sps aff-neg wfi 2 week.docwfi.wikispaces.com/file/view/sps+aff-neg+wfi+2+week.doc · web viewunlike...

WFI 11 1

SPS Aff/NegSolar Power Satellites Affirmative

SPS 1AC [1/12]...........................................................................................................................................................4SPS 1AC [2/12]..........................................................................................................................................................5SPS 1AC [3/12]..........................................................................................................................................................6SPS 1AC [4/12]..........................................................................................................................................................7SPS 1AC [5/12]...........................................................................................................................................................8SPS 1AC [6/12]..........................................................................................................................................................9SPS 1AC [7/12]........................................................................................................................................................10SPS 1AC [8/12]........................................................................................................................................................11SPS 1AC [9/12]........................................................................................................................................................12SPS 1AC [10/12]......................................................................................................................................................13SPS 1AC [11/12]......................................................................................................................................................14SPS 1AC [12/12].......................................................................................................................................................15

**WARMING ADVANTAGE**............................................................................................................................16

Warming—SPS Solves.............................................................................................................................................17Warming—SPS Solves.............................................................................................................................................18Warming—SPS Solves.............................................................................................................................................19Warming—SPS Solves CO2.....................................................................................................................................20

Warming—Now Key................................................................................................................................................21Warming—Now Key................................................................................................................................................22

Warming—Yes (Generic).........................................................................................................................................23Warming—Yes (Anthropogenic)..............................................................................................................................24Warming—Yes (Models)..........................................................................................................................................26

Warming—Impact: Extinction..................................................................................................................................27Warming—Impact: Nuclear War..............................................................................................................................28Warming—Impact: Economy...................................................................................................................................29Warming—Impact: Asian Stability..........................................................................................................................30Warming—Impact: National Security......................................................................................................................31Warming—Impact: Laundry List.............................................................................................................................32

Warming—AT: Impact Turns...................................................................................................................................33Warming—AT: Inevitable........................................................................................................................................34

**HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE**.........................................................................................................................35

Hegemony—Brink....................................................................................................................................................36

Hegemony—IL: Aero Competitiveness...................................................................................................................37Hegemony—IL: Competitiveness............................................................................................................................39Hegemony—IL: Space Leadership...........................................................................................................................40Hegemony—IL UQ: Space Leadership....................................................................................................................41Hegemony—IL: Tech...............................................................................................................................................42Hegemony—IL: Energy Leadership.........................................................................................................................44Hegemony—IL: Military..........................................................................................................................................45

Hegemony—Impact: Extinction...............................................................................................................................46Hegemony—Impact: Economy................................................................................................................................47Hegemony—Impact: Korean War............................................................................................................................48Hegemony—Impact: Terrorism................................................................................................................................49

WFI 11 2

SPS Aff/Neg****ADD-ONs****.................................................................................................................................................51

2AC Add-On—Energy (prolif).................................................................................................................................52Energy Add-On—SPS Solves...................................................................................................................................53Energy Add-On—SPS Solves...................................................................................................................................54Energy Add-On—SPS Solves...................................................................................................................................55Energy Add-On —SPS Solves Energy Wars............................................................................................................56Energy Add-On —SPS Solves Resource Wars........................................................................................................57Energy Add-On—SPS Solves Resource Wars.........................................................................................................58Energy Add-On —Impact UQ..................................................................................................................................59

2AC Add-On—Laundry List....................................................................................................................................60

2AC Add-On—Colonization....................................................................................................................................61Colonization Add-On—SPS Solves.........................................................................................................................62Colonization Add-On—SPS Solves.........................................................................................................................63

2AC Add-On— Disaster Relief................................................................................................................................64

2AC Add-On—Alliances..........................................................................................................................................65

2AC Add-On—Militarization [1/3]..........................................................................................................................662AC Add-On—Militarization [2/3]..........................................................................................................................672AC Add-On—Militarization [3/3]..........................................................................................................................68

2AC Add-On—Oil Dep (Econ !) [1/2].....................................................................................................................692AC Add-On—Oil Dep (Econ !) [2/2].....................................................................................................................702AC Oil Dep—Solvency..........................................................................................................................................712AC Oil Dep—Terrorism.........................................................................................................................................72

2AC Add-On—Asteroids [1/2].................................................................................................................................742AC Add-On—Asteroids [2/2]:................................................................................................................................75

2AC Add-On—Tornadoes........................................................................................................................................76Tornadoes Add-On—Impact....................................................................................................................................77

**Solvency**............................................................................................................................................................78

Solvency—Private Industry......................................................................................................................................79Solvency—Feasible..................................................................................................................................................80Solvency—Feasible..................................................................................................................................................81Solvency—Funding Key...........................................................................................................................................82Solvency—USFG Key..............................................................................................................................................83Solvency—US Key...................................................................................................................................................84Solvency—Timeframe..............................................................................................................................................85

Solvency—AT: ≠ Cost Competitive.........................................................................................................................86Solvency—AT: Too Expensive................................................................................................................................87Solvency—AT: ≠ Link to Grid................................................................................................................................88

AFF ANSWERS TO THINGS.................................................................................................................................89

AT—SPS Bad: Generic............................................................................................................................................90AT—SPS Bad: GHGs...............................................................................................................................................91AT—SPS Bad: Space Debris....................................................................................................................................92AT—SPS Bad: Environment....................................................................................................................................93AT—SPS Bad: Health Risk......................................................................................................................................94

WFI 11 3

SPS Aff/Neg

2AC—Politics DA....................................................................................................................................................952AC—Politics DA....................................................................................................................................................962AC—Spending DA.................................................................................................................................................972AC—Space Mil DA................................................................................................................................................982AC—Space Mil DA................................................................................................................................................992AC—Space Mil DA..............................................................................................................................................1002AC—NASA Trade-Off DA..................................................................................................................................1012AC—NASA Trade-Off DA..................................................................................................................................1022AC—Privatization CP...........................................................................................................................................1032AC—Cooperation CP...........................................................................................................................................1042AC Awards CP......................................................................................................................................................1052AC Ground Solar CP............................................................................................................................................1062AC Space Mil K....................................................................................................................................................1072AC Warming CP (Limits Emissions)...................................................................................................................1082AC Consult India..................................................................................................................................................109

**SPS CASE NEG**.............................................................................................................................................110

Neg—Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................111Neg—Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................112Neg—Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................113Neg—Solvency Frontline.......................................................................................................................................114

Neg—Solvency: XTN—Economically Unfeasible................................................................................................115Neg—Solvency: XTN—Long Timeframe.............................................................................................................116Neg—Solvency: XTN—NASA Fails.....................................................................................................................117

Neg—SPS Bad: Ozone...........................................................................................................................................118Neg—SPS Bad: XTN—Ozone...............................................................................................................................119Neg—SPS Bad: Space Debris................................................................................................................................120

Neg—Warming Frontline.......................................................................................................................................121Neg—Warming Frontline.......................................................................................................................................122Neg—Warming Frontline.......................................................................................................................................123

Neg—Warming: XTN—Emissions/ Warming Inevitable......................................................................................124Neg—Warming: XTN— CO2 Emissions ≠ Warming............................................................................................125Neg—Warming: AT—Temp Fluctuations.............................................................................................................126Neg—Warming: Good—Ag Industry.....................................................................................................................127

Neg—Hegemony Frontline.....................................................................................................................................128Neg—Hegemony Frontline.....................................................................................................................................129Neg—Hegemony: XTN—Unsustainable...............................................................................................................130Neg—Politics..........................................................................................................................................................131Neg—EIS CP..........................................................................................................................................................132

Neg—Privatization CP............................................................................................................................................133

Nuclear War good—Global Cooling......................................................................................................................133

WFI 11 4

SPS Aff/NegSPS 1AC [1/12]

Contention One—Inherency

SPS tech exists now but USFG investment is key to feasibility- creates economies of scale NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

From the perspective of today’s launch infrastructure, this may seem unimaginably large and ambitious, but in another sense it is well within the relative scale of other human accomplishments which at their time also seemed astounding creations‐‐the Eiffel Tower is 8,045 Tons; the Sear’s Tower 222,500 tons; the Empire State Building 365,000 – 392,000 tons, the largest of our supertankers is 650,000MT, and the Great Pyramid at Giza is 5,900,000 MT. Contemplating a space solar power satellite today is probably analogous to contemplating the building of the large hydro‐electric dams, which even today cause observers to marvel. Today the United States initiates less than 15 launches per year (at 25MT or less). Construction of a single SBSP satellite alone would require in excess of 120 such launches. That may seem like an astounding operations tempo until one considers the volume of other transportation infrastructure. For instance, in 2005, Atlanta International Airport saw 980,197 takeoffs & landings alone, an average of 1,342 takeoffs/day, or about 1 every minute 24 hours a day. In the same year, Singapore’s 41 ship cargo berths served 130,318 vessel arrivals (about 15 per hour), handling about 1.15 billion gross tons (GT), and 23.2 million twenty‐foot equivalent units (TFUs). Technology adoption can move at astounding speeds once a concept has been demonstrated and a market is created. Who would have imagined that barely 100 years after the single wood & cloth, 338 kg Wright Flier flew only 120 feet at a mere 30 mph, that the world would have fleets of thousands of jet ‐ powered, all ‐ metal giants weighing as much as 590,000 kg cruising between continents at close to the speed of sound? Who, as the first miles were being laid, would have foreseen the rate at which railroads, highways, electrification or communications infrastructure would grow? SBSP calls [hu] mankind to look at the means to achieve orbit and in ‐ space maneuver differently—not as monuments in themselves, but as a utilitarian infrastructure purposefully designed to achieve a very worthwhile goal.[neeraja note: gender modified]

WFI 11 5


Plan: The United States federal government should create a sole-purpose organization to develop, demonstrate, and deploy space-based solar powered satellites.

WFI 11 6


Advantage One—Hegemony

US leadership and competitiveness are on the wane- shoring up demand for the aerospace industry is keyLewis 11— University of Maryland Willis Young Aerospace professor[Mark, “How far can you see?” Aerospace America, March 2011, l/n, accessed 7-18-11, mss]Much has been written about the apparent decline of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in the U.S. and, to varying degrees, other Western countries. Four years ago, the National Academy's oft-cited "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" study, chaired by former Lockheed Martin Chairman and

CEO Norm Augustine, sounded the alarm on challenges facing the nation, with recommendations to bolster STEM disciplines to

improve American competitiveness. Other studies see American science and engineering being surpassed by nations that are more actively investing in infrastructure and stressing education. Key among these concerns is the relatively sparse percentage of U.S. students seeking advanced degrees in science and engineering, especially compared with their counterparts overseas. While some concrete steps have been taken to reverse this trend, recent economic concerns, coupled with inevitable cutbacks, pose a threat to this progress. And nowhere do those threats seem as alarming as in the aerospace community. Present uncertainty in NASA's direction and budget, calls for "efficiencies" in the DOD, and even funding threats to national

test and evaluation infrastructure all suggest that aerospace will not fare well. However, the situation is not as bleak for aerospace as it is for other STEM fields. Researchers at the National Institute of Aerospace have been compiling data on aerospace student enrollments dating back over two decades, and the results are encouraging. In 1989, the various aerospace undergraduate programs enrolled roughly 350 students per program; by 1996 that number had fallen to about 130. But since 1997, these enrollments have shown a steady rise, such that by 2008 they had returned almost to the late 1980s levels and continue to grow. Graduate enrollments are even more encouraging, with U.S. programs now reporting 50% more students than in the late 1980s. Last year, the 57 aerospace programs participating in the survey reported total enrollments of over 20,000 students. Think we're not attracting top students from around the globe? A recent National Academy study suggests the opposite. The quality of aerospace students across the board remains second to none. Our biggest challenge is not one of supplying the next generation of aerospace engineers; rather, it is in having sufficient demand. Program cancellations, starts and stops, and facility closures all mean fewer opportunities for our graduates. Students come to aerospace seeking the chance to contribute to meaningful progress in air and space transportation and exploration . If our society does not provide those, they will eventually go elsewhere. The benefits of educational outreach hardly require

justification--we will always want to recruit the best and the brightest. To do so, we must convince decision makers to create lasting opportunities, so that we don't lose this generation's talents and enthusiasm. In securing the future, the greatest contribution we can make to education is to provide inspiration. Then we can all look with pride at the many ways aerospace technology has already transformed our world, and extrapolate to a future where it continues to bring value to our lives while opening new avenues of knowledge and understanding.

AND- The plan is key to heg- 3 reasons

1. Competitiveness- SBSP creates immediate demand for aerospace production AND Manhattan project effect ensures tech spin-off even if SBSP failsNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US intellectual competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing a true “Manhattan or Apollo project for

energy.” In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and helped the US maintain its technical and competitive lead . The committee expressed it was “deeply concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high ‐ paying jobs. It would require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims of the American Competitiveness Initiative. FINDING: The

SBSP Study Group found that SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our “national jewel” which has enhanced our security , wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this

report is remarkably consonant with the findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century . This can only be achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long ‐ term research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Over the last several decades, the U.S. aerospace sector has been living off the research investments made primarily for defense during the Cold Wa r…Government policies and investments in long ‐ term research have not kept pace with the changing world . Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal research and related infrastructure investments. The nation needs to

WFI 11 7

SPS Aff/Negcapitalize on these opportunities, and the federal government needs to lead the effort . Specifically, it needs to invest

WFI 11 8


NSSO Continues:

in long ‐ term enabling research and related RDT&E infrastructure, establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of new products and services. The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private

investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space ‐ faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century —that our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it , and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology , commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into its long‐term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private‐public partnerships were also to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost , and so

recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for

production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter . A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space. ” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative.

AND- Competitiveness is key to primacyMartino 7—Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute(Rocco, “A Strategy for Success: Innovation Will Renew American Leadership,” Orbis, Volume 51, Issue 2, HW Wilson)

Much of the foreign policy discussion in the United States today is focused upon the dilemma posed by the Iraq War and the threat posed by Islamist terrorism. These problems are, of course, both immediate and important. However, America also faces other challenges to its physical security and economic prosperity, and these are more long-term and probably more profound. There is, first, the threat posed by our declining competitiveness in the global economy, a threat most obviously represented by such rising economic powers as China and India.(FN1) There is, second, the threat posed by our increasing dependence on oil imports from the Middle East. Moreover, these

two threats are increasingly connected, as China and India themselves are greatly increasing their demand for Middle East oil.(FN2) The United States of course faced great challenges to its security and economy in the past, most obviously from Germany and Japan in the first half of the twentieth century and from the Soviet Union in the second half. Crucial to America's ability to prevail over these past challenges was our technological and industrial leadership, and especially our ability to continuously recreate it. Indeed, the United States has been unique among great powers in its ability to keep on creating and recreating new technologies and new industries, generation after generation. Perpetual innovation and technological leadership might even be said to be the American way of maintaining primacy in world affairs. They are almost certainly what America will have to pursue in order to prevail over the contemporary challenges involving economic competitiveness and energy dependence. There is therefore an urgent need for America to resume its historic emphasis on innovation. The United States needs a national strategy focused upon developing new technologies and creating new industries. Every successful strategy must define an objective or mission, determine a

solution, and assemble the means of execution. In this case, the objective is economic superiority; the solution is new industries which build upon the contemporary revolution in information technology; and the means of execution will have to include a partnership of industry, government, and people.

WFI 11 9


2. SBSP key to prevent energy blackmail that collapses leadership and spurs US aggressionBonnici 9 (Alex M, senior sales trader at world spreads group, January 20, 2009, Solar Power Satellites: The Yes Case”, http://www.discovery-enterprise.com/2009/01/solar-power-satellites-yes-case.html)

Is now the time for major government funding of Space Solar Power? The answer to this question is a resounding yes! And, may this answer reverberate throughout the scared halls of Congress and the parliaments of the free world. The time is now for the governments of the United States and the free world to commit themselves to the development of space based solar power in earth orbit or based on the lunar surface. This commitment has been long overdue and the United States of America and its allies have waited far too long to take a real and major concerted leadership role in the development of this vast untapped resource. A commitment to space based solar power is vital to the long term national security , economic and

environmental concerns of the United States and the world. America and the rest of the free world can no longer afford to remain the economic and political captives of nations and despotic regimes that neither share our democratic values nor love for individual human liberty. Yet our political adversaries control the strategic mineral and energy resources vital to our

economic growth and prosperity. The United States and the free world can no longer allow themselves to remain bound by this status quo and must seek to change it. America in particular must not relinquish nor endanger its leadership role as defender

of the free world by making political and diplomatic compromises with these autocratic nations. And, neither should it allow itself to be forced to engage in reckless military actions that would compel other nations to question America’s real commitment to democratic values throughout the rest of the world in order to secure its hold on these resources. The United States of America and the nations of the free world must commit themselves to a long term program of energy independence and give up our debilitating addiction to Mid-eastern oil and our dependency on strategic minerals located in the most politically unstable and volatile regions of the World.

3. SBSP key to military readiness and preventing resource warsNSSO 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield . SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater , while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over ‐ land fuel deliverie s. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long ‐ endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP

could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation‐building activities. SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground ‐ based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21 st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.

WFI 11 10


US leadership prevents great power wars and deters new threatsThayer 6, associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, 2006 (Bradley, "In Defense of Primacy," The National Interest, November/December 2006, p. lexis)

Throughout history, peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power-- Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization--is directly linked to U.S. power. Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to

note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many

positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states

that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not

seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.3 So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan , where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all

accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy.4 As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the

world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's

police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States ; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim

opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. None even comes close. The United Nations cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it lacks the ability to speak with one voice on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. Let's face it: for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills.

WFI 11 11


These conflicts go nuclear-leadership diffuses themKagan 7, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007(Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, August/September 2007, The Hoover Policy Review, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html)

The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were

the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation

but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.

AND- Military readiness deters all war- declines cause global conflictSpencer, Heritage defense and national security policy analyst, 2000 [Jack, "The Facts About Military Readiness," 9-15-0, www.heritage.org/research/reports/2000/09/bg1394-the-facts-about-military-readiness, accessed 11-15-10, mss]

Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the rest of the world that the United

States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.

AND Resource wars go global and nuclearKlare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, 2008(Michael, “The Coming Resource Wars” 3-10, http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243)

It's official: the era of resource wars is upon us. In a major London address, British Defense Secretary John Reid warned that global climate change and dwindling natural resources are combining to increase the likelihood of violent conflict over land, water and energy. Climate change, he indicated, "will make scarce resources, clean water, viable agricultural land even scarcer" -- and this will "make the emergence of violent conflict more rather than less likely." Although not unprecedented, Reid's prediction of an upsurge in resource conflict is significant both because of his senior rank and the vehemence of his remarks. "The blunt truth is that the lack of water and agricultural land is a significant contributory factor to the tragic conflict we see unfolding in Darfur," he declared. "We should see this as a warning sign." Resource conflicts of this type are most likely to arise in the developing world, Reid indicated, but the more advanced and affluent countries are not likely to be spared the damaging and destabilizing effects of global climate change. With sea levels rising, water and energy becoming increasingly scarce and prime agricultural lands turning into deserts, internecine warfare over access to vital resources will become a global phenomenon. Reid's speech, delivered at the prestigious Chatham House in London (Britain's equivalent of the Council on Foreign Relations), is but the most recent expression of a growing trend in strategic circles to view environmental and resource effects -- rather than political orientation and ideology -- as the most potent source of armed conflict in the decades to come. With the world population rising, global consumption rates soaring, energy supplies rapidly disappearing and climate change eradicating valuable farmland, the stage is

being set for persistent and worldwide struggles over vital resources.Religious and political strife will not disappear in this scenario, but rather will be channeled into contests over valuable sources of water, food and energy. Prior to Reid's address, the most significant expression of this outlook was a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Defense by a California-based consulting firm in October 2003. Entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report warned that global climate change is more likely to result in sudden, cataclysmic environmental events than a gradual (and therefore manageable) rise in average temperatures. Such events could include a substantial increase in global sea levels, intense storms and hurricanes and continent-wide "dust bowl" effects. This would trigger pitched battles between the survivors of these effects for access to food, water, habitable land and energy supplies. "Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different type of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today," the 2003 report noted. "Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water rather than by conflicts over ideology, religion or national honor." Until now, this mode of analysis has failed to command the attention of top American and British policymakers. For the most part, they insist that ideological and religious differences -- notably, the clash between values of tolerance and democracy on one hand and extremist forms of Islam on the other -- remain the main drivers of international conflict. But Reid's speech at Chatham House suggests that a major shift in strategic thinking may be under way. Environmental perils may soon dominate the world security agenda. This shift is due in part to the growing weight of evidence pointing to a significant human role in altering the planet's basic climate systems. Recent studies showing the rapid shrinkage of the polar ice caps, the accelerated melting of North American glaciers, the increased frequency of severe hurricanes and a number of other such effects all suggest that dramatic and potentially harmful changes to the global climate have begun to occur. More importantly, they conclude that human behavior -- most importantly, the burning of fossil fuels in factories, power plants, and motor vehicles -- is the most likely cause of these changes. This assessment may not have yet penetrated the White House and other bastions of head-in-the-sand thinking, but it is clearly gaining ground among scientists and thoughtful analysts around the world.For the most part, public discussion of global climate change has tended to describe its effects as an environmental problem -- as a threat to safe water, arable soil, temperate forests, certain species and so on. And, of course, climate change is a potent threat to the environment; in fact, the greatest threat imaginable. But viewing climate change as an environmental problem fails to do justice to the magnitude of the peril it poses. As Reid's speech and the 2003 Pentagon study make clear, the greatest danger posed by global climate change is not the degradation of ecosystems per se, but rather the disintegration of entire human societies, producing wholesale starvation, mass migrations and recurring conflict over resources. "As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the Pentagon report notes,

"many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern over the inadequate

http://www.alternet.org/environment/33243

WFI 11 12


Klare Continues: capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300 million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and minerals.When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world

of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate nuclear proliferation ascountries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure their national securit y ." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.

