.549.Fuel cell vehicles, which run on zero-emission hydrogen, may offer the greatest hope for the future, but they aresimply not ready to make a contribution in the present. The Office of Technology Policy, in the TechnologyAdministration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, writes that fuel cell technology is still in its relativeinfancy, noting that "[i]t is highly unlikely that fuel cell vehicles will be truly affordable, durable, and availableto average consumers until the 2010-2020 time frame." Munoz, citing other problems, says "there is currently noinfrastructure for producing, storing, or distributing hydrogen. Extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels is expensiveand poses a significant obstacle to fuel cell use." Indeed, only one country -- Iceland -- even has plans to movetoward a hydrogen-based economy. There is little doubt that fuel cells have the potential to one dayrevolutionize how we drive, but until then, an intermediate, readily available solution is necessary.

2. HYDROGEN FAILS -- FUEL CELLS ARE SIMPLY TOO EXPENSIVE

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.403-404.A number of major studies and articles have recently come out on the technological challenges facing hydrogentransportation fuel cells currently cost about $ 5,000/kw, some 100 times greater than the cost of internalcombustion engines. A 2004 article for the Society of Automotive Engineers noted, "even with the mostoptimistic assumptions, the fuel cell powered vehicle offers only a marginal efficiency improvement over theadvanced [diesel]-hybrid and with no anticipation yet of future developments of Internal Combustion engines("ICE"). At $ 100/kW, the fuel cell does not offer a short term advantage even in a European market."Furthermore, another study concluded that "a new material must be discovered" to solve the storage problem.Another analysis found, "fuel-cell cars, in contrast [to hybrids], are expected on about the same schedule asNASA's manned trip to Mars and have about the same level of likelihood."

3. HYDROGEN MAY NEVER BE VIABLE -- TECH IS NOT READY, ITS PRODUCTION REQUIRESFOSSIL FUELS

Robert Scott Norman, attorney, "Powered by Grease: The Case for Straight Vegetable Oil in the New FuelEconomy," CALIFORNIA WESTERN LAW REVIEW v. 44, Fall 2007, p.268-269.In response to the unpredictability of the United States' long-term oil supply, there have been a number oflegislative and regulatory initiatives promoting the research and development of renewable fuel sources.Foremost among these renewable fuels is hydrogen. President George W. Bush has called on the nation to makethe gradual transition to hydrogen fuel. To facilitate this transition, during the 2003 State of the Union Address,President Bush announced a $ 1.2 billion initiative to develop a hydrogen infrastructure aimed at the productionand distribution of hydrogen fuel cells. Unfortunately, while hydrogen has the potential to be a limitless sourceof energy because it is the most abundant element on the planet, whether it will ever be commercially viable as areplacement to petroleum fuel is questionable. Despite spending almost $ 720 million on the first phase of thePresident's hydrogen initiative, the hydrogen infrastructure remains far away. In addition to production beingprohibitively costly and energy intensive, current production methods require fossil fuels that still need to beimported, thus reducing some of the benefit of hydrogen fuel technology. Consequently, the United States hashad to take intermediate steps to reduce the consumption of petroleum oil.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: HYDROGEN cont'd

4. HYDROGEN CARS ARE TOO EXPENSIVE -- WILL LIKELY SWITCH TO GASOLINE-ELECTRICHYBRIDS

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.393-394.Governor Schwarzenegger's greenhouse target is, however, directly at odds with another of the governor's plans,the hydrogen highway. Hydrogen cars are an exceedingly costly greenhouse gas strategy and an inefficient wayto utilize renewable or zero-carbon primary energy resources, which will be critical to achieving California'sambitious greenhouse gas target. In the near-term, the most cost-effective strategy for reducing emissions andfuel use is efficiency. The car of the near future is the hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle, because it "can reducegasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions zero percent to fifty percent with no change in vehicle classand hence no loss of jobs or compromise on safety or performance." It will likely become the dominant vehicleplatform by the year 2020.

5. HYDROGEN SHOULD NOT BE THE FUEL CHOICE -- IS TOO DIFFICULT

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.394.Ultimately, we will need to replace gasoline with a zero-carbon fuel. All alternative fuel vehicle ("AFV")pathways require technology advances and strong government action to succeed. Hydrogen is the mostchallenging of all alternative fuels, particularly because of the enormous effort needed to change our existinggasoline infrastructure. We are many decades away from a time when hydrogen cars could be a cost-effectivegreenhouse gas mitigation strategy. Devoting significant public resources to developing a hydrogen highway isthus premature.