WFI 11 13


Advantage Two—Warming

Studies prove warming is happening and anthropogenic Ohshita, 7(Stephanie B., Stanford University Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering Stanford University MS, Civil Engineering, Environmental Eng. & Science Program, December 3, “The Scientific and International Context for Climate Change Initiatives”, http://usf.usfca.edu/law/academic/journals/lawreview/printissues/v42i1/SAN101.pdf)

What is new about scientific certainty on climate change is increasing evidence to support past scientific findings. For nearly two decades, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”)— composed of experts from around the world—has been assessing the understanding of the climate change problem. Through a formal process of review involving national governments as well as climate experts, the IPCC has issued four assessment reports. In 1995, the Second Assessment Report carefully worded its conclusion: “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Even this cautious statement evoked sharp reactions from those reluctant to acknowledge the climate change problem. In the Third Assessment Report of 2001, the IPCC strengthened its language and made it more specific: “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” By 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report left no doubt and stated: “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” In the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC made considerable effort to provide decision makers with further information about the strength of their findings.14

To do this, the IPCC sought to quantify the degree of certainty on expert findings, by calculating confidence intervals and by using consistent language to describe the level of confidence. For example, the IPCC used the language “very high confidence” or “very likely” to express a level of certainty of ninety percent or greater.15 IPCC used the language “very likely” to convey that climate experts around the world are more than ninety percent certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of observed global warming. By better quantifying and communicating scientific certainty, the IPCC clarified misconceptions or misrepresentations about agreement among the majority of climate experts. Misrepresentation has been especially problematic in the United States. Lack of media coverage on climate change has left the public unaware of the extent of the problem. False journalistic balance—where the media presents unsupported conjectures of individuals on the same footing as the rigorous findings of hundreds of experts based on years of research—has confused both the public and policy makers.18

Perhaps most blatant and disturbing has been political tampering with scientific findings, including White House staff deleting text and re-writing scientific reports, or attempts to gag scientists at government agencies when they communicate their findings in presentations or written reports.19 In contrast, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report presents the conclusions of more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, over 800 contributing authors, and 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries around the world, after six years of current work.20 Four main conclusions were conveyed in the authoritative IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: (1) the climate system is warming, (2) climate change is human-induced, (3) climate change impacts are happening now, and (4) climate change solutions are available and needed now. Based on direct and indirect measurements of temperature around the globe, scientists have found that the warming of the Earth’s climate is “unequivocal.”22 Observations of temperatures on the land surface, on the ocean surface and below, and at different heights in the atmosphere show that the average global temperature is increasing.23 Greater trapping of incoming solar radiation by higher levels of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere is causing the land surface to heat up.24 The ocean layers are also showing warming, with surface heat slowly penetrating into deeper levels, weakening some ocean currents and conveying more heat in cyclical phenomena like El Ni ño events.25 Higher temperatures at the Earth’s surface are causing changes in the height of atmospheric layers, like some giant café latte; the height of the lowest layer (the stratosphere) has risen, while the layer above (the stratosphere) has cooled. Further investigation into climatic change is now showing changes in circulation patterns and hurricane intensity due to global warming, as well land surface to heat up.24 The ocean layers are also showing warming, with surface heat slowly penetrating into deeper levels, weakening some ocean currents and conveying more heat in cyclical phenomena like El Ni ño events.25 Higher temperatures at the Earth’s surface are causing changes in the height of atmospheric layers, like some giant café latte; the height of the lowest layer (the stratosphere) has risen, while the layer above (the stratosphere) has cooled. Further investigation into climatic change is now showing changes in circulation patterns and hurricane intensity due to global warming, as well as changes in the water vapor content of the atmosphere.

http://usf.usfca.edu/law/academic/journals/lawreview/printissues/v42i1/SAN101.pdf

WFI 11 14


Warming will quickly reach a tipping point resulting in extinction Stein 6 (David Science editor for The Guardian,, “Global Warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting,” http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html)

Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception."The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction ", reported Bill Henderson in CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence , along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we shar e.

We have the fastest timeframe—even small changes will cause our impacts Alley et al 8 (r. b Department of Geosciences and EMS Environment Institute, Pennsylvania State University, http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=c2lb7joi810tt)

Amplifiers are abundant in the climate system and can produce large changes with minimal forcing. For example, drying causing vegetation dormancy or death reduces the evapotranspiration that supplies moisture for a sizable fraction of the precipitation in many continental regions, further reducing rainfall and reinforcing drought (29). In cold regions, cooling increases surface coverage by snow and ice, increasing reflection of incoming solar radiation and causing even further cooling in an ice-albedo feedback. These positive feedbacks may include their own sources of persistence. Loss of vegetation reduces the ability of roots to capture water and allows subsequent precipitation to run off to streams and the oceans, perhaps leading to desertification (30). If snowfall on land persists long enough, an ice sheet may grow sufficiently thick that its surface becomes high enough and cold enough that melting is unlikely. Persistence also may arise from the wind-driven circulation of the oceans, stratospheric circulation and related chemistry (31), or other processes.

SPS solves warming—provides sustainable carbon neutral energy even including costs of launch and other factorsNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to be an environmentally attractive option, but one that the environmental community is largely unaware of or engaged with. If solar is considered “green” energy, then SBSP could be considered the ultimate green energy. SBSP, if manufactured on Earth (and not in‐space using lunar or asteroidal material), will of course have very similar manufacturing/pollution impacts as ground solar—except that per unit of delivered energy, much less residual pollution needs to be produced because much less solar collection area (and therefore solar collector materials) is required with SBSP. While the advantages of a distributed grid of ground solar are clear, especially for peak power during the middle of the day, space solar has several distinct advantages over ground solar, such as its appropriateness for base‐load power (the minimum power required by the grid at all times). • SBSP’s primary environmental benefit is in the form of nearly carbon ‐ free, renewable energy. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends engagement with representatives of several well‐established national environmental organizations to determine general support levels for SBSP. • Geostationary SBSP experiences nearly continuous sunlight and therefore is available more than 99% of the time and so does not incur the same difficulties of storage for terrestrial solar, which requires a corresponding increase in overcapacity.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5615/2005?ijkey=jh62GDjNdFr7o&keytype=ref&siteid=sci#R31



http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=c2lb7joi810tt

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html

WFI 11 15


NSSO Continues: Even considering the energy cost of launch, SBSP systems do payback the energy to construct and launch. In fact, SBSP systems have net energy payback times (<1 year except for very small 0.5 GW plants) well within their multi‐decade operational lifetimes. Payback times are equivalent and perhaps faster than terrestrial solar thermal power (Zerta et al, 2004). The reason for this is that an equivalent area in space receives 8‐10 times the energy flux for the annual average, and as much as 30‐40 times the energy flux in a given week than the same area located on a favorable place on the ground after considering day/night, summer/winter, and dust/weather cycles. Prior analyses suggest that the resulting energy payback (time to recover the energy used in deploying a power system) for SBSP is equivalent to or less than (perhaps as little as ½) comparable ground solar baseload power systems (which includes energy storage capacity for 24/7 usage, and pay back in 1.6‐1.7 years). • Even after losses in wireless power transmission, the reduced need for overcapacity and storage to make up for periods of low illumination translates into a much lower land usage vs. terrestrial solar for an equivalent amount of delivered energy. Unlike terrestrial solar facilities, microwave receiving rectennas allow greater than 90% of ambient light to pass through, but absorb almost all of the beamed energy, generating less waste heat than terrestrial solar systems because of greater coupling efficiency. This means that the area underneath the rectenna can continue to be used for agricultural or pastoral purposes. To deliver any reasonably significant amount of base‐load power, ground solar would need to cover huge regions of land with solar cells, which are major sources of waste heat. As a result, these ground solar farms would produce significant environmental impacts to their regions. The simultaneous major increases to the regional temperature, plus the blockage of sunlight from the ground, will likely kill off local plants, animals and insects that might inhabit the ground below or around these ground solar farms. This means that that a SBSP rectenna has less impact on the albedo or reflectivity of the Earth than a terrestrial solar plant of equivalent generating capacity. Moreover, the energy provided could facilitate water purification and irrigation, prevent frosts, extend growing seasons (if a little of the energy were used locally) etc. In the plains of the U.S. (e.g., South Dakota, etc), in sub‐ Saharan Africa, etc. etc. there are vast areas of arable land that could be both productive farm land and sites for SBSP rectennas. • The final global effect is not obvious, but also important. While it may seem intuitively obvious that SBSP introduces heat into the biosphere by beaming more energy in, the net effect is quite the opposite. All energy put into the electrical grid will eventually be spent as heat, but the methods of generating electricity are of significant impact for determining which approach produces the least total global warming effect. Fossil fuel burning emits large amounts of waste heat and greenhouse gases, while terrestrial solar and wind power also emit significant amounts of waste heat via inefficient conversion. Likewise, SBSP also has solar conversion inefficiencies that produce waste heat, but the key difference is that the most of this waste heat creation occurs outside the biosphere to be radiated into space. The losses in the atmosphere are very small, on the order of a couple percent for the wavelengths considered. Because SBSP is not a greenhouse gas emitter (with the exception of initial manufacturing and launch fuel emissions), it does not contribute to the trapping action and retention of heat in the biosphere.

US commitment to curb climate change spills over globally UCS 10 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Smart Climate Choices, The Energy and National Security Benefits of Climate Action James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors. The Union of Concerned Scientists is member of the Sustainable Energy Coalition http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/national-security-and-climate.pdf)

Clearly, a strong, effective response to global warming would serve our national interests. We need legislation that enacts a comprehensive suite of climate, energy, and transportation policies to help curb our emissions and increase our energy efficiency and use of renewable energy. Such a law would not only lower the energy bills of American consumers but also reduce our reliance on oil, enhance our security, and ease the stress on our troops. We also need to fund adaptation measures to help vulnerable populations cope with the unavoidable consequences of climate change. As it has done many times in the past, the United States should assume a role of global leadership in confronting the climate challenge. A strong U.S. commitment to reducing our own emissions and helping reduce emissions worldwide will help convince other nations to play their part, ensuring the collaborative international effort necessary to curb global warming. There is no time to waste—Congress should enact such legislation as soon as possible.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._McCarthy

WFI 11 16


Contention Two—Solvency

USFG leadership is key NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP development over the past 30 years has made little progress because it “falls between the cracks” of currently ‐ defined responsibilities of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government. The current bureaucratic lanes are drawn in such a way to exclude the likelihood of SBSP development. NASA’s charter and focus is clearly on robotic and human exploration to execute the Moon‐Mars Vision for Space Exploration, and is cognizant that it is not America’s Department of Energy (DOE). DOE rightly recognizes that the hard challenges to SBSP all lie in spacefaring activities such as space access, and space‐to‐Earth power‐beaming, none of which are its core competencies, and would make it dependent upon a space‐capable agency. The Office of Space Commercialization in the Department of Commerce is not sufficiently resourced for this mission, and no dedicated Space Development Agency exists as of yet. DoD has much of the necessary development expertise in‐house, and clearly has a responsibility to look to the long term security of the United States, but it is also not the country’s Department of Energy, and must focus itself on war prevention and warfighting concerns. A similar problem exists in the private sector. US space companies are used to small launch markets with the government as a primary customer and advocate, and do not have a developed business model or speak in a common language with the energy companies. The energy companies have adequate capital and understand their market, but do not understand the aerospace sector. One requires a demonstrated market, while the other requires a demonstrated technical capability. Without a trusted agent to mediate the collaboration and serve as an advocate for supportive policy, progress is likely to be slow.o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the US Government re ‐ order roles and responsibilities to specify SBSP an development champion; one option might included a dedicated sole ‐ purpose organization.FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that no existing U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate to invest in the development of Space‐Based Solar Power.• Lacking a specific mandate and clear responsibility, no U.S. federal agency has an existing or planned program of research, technology investment, or development related to Space‐Based Solar Power. Instead, the responsibilities for various aspects of SBSP are distributed among various federal agencies.

WFI 11 17

SPS Aff/Neg**WARMING ADVANTAGE**

WFI 11 18

SPS Aff/NegWarming—SPS Solves

Solar power in space solves warming—carbon neutral energy source Hanley 8 (Charles J, Associated Press Special correspondent, “'Drilling Up' Into Space for Energy `Beam Me Down Some Energy': Giant Pentagon, Tiny Palau Eye Space Solar Power”, The Associated Press, http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4045164,)

While great nations fretted over coal, oil and global warming, one of the smallest at the U.N. climate conference was looking toward the heavens for its energy. The annual meeting's corridors can be a sounding board for unlikely "solutions" to climate change from filling the skies with soot to block the sun, to cultivating oceans of seaweed to absorb the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon dioxide. Unlike other ideas, however, one this year had an influential backer, the Pentagon, which is investigating whether space-based solar power beaming energy down from satellites will provide "affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind." Tommy Remengesau Jr. is interested, too. "We'd like to look at it," said the president of the tiny western Pacific nation of Palau. The Defense Department this October quietly issued a 75-page study conducted for its National Security Space Office concluding that space power collection of energy by vast arrays of solar panels aboard mammoth satellites offers a potential energy source for global U.S. military operations. It could be done with today's technology, experts say. But the prohibitive cost of lifting thousands of tons of equipment into space makes it uneconomical. That's where Palau, a scattering of islands and 20,000 islanders, comes in. In September, American entrepreneur Kevin Reed proposed at the 58th International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad, India, that Palau's uninhabited Helen Island would be an ideal spot for a small demonstration project, a 260-foot-diameter "rectifying antenna," or rectenna, to take in 1 megawatt of power transmitted earthward by a satellite orbiting 300 miles above Earth. That's enough electricity to power 1,000 homes, but on that empty island the project would "be intended to show its safety for everywhere else," Reed said in a telephone interview from California. Reed said he expects his U.S.-Swiss-German consortium to begin manufacturing the necessary ultralight solar panels within two years, and to attract financial support from manufacturers wanting to show how their technology launch vehicles, satellites, transmission technology could make such a system work. He estimates project costs at $800 million and completion as early as 2012. At the U.N. climate conference here this month, a Reed partner discussed the idea with the Palauans, who Reed said could benefit from beamed-down energy if the project is expanded to populated areas. "We are keen on alternative energy," Palau's Remengesau said. "And if this is something that can benefit Palau, I'm sure we'd like to look at it." Space power has been explored since the 1960s by NASA and the Japanese and European space agencies, based on the fundamental fact that solar energy is eight times more powerful in outer space than it is after passing through Earth's atmosphere. The energy captured by space-based photovoltaic arrays would be converted into microwaves for transmission to Earth, where it would be transformed into direct-current electricity. Low-orbiting satellites, as proposed for Palau, would pass over once every 90 minutes or so, transmitting power to a rectenna for perhaps five minutes, requiring long-term battery storage or immediate use for example, in recharging electric automobiles via built-in rectennas. Most studies have focused instead on geostationary satellites, those whose orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth keeps them over a single location, to which they would transmit a continuous flow of power. The scale of that vision is enormous: One NASA study visualized solar-panel arrays 3 by 6 miles in size, transmitting power to similarly sized rectennas on Earth. Each such mega-orbiter might produce 5 gigawatts of power, more than twice the output of a Hoover Dam. But how safe would those beams be? Patrick Collins of Japan's Azabu University, who participated in Japanese government studies of space power, said a lower-power beam, because of its breadth, might be no more powerful than the energy emanating from a microwave oven's door. The beams from giant satellites would likely require precautionary no-go zones for aircraft and people on the ground, he said. Rising oil costs and fears of global warming will lead more people to look seriously at space power, boosters believe. "The climate change implications are pretty clear. You can get basically unlimited carbon-free power from this," said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society in Washington. "You just have to find a way to make it cost-effective." Advocates say the U.S. and other governments must invest in developing lower-cost space-launch vehicles. "It is imperative that this work for `drilling up' vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately," concludes October's Pentagon report. Some seem to hear the call. The European Space Agency has scheduled a conference on space-based solar power for next Feb. 29. Space Island Group, another entrepreneurial U.S. endeavor, reports "very positive" discussions with a European utility and the Indian government about buying future power from satellite systems. To Robert N. Schock, an expert on future energy with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, space power doesn't look like science fiction.

WFI 11 19


SBSP is efficient energy and solves emissionsThe Daily Yomiuri 2k (News company in Tokyo, April 21, “Government to examine space-based solar power”, LexisNexisAcademic)

Solar power generation in spac e, which would enable energy to be generated regardless of weather conditions, is considered to be the most effective source of power generation, because it would be environmentally friendly and would avoid the problems involved in the development of a power plant on Earth. The ministry plans to earmark funds for the study in its budgetary request for fiscal 2001 and to commission out part of the work to private companies at the development stage. Under the plan, solar power would be absorbed by the satellite through silicon panels. The energy absorbed would then be converted into electric energy through an electronic circuit. The converted energy would be sent to a receiver on Earth in the form of electromagnetic waves, which would be suitable for consumption. Solar power generation on Earth is susceptible to weather and seasonal conditions and possible only during daylight. However, solar power generation in space would enable the constant absorption of a certain amount of power without emitting carbon dioxide, which contributes to the greenhouse effect, or nitric oxides, which pollute the air.

Solves energy and emissionsWatson 1 (Jeremy, Professor and Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Communities and Local Government, December 30, “8BN POUNDS 'SUNTOWERS' TO CHANNEL ENERGY FROM SPACE”, LexisNexisAcademic)

Scientists are planning to tap in to a limitless source of energy by building a giant solar power station , or 'suntower', in space . Energy from the sun, which is eight times stronger outside the Earth's atmosphere than on the planet's surface, will be collected by a network of solar panels assembled by astronauts. The energy harvested by the solar devices will then be beamed back to Earth by microwave, under the Nasa scheme. US politicians believe an array of up to 20 suntowers - cost $ 8bn - could help America meet its growing demand for power while helping it to meet its international obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Space-Based Solar Power reduces carbon footprint Choudhury 7,(Nishi, freelance writer, Yahoo web page editor, writer for linkedin.com, “Space-Based Solar Power can reduce oil dependence and carbon footprints, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/space-based-solar-power-can-reduce-oil-dependence-and-carbon-footprint-says-report/ )

Post-9/11 oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. According to a report commissioned by the Pentagon Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) can help to slow down climate change and also reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. This SBSP was first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. Essentially the central idea of SBSP is very simple (place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as base load power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers). Do you know a single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to almost equal the amount of energy present within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today? Amazing isn’t it? This amount of energy from SBSP means that there is a huge potential for reducing global warming for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability. But, unfortunately it is not as simple as it looks. Why? This is because it is extremely expensive to get the solar power unit into space (it is anywhere between $500,000 and $1 billion). Hopefully, with time these SBSP units will become more economically viable, and thus help in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/space-based-solar-power-can-reduce-oil-dependence-and-carbon-footprint-says-report/


WFI 11 20


Solves warming and resulting natural disasters ieee 3 (Dr. Bernard J., has a B. S. in physics from MIT and a PH. D. in physics from Columbia University. He has started two venture-backed corporations based on applications of microwave power. s. He has published 48 papers and has 15 natents, Lyle M., currently a consultant on development of the tornado-taming project., “Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power”, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1235075&userType=&tag=1)

The continued extreme use of fossil fuels to meet world energy needs. is putting the Earth at risk for significant climate change. In an uncontrolled experiment, the buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is apparently affecting the Earth’s climate. The global climate is warming and severe storms such as hurricanes and tornadoes seem to be getting worse. Alternatives to fossil fuels may reduce the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Space Solar Power, from orbiting satellites, provides an option for clean, renewable energy that will reduce the pressure on the Earth’s environmental system. Uncertainty in the cost of commercial power from space has been the principal issue inhibiting investment support by the power companies. The Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite (TSPS) is a concept for interacting with thunderstorms to prevent formation of tornadoes. The TSPS can develop and demonstrate the technology and operations critical to understanding the cost of space solar power. TSPS benefits are saving lives and reducing property. These benefits are not as sensitive to the system economics as the commercial solar power satellite and can be used to justify government investment in space solar power. Consequently, there is no direct competition with fossil fuel based power supplies until SSP technology and operations have been demonstrated. Before weather modification can be safely attempted, the fine structure of thunderstorms must be simulated and related to tornadogenesis.