ALTERNATIVE FUEL TECHNOLOGIES FAIL: HYDROGEN cont'd

6. HYDROGEN IS NOT THE BEST ALTERATIVE FUEL, WILL NOT BE TRULY READY FOR THREEDECADES AT BEST

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.402-403.Hydrogen cars face enormous challenges in overcoming each of the major historical barriers to AFV success.The central challenge for any AFV seeking government support beyond R&D is that the deployment of theAFVs and the infrastructure to support them must cost effectively address some energy or environmentalproblems facing the nation. Yet two hydrogen advocates, Dan Sperling and Joan Ogden of University ofCalifornia at Davis, concede, "hydrogen is neither the easiest nor the cheapest way to gain large near-andmedium-term air pollution, greenhouse gas, or oil reduction benefits." A 2004 analysis by Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory concluded that even "in the advanced technology case with a carbon constraint hydrogendoesn't penetrate the transportation sector in a major way until after 2035." (emphasis in original) "A push toconstrain carbon dioxide emissions actually delays the introduction of hydrogen cars because sources ofzero-carbon hydrogen, such as renewable power, can achieve emissions reductions far more cost-effectively bysimply replacing planned or existing coal plants. Our efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the vehicle sector mustnot come at the expense of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the electric utility sector." The 2004 reportnoted: In fact, Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context, aJanuary 2004 study by the European Commission Center for Joint Research, the European Council forAutomotive R&D, and an association of European oil companies, concluded that using hydrogen as a transportfuel might well increase Europe's greenhouse gas emissions rather than reduce them. That is because manypathways for making hydrogen, such as grid electrolysis, can be quite carbon-intensive and because hydrogenfuel cells are so expensive that hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles may be deployed instead (which isalready happening in California). Using fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen from zero-carbon sources such asrenewable power or nuclear energy has a cost of avoided carbon dioxide of more than $700 a metric ton, whichis more than a factor of ten higher than most other strategies being considered today.

7. HYDROGEN IS NOT READY -- TECH BARRIERS

Dr. Joseph Romm, former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and RenewableEnergy, "California's Renewable Energy Sector: California's Hydrogen Highway Reconsidered," GOLDENGATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 36, Spring 2006, p.402.The transition to a transportation system based on a hydrogen economy will be much slower and more difficultthan widely realized. In particular, it is unlikely that hydrogen vehicles will achieve significant (>5%) marketpenetration by 2030. A variety of major technology breakthroughs and government incentives will be requiredfor hydrogen vehicles to achieve significant commercial success by the middle of this century. "Continuedresearch and development ("R&D") in hydrogen and transportation fuel cell technologies remains importantbecause of their potential to provide a zero-carbon transportation fuel in the second half of the century. Butneither government policy nor business investment should be based on the assumption that these technologieswill have a significant impact in the near-or medium-term." Bill Reinert, United States manager of Toyota'sadvanced technologies group, said in January 2005, absent multiple technology breakthroughs, there will not behigh-volume sales of fuel cell vehicles until 2030 or later. When Reinert was asked when fuel cells cars wouldreplace gasoline-powered cars, he replied "If I told you "never,' would you be upset?"


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "CLIMATE CHANGE"

1. CO2 CONCENTRATIONS DO NOT CORRELATE WITH WARMING -- 1940-1975 COOLING, LACK OFGLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASES SINCE 2001 DESPITE CO2 INCREASES

S. Fred Singer et al., Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University, NATURE, NOT HUMANACTIVITY RULES THE CLIMATE, Heartland Institute, Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008,http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, accessed 4-27-08.Greenland Ice-Core Bore Hole Record ! The correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels is weakand inconclusive. The IPCC cites correlation of global mean temperature with increases in atmosphericconcentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the twentieth century to support its conclusion. The argument soundsplausible; after all, CO2 is a GH gas and its levels are increasing. However, the correlation is poor and, in anycase, would not prove causation. Prehistoric Temperatures from Proxy Data The climate cooled from 1940-1975while CO2 was rising rapidly (Figures 4a,b). Moreover, there has been no warming trend apparent, especially inglobal data from satellites, since about 2001, despite a continuing rapid rise in CO2 emissions. The UK MetOffice issued a 10-year forecast in August 2007 in which they predict further warming is unlikely before 2009.However, they suggest at least half the years between 2009 and 2014 will be warmer than the present record setin 1998 [Met Office 2007]. ! Computer models don't provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming.

2. HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, MAY COOL SLIGHTLY IN THE NEXT DECADE

Shikha Dalmia, Senior Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation, "Reason Roundtable: Climate Change and PropertyRights," REASON ONLINE, 6-12-08, www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20080612.shtml, accessed6-14-08.One would have to assume bad faith or naivety on the part of too many scientists to maintain that globalwarming is just junk science at this stage. That said, there are plenty of scientific uncertainties surrounding theissue including, of course, whether the warming will indeed be catastrophic. The earth has warmed about 1.33degrees Fahrenheit in the last century. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the premieragency studying the issue, has projected an additional warming between 2 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit over thenext 25 years. But temperatures have remained essentially static over the last 10 years - and at least one crediblestudy recently predicted a slight cooling over the next 10 years. Thus there is every reason for skeptics tocontinue to raise questions about the science of global warming.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "CLIMATE CHANGE" cont'd

3. CLIMATE IS DRIVEN BY A NUMBER OF OTHER FACTORS, INCLUDING SOLAR INTENSITY ANDCLOUD REFLECTIVITY

The Marshall Institute, staff, CLIMATE ISSUES & QUESTIONS, February 2008,www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/577.pdf, accessed 4-25-08.If temperature changes cannot be correlated with the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and othergreenhouse gases, what is causing them? The climate system is a complex set of interactions between solarenergy, clouds, particulates, water vapor and other greenhouse gases, and the absorption and reflection of solarradiation at the Earth's surface. The general nature of these interactions is understood by climate scientists, buttheir details are highly uncertain. Climate is the result of a complex set of interactions between natural, and morerecently, human drivers. The most important natural driver is the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth,which is determined by changes in the Sun itself and by shifts in the Earth's orbit and tilt. Satellite measurementsindicate that the intensity of solar radiation reaching the Earth changes over the 11-year sunspot cycle.Astronomers have also determined that the Earth's orbit and tilt change in cycles that last up to 100,000 years.These cycles appear to be the cause of ice ages and interglacial periods, but are not of concern when discussingclimate on short time-scales. Solar energy reaches the Earth as short-wave energy. Not all of it penetrates theatmosphere to the surface. Atmospheric gases are essentially transparent to short-wave energy, but aboutone-third of solar energy is reflected by clouds and particulate material in the atmosphere. However, not allclouds and particulates reflect solar radiation; some absorb it. The two-thirds of solar energy that reaches thesurface can either be absorbed by the surface or reflected. Bright surfaces, such as ice or snow, reflect a largeportion of the energy that hits them; dark surfaces, such as bare soil, absorb most of the energy that hits them.

4. HIGH-QUALITY SATELLITE DATA DISPROVES CLAIMS OF RECENT WARMING

R.M. Carter, PhD AND Research Professor, James Cook University., "The Myth of Dangerous Human-CausedClimate Change," Science & Public Policy Institute, July 2007,http://coalcandothat.com/pdf/1%20MythClimateChange.pdf, accessed 4-24-08.The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first isthat over the last 100 years global average temperature increased by about 0.740 C, which indeed it did if youaccept (against the odds) that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate (cf. Fig. 6). Morereliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since theintense cold periods of the Little Ice Age in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries (e.g. Lamb, 1977). The part of thistemperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the much famed "global warming", alleged to havebeen caused by the accumulation of human-sourced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the high qualityMSU satellite data discussed earlier signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming byrecording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006 (Fig. 9), but also provide an empirical test of the greenhousehypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.

5. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS -- MANY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE WITH DOCTORED IPCCCONCLUSIONS

The Marshall Institute, staff, CLIMATE ISSUES & QUESTIONS, February 2008,www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/577.pdf, accessed 4-25-08.The debate over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past and future climate has been going onfor twenty years. It is not close to resolution, in spite of assertions to the contrary. What is often referred to as a"consensus" is anything but. In many cases, this consensus represents the "expert judgment" of a handful ofIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, which other researchers can and do disagree with.For many, especially those engaged in advocacy, the claim of consensus is a device used to advance theiragenda.



6. CONSENSUS MAY EXIST OVER THE EXISTENCE OF WARMING, BUT NOT ITS CAUSE OR EXTENT

Joseph L. Bast and James M. Taylor, Heartland Institute, SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON GLOBALWARMING: RESULTS OF AN INTERNATIONAL SURVEY OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, 2007,http://www.heartland.org/pdf/2086111.pdf, accessed 3/19/08.The 2003 survey results show climate scientists at laboratories, universities, and offices around the world nearlyall agree that global warming is already underway and the media influences the public's perception of climatechange. However, there was no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliablepredictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial.Assertions that "the debate is over" are certainly not supported by the survey results.

7. NATURE, NOT HUMANS, IS THE MOST LIKELY CAUSE OF ANY WARMING

S. Fred Singer et al., Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University, NATURE, NOT HUMANACTIVITY RULES THE CLIMATE, Heartland Institute, Science and Environmental Policy Project, 2008,http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf, accessed 4-27-08.On the most important issue, the IPCC's claim that "most of the observed increase in global average temperaturessince the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gasconcentrations," (emphasis in the original), NIPCC reaches the opposite conclusion -- namely, that naturalcauses are very likely to be the dominant cause. Note: We do not say anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) gasescannot produce some warming. Our conclusion is that the evidence shows they are not playing a significant role.Below, we first sketch out the history of the two organizations and then list the conclusions and responses thatform the body of the NIPCC report.