SBSP solves all the negative affects of fossil fuelsFan 11( William, Industry and Technology Assessment, Space Based Solar Power, June 2 http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final

%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf

Unlike traditional sources of energy such as oil, gas and coal (the fossil fuels), SBSP doesn’t involve the burning of fossil fuels, which have been shown to cause severe environmental problems and global warming. SBSP is also more efficient than traditional solar power, as sunlight is almost five and a half times as strong in space than it is on the surface of the earth [1], as it does not have to interact with the atmosphere, weather, and day/night cycles. Space based solar power would be able to run almost continuously, with only short periods of time (of at most 75 minutes during the equinoxes [2]) when a satellite would be in the Earth’s shadow. Some important aspects have changed that could lead to SBSP evolving from a futuristic fantasy into a current, plausible reality. First is the advent of private space launch companies. The most famous one is SpaceX, which aims to launch objects into space at a fraction of the current costs. The other is the wireless revolution. Such widespread use has allowed wireless power transmission to take dramatic leaps forward, and as a consequence, provides a plausible solution to the issue of transmitting power from space onto the surface of the Earth.

http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf

http://www.pickar.caltech.edu/e103/Final%20Exams/Space%20Based%20Solar%20Power.pdf

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1235075&userType=&tag=1

WFI 11 21

SPS Aff/NegWarming—SPS Solves CO2

Solves carbon emissionsNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that to the extent the United States decides it wishes to limit its carbon emissions, SBSP offers a potential path for long ‐ term carbon mitigation . This study does not take a position on anthropogenic climate change, which at this time still provoked significant debate among participants, but there is undeniable interest in options that limit carbon emission. Studies by Asakura et al in 2000 suggest that SBSP lifetime carbon emissions (chiefly in construction) are even more attractive than nuclear power , and that for the same amount of carbon emission, one could install 60 times the generating capacity, or alternately, one could replace existing generating capacity with 1/60th the lifetime carbon emission of a coal ‐ fired plant without CO2 sequestration

Warming – SBSP Solves – Economy

SPS solves warming which tanks the economy NC 11 (The Nature Conservancy, February 28, 2011, “Climate Change Impacts Economic Loss and Damage”, http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/climatechange/threatsimpacts/economic-loss-and-damage.xml)

Climate change is affecting businesses and economies at home and around the world. If action is not taken to curb global carbon emissions, climate change could cost between 5 and 20 percent of the annual global gross domestic product, according to a British government report. In comparison, it would take 1 percent of GDP to lessen the most damaging effects of climate change, the report says.These global costs will be felt by local communities and businesses:In southern New England lobster catches have plummeted because of heat stresses and growing parasite threats due to rising sea temperatures. Ski resorts located in the lower altitudes of the Swiss Alps have difficulty obtaining bank loans because of declining snow. In Lake Erie, climate change may significantly lower lake levels, altering shoreline habitats and costing millions for the relocation of ports and shore infrastructure.Globally, more intense hurricanes and downpours could cause billions of dollars in damage to property and infrastructure. Declining crop yields due to prolonged drought and high temperatures, especially in Africa, could put hundreds of thousands of people at risk for starvation.High sea temperatures also threaten the survival of coral reefs, which generate an estimated $375 billion per year in goods and services.

Economic crash causes nuclear world war IIIO'Donnell 9[Sean, 2/26, Baltimore Republican Examiner writer and Squad Leader in the Marine Corps Reserve, the Baltimore Examiner, "Will this recession lead to World War III?," http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-this-recession-lead-to-World-War-III] Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-this-recession-lead-to-World-War-III


WFI 11 22

SPS Aff/Neg

WFI 11 23

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Now Key

Now is key—

a. We’ll cross the tipping point within years OSB 2 (Ocean Studies Board, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11)

R ecent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed . For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies. Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

b. Climate change is accelerating Romm 7(Joseph, editor of Climate Progress, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, August 29, “When it comes to climate change, prevention is more important than adaptation”, http://www.grist.org/article/hurricane-katrina-and-the-myth-of-global-warming-adaptation)If we won't adapt to the realities of having one city below sea level in hurricane alley, what are the chances we are going to adapt to the realities of having all our great Gulf and Atlantic Coast cities at risk for the same fate as New Orleans -- since sea level from climate change will ultimately put many cities, like Miami, below sea level? And just how do you adapt to sea levels rising 6 to 12 inches a decade for centuries, which well may be our fate by 2100 if we don't reverse greenhouse-gas emissions trends soon. Climate change driven by human-caused GHGs is already happening much faster than past climate change from natural causes -- and it is accelerating.

c. amazon proves now is key Stein 7 (David, Science Editor, 2007, “Scientists say Humanity ignores Antarctic melting and Greenhouse gas time-bombs with the price of Mass-Extinction”, http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/26/01381.html)

There are 'carbon bombs': carbon in soils, carbon in warming temperate and boreal forests and in a drought struck Amazon, methane in Arctic peat bogs and in methane hydrates melting in warming ocean waters. "For several decades it has been hypothesized that rising temperatures from increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to burning fossil fuels could be releasing some of and eventually all of these stored carbon stocks to add substantially more potent greenhouse gases to the atmosphere," Bill Henderson further elaborates.Given time lags of 30-50 years, we might have already put enough extra greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to have crossed a threshold to these bombs exploding, their released greenhouse gases leading to ever accelerating global warming with future global temperatures maybe tens of degrees higher than our norms of human habitation and therefore extinction or very near extinction of humanity."(T)he science is clear. We need not a 20% cut by 2020; not a 60% cut by 2050, but a 90% cut by 2030 (1). Only then do we stand a good chance of keeping carbon concentrations in the atmosphere below 430 parts per million, which means that only then do we stand a good chance of preventing some of the threatened positive feedbacks. If we let it get beyond that point there is nothing we can do. The biosphere takes over as the primary source of carbon. It is out of our hands," George Monbiot says.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/26/01381.html

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=11

WFI 11 24

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Now Key

warming accelerating—oceans prove Osborne 8(Darren, ABC staff writer, June 19, “Ocean review finds warming on the rise” http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/19/2279924.htm?site=science&topic=latest)

A long-standing difference between climate models and observations has been resolved with researchers finding that the world's oceans have been warming faster than previously thought.The paper, published today in Nature, shows ocean warming and thermal expansion trends for the past five decades are 50% larger than earlier previously estimated.The finding also adds weight to a growing scientific chorus of warnings about the pace and consequences of rising oceans.

Action against global warming is needed nowUCS 10 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Global Warming, James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors. The Union of Concerned Scientists is member of the Sustainable Energy Coalition. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/)

The Earth is warming and human activity is the primary cause . Climate disruptions put our food and water supply at risk, endanger our health , jeopardize our national security, and threaten other basic human needs. Some impacts—such as record high temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe flooding and droughts—are already becoming increasingly common across the country and around the world. So far, our national leaders are failing to act quickly to reduce heat-trapping emissions. However, there is much we can do to protect the health and economic well-being of current and future generations from the consequences of the heat-trapping emissions caused when we burn coal, oil, and gas to generate electricity, drive our cars, and fuel our businesses. Our country is at a crossroads: the United States can act responsibly and seize the opportunity to lead by developing new, innovative solutions, as well as immediately putting to use the many practical solutions we have at our disposal today; or we can choose to do nothing and deal with severe consequences later. At UCS we believe the choice is clear. It is time to push forward toward a brighter, cleaner future.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/climate-change-and-ozone-pollution.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html



http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/19/2279924.htm?site=science&topic=latest

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/19/2279924.htm?site=science&topic=latest

WFI 11 25

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Yes (Generic)

Climate change happening now is as close to scientific fact as possiblePumphrey 8(Carolyn, In addition to her position as Assistant Teaching Professor of History at North Carolina State University, Carolyn Pumphrey is Coordinator for the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) - an organization dedicated to improving understanding and knowledge of national and international security., May, “Global Climate Change: National Security Implications”, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf)The State of the Problem Today. So where are we in our thinking today when it comes to the science of climate change? There are still dissenting voices, and we cannot speak with absolute certainty. But science, we should remember, is essentially a culture of doubt.2 As Karl Popper wrote at the start of the 20th century, “I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a ‘body of knowledge’, but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticipations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are ‘true’. . . .” Nonetheless, the idea that there is such a thing as climate change is as close to established scientific fact as one can get. At its last meeting in February 2007, the IPCC concluded that human activity has indeed increased global 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 averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” It is important to remember that the IPCC is an inherently conservative body. It can only make 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 percent certain—which is very certain indeed.

The planet is warming quickly-action must be taken immediatelyWigley, Raper 1(T.M.L, S.C.P, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO. Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK and Alfred-Wegener-Institut for Polar and Marine Research, July 20,” Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean Warming”, http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5529/451.full)In summary, we have shown that the very high upper-limit warming rate of about 0.5°C/decade given in the IPCC TAR (4) is much less likely than warmings in the center of the distribution, which are about 0.3°C/decade. Even warming at this rate, however, is very large compared with the observed warming over the past century, and considerably larger than the rate of warming suggested in the IPCC SAR (8). In many of the scenarios considered, the rate of warming is still high at the end of the 21st century; further warming through the 22nd century would be virtually certain in these cases. Whether or not such rapid warming will occur and be sustained depends, of course, on actions taken to control climate change. If the near future were to follow a rapid warming pathway, and the expected impacts were to occur, it is likely that mitigation efforts would be initiated rapidly in the hope of reducing the rate and magnitude of change. Inertia in the climate system would, however, lead to only a slow response to such efforts and guarantee that future warming would still be large.

WFI 11 26

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Yes (Anthropogenic)

Warming is anthropogenic – past century proves Houghton 5(Sir. John, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics, April 5, “Global Warming”, http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/68/6/R02/pdf/rpp5_6_R02.pdf)More than fifteen centuries in the world located in ten countries are currently running fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. Some of these have been employed to simulate the climate of the last 150 years. An example compared with observed climate is shown in figure 17; similar results have been obtained from many models. Note from figure 17 that the inclusion of anthropogenic forcings provides a plausible explanation for a substantial part of the observed temperature changes over the last century (especially for the latter part of the century), but that the best match with observations occurs when both natural and anthropogenic factors are included. Assumed changes in solar output and the comparative absence of volcanic activity assist in providing explanations for the increase in global average temperature during the first part of the century. The shorter term variability shown in the model of about a tenth of a degree Celsius arises from internal exchanges in the model between different parts of the climate system, and is not dissimilar to that which appears in the observed record. It has also been possible from comparisons of results from regional models with observations to attribute some of the patterns of regional change to anthropogenic causes [63]. Allen et al [64] have used the constraints provided by the observed climate on the simulations of models to quantify the uncertainty in forecasts for the first part of the 21st century. Due to the slowing effect of the oceans on climate change, the warming observed or modelled so far is less than would be expected if the climate system were in equilibrium under the amount of radiative forcing due to the current increase in greenhouse gases and aerosols. The increase in ocean heat content over the last 50 years has also been simulated by models showing, when both natural and anthropogenic forcings are included, substantial agreement with observations [65]. Since its formation in 1988 the IPCC has been much involved in the debate as to whether the observed record provides evidence of the influence on the climate of the increase in greenhouse gases. The evidence for both the detection and attribution 6 of climate change has grown significantly stronger during this period. From studies of the global average temperature increase as in figure 17 and also from studies of patterns of climate change over the globe, the carefully worded conclusion reached in the IPCC 2001 Report [66] is the following: ‘In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed 6 Detection is the process of demonstrating that an observed change is significantly different (in a statistical sense) than can be explained by natural variability. Attribution is the process of establishing cause and effect with some defined level of confidence, including the assessment of competing hypotheses.

Scientists prove human activity is causing and expediting global warmingRevkin, 7(Andrew C., senior editor of Discover, a staff writer at the Los Angeles Times, and a senior writer at Science Digest, “Connecting the Global Warming Dots”, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14basics.html)If thought of as a painting, the scientific picture of a growing and potentially calamitous human influence on the climate has moved from being abstract a century ago to impressionistic 30 years ago to pointillist today. Multimedia Graphic Measuring Warmth ....The impact of a buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is now largely undisputed. Almost everyone in the field says the consequences can essentially be reduced to a formula: More CO2 = warmer world = less ice = higher seas. (Throw in a lot of climate shifts and acidifying oceans for good measure.) But the prognosis — and the proof that people are driving much of the warming — still lacks the sharpness and detail of a modern-day photograph, which makes it hard to get people to change their behavior. Indeed, the closer one gets to a particular pixel, be it hurricane strength, or the rate at which seas could rise, the harder it is to be precise. So what is the basis for the ever-stronger scientific agreement on the planet’s warming even in the face of blurry details? As in a pointillist painting, the meaning emerges from the broadest view, from the “balance of evidence,” as the scientific case is described in the periodic reports issued by an enormous international network of experts: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch. The main findings of the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 will be released in Paris on Feb. 2. In the panel’s last report, issued in 2001, and in more recent studies reviewed for the coming report, various trends provide clues that human activity, rather than natural phenomena, probably caused most of the recent warming. A number of trends have been identified: ¶The global average minimum nighttime temperature has risen. (This is unlikely to be caused by some variability in the sun, for example, and appears linked to the greenhouse gases that hold in heat radiating from the earth’s surface, even after the sun has gone down.) ¶The stratosphere, high above the earth’s surface, has cooled, which is an expected outcome of having more heat trapped by the gases closer to the surface, in the troposphere. (Scientists say that variations in the sun’s output, for example, would instead cause similar trends in the two atmospheric layers

WFI 11 27

SPS Aff/Neginstead of opposite ones.) ¶There has been a parallel warming trend over land and oceans. (In other words, the increase in the amount of heat-trapping asphalt cannot be the only culprit.) “There’s no urbanization going on on the ocean,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Another important finding comes from computer simulations of the climate system. While the several dozen top models remain rough approximations, they have become progressively better at replicating climate patterns, past and present. In the models, the only way to replicate the remarkable warming, and extraordinary Arctic warming, of recent decades is to add greenhouse gases as people have been doing, Dr. Lawrimore said. “Without the greenhouse gases,” he said, “you just don’t get what we’ve observed.”

WFI 11 28

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Yes (Models)

Prefer recent models-capabilities have advancedHoughton 5(Sir. John, co-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) , professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre. Institue of Physics, April 5, “Global Warming”, http://iopscience.iop.org/0034-4885/68/6/R02/pdf/rpp5_6_R02.pdf)An obvious test of a climate model is to run it for a number of years of simulated time and compare in detail the model-generated climate to the current observed climate in both its average and its variability. Models have improved greatly in recent years against such tests. However, it is also necessary to demonstrate the model’s ability to accurately simulate changes in climate due to changing climate forcing. This has been done by testing the model’s ability to simulate the effects of large perturbations of the climate, for instance such as arise from El Nino events (see section 7.3) or from volcanic eruptions. For instance, climate perturbations resulting from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, both in the global average [52] and regionally [53], were well simulated by models. Models have also been tested through comparing data from paleoclimate studies with simulations of past climates when the distribution of incident solar radiation on the Earth was substantially different from that at present (see section 3.3). The increase in available computing power in recent years has enabled comparisons to be made of model runs from different initial conditions (often referred to as ensembles) [54], so exploring model ‘natural’ variability and prediction uncertainty (see next section). Through these various studies confidence has been built in the value of models to simulate changes of climate that occur because of human activities.

Problems with models have been correctedRamaswamy et al, 6(V. Phd in Geosciences & Program in Atmospheric, executive summary for the US climate change science program, 2006, “Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere,” http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf)Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.

WFI 11 29

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Impact: Extinction

Global warming causes extinctionHarvey 11 ((Jan Harvey, 6/21/ Reporter for yahoo news on the environment) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans)

OSLO (Reuters) – Life in the oceans is at imminent risk of the worst spate of extinctions in millions of years due to threats such as climate change and over-fishing, a study showed on Tuesday. Time was running short to counter hazards such as a collapse of coral reefs or a spread of low-oxygen "dead zones," according to the study led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO). "We now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation," according to the study by 27 experts to be presented to the United Nations. "Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, over-exploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean," it said. Scientists list five mass extinctions over 600 million years -- most recently when the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, apparently after an asteroid struck. Among others, the Permian period abruptly ended 250 million years ago. "The findings are shocking," Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO, wrote of the conclusions from a 2011 workshop of ocean experts staged by IPSO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at Oxford University. Fish are the main source of protein for a fifth of the world's population and the seas cycle oxygen and help absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities. OXYGEN Jelle Bijma, of the Alfred Wegener Institute, said the seas faced a "deadly trio" of threats of higher temperatures, acidification and lack of oxygen, known as anoxia, that had featured in several past mass extinctions. A build-up of carbon dioxide, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate scientists on human use of fossil fuels, is heating the planet. Absorbed into the oceans, it causes acidification, while run-off of fertilizers and pollution stokes anoxia. "From a geological point of view, mass extinctions happen overnight, but on human timescales we may not realize that we are in the middle of such an event," Bijma wrote. The study said that over-fishing is the easiest for governments to reverse -- countering global warming means a shift from fossil fuels, for instance, toward cleaner energies such as wind and solar power. "Unlike climate change, it can be directly, immediately and effectively tackled by policy change,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110621/sc_nm/us_oceans

WFI 11 30

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Impact: Nuclear War

Warming causes escalating nuclear wars Guardian 4 (feb 22, “Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. 'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.' The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority. The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network. An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver

WFI 11 31

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Impact: Economy

Warming collapses the economy – crushes GDP Adam 8 (David, environment correspondent for The Guardian, 4-18, “I underestimated the threat, says Stern,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions)

Stern said this week that new scientific findings showed greenhouse gas emissions were causing more damage than was understood in 2006, when he prepared his study for the government. He pointed to last year's reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and new research which shows that the planet's oceans and forests are soaking up less carbon dioxide than expected. He said: "Emissions are growing much faster than we'd thought, the absorptive capacity of the planet is less than we'd thought, the risks of greenhouse gases are potentially bigger than more cautious estimates and the speed of climate change seems to be faster." Stern said the new findings vindicated his report, which has been criticised by climate sceptics and some economists as exaggerating the possible damage. "People who said I was scaremongering were profoundly wrong," he told a conference in London. He said that increasing commitments from countries to curb greenhouse gases now needed to be translated into action. Earlier this week, Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, said a lack of such action from developed countries could derail attempts to seal a new global climate treaty at a crucial meeting in Copenhagen next year. The Stern Review was credited with shifting the debate about climate change from an environmental focus to the economic impacts. It said the expected increase in extreme weather, with the associated and expensive problems of agricultural failure, water scarcity, disease and mass migration, meant that global warming could swallow up to 20% of the world's GDP, with the poorest countries the worst affected. The cost of addressing the problem, it said, could be limited to about 1% of GDP, provided it started on a serious scale within 10 to 20 years.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/18/climatechange.carbonemissions

WFI 11 32

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Impact: Asian Stability

Warming causes Asian instability through disease, drought, flooding and starvationChannel News Asia 7 (april 6, “Asia faces floods, drought, disease: UN climate report” http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st)