8. HUMANS AND ECOSYSTEMS ARE HIGHLY RESILIENT IN FACE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGES --LITTLE RISK OF WARMING-INDUCED CATASTROPHE

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, HeritageFoundation, "Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming," WEBMEMO n. 1403, 3-21-07,www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1403.cfm, accessed 3-25-08.Q: Is global warming catastrophic? Far from it. Given that the current upward trend in temperatures is notunprecedented, it stands to reason that minor warming will not lead to unprecedented catastrophes, and scientificevidence confirms this. According to recent research, the planet and its inhabitants are much more resilient totemperature variability than had been previously assumed, and the warming over the last few decades has notbeen particularly harmful to humans or the environment. Virtually all of the alarming rhetoric surrounding globalwarming is speculative and lies outside the scientific consensus. In fact, several respected economists believethat any likely future warming would have benefits (such as increased crop yields) that outweigh the modestadverse impacts in the U.S.



9. DIRE PREDICTIONS ARE BASED ON MODELS, WHICH ARE THEMSELVES UNRELIABLE

John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science & Nobel Prize Winner, University of Alabama in Huntsville,Testimony before Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, 11-14-07,http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/ChristyJR_CST_071114_written.pdf, accessed 5-8-08.The foundation of a climate science program must be a commitment to continuous and accurate observations.We must know WHAT the climate is doing before we can understand WHY it does what it does. However, wenow face the loss of satellite and other observations critical to understanding the climate. The NRC DecadalSurvey goals for satellite systems should be pursued vigorously as well as support for other systems. The climatescience program now has a large climate-modeling component. However, based on limited studies, too muchconfidence in my view is placed in model projections. These projections cannot reliably predict the climate onregional scales where we live and grow our food. The potential of billion-dollar economic impacts of proposalsdesigned to mitigate "global warming" are based on these models and some common misunderstandings. Thus itis imperative that a "Red Team" approach be taken with climate model evaluation. Such teams, independentfrom those with vested interests in the modeling industry, would evaluate models with a hard-nosedmethodology to inform Policymakers about model confidence from a different and scientifically defensible pointof view.

10. HUMANS WILL INEVITABLY ADAPT TO ANY CLIMATE CHANGE

John R. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science & Nobel Prize Winner, University of Alabama in Huntsville,Testimony before Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, 11-14-07,http://commerce.senate.gov/public/_files/ChristyJR_CST_071114_written.pdf, accessed 5-8-08.The human race will adapt to whatever trajectory the climate system selects. Having a firm understanding of pastvariability allows society to adapt more intelligently to variations almost certain to occur in the future. Such is abenefit of a robust observing system. In 1988 I pinned a General Rule of Climate, "If it happened before, it willhappen again, and probably worse." The point is that if we prepare for what has already been observed (e.g.hurricanes, droughts, floods, heat waves, blizzards) and then some, we will be much better prepared for whateverthe climate does. There is no guarantee that energy policies intended to deal with climate change will have thedesired effect, either in sign or magnitude. However, policies which address the reduction of emissions as well asother important issues, one being the emphatically desirable goal of affordable energy, are worth pursuing.

11. EVEN THE IPCC CONCEDES THAT ANY SEA-LEVEL RISE WILL BE SMALL

Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, HeritageFoundation, "Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming," WEBMEMO n. 1403, 3-21-07,www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1403.cfm, accessed 3-25-08.Q: Are we facing 20-foot sea level rise because of global warming? This is highly unlikely and not part of anyscientific consensus. In his book and documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore chose to focus on thecatastrophic impacts of an 18 to 20 foot sea level rise, including numerous highly populated coastal areas fallinginto the sea. The recently released summary of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)report, however, estimates a sea level rise of only 7 to 23 inches over the next century, and there are reasons tobelieve that even that may be overstating things.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO:"ENERGY INDEPENDENCE"

1. ENERGY IS GLOBAL -- ENERGY 'INDEPENDENCE' DOES NOTHING TO AFFECT OUR FOREIGNPOLICY

Richard J. Pierce, Jr., Professor, Law, George Washington University, "Energy Independence and GlobalWarming," ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. 37, Summer 2007, p.596-597.Many people believe energy independence would have favorable effects on our ability to implement a soundforeign policy and on the likelihood that we will have to use military force. That belief is based on a seriousmisunderstanding of the relationship between energy and foreign policy. To illustrate the point, consider that weare extremely concerned about Iran today even though we have not imported one drop of oil from Iran in overfifteen years. There are links between energy and foreign policy, but they are largely unrelated to U.S.dependence on imported oil. All fuels are traded on global markets. If the global supply of oil declines, the priceof oil and other fuels will increase, and the U.S. economy will be adversely affected. That is true, however,whether the reduction in supply has any effect on sources of U.S. oil imports or has effects instead on sources ofoil imports to Japan or Europe. It is also true whether the reduction in global oil supply occurs as a result of thelatest upheaval in the middle east, civil disturbances in Nigeria, incompetence in Venezuela, pipeline corrosionin Alaska, or a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico.