BRUSSELS - Asia faces a heightened risk of flooding, severe water shortages, infectious disease and hunger from global warming this century, the UN's top climate panel said on Friday. The region is confronted by a 90-percent likelihood that more than a billion of its people will be "adversely affected" by the impacts of global warming by the 2050s, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said. Its estimates, in a major report unveiled in Brussels, say the magnitude of climate- change effects will vary according to the size of the world's population, energy use and the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which determines the rise in global temperature. But under any scenario, the world's most populous region will be badly hit. Here are the major findings: -- 120 million to 1.2 billion people in Asia will experience increased water stress by 2020, and 185 to 981 million by 2050. -- Cereal yields in South Asia could drop in some areas by up to 30 percent by 2050. -- Even modest rises in sea levels will cause flooding and economic disruption in densely-populated mega-deltas, such as the mouths of the Yangtze in China, the Red River in China and Vietnam, and the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta in low-lying Bangladesh. -- Cholera and malaria could increase, thanks to flooding and a wider habitat range for mosquitoes. -- In the Himalayas, glaciers less than four kilometres (2.5 miles) long will disappear entirely if average global temperatures rise by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 Fahrenheit). This will initially cause increased flooding and mudslides followed by an eventual decrease in flow in rivers that are glacier-fed. -- Per capita water availability in India will drop from around 1,900 cubic metres (66, 500 cubic feet) currently to 1,000 cu. metres (35,000 cu. ft.) by 2025.

http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070304/070406-14.htm#st

WFI 11 33

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Impact: National Security

Climate change poses several unique risks to U.S. national securityUCS 10 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Smart Climate Choices, The Energy and National Security Benefits of Climate Action James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors. The Union of Concerned Scientists is member of the Sustainable Energy Coalition http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/national-security-and-climate.pdf)

Climate change is already under way and we are feeling its effects in the form of severe weather, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. Left unchecked, our growing emissions will lead to further increases in sea level rise, droughts, floods, wildfires, water shortages, food shortages, the severity of hurricanes, and the unpredictability of monsoon cycles—all of which put human health and lives at risk. “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.” –General Anthony C. Zinni, U.S. Marine Corps (retired) These threats, especially those affecting water and food supplies, compounded by a loss of habitable land due to rising sea levels, have the very real potential to trigger mass population migrations and violent conflicts. Water shortages are already a cause of violence and instability in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Global warming may also lead to weakened and failed states, creating yet more poverty, forced migrations, and resource scarcity—conditions that foster extremism and terrorism. The burden of these adverse climate impacts will be disproportionately borne by developing nations and by poor and unprepared communities in all nations. As a result, the U.S. military—already a major contributor to humanitarian missions worldwide and stretched thin by existing deployments—will likely be called upon to undertake additional humanitarian missions. Climate change also threatens U.S. Weapons systems and platforms, bases, and military operations. For example, drier, hotter conditions could lead to sandstorms affecting operations in the Middle East, Africa, and the Persian Gulf. Rising sea levels and more severe storms could affect strategic facilities such as Diego Garcia (a major hub for Middle East and Afghanistan operations but located only a few feet above sea level in the Indian Ocean) or the Naval Air Station at Pensacola, FL (which was shut down for more than a year by Hurricane Ivan in 2004).While we may be able to adapt to some of these impacts, the cost will likely be significant. Instead, by taking action to sharply curtail our emissions, we can lessen the severity of the impacts and enhance both national and global security.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/national-security-and-climate.pdf



WFI 11 34

SPS Aff/NegWarming—Impact: Laundry List

Climate change poses several unique risks to U.S. national securityUCS 10 (Union of Concerned Scientists, Smart Climate Choices, The Energy and National Security Benefits of Climate Action James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors. The Union of Concerned Scientists is member of the Sustainable Energy Coalition http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/national-security-and-climate.pdf)

Climate change is already under way and we are feeling its effects in the form of severe weather, melting glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. Left unchecked, our growing emissions will lead to further increases in sea level rise, droughts, floods, wildfires, water shortages, food shortages, the severity of hurricanes, and the unpredictability of monsoon cycles—all of which put human health and lives at risk. “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.” –General Anthony C. Zinni, U.S. Marine Corps (retired) These threats, especially those affecting water and food supplies, compounded by a loss of habitable land due to rising sea levels, have the very real potential to trigger mass population migrations and violent conflicts. Water shortages are already a cause of violence and instability in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Global warming may also lead to weakened and failed states, creating yet more poverty, forced migrations, and resource scarcity—conditions that foster extremism and terrorism. The burden of these adverse climate impacts will be disproportionately borne by developing nations and by poor and unprepared communities in all nations. As a result, the U.S. military—already a major contributor to humanitarian missions worldwide and stretched thin by existing deployments—will likely be called upon to undertake additional humanitarian missions. Climate change also threatens U.S. Weapons systems and platforms, bases, and military operations. For example, drier, hotter conditions could lead to sandstorms affecting operations in the Middle East, Africa, and the Persian Gulf. Rising sea levels and more severe storms could affect strategic facilities such as Diego Garcia (a major hub for Middle East and Afghanistan operations but located only a few feet above sea level in the Indian Ocean) or the Naval Air Station at Pensacola, FL (which was shut down for more than a year by Hurricane Ivan in 2004).While we may be able to adapt to some of these impacts, the cost will likely be significant. Instead, by taking action to sharply curtail our emissions, we can lessen the severity of the impacts and enhance both national and global security.



WFI 11 35

SPS Aff/NegWarming—AT: Impact Turns

No turns-the negative conflicts and wars outweigh positive aspects Matthew 8 (Richard A., Associate Professor of International and Environmental Politics at the University of California, Irvine, May,Global Climate Change: National Security Implications, science direct)

Further complicating matters, we also know that there will be winners and losers as the world’s climate changes. Not everyone will experience the same kind of problems, and some areas will find the changes conducive to human settlement and increased 64 agricultural output and so on. But overall, the expected downside massively outweighs any predicted upside. The menu of likely threats includes severe weather events, changes in the food supply, massive flooding, and dramatic changes in microbial activity that will lead to the spread of infectious disease. Indeed, many analysts believe that we are very close to a global pandemic . They anticipate a transfer of disease from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom that will be highly virulent . A lot of these transfers have taken place in the past 3 decades because environmental conditions are changing and because people are being forced into marginal environments where they come into close contact with pathogens with which they have not had any contact in the past.

WFI 11 36

SPS Aff/NegWarming—AT: Inevitable

We need to slow down warming-inevitability is not an excuseHenzell 7 (John, Australian journalist and expert on climate change, February 21, “Meltdown may be ‘inevitable’”, http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T12376984823&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T12376984831&cisb=22_T12376984830&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=155923&docNo=6)

A meltdown of the polar ice sheets and significant sea-level rises could already be inevitable, no matter what is done now about greenhouse gases, according to a leaked report on climate change.However, New Zealand scientists are warning that doing nothing about climate change is not an option as sea level rises could be more than 10 times the 6m predicted in the report to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).An IPCC report, described as the final draft of the summary for policymakers and leaked to a British newspaper, said analysis of new studies of Antarctica and Greenland showed a 50 per cent chance that widespread ice sheet loss "may no longer be avoided" because of existing greenhouse gases and climate inertia.Professor Bryan Storey, of Gateway Antarctica at the University of Canterbury, said he essentially agreed with the recommendations of the report, which projects thousands of years into the future."The issue is how quickly the ice sheets are going to melt," he said.A sea-level increase of 59cm within a century was predicted purely from the thermal expansion of slightly warmer oceans, and did not take into account the fate of the globe's three primary ice sheets -- Greenland and the West and East Antarctic Ice Sheets."Complete melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet would result in a 7m sea-level rise," Storey said."Complete melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would result in another 6m of sea-level rise.""Greenland is much more vulnerable than Antarctica," Storey said."A paper released in 2005 showed it will take 3000 years for the Greenland Ice Sheet to completely disappear, but half of it will go within 1000 years, and that will mean a 3.5m sea-level rise."The West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which in part feeds the Ross Ice Shelf near Scott Base, is the most vulnerable of the Antarctic icecaps, but less vulnerable than Greenland because the temperatures there remain colder.However, Storey said even if the melting of Greenland and West Antarctic icesheets was found to be inevitable, it was not a justification to avoid tackling greenhouse gases.Failure to reverse human- caused climate change would mean the icesheets would melt even faster than projected and could mean the disappearance of the far bigger East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would result in sea-level rising by 60m."If we do nothing now, carbon dioxide levels will rise from the current value of 360 parts per million to over 500ppm -- that's twice the preindustrial value," he said. "That's if we don't start to do anything."We want to stop these values going over 500ppm because if we don't, I think we'll move into a situation where sea levels will be much higher."Gaps in researchers' understanding of how the Antarctic ice sheets operate was demonstrated as recently as last week.The journal Science published findings that showed a huge system of interconnected rivers and lakes under the ice sheet changes far more quickly than previously thought, and in unexpected ways.Storey said researchers could not rule out equally fundamental discoveries about the ice sheets, which would affect their ability to predict and model for the future.

http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T12376984823&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T12376984831&cisb=22_T12376984830&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=155923&docNo=6



WFI 11 37

SPS Aff/Neg**HEGEMONY ADVANTAGE**

WFI 11 38

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—Brink

US leadership at risk- most qualified source and irrefutable evidenceDelta State University, 11[Targeted News Service, “Delta State Guest Lecturer Warns of 'Perfect Storm',” 2-14-11, l/n, accessed 7-18-11, mss]

According to Norman R. Augustine, retired CEO of the Lockheed Martin Corporation, a perfect storm is poised to strike the United States. Due to the confluence of a variety of forces, the nation is falling behind the rest of the world in its scientific, mathematical, and technological capabilities. According to Augustine, without a massive nationwide effort, many countries of the world will surpass the U.S. in these areas, hindering America's competitiveness and threatening future economic opportunities. Speaking before a capacity crowd in the Baioni Conference Center on the Delta State Campus on Monday, Feb. 7, Augustine's remarks echoed themes contained in a congressionally requested report-- Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future--compiled by a pre-eminent committee he recently chaired. "The evidence is irrefutable," said Augustine, one of the most successful and admired engineer-statesman of his generation. He offered the following examples: * U.S. 12th graders recently performed below the international average for 21 countries on a test of general knowledge in math and science. * In 2004, China graduated about 500,000 engineers, India 200,000, and the U.S. 70,000. * For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the U.S., a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India. Augustine's lecture focused on two priorities he believes must be met in order for the U.S. to remain competitive in a today's global economy. * Improving K - 12 education * Investing in research in the fields of engineering, science, and technology "America's future science and technology talent comes from K - 12," said Augustine. "If we are going to create effective job opportunities, we must educate this generation in Math and Sciences." According to Augustine, Americans must prepare to compete for jobs on a global scale. "We are no longer competing with local community members for jobs, we are competing with a global community," he said. "Americans, who represent only 5% of the world's population and nearly 30% of the world's wealth, tend to believe that scientific and technological leadership and the high standard of living it underpins is somehow the natural state of affairs, said Augustine. "But such good fortune is not a birthright. If we wish our children and grandchildren to enjoy the standard of living most Americans have come to expect, there is only one answer: We must get out and compete." "Delta State is so fortunate to have Mr. Augustine lecture to our students, faculty and community," said Dr. Billy Morehead, Chair of the Division of Accountancy, CIS and Finance. "Mr. Augustine's credentials are impeccable. Not only has he had an amazing career in the aerospace industry, he has a passion for improving our nation's educational system. Because of his career and his passion, he has served on a committee or taskforce under every President since Johnson, both Democrat and Republican, including his recent service on a committee for President Obama discussing the future of the U.S. Space Program. He is so respected, that in the fall of 2010, he testified before Congress regarding the future of America's educational system." Among his countless honors Augustine has been presented the National Medal of Technology by the President of the United States and received the Joint Chiefs of Staff Distinguished Public Service Award. He has five times received the Department of Defense's highest civilian decoration, the Distinguished Service Medal. He holds 23 honorary degrees and was selected by Who's Who in America and the Library of Congress as one of "Fifty Great Americans" on the occasion of Who's Who's fiftieth anniversary.

WFI 11 39

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL: Aero Competitiveness

Aerospace competiveness key to us heg Walker et al. 2 (robert Walker,Chair of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners. Final Report of the Commission on the Futureof the United States Aerospace Industry Commissioners, November, http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf [Figueroa)

Defending our nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the federal govern-ment.2This translates into two broad missions—Defend America and Project Power—when and where needed. In order to defend America and project power, the nation needs the ability to move manpower, materiel, intelligence information and precision weaponry swiftly to any point around the globe, when needed. This has been, and will continue to be, a mainstay of our national security strategy. The events of September 11, 2001 dramatically demonstrated the extent of our national reliance on aerospace capabilities and related military contributions to homeland security. Combat air patrols swept the skies; satellites supported real-time communica-tions for emergency responders, imagery for recov-ery, and intelligence on terrorist activities; and thesecurity and protection of key government officials was enabled by timely air transport.As recent events inAfghanistan and Kosovo show, the power generated by our nation’s aerospace capa-bilities is an—and perhaps the—essential ingredient in force projection and expeditionary operations. Inboth places, at the outset of the crisis, satellites and reconnaissance aircraft, some unmanned, provided critical strategic and tactical intelligence to our national leadership. Space-borne intelligence, com-mand, control and communications assets permitted the rapid targeting of key enemy positions and facilities. Airlifters and tankers brought personnel, materiel, and aircraft to critical locations. And aerial bombardment, with precision weapons and cruise missiles, often aided by the Global Positioning System (GPS) and the Predator unmanned vehicle, destroyed enemy forces. Aircraft carriers and their aircraft also played key roles in both conflicts. Today’s military aerospace capabilities are indeed robust, but at significant risk. They rely on platforms and an industrial base—measured in both human capital and physical facilities—that are aging and increasingly inadequate. Consider just a few of the issues:Much of our capability to defend America and project power depends on satellites. Assured reli-able access to space is a critical enabler of this capability. As recently as 1998, the key to near- and mid-term space access was the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle(EELV), a development project of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the U. S. Air Force.EELV drew primarily on commercial demand toclose the business case for two new launchers, with the U.S. government essentially buying launches at the margin. In this model, each company partner made significant investments of corporate funds invehicle development and infrastructure, reducingthe overall need for government investment. Today, however, worldwide demand for commercial satellite launch has dropped essentially to nothing—and is not expected to rise for a decade or more—while the number of available launch platforms worldwide has proliferated. Today, therefore, the business case for EELV simply does not close, and reliance on the economics of a com-mercially-driven market is unsustainable. A new strategy for assured access to space must be found. The U.S. needs unrestricted access to space for civil, commercial, and military applications. Oursatellite systems will become increasingly important to military operations as today’s informationrevolution, the so-called “revolution in military affairs,” continues, while at the same time satelliteswill become increasingly vulnerable to attack as the century proceeds.To preserve critical satellite net-works, the nation will almost certainly need the capability to launch replacement satellites quickly after an attack. One of the key enablers for “launch on demand” is reusable space launch, and yetwithin the last year all work has been stopped onthe X-33 and X-34 reusable launch programs The challenge for the defense industrial base is to have the capability to build the base force struc-ture, support contingency-related surges, provide production capacity that can increase faster than any new emerging global threat can build up its capacity, and provide an “appropriate” return toshareholders. But the motivation of governmentand industry are different. This is a prime detrac-tion for wanting to form government-industrypartnerships. Industry prioritizes investmentstoward near-term, high-return, and high-dollarprograms that make for a sound business case forthem. Government, on the other hand, wants toprioritize investment to ensure a continuing capa-bility to meet any new threat to the nation. Thisneed is cyclical and difficult for businesses to sus-tain during periods of government inactiv-ity. Based on the cyclic nature of demand, theincreasing cost/complexity of new systems, and theslow pace of defense modernization, aerospace companies are losing market advantages and thesector is contracting. Twenty-two years ago, today’s“Big 5” in aerospace were 75 separate companies,as depicted by the historical chart of industry con-solidation shown in Chapter 7.Tactical combat aircraft have been a key compo-nent of America’s air forces. Today, three tacticalaircraft programs continue: the F/A-18E/F (inproduction), the F/A-22 (in a late stage of test andevaluation), and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (justmoving into system design and development).Because of the recentness of these programs, thereare robust design teams in existence. But all of theinitial design work on all three programs will becompleted by 2008. If the nation were to con-clude, as it very

http://www.trade.gov/td/aerospace/aerospacecommission/AeroCommissionFinalReport.pdf

WFI 11 40

SPS Aff/Negwell may, that a new manned tac-tical aircraft needs to be fielded in the middle ofthis century, where will we find the experienceddesign teams required to design and build it, if thedesign process is in fact gapped for 20 years ormore?More than half of the aerospace workforce is overthe age of 404, and the average age of aerospacedefense workers is over 50.5Inside the Departmentof Defense (DoD), a large percent of all scientistsand engineers will be retirement eligible by 2005.Given these demographics, there will be an exodusof “corporate knowledge” in the next decade thatwill be difficult and costly to rebuild once it is lost.There willbe a critical need for new engineers, butlittle new work to mature their practical skill overthe next several decades. Further, enrollment inaerospace engineering programs has dropped by 47percent in the past nine years6, and the interest andnational skills in mathematics and science aredown. Defense spending on cutting-edge work isat best stable, and commercial aircraft programsare struggling and laying workers off. As the DoD’srecent Space Research and Development (R&D)Industrial Base Study7concluded, “[s]ustaining atalented workforce of sufficient size and experienceremains a long- term issue and is likely to get worse.” In short, the nation needs a plan to attract,train and maintain a skilled, world-class aerospace workforce, but none currently exists.The current U.S. research, development, test andevaluation (RDT&E) infrastructure has a legacydating back to either World War II or the expan-sion during the Space Age in the 1960s. It is now suffering significantly from a lack of resourcesrequired for modernization. In some cases, ournation’s capabilities have atrophied and we havelost the lead, as with our outdated wind tunnels,where European facilities are now more modernand efficient. In the current climate, there is inad-equate funding to modernize aging government infrastructure or build facilities that would supportthe development of new transformational capabil-ities, such as wind tunnels needed to design andtest new hypersonic vehicles. The aerospace indus-try must have access to appropriate, modern facil-ities to develop, test and evaluate new systems.Throughout this dynamic and challenging environ-ment, one message remains clear: a healthy U.S. aerospace industry is more than a hedge against an uncertain future. It is one of the primary national instruments through which DoD will develop and obtain the superior technologies and capabilities essential to the on-going transformation of thearmed forces.

Declining space leadership uniquely allows the emergence of hostile global rivals.Snead 7 Mike,Aerospace engineer and consultant focusing on Near-future space infrastructure development. “How America Can and Why America Must Now Become a True Spacefaring Nation,” Spacefaring America Blog, 6/3, http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx [Figueroa]

Great power status is achieved through competition between nations. This competition is often based on advancing science and technology and applying these advancements to enabling new operational capabilities. A great power that succeeds in this competition adds to its power while a great power that does not compete or does so ineffectively or by choice, becomes comparatively less powerful. Eventually, it loses the great power status and then must align itself with another great power for protection.As the pace of science and technology advancement has increased, so has the potential for the pace of change of great power status. While the U.S. "invented" powered flight in 1903, a decade later leadership in this area had shifted to Europe. Within a little more than a decade after the Wright Brothers' first flights, the great powers of Europe were introducing aeronautics into major land warfare through the creation of air forces. When the U.S. entered the war in 1917, it was forced to rely on French-built aircraft. Twenty years later, as the European great powers were on the verge of beginning another major European war, the U.S. found itself in a similar situation where its choice to diminish national investment in aeronautics during the 1920's and 1930's—you may recall that this was the era of General Billy Mitchell and his famous efforts to promote military air power—placed U.S. air forces at a significant disadvantage compared to those of Germany and Japan. This was crucial because military air power was quickly emerging as the "game changer" for conventional warfare. Land and sea forces increasingly needed capable air forces to survive and generally needed air superiority to prevail.With the great power advantages of becoming spacefaring expected to be comparable to those derived from becoming air-faring in the 1920's and 1930's, a delay by the U.S. in enhancing its great power strengths through expanded national space power may result in a reoccurrence of the rapid emergence of new or the rapid growth of current great powers to the point that they are capable of effectively challenging the U.S. Many great powers—China, India, and Russia—are already speaking of plans for developing spacefaring capabilities. Yet, today, the U.S. retains a commanding aerospace technological lead over these nations. A strong effort by the U.S. to become a true spacefaring nation , starting in 2009 with the new presidential administration, may yield a generation or longer lead in space, not just through prudent increases in military strength but also through the other areas of great power competition discussed above. This is an advantage that the next presidential administration should exercise.

http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx

http://spacefaringamerica.net/2007/06/03/6--why-the-next-president-should-start-america-on-the-path-to-becoming-a-true-spacefaring-nation.aspx

WFI 11 41

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL: Competitiveness

SBSP will increase competitivenessNSSO 7 (National Security Space Officem 10/10/ “Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” Phase 0 ‐ Architecture Feasibility Study, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment, Release 0.1,www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf)

The Aerospace Commission recognized that Global U.S. aerospace leadership can only be achieved through investments in our future, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit to increased and sustained investment and must facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded that the nation will have to be a space faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century that ‐ our freedom, mobility, and quality of life will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce and exploration. They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space imperative and that NASA and DoD need to make the investments - 15 - Page 19 necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as provide Incentives to Commercial Space. The report called on government and the investment community must become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynamic, competitive and global marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century issues from a long term, national and global perspective . It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research and supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that government must assist industry by providing insight into it s long term research programs, and industry needs to provide to government on its research priorities ‐ . It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers to international sales of defense products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational partnerships to enhance national security, noting that U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry competitiveness. Private public partnerships were also to ‐ be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and development budget, and significantly increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabling breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems with or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to conceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially provide expanded capability to the warfighter. A top priority was increased investment in basic aerospace research which fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system, and suggested the establishment of national technology demonstration goals, which included reducing the cost and time to space by 50%. It concluded that, “America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific discovery. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to sustain leadership in space.” An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative 10

WFI 11 42

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL: Space Leadership

SBSP is key to space leadership- opens up spaceNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that the SBSP development would have a transformational , even revolutionary , effect on space access for the nation (s) that develop(s) it. • SBSP cannot be constructed without safe, frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to space and ubiquitous in ‐ space operations. The sheer volume and number of flights into space, and the efficiencies reached by those high volumes is game ‐ changing . By lowering the cost to orbit so substantially, and by providing safe and routine access, entirely new industries and possibilities open up. SBSP and low ‐ cost, reliable space access are co ‐ dependent, and advances in either will catalyze development in the other.