2. DECREASING U.S. DEMAND DOESN'T INSULATE IT FROM PRICE SHOCKS -- OIL MARKETS AREGLOBAL

Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst, Reason Foundation, "Defend America, Buy More iranian Oil," REASON, 5-5-06,www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060505.shtml, accessed 5-15-08.As the nuclear stand-off with Iran helped push oil prices to near-record levels, President Bush once againdeclared, "Dependency on oil creates an economic problem for us, and it creates a national security problem forus." But if Iran's behavior makes the case for anything at all, it is that America should become more -- not less --"dependent" on foreign oil. In fact, the best way for America to defuse the so-called Middle Eastern oil weaponis by purchasing even more oil from the region. The economic case for energy independence has always beennonsensical. It is not possible to shield American consumers from rising prices at the pump simply by replacingforeign oil with domestic oil. Why? Because regardless of where the oil is produced -- Oman or Oklahoma -- itsprices are set by the global market.

3. THE U.S. PRICE IS SET IN OTHER MARKETS -- MEANS WE CAN NEVER ACHIEVE 'INDEPENDENCE'

Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst, Reason Foundation, "Defend America, Buy More iranian Oil," REASON, 5-5-06,www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060505.shtml, accessed 5-15-08.The global demand for oil and its ease of transportation have synchronized oil prices everywhere. Therefore,unless compelled by draconian government mandates, no American company that can command $3 a gallon inOman would sell it for much less in Oklahoma. If war prevents Middle Eastern oil from reaching its globalcustomers, the incentive for American companies to sell U.S. oil overseas would be even greater given thehigher prices that it would fetch. War or peace, no amount of domestic production will give us "independence"from the law of supply and demand.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO:"ENERGY INDEPENDENCE" cont'd

4. OIL IS A GLOBAL MARKET -- WE CANNOT INSULATE OUR AGAINST EVENTS ABROAD

Sebastian Mallaby, journalist, "What 'Energy Security' Really Means," WASHINGTON POST, 7-3-06, p.A21.For different reasons, the oil market also shows why leaders should embrace interdependence. Because oil istraded globally, a supply disruption anywhere will affect gas prices in the United States; there's no use thinkingnationalistically. If there's an explosion in a Chinese oil field that serves Chinese consumers, it will force theChinese to buy more oil on the world market and so drive up the global price: American motorists will suffer. SoChina's energy security is not in competition with U.S. energy security, as the resource-scramble model wouldsuggest. China's energy security is part of U.S. energy security.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "OIL DEPENDENCE"

1. U.S. OIL DEPENDENCE ACTUALLY GIVES US ECONOMIC LEVERAGE TO QUELL DANGEROUSREGIMES -- TRADE SPURS PEACE

Shikha Dalmia, senior analyst, Reason Foundation, "Defend America, Buy More iranian Oil," REASON, 5-5-06,www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060505.shtml, accessed 5-15-08.Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil is only the flip side of their dependence on our purchases. But given thenarrow base of Middle Eastern economies, the power in the relationship is firmly on the side of the oil buyers. Ifthat relationship were to end because of "energy independence," we would give up crucial leverage to control theworst behavior of some of the world's worst regimes. Of course, this leverage is no magic wand that wouldprotect us from a totally irrational regime willing to absorb the economic cost of using the oil weapon. But themore oil we get from such a regime, the higher the price it would have to pay. Thus whatever other argumentsthere might be for boosting domestic oil production, national security is not one of them. While this might seemcounter-intuitive, it is really part of the overall logic of trade: The mutual dependence that trade breeds fosterspeace because it gives hostile trading partners an incentive to refrain from acting on their hostility. Energyindependence would weaken that incentive.

2. THE U.S. HAS BEEN AN IMPORTER FOR ALMOST A HUNDRED YEARS WITH NO EFFECT

Robert Bryce, energy analyst, "The Impossible Dream of Energy Independence," interviewed by Brian Doherty,REASON ONLINE, 2-20-08, www.reason.com/news/show/125027.html, accessed 5-15-08.reason: While "energy independence" has soared to fresh public prominence in this era of soaring gas prices andMideast wars, it's not a new idea, is it? Robert Bryce: The first president to promote the idea was [Richard]Nixon in the wake of the oil embargo in 1973. In his State of the Union address in 1974, Nixon said that he wasaiming for energy independence by the end of the decade. He hoped that by 1980 the U.S. would not beimporting any oil. And every president since Nixon, in one way or another, has espoused a similar idea. But ifyou look back at the data, the U.S. was a net crude oil importer [as early as] 1913 and ever since we've been anet crude importer with a handful of years [as exceptions]. It's remarkable how much the rhetoric about "energyindependence" has had no connection with reality.

3. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HIGH OIL PRICES PROP UP HUMAN RIGHTS-ABUSING DICTATORS

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "The Energy Security Obsession," LIMES: THE ITALIANJOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.It is unclear to what extent oil profits are associated with human rights abuses or militaristic activity. There areplenty examples, after all, of relatively long-lived regimes with terrible human rights records -- such as NorthKorea -- with no oil revenues to speak of, and this is the case even within the same socio-economic regions.Denuding Iran and Libya of oil revenues might produce a government that looks a lot like Syria; denudingVenezuela of oil revenues might produce a government that looks a lot like Cuba; and denuding Russia of oilrevenues might produce a government that looks a lot like Russia used to be. After all, all of these "bad-acting"petro-states yielded unsavory regimes even when oil revenues were a small fraction of what they are today.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "OIL DEPENDENCE" cont'd

4. NO REASON TO KEEP FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH OIL PRODUCERS -- THEY WILL SELL US OILANYWAY

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "The Energy Security Obsession," LIMES: THE ITALIANJOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.Many foreign policy analysts think that U.S. oil imports are dependent upon friendly relationships with oilproducing states. The fear is that unfriendly regimes might not sell us oil -- a fear that explains why formerFederal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan supported the two Gulf Wars against Iraq. Maintaining goodrelations with oil producers, however, interferes with other foreign policy objectives and increasesanti-American sentiment in producer states with unpopular regimes. And of course, it could lead to war. Theproblem with this argument, however, is that its fundamental premise is incorrect. Friendly relations withproducer states neither enhance access to imported oil nor lower its price. Selective embargoes by producernations on some consuming nations are unenforceable unless (i) all other nations on Earth refuse to ship oil tothe embargoed state, or (ii) a naval blockade were to prevent oil shipments into the ports of the embargoed state.That's because, once oil leaves the territory of a producer, market agents dictate where the oil goes, not agents ofthe producer, and anyone willing to pay the prevailing world crude oil price can have all he wants. The 1973Arab oil embargo is a perfect case in point. U.S. crude oil imports actually increased from 1.7 million barrels perday (mbd) in 1971 to 2.2 mbd in 1972, 3.2 mbd in 1973, and 3.5 mbd in 1974. Instead of buying from Arabmembers of OPEC, the United States bought from non-Arab oil producers. The customers that were displaced bythe United States bought from Arab members of OPEC. Beyond the modest increase in transportation costs thatfollowed from this game of musical chairs, the embargo had no impact on the United In short, it does not matterto consumers to whom the oil is initially sold. All that matters to consumers is how much oil is produced forworld markets.

5. NEGATIVE FEELINGS BETWEEN STATES DO NOT EVEN AFFECT OIL PRODUCTION DECISIONS

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "The Energy Security Obsession," LIMES: THE ITALIANJOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.Do oil producing nations allow their feelings towards oil consuming nations to affect their production decisions?Historically, the answer has been "no." The record strongly indicates that oil producing states, regardless of theirfeelings toward the industrialized West, are rational economic actors. After a detailed survey of the world oilmarket since the rise of OPEC, oil economist M.A. Adelman concluded, "We look in vain for an example of agovernment that deliberately avoids a higher income. The self-serving declaration of an interested party is notevidence." Prof. Philip Auerswald of George Mason University agrees, "For the past quarter century, the oiloutput decisions of Islamic Iran have been no more menacing or unpredictable than Canada's or Norway's."

6. EVEN A MASSIVE SUPPLY SHOCK WOULD ONLY HAVE MILD ECONOMIC EFFECTS, FOLLOWEDBY EFFICIENCY GAINS AND A CRASH IN OIL PRICES

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "The Energy Security Obsession," LIMES: THE ITALIANJOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.Regardless, the departure of Saudi Arabia from world crude oil market would probably have about the sameeffect on domestic oil prices as the departure of Iran from world crude oil markets in 1978. The Iranianrevolution reduced oil production by 8.9 percent, whereas Saudi Arabia accounts for about 13 percent of globaloil production today. Oil prices increased dramatically after the 1978 revolution, but those higher prices set inmotion market supply and demand responses that undermined the supply reduction and collapsed world priceseight years later. The short term macroeconomic impacts of such a supply disruption would actually be lesstoday than they were then given the absence of price controls on the U.S. economy and our reduced reliance onoil as an input for each unit of GDP.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "OIL DEPENDENCE" cont'd

7. ENERGY PRODUCERS ARE INTERESTED IN WEALTH MAXIMIZATION AND BEHAVERATIONALLY -- TAKES OUT RISK OF SUPPLY SHOCKS

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "The Energy Security Obsession," LIMES: THE ITALIANJOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.When foreign policy elites encounter these arguments in public forums, they tend to dismiss them as overlytheorized economics that assume perfectly informed rational actors and, moreover, are divorced fromgeopolitical reality. Energy producers, we are told, are not first and foremost wealth maximizers. They pursueforeign policy ends and demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice money to secure those ends. Ideological regimes,moreover, have not always acted rationally in the past and cannot be counted upon to do so in the future. Thepossibility that producer states might become economic suicide bombers -- immolating their own economies inorder to inflict great economic pain on the West -- cannot be lightly dismissed. The facts, however, indicate thatthe above narrative is fundamentally at odds with observable reality. Energy producers have thus fardemonstrated a keen interest in near-term wealth maximization -- cover stories to the contrary notwithstanding.International actors rarely if ever act irrationally as an economist would define the term (e.g., they do not act in amanner that would frustrate their self interest as they perceive it). Fears of "economic suicide bombing" byanti-Western producer states are greatly exaggerated by an overly pessimistic view of the harm said bombingcould do to Western economies. And worry over embargoes demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of howinternational oil markets work. There are plenty of things for foreign policy elites to worry about. Energysecurity, however, is not one of them.