That’s key to hegJohnson-Freese 7 , Naval War College Department of National Security Decision-Making professor and chair[Joan, Space as a Strategic Asset, 2007, 248-9, mss]

Unfortunately, between fears about U.S. intentions to weaponize space, constraints on American companies' abilities to act as reliable and rational aerospace business partners, and the United States potentially backing out of international commitments like the ISS, the U.S. leadership image has taken a beating . America is a leader. It is strategically in our interest to remind other countries of the positive aspects of our strong leadership capabilities, and manned [crewed] space offers an opportunity to do so. Manned Spaceflight: A Leadership Opportunity Does the leadership image of the United States need a makeover? It is sometimes more important to be feared than loved, but it appears that the United States is precariously close to overdoing it, if it has not already. Tanks, planes, and lasers will not stop the spread of feelings or ideology. And whether the United States likes it or not, a poor image clouds any positive, progressive message that we want to project. For the United States to lead in the long term, it must have willing followers. In the 1960s, leadership was the motivation that took the United States to the moon, as the country wanted to show itself as the winner in a technology- based competition against the Soviet Union. It was a techno-nationalist show of prowess. Today, post-September 11 and, equally or more important, with the ongoing war in Iraq, the United States needs to again recognize and embrace the leadership opportunity offered by manned [crewed] space exploration, but this time based on cooperation, not competition. Leading an international, inclusive expedition from earth allows the United States to counter its unilateralist, militarist image, which has prevailed due to both the Iraq war and U.S. moves toward space weaponization. Such a choice would go a long way toward rebuilding American soft power by positively leading the world on a global endeavor to step into space together, for exploration, development, and applications useful on earth. It is the ultimate positive "big event" strategic communication message of leadership. From the global participants' side, taking part in a grand space program does more than just help countries construct technology and create industries; it builds dreams and generates pride. Working cooperatively with other countries on a space venture would also alleviate fears about U.S. intentions to monopolize space. The United States has demonstrated its military ability to make others bend to its will. Now it must work at not having to use that ability. Soft power is essential to build a stable, peaceful world in which the human security needs of all are met[Matt note: gender-paraphrased]

WFI 11 43

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL UQ: Space Leadership

US space competitiveness is diminishingKaufman 8 (Marc Kaufman, Writer for Washington Post, July 13, 2008, “US space supremacy slipping”, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/13/us_space_supremacy_slipping/)

Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting, and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many believe. Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields and owns half the military satellites orbiting Earth, analysts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/07/13/us_space_supremacy_slipping/

WFI 11 44

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL: Tech

SBSP creates massive tech spilloverNSSO 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that retirement of the SBSP technical challenges begets other significant strategic benefits for exploration, commerce and defense, that in ‐ and ‐ of ‐ themselves may justify a national program . • At present, the United States has very limited capabilities to build large structures, very large apertures or very high power systems in orbit. It has very limited in‐space maneuver and operational capability, and very limited access to space. It cannot at present move large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. The United States correspondingly has extremely limited capabilities for in‐space manufacturing and construction or in‐situ space resource utilization. It has no capability for beamed power or propulsion. SBSP development would advance the state of the art in all of the above competencies. • The expertise gained in developing large structures for space based solar power could allow entirely new technologies for applications such as image and real ‐ time surface and airborne object tracking services, as well as high bandwidth telecommunications, high ‐ definition television and radio, and mobile, broadcast services. It would enable entirely new architectures, such as power platforms that provide services to multiple payloads, autonomous self ‐ constructing structures, or wireless cooperative formations. The Solar Electric Transfer Vehicles (SETV) needed to lift the Space Solar Power Satellites out of low ‐ earth orbit, and perhaps even form its components, would completely revolutionize our ability to move large payloads within the Earth ‐ Moon system . • The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth ‐ and space ‐ based power beaming applications . A truly developed Space ‐ Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de ‐ orbit of space debris, space ‐ to ‐ space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far‐term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forward’s StarWisp Concept.

Hegemony—IL: Leadership

SBSP helps gain back leadership Mahan 7( Rob, writer for CSBSP, December 5, 2007, “Learn about SBSP and get the word out”, http://c-sbsp.org/sbsp-faq/#01)

The U.S. could become a major exporter of affordable energy and of energy and conservation technologies. But most importantly, the development of space-based solar power would demonstrate our nation’s belief in democracy and freedom for the entire human race. Space-based solar power gives the United States a great opportunity to regain a respected leadership role, not by force, but by example.

Space-based solar power is key to U.S. leadership and hegemony.McCrown 8 [Debra, April 8th, “Dominion CEO Touts Using All Available Energy Options”, http://news.edgaronline.com/news/fis_story.asp?textpath=COMTEX%5Cko%5C2008%5C04%5C08%5C107164729.html&clientid=168&provider=KNIGHT-RIDDER]

Lt. Col. Paul Damphousse, of the National Security Space Office, spoke about a solution he thinks can replace fossil fuels -- including coal -- within the next four decades: space-based solar power. He said it's an important technology to maintain U.S. leadership in the world while eliminating international conflicts that arise over energy resources. "We consider that the fourth generation after wood, coal and oil," Damphousse said, adding that the technology is bringing the concept closer to reality. Ultimately, it will be up to the private sector to develop the space technology, but government can do a lot to help by demonstrating that it can work, he added. Also during the conference, Wise County Administrator "Skip" Skinner announced plans for a "research and development center" adjacent to UVA-

WFI 11 45

SPS Aff/NegWise in the Lonesome Pine Regional Business and Technology Park. "We think that this is a perfect location in the heart of the coalfields just to be able to prove and do research on some of these technologies," Skinner said. He said cost estimates and job creation numbers are still being developed, but with the help of a $1 million grant from the Virginia Tobacco Commission, he expects to break ground in 18 months on the Appalachia America Energy Research Center. J. Glynn Loope, speaking for NanoChemonics Corp., said the company plans to occupy a 15,000-square-foot building that will initially have six employees.

SBSP is necessary to sustain hegemonyKarlin 11 (Anatoly, May 14, 2011, “Decade Forecast, Part 1 – The Downsizing Of Pax Americana”, http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/2011/05/14/decade-forecast-1/) Contrary to the “doomer” worldview, it is almost certainly possible to sustain an industrial civilization without a drop of oil (though ceteris paribus it will be a materially poorer one, because of oil’s uniquely high EROEI). The problem is that today’s industrial system, especially in the US, is built in such a way – gas-guzzling SUV’s on asphalt roads slithering across endless vistas of soulless suburbia – that cheap oil is indispensable to making the commutes and credit flows, the jet flights and JIT production systems, function. An even bigger problem is that Hubbert’s predictions of a global oil peak are (roughly) on schedule: though delayed by the 1970′s oil shocks, it is likely that either 2008 or 2010 was the all-time peak, and oil production will now decline at an accelerating rate – even without accounting for possible discontinuities like a global credit implosion, a sudden collapse of Ghawar, the spread of revolution to Saudi Arabia, or Iranian mining of the Straits of Hormuz. The US spent prodigious sums to fight a war to open up Iraq’s oil reserves, but today its oil production is no higher than in 2000 (and hopes of massively increasing it are probably unrealistic). Russia has reconsolidated state control over its hydrocarbon deposits, discounting Western recriminations over its “resource nationalism”, and has successfully pushed back against Washington-backed “color revolutions”. Central Asia never proved to be the black gold lode of American geostrategic fantasy, and in any case it has since been closed off again by Russia. Due to their immense capital costs, environmental impact, and low energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI), there can be no salvation in tar sands or shale. Nor have there been any efforts at mitigation of the kind recommended in the Hirsch report. Any energy transition will be a very drawn-out process, considering the sheer scale of the infrastructure that will have to be replaced – and using continuously lower-EROEI energy sources! As such, it can be said with a high degree of certainty that the world will soon experience a severe shortfall in liquid fuels. Because of its high degree of dependence on cheap oil, this will affect the US disproportionately, which will have to make good with demand destruction. The consequences will include major knock-on effects on consumers, who constitute the mainstay of American economic power.

WFI 11 46

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL: Energy Leadership

SPS key to global US energy leadership NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers significant opportunities for positive international leadership and partnership, at once providing a positive agenda for energy, development, climate, and space. If the United States is interested in energy, sustainable development, climate change, and the peaceful use of space, the international community is even hungrier for solutions to these - 16 - issues. While the US may be able to afford increased energy prices, the very availability and stability of energy is a threat to other countries’ internal stability and ability for development. SBSP offers a way to bypass much terrestrial electrical distribution infrastructure investment and to purchase energy from a reliable source at receiver stations that can be built by available domestic labor pools without significant adverse environmental effects, including greenhouse gas emissions.

Tech like SBSP shows that the US is taking an active leadership role Shrum et al. ’85 (Wesley, Louisiana State University, Social Forces; Sep85, Vol. 64 Issue 1, p46-63, 18p, EBSCO)

Technical systems--large-scale, centrally coordinated technological enterprises--have emerged as a new mode of technological organization in advanced industrial societies. Recent scholarship points to the existence of two primary types of system based on whether the technology under development involves "collective" or "private goods. It is hypothesized that these types differ in network structure and in the determinants of technical innovation. A pattern of administrative hegemony should characterize technical systems which are organized to provide collective goods. Data from a national survey of 297 individuals involved in nuclear waste and solar cell research provide support for the hypothesis. One implication is that an exchange of resources for targeted contributions may be a more realistic model of research behavior in some technical systems than the exchange of productivity for recognition.

WFI 11 47

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—IL: Military

SBSP benefits military capabilities and prevents resource warsNSS 7 (October 10, National Space Society, Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security, Architecture Feasibility Study Report to the National Security Space Office, Executive Summary, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm)

For the DoD specifically, beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 MWe has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveries. SBSP could also enable entirely new force structures and capabilities such as ultra long-endurance airborne or terrestrial surveillance or combat systems to include the individual soldier himself. More routinely, SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activities. SBSP could also facilitate base “islanding” such that each installation has the ability to operate independent of vulnerable ground-based energy delivery infrastructures. In addition to helping American and allied defense establishments remain relevant over the entire 21st Century through more secure supply lines, perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply.

SBSP directly benefits the US militaryTimmer 9 (John, Science editor et Observatory moderator, July 10, 2009, “Space bassed solar, part 2: running the numbers”, http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/running-the-numbers-on-space-based-solar.ars)

PowerSat's Philip Owen also suggested there might be a customer that can get at least some of the hardware into orbit even if launch costs don't come down: the military. He noted that it's possible to build smaller receiving stations that won't be able to extract the full output of the microwave transmissions, but could easily provide enough power to keep a modern military's electronic gear online. Given the problems with cost, logistics, and security that come with supplying fuel to the generators used during field deployments, space-based power could make economic sense for the military at levels where it doesn't for civilian use.

SBSP can significantly help all sectors of the militaryJaffe 10 (Paul, AIP Conference Proceedings; 1/28/2010, Vol. 1208 Issue 1, p585-592, 8p, 3, EBSCO)

Space solar power (SSP) is generally considered to be the collection in space of energy from the sun and its wireless transmission from space for use on earth. It has been observed that the implementation of such a system could offer energy security, environmental, and technological advantages to those who would undertake its development. A study conducted by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) sought to determine if unique, cost effective, and efficient approaches exist for supplying significant power on demand for Navy, Marine Corps, or other Department of Defense applications by employing a space-based solar power system. The study was initiated by and prepared for top NRL management in part as a result of the publication of the National Security Space Office’s (NSSO) report “Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security.” The NSSO report’s recommendations included statements calling for the U.S. Government to conduct analyses, retire technical risk, and become an early demonstrator for SBSP. It should be noted that the principal objective of the NRL study differed significantly from that of the multitude of previous studies performed in reference to SBSP in that it focused on defense rather than utility grid applications.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/07/running-the-numbers-on-space-based-solar.ars

WFI 11 48

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—Impact: Extinction

American hegemony solves nightmare scenariosBubalo 10 (Anthony, is director of the West Asia program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, “AMBIVALENCE ON THE MIDDLE EAST DOES NOT WORK”, The Australian, LexisNexisAcademic)

Some may celebrate the end of US hegemony , but it will leave even greater uncertainty in the region. It will see regional and extra-regional states jockey even more to protect their interests and project their power. In coming years, the region may witness a nuclear-armed Iran, an Israeli military strike on Iran, a regional nuclear arms race, or perhaps all three.

Collapse of US hegemony ensures extinctionDrezner, ‘3[Daniel W., Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, “The perils of hegemonic power”, January 6, 2003, http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/2003_01.html] Michael Ignatieff's cover story on empire in yesterday's New York Times Magazine will be discussed in the next few days, but I actually think James Dao's Week in Review piece on U.S. troops in Korea makes many of the same points more concisely. The problem facing the U.S. is that even though critics on all sides are currently attacking the U.S. right now for trying to dictate affairs across the globe, these same critics are also likely to assail the U.S. for any retreat from its current positions. Imagine for a second that the U.S. announced that it had decided to heed the calls to reign in its power. Say U.S. troops were pulled out of Europe, Korea, and the Middle East. No change in our economic or cultural policies, just a withdrawal of troops from the globe. What would happen? Undoubtedly, some of the animus towards the U.S. would dissipate in the short run. However, within the next year: 1) Japan would go nuclear. 2) The Balkans would be likely to erupt again, with Macedonia being the trigger this time. 3) Afghanistan would implode. 4) India and Pakistan would likely escalate their border skirmishes. 5) Israel would escalate its quasi-military actions in the occupied territories. 6) Arab fury at the U.S. inaction in the Middle East would rise even further. 7) Anti-American activists would criticize the U.S. for isolationism and inaction in the face of global instability. I don't deny that the looming specter of U.S. hard power in Iraq and elsewhere is eroding our capital of soft power. However, to paraphrase Churchill, the current policy is without question an awful one, until you consider the alternatives. On the margins, I believe that more accommodating U.S. policies on trade and the environment might buy an additional amount of good will from the developing and developed world, respectively. But those changes will not conceal the overwhelming U.S. advantage in military might, nor will it erase the natural emnity that comes with it.

Collapse of US hegemony ensures extinctionDrezner 3[Daniel W., Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago, “The perils of hegemonic power”, January 6, 2003, http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/2003_01.html]

Michael Ignatieff's cover story on empire in yesterday's New York Times Magazine will be discussed in the next few days, but I actually think James Dao's Week in Review piece on U.S. troops in Korea makes many of the same points more concisely. The problem facing the U.S. is that even though critics on all sides are currently attacking the U.S. right now for trying to dictate affairs across the globe, these same critics are also likely to assail the U.S. for any retreat from its current positions. Imagine for a second that the U.S. announced that it had decided to heed the calls to reign in its power. Say U.S. troops were pulled out of Europe, Korea, and the Middle East. No change in our economic or cultural policies, just a withdrawal of troops from the globe. What would happen? Undoubtedly, some of the animus towards the U.S. would dissipate in the short run. However, within the next year: 1) Japan would go nuclear. 2) The Balkans would be likely to erupt again, with Macedonia being the trigger this time. 3) Afghanistan would implode. 4) India and Pakistan would likely escalate their border skirmishes. 5) Israel would escalate its quasi-military actions in the occupied territories. 6) Arab fury at the U.S. inaction in the Middle East would rise even further. 7) Anti-American activists would criticize the U.S. for isolationism and inaction in the face of global instability. I don't deny that the looming specter of U.S. hard power in Iraq and elsewhere is eroding our capital of soft power. However, to paraphrase Churchill, the current policy is without question an awful one, until you consider the alternatives. On the margins, I believe that more accommodating U.S. policies on trade and the environment might buy an additional amount of good will from the developing and developed world, respectively. But those changes will not conceal the overwhelming U.S. advantage in military might, nor will it erase the natural emnity that comes with it.

WFI 11 49

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—Impact: Economy

Heg key to economy – trade Khalilzad 95 – RAND Corporation[Zalmay, “Losing the Moment?” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, pg. 84, Spring, Lexis]

It is possible that in a balance of power system the United States would be in a relatively privileged position as compared to the other great powers. Given the relative distance of the United States from other power centers, it might be able to mimic the former British role of an offshore balancer. As in the nineteenth century, the United States and other great powers would compete and cooperate to avoid hegemony and global wars. Each great power would protect its own specific interests and protect common interests cooperatively. If necessary, the United States would intervene militarily to prevent the emergence of a preponderant power. But there are also several serious problems with this approach. First, there is a real question whether the major powers will behave as they should under the logic of a balance of power framework. For example, would the West European powers respond appropriately to a resurgent Russian threat, or would they behave as the European democracies did in the 1930s? The logic of a balance of power system might well require the United States to support a non-democratic state against a democratic one, or to work with one undesirable state against another. For example, to contain the power of an increasingly powerful Iran, the United States would have to strengthen Iraq. The United States may, however, be politically unable to behave in this fashion. For example, after the Iraqi victory against Iran in 1988, balance of power logic indicated that the United States should strengthen Iran. However, because of ongoing animosity in U.S.Iranian relations, the nature of Iran's regime, and moral concerns, the United States could not implement such a strategy. There are many other examples. To expect such action is therefore probably unrealistic. Second, this system implies that the major industrial democracies will no longer see themselves as allies. Instead, political, and possibly even military, struggle among them will become not only thinkable but legitimate . n5 Each will pursue its own economic interest much more vigorously, thereby weakening such multilateral economic institutions as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the liberal world trading order in general. This would increase the likelihood of major economic depressions and dislocations.




WFI 11 50

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—Impact: Korean War

Heg deters Korean war Lieber 5 – Professor of Government and International Affairs at Georgetown University[Robert J., The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st Century, p. 164]

On the Korean peninsula, in one of the world's most dangerous and most heavily armed regions, the American military commitment has deterred North Korea from seeking to invade the South. Paradoxically, even while they engage in their most important mutual contacts in half a century, the leaders of the two Koreas have called for the United States to remain on the peninsula. In the words of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong II, as quoted by former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung, "We are surrounded by big powers - Russia, Japan and China - so the United States must continue to stay for stability and peace in East Asia."

WFI 11 51

SPS Aff/NegHegemony—Impact: Terrorism

US leadership is necessary to prevent terrorist use of WMDsSchmitt 6 – Resident scholar and director of the Program on Advanced Strategic Studies at the American Enterprise Institute [Gary, “Is there any alternative to U.S. primacy?” The Weekly Standard, Books & Arts, Vol. 11 No. 22, February, Lexis]

<The core argument itself is not new: The United States and the West face a new threat-- weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists--and, whether we like it or not, no power other than the United States has the capacity, or can provide the decisive leadership, required to handle this and other critical global security issues . Certainly not the United Nations or, anytime soon, the European Union. In the absence of American primacy, the international order would quickly return to disorder. Indeed, whatever legitimate concerns people may have about the fact of America's primacy, the downsides of not asserting that primacy are, according to The American Era, potentially far more serious. The critics "tend to dwell disproportionately on problems in the exercise of [American] power rather than on the dire consequences of retreat from an activist foreign policy ," Lieber writes. They forget "what can happen in the absence of such power.">

Even an unsuccessful domestic nuclear attack leads to nuclear retaliation against Russia and China – escalates to nuclear war.Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions, InformaWorld)

But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks ,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea , perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan . But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the

WFI 11 52

SPS Aff/Negpressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of a n unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia an d/or China . For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a high er stage of alert . In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and /or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response . As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/ or states seen to support that group . Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and /or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort , and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.