8. A DECREASE IN OIL PROFITS WILL NOT CUT OFF PRODUCER FUNDING TO TERRORIST GROUPS

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "The Energy Security Obsession," LIMES: THE ITALIANJOURNAL OF GEOPOLITICS, 11-23-07, www.cato.org/pubs/articles/energy-security.pdf, accessed 5-15-08.Producer states do use oil revenues to fund ideological extremism, and Saudi financing of madrassas and Iranianfinancing of Hezbollah are good examples. But given the importance of those undertakings to the Saudi andIranian governments, it's unlikely that they would cease and desist simply because profits were down. Theycertainly weren't deterred by meager oil profits in the 1990s.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "PEAK OIL"

1. NEW DEPLETION FIGURES PROVE THAT THE PEAK IS FAR OFF

Carl Mortished, journalist, "World Not Running Out of Oil, Say Experts," THE TIMES, 1-18-08,http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3207311.ece, accessed2-12-08.Doom-laden forecasts that world oil supplies are poised to fall off the edge of a cliff are wide of the mark,according to leading oil industry experts who gave warning that human factors, not geology, will drive the oilmarket. A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) hasconcluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading theconsultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade. Peter Jackson, the report'sauthor, said: "We will be able to grow supply to well over 100 million barrels per day by 2017." Current worldoil output is in the region of 85 million barrels a day. The optimistic view of the world's oil resource was alsogiven support by BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, who dismissed theories of "Peak Oil" as fallacious. Instead,he gave warning that world oil production would peak as demand weakened, because of political constraints,including taxation and government efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Speaking to the All PartyParliamentary Group on Peak Oil, Mr Davies said that peaks in world production had been wrongly predictedthroughout history but he agreed that oil might peak within a generation "as a result of a peaking of demandrather than supply". He said it was inconceivable that oil consumption would be unaffected by governmentpolicies to reduce carbon emissions. "There is a distinct possibility that global oil consumption could peak as aresult of such climate policies," Mr Davies said. The BP economist's remarks were echoed yesterday by MrJackson. "It is the above-ground risks that will influence the rate [of oil output]," he said.

2. WE WILL NEVER RUN OUT OF OIL -- IT WILL SMOOTHLY BE REPLACED BY A NEW ENERGYTECHNOLOGY

Leonard Maugeri, Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategies and International Relations, ENI SPA, "Time toDebunk Mythical Links Between Oil and Politics," OIL & GAS JOURNAL, 12-15-03, p.18+.Hence oil companies are obliged to dismiss many investment opportunities worldwide because they do not fitthese very tight requirements. And the larger a company's production, the larger the challenge, because higherproduction requires higher replacement ratios. Thus financial discipline puts oil majors under considerable stressas far as reserve replacement is concerned, reducing their options for sustaining future production. Basically, thefinancial markets' prudent approach (maybe too prudent) depends on the assumption of oil depreciation in thelong term; oil is considered a semimature commodity whose fate is closely connected with that of most rawminerals, all affected by a rise-and-fall consumption pattern in modern economic history. According to thispattern, just as the Stone Age did not end for the lack of stones, the Oil Age will not end because of the scarcityof oil. Rather oil will inevitably be surpassed in convenience by a new source of energy in the future.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "PEAK OIL" cont'd

3. ARE AS MANY AS 16 TRILLION BARRELS OF OIL REMAINING -- WE HAVE PUMPED ONLY AFRACTION OF THAT

Nansen Saleri, President, Quantum Reservoir Impact, "The World Has Plenty of Oil," WALL STREETJOURNAL, 3-4-08, p.A17.In fact, we are nowhere close to reaching a peak in global oil supplies. Given a set of assumptions, forecastingthe peak-oil-point -- defined as the onset of global production decline -- is a relatively trivial problem. Fourprimary factors will pinpoint its exact timing. The trivial becomes far more complex because the four factors --resources in place (how many barrels initially underground), recovery efficiency (what percentage is ultimatelyrecoverable), rate of consumption, and state of depletion at peak (how empty is the global tank when declinekicks in) -- are inherently uncertain. - What are the global resources in place? Estimates vary. But approximatelysix to eight trillion barrels each for conventional and unconventional oil resources (shale oil, tar sands, extraheavy oil) represent probable figures -- inclusive of future discoveries. As a matter of context, the globe hasconsumed only one out of a grand total of 12 to 16 trillion barrels underground.