WFI 11 53

SPS Aff/Neg****ADD-ONs****

WFI 11 54

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Energy (prolif)

SPS key to national security by solving energy dependence which prevents nuclear proliferation NSSO 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that by providing access to an inexhaustible strategic reservoir of renewable energy, SBSP offers an attractive route to increased energy security and assurance. The reservoir of Space ‐ Based Solar Power is almost unimaginably vast, with room for growth far past the foreseeable needs of the entire human civilization for the next century and beyond. In the vicinity of Earth, each and every hour there are 1.366 gigawatts of solar energy continuously pouring through every square kilometer of space. If one were to stretch that around the circumference of geostationary orbit, that 1 km‐wide ring receives over 210 terawatt‐years of power annually. The amount of energy coursing through that one thin band of space in just one year is roughly equivalent to the energy contained in ALL known recoverable oil reserves on Earth (approximately 250 terawatt years), and far exceeds the projected 30TW of annual demand in mid century. The energy output of the fusion‐powered Sun is billions of times beyond that, and it will last for billions of years—orders of magnitude beyond all other known sources combined. Space‐Based Solar Power taps directly into the largest known energy resource in the solar system. This is not to minimize the difficulties and practicalities of economically developing and utilizing this resource or the tremendous time and effort it would take to do so. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that there is a tremendous reservoir of energy—clean, renewable energy—available to the human civilization if it can develop the means to effectively capture it. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease [hu]mankind’s reliance on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that will almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort to meet their energy needs with carbon neutral sources. To the extent [hu]mankind’s electricity is produced by fossil fuel sources, SBSP offers a capability over time to reduce the rate at which humanity consumes the planet’s finite fossil hydrocarbon resources. While presently hard to store, electricity is easy to transport, and is highly efficient in conversion to both mechanical and thermal energy. Except for the aviation transportation infrastructure, virtually all of America’s energy could eventually be delivered and consumed as electricity. Even in ground transportation, a movement toward plug ‐ in hybrids would allow a substantial amount of traditional ground transportation to be powered by SBSP electricity. For those applications that favor or rely upon liquid hydrocarbon fuels, America’s national labs are pursuing several promising avenues of research to manufacture carbon‐neutral synthetic fuels (synfuels) from direct solar thermal energy or radiated/electrical SBSP. The lab initiatives are developing technologies to efficiently split energy‐neutral feedstocks or upgrade lower‐ grade fuels (such as biofuels) into higher energy density liquid hydrocarbons. Put plainly, SBSP could be utilized to split hydrogen from water and the carbon monoxide (syngas) from carbon dioxide which can then be combined to manufacture any desired hydrocarbon fuel, including gasoline, diesel, kerosene and jet fuel. This technology is still in its infancy, and significant investment will be required to bring this technology to a high level of technical readiness and meet economic and efficiency goals. This technology enables a carbon‐neutral (closed carbon‐cycle) hydrocarbon economy driven by clean renewable sources of power, which can utilize the existing global fuel infrastructure without modification. This opportunity is of particular interest to traditional oil companies. The ability to use renewable energy to serve as the energy feedstock for existing fuels, in a carbon neutral cycle, is a “total game changer” that deserves significant attention. Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but dependence on the exact mix must be carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges of wide proliferation of enrichment ‐ based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a comparable niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence .

Proliferation causes extinctionVictor A Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis, Summer 2002, Survival, p.87-90 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed towards a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear “six shooters” on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather together on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations .

WFI 11 55

SPS Aff/NegEnergy Add-On—SPS Solves

SBSP solves energy dependence—5 reasons Bansal 11 (Gaurav, staff writer for EcoFriend , May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, EcoFriend, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)

1.Clean source of Energy: It’s needless to point out that space solar power enjoys huge advantage over energy produced by fossils and etc. Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power is entirely clean. It kills our dependence upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources and there is no need to worry about hazardous waste, which one notices in case of nuclear power. It also expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of climate change by using proper use of aerospace expertise. 2. Renewable source of Energy: Since sunlight is available in abundance and is not going to vanish in foreseeable future , SBSP can be the most dependable power source for humanity ion future. Solar energy can power up to 35,000 times the total amount of energy that humans use every day. This leaves economic and safety issues as only roadblocks. 3. Constant source of Energy: Since solar panels are going to be much above the earth atmosphere they will be able to receive sunlight without any disturbance or interruption throughout the year. Whereby any terrestrial station can receive sunlight for maximum 12 hours per day that to subject to clean environment, similarly any polar station can work 24 hours a day but only for 6 months a year. So that makes space solar panels most efficient and reliable. 4. Independent source of Energy: Since this technology enables any nation possessing it to produce energy irrespective of its location, geographical size and other energy reserves. It will transform the globe into a new place independent from global politics of energy security and oil imports. 5. Universal source of Energy: It is truly a universal source of energy because such energy can be transported to anywhere in universe. Right from any place on earth to our space shuttles and satellites as its transportation is propagated through microwaves which can go anywhere without muchtransmission loss.

Provides massive energy supply (gender modified) NSSO 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

A single kilometer ‐ wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year (approximately 212 terawatt‐years) to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today (approximately 250 TW‐yrs). The enormous potential of this resource demands an examination of (hu)mankind’s ability to successfully capture and utilize this energy within the context of today’s technology, economic, and policy realities, as well as the expected environment within the next 25 years. Study of space ‐ based solar power (SBSP) indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, advancement of general space faring, improved environmental stewardship, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess such a capability.


http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/future-perfect-space-based-solar-power/

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/

WFI 11 56


Carbon neutral alternative to fossil fuels Garretson 10 (Peter A. Garretson. “Sky’s No Limit: SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER, THE NEXT MAJOR STEP IN THE INDO-US STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP?”. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. No. 1, Development Enclave. August 2010. http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf)

The significance of SBSP systems lies in its many potential advantages. These advantages address multiple contemporary problems and constituencies. Like other renewable energy sources, SBSP systems provide a nondepletable source of carbon-neutral energy for long-term sustainable development. Unlike other renewable energy sources, it is in the nature of SBSP concepts to provide energy in a highly usable form with an exceptional capacity factor. The ability to provide 24- hour, predictable, dispatchable electric power in quantities appropriate for base-load cities (by 2039, as much as 50 to 60 per cent of India’s 1.6 billion population will reside in cities8), and industrial processes means that it can fill the same roles as nuclear power, hydroelectric power, natural gas and coal.9 Therefore, the concept can address both immediate concerns regarding the need to displace carbon producing plants with cleaner power and longer term needs to replace the very substantial investment and dependence on coal and other fossil fuels as they are depleted. The importance of a base-load and urban capable renewable power source cannot be understated. The nature of the satellites and their receiver also means that much intermediate and costly transmission infrastructure can be dispensed with and a single satellite can service multiple receiving stations, augmenting peaking loads as necessary. A second key advantage of SBSP is its scalability. Experts calculate that the exploitable energy in orbit exceeds not just the electrical demand of the planet today, but the total energy needs of a fully developed planet with over 10 billion people.10 Because of the strong coupling between electrification, human development and gross national product (GNP) / gross world product (GWP), the addition of new, non-polluting highly-usable energy has a highly beneficial effect on poverty alleviation and creation of economic opportunity and wealth.11 The very large size of the market12 also means that a successful space solar power industry will create many jobs, much wealth and significant tax revenues for the state, and have a highly stimulatory effect on space and high tech industry and national tech base

Solves energy crisis Farrar 8 (lara Farrar June 1, 2008 (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/) Originally from Hot Springs, Arkansas, Lara moved to Shanghai to work as a journalist in 2008. Before that, she wrote for CNN International in London. She has worked for other media outlets, including The Boston Globe, WBUR Boston, CNN (domestic), The New York Times and China Economic Review. She now works between Beijing and Shanghai, predominantly focusing her reporting on business and technology in Asia. She holds a master's in Global Media and Communications from the London School of Economics and studied the Chinese media industry at Fudan University in Shanghai.)

Jyoti is the Hindi word for light. It's something Pranav Mehta has never had to live without. And he is lucky. Near where he lives in Gujarat, one of the most prosperous states in India, thousands of rural villages lack electricity or struggle with an intermittent supply at best. "We need to empower these villages, and for empowerment, energy is a must," Mehta said. "Rural India is suffering a lot because of a lack of energy." By 2030, India's Planning Commission estimates that the country will have to generate at least 700,000 megawatts of additional power to meet the demands of its expanding economy and growing population. Much of that electricity will come from coal-fired power plants, like the $4 billion so-called ultra mega complex scheduled to be built south of Tunda Wand, a tiny village near the Gulf of Kutch, an inlet of the Arabian Sea on India's west coast. Dozens of other such projects are already or soon will be under way. Yet Mehta has another solution for India's chronic electricity shortage, one that does not involve power plants on the ground but instead massive sun-gathering satellites in geosynchronous orbits 22,000 miles in the sky. The satellites would electromagnetically beam gigawatts of solar energy back to ground-based receivers, where it would then be converted to electricity and transferred to power grids. And because in high Earth orbit, satellites are unaffected by the earth's shadow virtually 365 days a year, the floating power plants could provide round-the-clock clean, renewable electricity. "This will be kind of a leap frog action instead of just crawling," said Mehta, who is the director of India operations for Space Island Group, a California-based company working to develop solar satellites. "It is a win-win situation." American scientist Peter Glaser introduced the idea of space solar power in 1968. NASA and the United States Department of Energy studied the concept throughout the 1970s, concluding that although the technology was feasible, the price of putting it all together and sending it to outer space was not. "The estimated cost of all of the infrastructure to build them in space was about $1 trillion," said John Mankins, a former NASA technologist and president of the Space Power Association. "It was an unimaginable amount of money." NASA revisited space solar power with a so-called "Fresh Look" study in the mid-90s but the research lost momentum when the space agency decided it did not want to further pursue the technology, Mankins told CNN. By around 2002 the project was indefinitely shelved -- or so it seemed. " The conditions are ripe for something to happen on space solar power," said Charles Miller, a director of the Space Frontier Foundation, a group promoting public access to space. "The environment is perfect for a new start." Skyrocketing oil prices, a heightened awareness of climate change and worries about natural resource depletion have recently prompted a renewed interest in beaming extraterrestrial energy back to Earth, Miller explained. And so has a 2007 report released by the Pentagon's National Security Space Office, encouraging the U.S. government to spearhead the development of space power systems. "A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the report said. The study also concluded that solar energy from satellites could provide power for global U.S. military operations and deliver energy to disaster areas and developing nations. "The country that takes the lead on space solar power will be the

http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/the_pentagon

http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/u_s_department_of_energy

http://topics.edition.cnn.com/topics/nasa

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/

http://www.idsa.in/sites/default/files/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf

WFI 11 57


Farrar Continues : energy-exporting country for the entire planet for the next few hundred years," Miller said. Russia, China, the European Union and India, according to the Pentagon report, are interested in the concept. And Japan, which has been pouring millions of dollars into space power studies for decades, is working toward testing a small-scale demonstration in the near future. But a number of obstacles still remain before solar satellites actually get off the ground, said Jeff Keuter, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington-based research organization. "Like any activity in space, there are enormous engineering challenges," he said. One major barrier is a lack of cheap and reliable access to space, a necessity for launching hundreds of components to build what will be miles-long platforms. Developing robotic technology to piece the structures together high above Earth will also be a challenge. Then there is the issue of finding someone to foot what will be at least a billion-dollar bill. "It will take a great deal of effort, a great deal of thought and unfortunately a great deal of money," Keutersaid. "But it is certainly possible." And Miller, of the Space Frontier Foundation, said he thinks it will be possible in the next 10 years. "We could see the first operational power satellite in about the 2020 time frame if we act now," he said.

SBSP IS ESSENTIAL TO AVOID SEVER ENERGY SHORTAGEDr. Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan 11( Senior Fellow at the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), Observer Research Foundation, Space Based Solar Power: Time to Put it on the New US-India S&T Endowment Fund, April 2, http://billionyearplan.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-based-solar-power-time-to-put-it.html)

On the Indian side, there seems to be some official involvement due to the involvement of Dr. T.K. Alex, who is the Director of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Satellite Centre, Bangalore and leader of the Chandrayan-I project. Speaking in New Delhi in November last year, Dr. Kalam said that "by 2050, even if we use every available energy resource we have, clean and dirty, conventional and alternative, solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, coal, oil, and gas, the world will fall short of the energy we need by 66%. There is an answer. An answer for both the developed and developing countries. This is a solar energy source that is close to infinite, an energy source that produces no carbon emissions, an energy source that can reach the most distant villages of the world, and an energy source that can turn countries into net energy exporter."3 According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the worldwide demand for primary energy increases by 55 per cent between 2005 and 2030 - 1.8 per cent hike per year on average; and for India, the demand is expected to more than double by 2030, growing at 3.6 per cent rate per year.4

SBSP solves the need for fossil fuelsEcofriend 11 (environmental blog, “everything you wanted to know about space based solar,” may 23, http://www.solarfeeds.com/ecofriend/16961-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-space-based-solar)

It’s needless to point out that space solar power enjoys huge advantage over energy produced by fossils and etc. Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power is entirely clean. It kills our dependence upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources and there is no need to worry about hazardous waste, which one notices in case of nuclear power. It also expands employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of climate change by using proper use of aerospace expertise. Since sunlight is available in abundance and is not going to vanish in foreseeable future, SBSP can be the most dependable power source for humanity ion future. Solar energy can power up to 35,000 times the total amount of energy that humans use every day. This leaves economic and safety issues as only roadblocks. Since solar panels are going to be much above the earth atmosphere they will be able to receive sunlight without any disturbance or interruption throughout the year. Whereby any terrestrial station can receive sunlight for maximum 12 hours per day that to subject to clean environment, similarly any polar station can work 24 hours a day but only for 6 months a year. So that makes space solar panels most efficient and reliable. Since this technology enables any nation possessing it to produce energy irrespective of its location, geographical size and other energy reserves. It will transform the globe into a new place independent from global politics of energy security and oil imports. It is truly a universal source of energy because such energy can be transported to anywhere in universe. Right from any place on earth to our space shuttles and satellites as its transportation is propagated through microwaves which can go anywhere without much transmission loss.


http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/future-perfect-space-based-solar-power/

http://www.solarfeeds.com/ecofriend/16961-everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-space-based-solar

http://billionyearplan.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-based-solar-power-time-to-put-it.html

WFI 11 58

SPS Aff/NegEnergy Add-On —SPS Solves Energy Wars

SBSP solves energy conflicts – energy is the largest proximal cause of future wars.Dinerman 8 (Taylor Dinerman, DoD Consultant, 9-15-2008, “War, peace, and space solar power,” Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1209/1)

It was a little more than a month ago when the crisis in the Caucasus erupted. It will be years before historians sort out exactly how it started, but no one can deny that it ended with a classic case of Russia using massive military force to impose its will on a tiny but bothersome neighbor. In any case this little war has shocked the international space industry in more ways than one. While politicians in the US and Europe debate the best way to ensure access to the International Space Station (ISS), a more profound lesson from the crisis is evident. The world can no longer afford to depend upon easily disrupted pipelines for critical energy supplies. The one that ran from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey was, no doubt, an important factor in setting off the events of August 2008. In the future other pipelines, such as the one that may run from the coast of Pakistan to western China, may be just as important and as vulnerable as the one that runs through Georgia. Removing this kind of infrastructure from its central role in the world’s energy economy would eliminate one of the most dangerous motivations for war that we may face in the 21st century. If the world really is entering into a new age of resource shortages—or even if these shortages are simply widely-held illusions—nations will naturally try their best to ensure that they will have free and reasonably priced access to the stuff they need to survive and to prosper. Some of the proposed regulations aimed at the climate change issue will inevitably make matters worse by making it harder for nations with large coal deposits to use them in effective and timely ways. The coming huge increase in demand for energy as more and more nations achieve “developed” status has been discussed elsewhere. It is hard to imagine that large powerful states such as China or India will allow themselves to be pushed back into relative poverty by a lack of resources or by environmental restrictions. The need for a wholly new kind of world energy infrastructure is not just an issue involving economics or conservation, but of war and peace . Moving a substantial percentage of the Earth’s energy supply off the planet will not, in and of itself, eliminate these kinds of dangers, but it will reduce them. Nations that get a large percentage of their electricity from space will not have to fear that their neighbors will cut them off from gas or coal supplies. The need for vulnerable pipelines and shipping routes will diminish.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1209/1

WFI 11 59

SPS Aff/NegEnergy Add-On —SPS Solves Resource Wars

SPS solves resource conflict by ending energy depenedence Le 9 Tuyet N., Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University, “Conceptual design of a solar power beaming space system”, http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4736&context=etd_theses&sei-redir=1#search=""space+based"+"solar+power"+satellite"

Every day the world population increases in number and puts a greater strain on the Earth's finite supply of resources. As fossil fuels are depleted by today's demanding economies and industries, the need for alternative sources of energy increases exponentially. For example, according to the India Planning Commission, India must generate 700,000 additional megawatts of power to keep pace with its frantically growing economy and population (Farrar, 2008). Many villages exist with limited power or no power at all. In order to keep pace with population expansion, India must develop new sources of energy to provide power to these villages and bring them in line with the more developed regions of the country. One solution to this looming energy crisis is to look to the stars. Solar power is one source of clean, virtually unlimited energy. An ideal solution would be to develop a method to harvest this cheap solar energy twenty four hours a day. One such solution is the concept of Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP). SBSP requires the assembly of an expansive network of solar panels in geosynchronous orbit about the Earth. Placed in a high orbit where solar energy is intense, these solar cells would gather the sun's energy almost twenty four hours a day and 365 days a year. Once collected by the solar panels, this endless supply of energy could be beamed down to ground stations all over the world, including rural, undeveloped areas in third world countries. The advantages of Space Based Solar Power are many. This method of harvesting clean, limitless energy reduces the need for the destruction of the environment for the purpose of meeting increasing energy demands. The need for development of polluting coal power plants and drilling for oil would be greatly reduced or eliminated. An SBSP network would allow the world to detach itself from the dependence on a finite supply of fossil fuels. The reduction of competition for limited resources would reduce tension between world powers and relieve worries over energy shortages. SBSP would allow for global expansion and development without inciting fears over an energy supply that cannot keep up with increasing demand. A future powered by the sun would allow economies and innovation to thrive around the globe. Small villages in third world countries such as India would be transformed into thriving communities with higher living standards and significant contributions to the global economy. The United States, Russia, China, Japan, Canada, and the members of the European Union, are all intrigued by the idea of SBSP for domestic and commercial purposes. The early pioneers of SBSP technology will be able to assert themselves as global energy leaders for decades to come

Solves resource warsNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long ‐ term route to alleviate the security challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on ‐ line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative in the third dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.

WFI 11 60

SPS Aff/NegEnergy Add-On—SPS Solves Resource Wars

SPS stops resource wars David 7 (Leonard, a special Correspondent, September 19, Space News, Article:“Space Based Solar Power Fuels Vision of Global Energy Security”, http://www.space.com/4371-space-based-solar-power-fuels-vision-global-energy-security.html)

The deployment of space platforms that capture sunlight for beaming down electrical power to Earth is under review by the Pentagon, as a way to offer global energy and security benefits – including the prospect of short-circuiting future resource wars between increasingly energy-starved nations A proposal is being vetted by U.S. military space strategists that 10 percent of the U.S. baseload of energy by 2050, perhaps sooner, could be produced by space based solar power (SBSP). Furthermore, a demonstration of the concept is being eyed to occur within the next five to seven years. A mix of advocates, technologists and scientists, as well as legal and policy experts, took part in Space Based Solar Power – Charting a Course for Sustainable Energy, a meeting held here September 6-7 and sponsored by the United States Air Force Academy?s Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies and the Pentagon.