4. THE WORLD IS NOT RUNNING OUT OIL -- THESE CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE DAWNOF THE OIL AGE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DISPROVED

Robert Zubrin, aerospace engineer, "Achieving Energy Victory," THE NEW ATLANTIS, Fall 2007,www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/achieving-energy-victory, accessed 5-15-08.Fortunately, however, the claim that the world is running out of oil has no foundation whatsoever. Such claimshave been made repeatedly in the past, and all have proven false. For example, as Learsy notes in Over a Barrel,in 1874, the state geologist of Pennsylvania, then the world's leading oil producer, estimated that the UnitedStates had only enough oil for another four years. In 1914, the Federal Bureau of Mines said we had only tenyears of oil left. In 1940, the bureau revised its previous forecast and predicted that all our oil would beexhausted by 1954. In 1972, the prestigious Club of Rome, using an inscrutable but allegedly infallible M.I.T.computer oracle, handed down the ironclad prediction that the world's oil would run out by 1990. The club saidat that time that only 550 billion barrels were left to humanity. Since then we have used 600 billion barrels, andare now looking at proven reserves of a trillion more. There is little new about today's fascination with "peakoil"; since 1972, there have been repeated predictions of imminent oil-supply exhaustion published every fewyears by various authorities, and not one has come true. In fact, if we look at the ratio of proven reserves toconsumption rate, the world has a bigger oil supply today than it ever has at any time in the past. The argumentthat we are threatened with near-term oil exhaustion is simply untrue.

5. ULTIMATE RECOVERABLE RESERVES ARE ENORMOUS -- NEARLY 6 TRILLION BARRELSEQUIVALENT, HAVE ONLY USED ONE-SIXTH SO FAR

Ronald Bailey, editor, "Peak Oil Panic," REASON, May 2006, www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html,accessed 2-12-08.But are proven reserves all that's left? Several analyses put ultimate reserves at much higher levels. For example,the USGS undertook a comprehensive analysis of world oil reserves in 2000. It calculated that the total worldendowment of recoverable oil is 3 trillion barrels. (Its figure is higher because it includes estimates forundiscovered resources and projected increases in already producing fields.) In addition, the total worldendowment of natural gas is equivalent to 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, plus 330 billion barrels of natural gas liquidssuch as propane and butane. The USGS figures that the total world endowment of conventional oil resources isequivalent to about 5.9 trillion barrels of oil. Proven reserves of oil, gas, and natural gas liquids are equivalent to2 trillion barrels of oil. The USGS calculates that humanity has already consumed about 1 trillion barrels of oilequivalent, which means 82 percent of the world's endowment of oil and gas resources remains to be used.


ALTERNATIVE FUELS UNNECESSARY: ANSWERS TO: "PEAK OIL" cont'd

6. OIL DEPLETION IS NOT A THREAT -- LOTS OF UNCONVENTIONAL OIL, COAL IS READILYCONVERTED

Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Cato Institute, "Myth Five -- Price Signals are Insufficient to Induce EfficientEnergy Investments," ENERGY AND AMERICAN SOCIETY: THIRTEEN MYTHS, 2007,www.cato.org/pubs/articles/myth9.pdf, accessed 6-10-08.Oil depletion concerns, however, rest on shaky ground. First, they are primarily about the future availability ofconventional crude oil. Unconventional crude oil deposits -- such as those found in heavy bitumen, tar sands,and shale rock -- are extremely plentiful and only lightly tapped at the moment because of high extraction costs.Moreover, the technology exists to convert coal and natural gas to synthetic petroleum liquids, which means thatother more plentiful fossil fuels could be harnessed to produce vast amounts of petroleum if the economics arefavorable. Second, concerns that conventional crude oil is becoming scarce in any meaningful sense have notstood up well to serious scrutiny.

7. DEEP, ABIOTIC OIL MEANS THAT ALL OF THEIR DEPLETION AND PEAK ARGUMENTS ARESIMPLY WRONG

Chris Bennett, journalist, "Sustainable Oil?" WORLD NET DAILY, 5-25-04,www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645, accessed 2-12-08.In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper,which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and threeRussian coauthors conclude: The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons atpressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbonsunder pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment. He wasquoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable ofthermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the lastquarter of the 19th century." Deeply entrenched in our culture is the belief that at some point in the relativelynear future we will see the last working pump on the last functioning oil well screech and rattle, and that will bethat. The end of the Age of Oil. And unless we find another source of cheap energy, the world will rapidlybecome a much darker and dangerous place. If Dr. Gold and Dr. Kenney are correct, this "the end of the world aswe know it" scenario simply won't happen. Think about it...while not inexhaustible, deep Earth reserves ofinorganic crude oil and commercially feasible extraction would provide the world with generations of low-costfuel. Dr. Gold has been quoted saying that current worldwide reserves of crude oil could be off by a factor ofover 100.

c:documents and settingsownermy …gjohnsonenglish.wikispaces.com/file/view/jan+pf.pdf/...given,...

Documents