That’s key to preventing power wars resulting from resourve scarcity Rouge 7 (Joseph D., Acting Director, “Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study”, Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”, National Space Society http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm)

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a long ‐ term route to alleviate the security challenges of energy scarcity, and a hopeful path to avert possible wars and conflicts. If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If alternatives do not come on ‐ line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global economy , possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states , particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict . To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative in the third dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm

http://www.space.com/4371-space-based-solar-power-fuels-vision-global-energy-security.html


http://www.space.com/tech-robots/archive.html

WFI 11 61

SPS Aff/NegEnergy Add-On —Impact UQ

Energy crisis coming soon—rapid population growth and environmental degradation NSS 7 (National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”, Architecture Feasibility Study, the National Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm)

Consistent with the US National Security Strategy, energy and environmental security are not just problems for America, they are critical challenges for the entire world. Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy scarcity as the foremost threat to national security. Conflict prevention is of particular interest to security-providing institutions such as the U.S. Department of Defense which has elevated energy and environmental security as priority issues with a mandate to proactively find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic security is preserved. The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.

WFI 11 62

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Laundry List

Plan leads to infrastructure that solves laundry list of space impacts- space tourism, manufacturing, asteroid mining, colonizationNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low ‐ cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space ‐ borne proof ‐ of ‐ concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts ‐ class systems is included in Appendix B . The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial‐commercial, government‐ commercial, and government‐government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on ‐ line today.

SBSP creates massive tech spillover- solves space debris, asteroid deflection, exploration, and techNSSO 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that retirement of the SBSP technical challenges begets other significant strategic benefits for exploration, commerce and defense, that in ‐ and ‐ of ‐ themselves may justify a national program . • At present, the United States has very limited capabilities to build large structures, very large apertures or very high power systems in orbit. It has very limited in‐space maneuver and operational capability, and very limited access to space. It cannot at present move large amounts of mass into Earth orbit. The United States correspondingly has extremely limited capabilities for in‐space manufacturing and construction or in‐situ space resource utilization. It has no capability for beamed power or propulsion. SBSP development would advance the state of the art in all of the above competencies. • The expertise gained in developing large structures for space based solar power could allow entirely new technologies for applications such as image and real ‐ time surface and airborne object tracking services, as well as high bandwidth telecommunications, high ‐ definition television and radio, and mobile, broadcast services. It would enable entirely new architectures, such as power platforms that provide services to multiple payloads, autonomous self ‐ constructing structures, or wireless cooperative formations. The Solar Electric Transfer Vehicles (SETV) needed to lift the Space Solar Power Satellites out of low ‐ earth orbit, and perhaps even form its components, would completely revolutionize our ability to move large payloads within the Earth ‐ Moon system . • The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth ‐ and space ‐ based power beaming applications . A truly developed Space ‐ Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de ‐ orbit of space debris, space ‐ to ‐ space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far‐term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forward’s StarWisp Concept.

WFI 11 63

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Colonization

SPS overcomes only barrier to colonization NSS 8 (National Space Society, “Space solar power technologically ready”, AD Astra, Spring, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf )

At the same time, current space missions are narrowly constrained by a lack of energy for launch and use in space. More ambitious missions will never be realized without new, reliable, and less-expensive sources of energy. Even more, the potential emergence of new space industries such as space tourism and manufacturing in space depend on advances in space power systems just as much as they do on progress in space transportation. New energy options are needed: sustainable energy for society, clean energy for the climate, and affordable and abundant energy for use in space. Space solar power is an option that can meet all of these needs.

Every second we delay space colonization one hundred trillion people die Bostrom 4 (Nick professor of philosophy at Yale University, “Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/astronomical/waste.html

As a rough approximation, let us say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology[2], is 10^42 operations per second.[3] A typical estimate of the human brain’s processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second or less.[4] Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences.[5] Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second. While this estimate is conservative in that it assumes only computational mechanisms whose implementation has been at least outlined in the literature, it is useful to have an even more conservative estimate that does not assume a non-biological instantiation of the potential persons. Suppose that about 10^10 biological humans could be sustained around an average star. Then the Virgo Supercluster could contain 10^23 biological humans. This corresponds to a loss of potential equal to about 10^14 potential human lives per second of delayed colonization. What matters for present purposes is not the exact numbers but the fact that they are huge. Even with the most conservative estimate, assuming a biological implementation of all persons, the potential for one hundred trillion potential human beings is lost for every second of postponement of colonization of our supercluster

WFI 11 64

SPS Aff/NegColonization Add-On—SPS Solves

SBSP is key to further NASA missions in explorationMankins 1 (John C, April 2001, Space Solar Power: A Major New Energy Option?, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, an internationally recognized leader in space systems and technology innovation,, 25-year career at NASA and CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ranged from flight projects and space mission operations, to systems level innovation and advanced technology research & development management. http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JAEEEZ000014000002000038000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2001)14:2(38)&prog=normal)

The need for affordable, abundant power in space is also growing. Recent studies suggest a wide range of important potential space applications of SSP technology and systems concepts in three important areas—space science, space exploration, and commercial development of space (Mankins 1995; NASA 1995; Howell and Mankins 2000). In the area of space science, an immediate application emerges in the form of higher power, lower cost, and longerlived solar-electric power and propulsion systems. Many ambitious potential space-science-mission goals—such as landing on Jupiter’s moon, Europa, a rendezvous with Saturn’s rings, and other missions—depend upon the kind of high-performance propulsion that could be achieved with solar-electric power and propulsion systems in the 50 kW-and-higher power class. In the very far term, the ambitious goal of sending robotic probes beyond our solar system, first to the Kuiper belt, then to the Oort Cloud and beyond, will be viable only if extraordinarily low-cost and high-performance propulsion systems can be developed. SSP technologies and system concepts —in particular, wireless power transmission—offer one important path to such future missions.

SBSP makes colonization and distant space missions more accessible Mankins 1 (John C, April 2001, Space Solar Power: A Major New Energy Option?, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, an internationally recognized leader in space systems and technology innovation,, 25-year career at NASA and CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ranged from flight projects and space mission operations, to systems level innovation and advanced technology research & development management. http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JAEEEZ000014000002000038000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2001)14:2(38)&prog=normal)

SSP technologies are also broadly applicable to a number of system and architecture options for the future human and robotic exploration of space. For example, the largest solar arrays ever deployed in space were attached to the International Space Station (ISS) in low Earth orbit in December 2000. Advanced solar arrays could be used for evolutionary upgrades of the ISS in coming years, maintaining power levels while reducing array sizes and reboosting propellant logistics costs. Solar-electric power and propulsion systems in the 100– 300 kW class may be used to affordably transfer exploration systems of 10–50 t from low-Earth orbit to other locations of interest in the Earth’s neighborhood, such as the Earth-Moon or Earth-Sun Libration points. Systems in the 1 MW class have been identified as an important option for transporting large payloads of 100 t or more from low-Earth orbit to high-Earth orbit as one phase in a nonnuclear approach to human interplanetary missions. In addition, systems in the 1–10 MW class may enable reusable interplanetary transports for cargo (and perhaps people). Once at a target destination—for example, in Areosynchronous Mars orbit—such interplanetary transports could also serve as ‘‘mini-SPS,’’ beaming abundant and affordable power down from space to provide nonnuclear energy to planetary or lunar surface outposts and operations. (Note: Areosynchronous Mars orbit (AMO) at an altitude of approximately 17,000 km is analogous to geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) at an altitude of about 36,000 km.) Fig. 1 illustrates one such concept, the ‘‘SolarClipper’’ (derived from the ‘‘SunTower’’ SPS concept discussed below).

WFI 11 65

SPS Aff/NegColonization Add-On—SPS Solves

SPS is a prerequisite to colonizationShcrunk 8 (David, Aerospace Engineer, works at the Kepler Space Institute, The Moon: resources, future development, and settlement, google books)

Solar power satellites are space-based power supply system arrays of solar panels that convert sunlight (or photons from other sources such as lasers) into power and then beam that power by microwave (or laser beam) to a distant site, such as a receiving station on Earth or Mars. Considerable literature has been written about solar power satellites; they promise to deliver large amounts of electric power to distant sites at low cost. The lunar industrial base will be used to build the solar panels and other structural components of solar pwer satellites. The separate components of the solar power satellites will then be launched by mass driver from the Moon to their destination in space. They will be maneuvered into their final orbit (by tethers, rockets, etc.) and assembled by means of autonomous or tele-operated robotic devices. Large orbiting solar power satellites can then provide continous power in the 100-200 (or more) megawatt range- for example for the global exploration and development of planets such as Mars.

WFI 11 66

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On— Disaster Relief

Key to disaster reliefNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that one immediate application of space ‐ based solar power would be to broadcast power directly to energy ‐ deprived areas and to persons performing disaster relief, nation ‐ building, and other humanitarian missions often associated with the United Nations and related non‐governmental organizations. o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that during subsequent phases of the SBSP feasibility study opportunities for broad international partnerships with non ‐ state and trans ‐ state actors should be explored. In particular, cooperation with the United Nations and related organizations to employ SBSP in support of various humanitarian relief efforts support consistent with the U.N. Millennium Objectives must be assessed with the help of affiliated professionals.

WFI 11 67

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Alliances

Solves alliances NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

This study revealed that while the business case for SBSP cannot be closed for construction to begin in 2007, the technical feasibility of the concept has never been better and all science and technology development vectors appear to indicate that there is credible potential for SBSP to be built within a strategically relevant period of time. This review also uncovered surprisingly significant interest and evaluation within academia, the aerospace industry, and energy industries that is progressing independently of DoD reviews. The United States is not the only country to observe the potential of SBSP and the improving technical state ‐ of ‐ the ‐ art, as substantial interest and support have been witnessed in other regions of the world to include Europe, Japan, Canada, India, China, and Russia among others. This international interest can be leveraged to build or strengthen strategically stabilizing long ‐ term partnerships.

WFI 11 68

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Militarization [1/3]

SSP facilitates effective militarization of space Ramos 2k – US Air Force Major, Thesis submitted for the AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLL MAXWELL Air Force Base (Kim, “Solar Power Constellations: Implications for the United States Air Force,” April, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928)

In addition to the terrestrial implications of solar power satellites for the Air Force, there are also implications for space operations. The power required for spacecraft operations is increasing. In order to meet this increase, engineers are looking at standardized solar cells, new gallium/aluminum solar cells and paying close attention to solar power satellite developments. 17 The problems associated with increasing the size of solar arrays on satellites to meet the increasing power demands are deterioration of structure dynamic performance, complications of orientation and stabilization, placing solar arrays under the launcher fairing, deploying solar arrays in orbit, buffer elements for periods without sunlight and discrepancies between the orientation of devices and solar arrays. 18 Engineers from the Ukraine recommend solving these problems with solar power satellites using wireless power transmission or a cable. 19 The authors of New World Vistas also recommended this approach. They advocated using space solar power satellites to power other satellites in space and predicted that “power beaming will become a major element of spacecraft operations.” 20 Solar power satellites would provide improvements in the areas of reconstitution, maneuver, force application, space-based radar, and communication satellites which produce power as well as transfer data. Reconstitution As outlined in Air University study Spacecast 2020, the rapid launch and deployment of satellites is required to comply with the United States National Military Strategy concept of reconstitution. Reconstitution for space is the ability to launch satellites for “unanticipated system failures … [due to hostile actions] and multiple area coverage requirements, [which] … require the immediate placement of satellites into orbit.” 21 Solar power satellites enable reconstitution with unmanned aerial vehicles performing the same functions as satellites, as mentioned previously, and through enabling smaller satellites. One of the difficulties in achieving small satellites is the fact that power generation takes up about 25% of the weight of a satellite. 22 Satellites launched without onboard power generation would be smaller and receive power on orbit from a solar power satellite. Solar power satellites enable reconstitution with unmanned aerial vehicles with unlimited loiter time for immediate deployment for a warfighter, and by reducing the size of satellites which facilitates rapid launches. Small Satellites Small satellites not only fulfill the reconstitution requirement but also meet other requirements for smaller, faster, and cheaper satellites. Typically weighing less than 250 kg, and designed for one mission, “quick checkout and rapid launch,” small satellites offer advantages over larger satellites, which are more expensive, cost more to put in orbit, and take longer to build. 23 Small satellites are good candidates for imagery, and some types of communications. 24 Constellations of small satellites serve another purpose. They have reduced vulnerability and increased survivability compared to single satellites. Powering small satellites with energy beamed from a solar power satellite further reduces their size, cost, and launch requirements. Maneuver One of the vulnerabilities of satellites is that they lack maneuverability. Orbit changes are possible but the amount of station keeping fuel limits these maneuvers. Unscheduled orbital maneuvers for, supported warfighters, on-orbit station keeping, or avoiding an anti-satellite weapon, reduce the life expectancy of satellites. The New World Vistas study concluded, “technologies to substantially enhance survivability are …maneuvering technologies…enabled by the technologies of high generation power in space.” 25 Moreover, the report stated that electrical propulsion and solar power satellites would enable maneuvering for survivability, station keeping, and repositioning to meet warfighter requirements.

Space weaponization is inevitable and here now- but maintaining US dominance is key to solve all warMiller 2, National Review political reporter, 7-15[John, "Our 'Next Manifest Destiny'," cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/manifestdestiny.htm, accessed 9-28-10, mss] What the country needs is an aggressive commitment to achieving space control -- a kind of Monroe Doctrine for the heavens, opening them to the peaceful purposes of commerce and science but closing them to anything that threatens American national security. The United States today is the undisputed leader in space technology,but the gap between our capabilities and those of potential adversaries won't remain so wide forever. The time for bold action is now. The military space age arguably began during the Second World War, when 1,400 German V-2 rockets rained down on England. The V-2s did not do an enormous amount of physical damage, but they did terrify the public and highlight the revolutionary potential of space weapons. "The significance of this demonstration of German skill and ingenuity lies in the fact that it makes complete nonsense out of strategic frontiers, mountains, and river barriers," said CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow from London. The Pentagon began to exploit the vast emptiness of space soon after. Military

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/manifestdestiny.htm

http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA394928

WFI 11 69

SPS Aff/Neg

WFI 11 70


Miller Continues:

satellites have been in orbit for more than 40 years. In this sense, the militarization of space is old hat. Today, in fact, the armed services rely on space so much that they simply couldn't function as they currently do without access to it. Satellites facilitate communications, monitor enemy activity, and detect missile launches. Their surveillance capabilities are astounding: The KH-11 supposedly can spot objects six inches in size from hundreds of miles up. These functions were critical to the success of American campaigns against Iraq and Serbia in the 1990s, and they are essential to operations in Afghanistan. Even seemingly mundane uses of space have military value. The Global Positioning System is well known to civilian navigators, but it was designed for military navigational purposes, such as helping cruise missiles locate their targets and special-ops units find their rally points. On June 6, 1944, General Eisenhower surely would have appreciated a weather forecast of the type we now routinely get from satellites via local TV and radio broadcasts. On September 11, 2001, it was the space-enabled transmission of cell-phone signals and instant news that helped Todd Beamer and the other passengers of United Flight 93 prevent an already catastrophic day from turning even worse. These are all examples of "force enhancement," to use Pentagon parlance. By generating and channeling information, space-based assets help earthbound soldiers, sailors, and pilots improve their performance. Yet the United States will also need tools of "force application" -- weapons that act against adversaries directly in and from space, for both offensive and defensive purposes. What our country requires, in short, is the weaponization of outer space. This already would have occurred in at least limited form, but for the mulish opposition of arms-control liberals. Reagan's SDI routinely struggled for funding in the 1980s and early 1990s, and then went on life support during the Clinton administration. The budget for ground-based ABMs was slashed by nearly 80 percent in Clinton's first year -- defense contractors even had their system-development bids returned to them unopened. The Brilliant Pebbles program, an outgrowth of SDI that would have placed a swarm of maneuverable interceptors in orbit, was eliminated completely. "These actions effectively destroyed the nation's space-based missile-defense options for the following decade," says Henry Cooper, who ran the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization at the Pentagon during the first Bush administration. The budgets of other programs, such as the ASAT technology tested by Pearson in 1985, were essentially trimmed to death. In 1990, Democrats in Congress forbade ASAT laser testing (the Republican majority let the ban lapse in 1995). The Army worked on ground-based ASAT missiles through the 1990s, and by 1997 its tests were starting to show real promise. The next year, however, Clinton had a test of his own to run -- the line-item veto, since ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court -- and he used it against the Army program. "We could have had something online," says Steven Lambakis of the National Institute for Public Policy. "Now we'd be forced to cobble together an emergency response if we really needed to knock out a satellite." The United States soon will have at least a residual ASAT capability -- any national missile-defense system that can shoot down ICBMs also can obliterate satellites. What we don't have, however, is a growing architecture of space-based weapons along the lines of what Reagan began to describe in his visionary SDI speech in 1983. This May, Senate Democrats passed big cuts to ground-based missile defense, which is humdrum compared with space-based lasers and the like -- and the White House has not yet beaten back even this challenge. The wrangling over weapons and budgets stems from a fundamental confusion over what space is and how we should use it. From the standpoint of physics, space begins about 60 miles above sea level, which is roughly the minimum height a satellite must attain to achieve orbit. In this sense, space is just another medium, much like land, water, and air, with its own special rules of operation. For military purposes, however, space is more: It's the ultimate high ground, a flank from above whose importance , for those able to gain access to it, may represent the critical difference in future conflicts. For arms-control fanatics, however, space is a kind of sanctuary, and putting weapons in it poses an unconscionable threat. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan has called for ensuring "that outer space remains weapons-free." Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information warns of threats to "global stability" and "the potential for starting a damaging and destabilizing space race." With space, there's always the sense that weapons violate some pristine nature. This is clearly one of the sentiments behind the Kucinich bill. Yet it is exactly wrong -- there should be weapons way up there because then there will be fewer of them right down here. Space power is now in its infancy, just as air power was when the First World War erupted in 1914. Back then, military planes initially were used to observe enemy positions. There was an informal camaraderie among pilots; Germans and French would even wave when they flew by each other. Yet it wasn't long before the reality of war took hold and they began shooting. The skies were not to be a safe haven. The lesson for space is that some country inevitably will move to seize control of it, no matter how much money the United States sinks into feel-good projects like the International Space Station. Americans have been caught napping before, as when the Soviet Union shocked the world with Sputnik in 1957. In truth, the United States could have beaten the Soviets to space but for a deliberate slow-down strategy that was meant to foster sunny relations with the world's other superpower. The United States is the world's frontrunner in space, with about 110 military satellites in operation, compared with about 40 for Russia and 20 for the rest of the world. Yet a leadershiprole in space is not the same as dominance, and the United States today lacks the ability to defend its assets against rudimentary ASAT technology or to deny other countriestheir own weapons in space. No country appears to be particularly close to putting weapons in orbit, though the Chinese are expected to launch their first astronaut in the next year or two and they're working hard to upgrade their military space capabilities. "It would be a mistake to underestimate the rapidity with which other states are beginning to use space-based systems to enhance their security," says the just-released annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. At a U.N. disarmament conference two years ago, Chinese officials called for a treaty to keep weapons out of space -- a possible sign that what they really want is some time to play catch-up. The private sector also requires a secure space environment. When the Galaxy IV satellite failed in 1998, paging services shut down, affecting an estimated 44 million customers. Banks and credit-card companies also were affected, along with a few television and radio stations. Saddam Hussein may lack the rocket power to lob a nuclear warhead halfway around the world, but he could mount one on top of a Scud and fire it straight upward. A nuclear explosion in low orbit could disable scores of satellites and wreak havoc on modern economies everywhere -- an example of space-age terrorism. Plenty of people inside the government already recognize how much the United States relies on space. There's a U.S. Space Command headquartered in Colorado Springs, and each branch of the military is to some extent involved in space power. In 1999, secretary of defense William Cohen called space power "as important to the nation as land, sea, and air power." His successor, Donald Rumsfeld, chaired a commission on space and national security right before joining the Bush administration. The panel's report, issued last year, warned of a "Space Pearl Harbor" if the country doesn't develop "new military capabilities." While Cohen's rhetoric was fine, his boss, Bill Clinton, didn't seem to agree with it. Rumsfeld is friendly to the notion of space power, but President Bush so far hasn't talked much about it. When Bush gave his missile-defense speech at the National Defense University a year ago, he spoke of land-, sea-, and air-based defenses -- but made no mention of space. "A lot of us noticed that," says one Air Force officer. The Rumsfeld commission also emphasized defense: how to protect American satellites from foreign enemies. It had almost nothing to say about offense: how to use space for projecting American power around the globe. The commission was a creature of consensus, so this does not necessarily represent Rumsfeld's own thinking. And defense certainly is important.

WFI 11 71


Miller Continues—Military satellites are tempting targets because they're so crucial to the United States in so many ways. They are protected by their remoteness, but not much else. Their frail bodies and predictable flight paths are a skeet shoot compared with hitting speedy ICBMs, an ability that the United States is just starting to master. They're also vulnerable to jamming and hacking. Hardening their exteriors, providing them with some maneuverability, and having launch-on-demand replacements available are all key ingredients to national security. Yet defense doesn't win wars. In the future, the mere act of protecting these assets won't be enough to preserve American military superiority in space. In addition to an assortment of high-tech hardware, the United States could use an Alfred Thayer Mahan for the 21st century. In 1890, Mahan was a captain in the Navy when the first edition of his book, The Influence of Sea Power on World History, was published. Today it ranks among the classic texts of military theory. Mahan argued that nations achieve greatness only if they dominate the seas and their various geographic "pressure points," holding up the example of the British Royal Navy. One of Mahan's early readers was a young man named Theodore Roosevelt, who began to apply these ideas while working in the Department of the Navy during the 1890s, and later as president. Mahanian principles shook the country loose from its traditional strategy of coastal defense and underwrote a period of national dynamism, which included the annexation of Hawaii, victory in the Spanish-American War, and the construction of the Panama Canal. No writer has clearly become the Mahan of space, though one candidate is Everett C. Dolman, a professor at the Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama. Dolman's new book Astropolitik offers a grand strategy that would have the United States "endeavor at once to seize military control of low-Earth orbit" and impose "a police blockade of all current spaceports, monitoring and controlling all traffic both in and out." Dolman identifies low-Earth orbit as a chokepoint in the sense of Mahan -- anybody who wants access to space must pass through it. "The UnitedStates should grab this vital territory now, when there's no real competition for it," Dolman tells me. "Once we're there, we can make sure the entry cost for anybody else wanting to achieve space control is too high . Whoever takes space will dominate Earth." Dolman would benefit from a political benefactor. Mahan enjoyed the patronage of Roosevelt, who took a scholar's ideas and turned them into policies. Space has a number of advocates within the military bureaucracy, mostly among its younger members. It does not have a political champion, with the possible exception of Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who has made the subject a personal passion. Smith calls space America's "next Manifest Destiny" and believes the Department of Defense should establish an independent Space Force to serve alongside the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Smith, however, may not stay in the Senate much longer, facing stiff political challenges at home. With the right mix of intellectual firepower and political muscle, the United States could achieve what Dolman calls "hegemonic control" of space. The goal would be to make the heavens safe for capitalism and science while also protecting the national security of the United States. "Only those spacecraft that provide advance notice of their mission and flight plan would be permitted in space," writes Dolman. Anything else would be shot down. That may sound like 21st-century imperialism, which, in essence, it would be. But is that so bad? Imagine that the U nited States currently maintained a battery of space-based lasers . India and Pakistan could inch toward nuclear war over Kashmir, only to be told that any attempt by either side to launch a missile would result in a boost-phase blast from outer space. Without taking sides, the United States would immediately defuse a tense situation and keep the skies above Bombay and Karachi free of mushroom clouds. Moreover, Israel would receive protection from Iran and Iraq, Taiwan from China , and Japan and South Korea from the mad dictator north of the DMZ. The United States would be covered as well, able not merely to deter aggression, but also to defend against it .

WFI 11 72

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Oil Dep (Econ !) [1/2]

Peak Oil coming within 10 yearsWilliamson 10 (Mark, “May the power be with you”, POWERSPACESo, do space power proponents think a point will arise when terrestrial power supplies become so inadequate that SSP is a necessity?)

According to Nansen, we areseeingtheevidencealready. “It is pretty clear, from several regional markets, that the world is at or very near peak oil production”, he says. “This means that the price will continue to climb in spurts and starts, invariably ever higher”. With electricity demand and atmosphericpollution growing in a sort of ‘unholy alliance’, he expects a “serious realisation of the problems to sink in within the next 10 to 20 years”. John Mankins is more forthright: “If we wait to develop revolutionary new energy sources such as SSP until the existing terrestrial power supply reaches a tipping point, it may already be too late. The time to light the next candle is before the first one goes out – not after you’re sitting in the dark!

It’ll collapse the economy

Stewart 7 (Hale “Bonddad”, Former bond broker, tax lawyer, financial blogger, July 3, Why the U.S.’ Oil Dependence is Bad for the U.S. Economy, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/why-the-us-oil-dependence_b_54822.html)

Energy policy -- or more specifically U.S. oil dependence -- comes and goes in media focus. Its prominence usually increases in direct proportion to the current price of oil or gas. In addition, there has been a growing movement called the "peak oil" movement, which argues world supplies are actually at or near their highest and will continually decline from here on out. While I can't comment on the veracity of peak oil's claims, I can state without a doubt that the U.S.' national energy policy -- and specifically our oil dependence -- is economically disadvantageous. 1. The U.S.' dependence on oil has had a negative impact on the U.S. trade deficit. In September 2006, the San Francisco Federal Reserve issued a paper titled Oil Prices and the U.S. Trade Deficit. It concluded: Oil prices have almost quadrupled since the beginning of 2002. For an oil-importing country like the U.S., this has substantially increased the cost of petroleum imports. International trade data suggest that this increase has exacerbated the deterioration of the U.S. trade deficit, especially since the second half of 2004. One factor can explain this evolution: The real volume of U.S. petroleum imports has remained essentially constant. One explanation for why the demand for petroleum imports has not declined in response to higher prices comes from a model in which firms are fairly limited in their ability to adjust their use of energy sources, such as oil, in the short term. The report's conclusion was not widely reported, although it should have been. Simply put, the U.S.' dependence on oil has increased the trade deficit. 2 . Higher energy prices have an increasingly negative impact on incomes. As energy prices increase, the amount of disposable income available for discretionary purchases decreases. Currently, family energy prices are at their highest level since 1987. The Christian Science Monitor recently reported: “Kilowatts, gallons -- they all add up. Energy is now sucking money out of Americans' bank accounts at a record level -- hitting $612 billion at an annual rate in the month of April, the last month of data. Over the past two years, energy bills as a share of income have risen and are now at their highest point since 1987, but still below the levels of the 1970s and early 1980s. For low-income households, some economists estimate energy consumption as a percentage of income is closing in on 10 percent. “Ten percent of income going to a necessary expense is a big chunk of change. In addition, higher energy prices usually decrease consumer sentiment, which can lead to decreasing consumer spending. This is not a good development for an economy that gets 70 percent of its growth from people buying stuff. 3. Oil prices increase overall inflation. Here is a graph from the St. Louis Federal Reserve's FRED system. The blue line is total inflation and the red line is energy inflation. Note the direct relationship between rising energy prices and overall inflation. Simply put, as energy prices increase, so does inflation. High inflation means the Federal Reserve is more likely to increase interest rates, which slows economic growth. In addition, higher inflation decreases incomes, especially those at the lower end of the pay scale.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/why-the-us-oil-dependence_b_54822.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/why-the-us-oil-dependence_b_54822.html

WFI 11 73

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Oil Dep (Econ !) [2/2]




WFI 11 74

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Oil Dep—Solvency

SBSP solves oil dependence and increases economic hegemonyNansen 00 (Ralph, Statement of Ralph H. Nansen President, Solar Space Industries Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, United States House of Representatives Committee on Science September 7, the founder and president of Solar Space Industries, Mr. Nansen has been involved in space engineering for over 40 years, primarily with The Boeing Company, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm)

Global warming and the need for reduction of CO2 emissions calls for the replacement of fossil fuel power plants with renewable nonpolluting energy sources. Even with increased use of today's knowledge of renewable energy sources carbon emissions are expected to rise 62% worldwide by 2020. If we have any hope for a reversal of global warming we must dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels. Solar power satellite development would reduce and eventually eliminate United States dependence on foreign oil imports. They would help reduce the international trade imbalance. Electric energy from solar power satellites can be delivered to any nation on the earth. The United States could become a major energy exporter. The market for electric energy will be enormous. Most important of all is the fact that whatever nation develops and controls the next major energy source will dominate the economy of the world. In addition there are many potential spin-offs. These include: Generation of space tourism. The need to develop low cost reusable space transports to deploy solar power satellites will open space to the vast economic potential of space tourism. Utilize solar power to manufacture rocket fuel on orbit from water for manned planetary missions. Provide large quantities of electric power on orbit for military applications. Provide large quantities of electric power to thrust vehicles into inter-planetary space. Open large-scale commercial access to space. The potential of space industrial parks could become a reality. Make the United States the preferred launch provider for the world.

WFI 11 75

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Oil Dep—Terrorism

Oil dependence fuels terrorismSandalow 7 (David, Energy and Environment Scholar at The Brookings Institution, Ending Oil Dependence, January 22, http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/fellows/sandalow20070122.pdf)

The United States is in a long war. Islamic fundamentalists struck our shores and are determined to do so again. Like the Cold War, this struggle has many causes and will last for generations. Unlike the Cold War, oil dependence plays a central role in the struggle. Oil dependence lies behind the jihadist threat – not as the only cause, but as an important one. For example, according to Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser at the time of the first Gulf War, “…what gave enormous urgency to [Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait] was the issue of oil.”5 After removing Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, U.S. troops remained in Saudi Arabia where their presence bred great resentment. Osama bin Laden’s first fatwa, in 1996, was titled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” Today, deep resentment of the U.S. role in the Persian Gulf remains a powerful recruitment tool for jihadists. That resentment grows not just from the war in Iraq, but from the U.S. relationship with the House of Saud, the presence of U.S. forces throughout the region and more. Yet the United States faces severe constraints in responding to this resentment. With half the world’s proven oil reserves, the world’s cheapest oil and the world’s only spare production capacity, the Persian Gulf will remain the indispensable region for the global economy so long as modern vehicles run only on oil. To protect oil flows, the U.S. policymakers will feel compelled to maintain relationships and exert power in the region in ways likely to fuel the jihadist movement. Compounding this problem, the huge money flows into the region from oil purchases help finance terrorist networks. Saudi money provides critical support for madrassas with virulent anti-American views. Still worse, diplomatic efforts to enlist Saudi government help in choking off such funding, or even to investigate terrorist attacks, are hampered by the priority we attach to preserving Saudi cooperation in managing world oil markets. This points to a broader problem -- oil dependence reduces the leverage of the world community in responding to threats from oil-exporting nations. Today, the most prominent threat comes from Iran, whose nuclear ambitions could further destabilize the Persian Gulf and put terrifying new weapons into the hands of terrorists. Yet efforts to respond to this threat with multilateral sanctions have foundered on fears that Iran would retaliate by withholding oil from world markets. Experts predict this would drive prices above $100 per barrel – a risk many governments are unwilling to accept. In short, three decades after the first oil shocks -- and a quarter-century after the humiliating capture of U.S. diplomats in Tehran – we remain hostage to our continuing dependence on oil. Other oil-exporting nations pose problems as well. President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela – the world’s fifth largest exporter -- fans anti-American sentiments throughout Latin America. Oil revenues not only help maintain his grip on power, they allow him to finance policies that put U.S. assets at risk in countries such as Bolivia and Argentina.6 Russia recently cutoff oil flows to five European nations in a dispute with Belarus over natural gas prices and transit fees.

Even an unsuccessful domestic nuclear attack leads to nuclear retaliation against Russia and China – escalates to nuclear war.Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions, InformaWorld)

But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them . In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks ,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and,

WFI 11 76

SPS Aff/Negmost important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors . Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea , perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan . But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of a n unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia an d/or China . For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a high er stage of alert . In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow and /or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response . As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/ or states seen to support that group . Depending on the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and /or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort , and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.

WFI 11 77

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Asteroids [1/2]

SPS solves asteroid collisions – develops infrastructure and supplies energy needed for deflectionHempsell 6 (Mark, senior lecturer in space technology at the University of Bristol, Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October, science direct)

3.1. Strategic defence The use of space-based systems to intercept and nullify strategic missiles and thus prevent the destruction caused by a nuclear war is the only seriously funded attempt to prevent global catastrophe using space systems after President Regan established strategic defence initiative (SDI) in 1983 [14]. The history of this programme highlights the key problem with all potential space solutions to global catastrophes. The SDI programme explored numerous different technologies and approaches. A simplistic history would be the early period was characterised by an emphasis on directed energy weapons such as lasers and neutral particle beams, and the later stages were characterised by an emphasis on kinetic weapons, in particular “Brilliant Pebbles” [15]. The directed energy weapons typically would each have mass around 100 tonnes with tens required in lower Earth orbit, both the mass and the launch rate required are well beyond the capabilities of the current launch capability . This was addressed with a programme to produce a heavy launcher called the advanced launch vehicle (ALV) [16]. Although a USAF programme with some NASA interest [17], it was initiated by SDI [18] and the schedule seemed to driven by SDI requirements [19]. The change of SDI's emphasis to Brilliant Pebbles also raised launch capability issues. While the kinetic systems are far smaller they are required to be deployed in thousands [15]. So while the requirement for a heavy lift capability was lost, the required launch rate is much higher, and that leads to a need for a reusable launcher with aircraft type operations. This requirement led to the single stage rocket technology programme [20] that culminated in the DC-X experimental vehicle flight programme. The lesson that can be drawn is that existing launch infrastructure systems cannot support any form of orbital ballistic missile defence, however, in comparison with the launch requirements required for an SPS system it would be two orders of magnitude lower. While the infrastructure requirements would be met, the SPS would provide little of the technology development required for a viable system. 3.2. NEO protection Large near-Earth object impacts, while they are comparatively rare compared to calderia volcanoes as a natural initiator of global catastrophes, are of special interest as sufficient space capability would enable deflection of destruction of the incoming object—thus fully preventing the catastrophe. This has been the subject of considerable recent literature and while many different approaches have been proposed all of them require a considerably greater space infrastructure than currently available. The size of asteroid required to create a global catastrophe is a matter of some debate. Harrison et al. [21] suggest that 1 km size object is just below a threshold where global effects could cause a catastrophe level event. Whereas Rigby et al. [22] argue a 1 km object could have caused the Dark Ages in the 6th Century AD. So a system capable of handling a 1 km object would be the minimum required to deal with potential global catastrophe level events. The size of system that could deflect a NEO sufficiently to avoid collision with the Earth is also uncertain and is strongly dependent upon the assumptions made on size, orbit and timescale. A small asteroid with centuries until the potential impact may be deflected sufficiently by a single nuclear device (e.g. [23]), which is probably just about possible with the current space infrastructure. However, a large comet with only a year or two warning would require systems well beyond current capability. There have been proposals for large orbital systems to deflect asteroids for example that outlined by Campbell et al. [24]. To deflect an iron asteroid using a pulsed laser was estimated to need peak powers of 200 GW, which would correspond to a continuous power supply requirement in the order of 20 GW. This is the output of two reference SPS satellites giving a good indication of the size of system required for this technique. One suggested location was a Sun Earth Lagrange point. 3.3. Climate alteration—warming One of the common features of past natural global catastrophes is a cooling of the Earth's climate, which is the key vector triggering famine, disease and other causes of death. In cases of NEO impact and caldaria volcanoes this is caused by material in the atmosphere and lasts for over a year. The cause of the cooling during the little ice age is less certain but it lasted for a considerable period of time. A system to counter this cooling would have widespread applicability and great efficacy in these cases, and could in itself prevent the majority of deaths. The system would not have to heat the whole Earth but rather selectively target regions where cooling induced effects create a hazard. Examples might be heating plague reservoirs regularly to above 25° to prevent breakout of the disease, ensuring snow melt in early spring in high latitude countries (so ice reflectivity does not reduce solar heating) reducing occurrence of frost in high-yield agricultural areas, and the heating of ocean regions to ensure viable rainfall. If a significant SPS capability existed that used microwave power transmission, then heating could be achieved by defocusing the transmission antenna and pointing the power beam at the area that requires heating. That is to use the SPS as a microwave oven. This is clearly a “zero cost” option as no new systems are required and one 5 GW unit could provide 10 mW/cm2–500 km2 (a circle 25 km diameter at the equator). In practice, the target areas are more likely to be in the order several 100 km in diameter so tens of SPS would need to be used together.

WFI 11 78

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Asteroids [2/2]:

Impact is extinction Bryson 3 (Bill, Journalist for The Times, written several science books, BROADWAY BOOKS, A short history of nearly everything)

An asteroid or comet traveling at cosmic velocities would enter the Earth’s atmosphere at such a speed that the air beneath it couldn’t get out of the way and would be compressed, as in a bicycle pump. As anyone who has used such a pump knows, compressed air grows swiftly hot, and the temperature below it would rise to some 60,000 Kelvin, or ten times the surface temperature of the Sun, In this instant of its arrival in our atmosphere everything in the meteors-people, houses, factories, cars-would crinkle and vanish like cellophane in a flame. One second after entering the atmosphere, the meteorite would slam into the Earth’s surface, where the people of Manson had a moment before been going about their business. The meteorite itself would vaporize instantly, but the blast would blow out a thousand cubic kilometers of rock, earth, and superheated gases. Every living thing within 150 miles that hadn’t been killed by the heat of entry would now be killed by the blast. Radiating outward at almost the speed of light would be the initial shock wave, sweeping everything before it. For those outside the zone of immediate devastation, the first inkling of catastrophe would be a flash of blinding light-the brightest ever seen by human yes-followed an instant to a minute or two later by an apocalyptic sight of unimaginable grandeur: a roiling wall of darkness reaching high into the heavens, filling an entire field of view and traveling at thousands of miles an hour. Its approach would be eerily silent since it would be moving far beyond the speed of sound. Anyone in a tall building in Omaha or Des Moines, say, who chanced to look in the right direction would see a bewildering veil of turmoil followed by instantaneous oblivion. Within minutes, over an area stretching from Denver to Detroit and encompassing what had once been Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, the Twin Cities-the whole city of the Midwest, in short-nearly every standing thing would be flattened or on fire, and nearly every living thing would be dead. People up to a thousand miles away would be knocked off their feet and sliced or clobbered by a blizzard of flying projectiles. Beyond a thousand miles the devastation from the blast would gradually diminish. But that’s just the initial shockwave. No one can do more than guess what the associated damage would be, other than that it would be brisk and global. The impact would almost certainly set off a chain of devastating earthquakes. Volcanoes across the globe would begin to rumble and spew. Tsunamis would rise up and head devastatingly for distant shores. Within an hour, a cloud of blackness would cover the planet, and burning rock and other debris would be pelting down everywhere, setting much of the planet ablaze. It has been estimated that at least a billion and half people would be dead by the end of the first day. The massive disturbances to the ionosphere, would knock out communication systems everywhere, so survivors would have no idea what was happening else where or where to turn. It would hardly matter. As one commentator has put it, fleeing would very little affected by any plausible relocation effort, since Earth’s ability to support life would be universally diminished.

WFI 11 79

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Add-On—Tornadoes

SPS can prevent tornadoes ieee 3 (Dr. Bernard J., has a B. S. in physics from MIT and a PH. D. in physics from Columbia University. He has started two venture-backed corporations based on applications of microwave power. s. He has published 48 papers and has 15 natents, Lyle M., currently a consultant on development of the tornado-taming project., “Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power”, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1235075&userType=&tag=1)

The application of the Solar Power Satellite for the prevention of tornadoes was proposed by Eastlund [Ref. 13. Although the constituency for storm modification resides mainly in the tornado belt states, the potential benefits of saving lives and reducing property damage have broad appeal. The refinement of SSP technologies and operations can be achieved without an immediate competition with fossil fuel energy.The fundamental concept is disruption of the convective forces in a thunderstorm . By selective heating of the cold rain, the process that concentrates energy in tornadoes is disrupted. By interfering with the tornadogenesis process, it appears that some tornadoes might be eliminated. Subsequently, loss of life and storm destruction are reduced. Such benefits are attractive to politicians and are not as sensitive to the system economics as is the commercial solar power satellite. Once the fundamental technology and operations have been demonstrated, the cost and risk of energy production from space can be realistically assessed.Looking beyond the taming of tornadoes, hurricanes are formed from ensembles of mesocyclones. As the total available power increases, TSPS could be considered for modifying the features of the mesocylones that allow hurricanes to reinforce their motion. Potentially, the steering winds could be disrupted to steer the storms away from metropolitan regions. The ultimate application of a full system might be to steer the jet stream to manipulate the rainfall patterns on the earth’s surface. Even with the expensive TSPS, it is likely that the intervention cost for a particular storm will not approach the cost for preventing acts of terrorism with similar casualties

Tornadoes are a real threatieee 3 (Dr. Bernard J., has a B. S. in physics from MIT and a PH. D. in physics from Columbia University. He has started two venture-backed corporations based on applications of microwave power. s. He has published 48 papers and has 15 natents, Lyle M., currently a consultant on development of the tornado-taming project., “Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power”, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1235075&userType=&tag=1)

One aspect of the global environment change projections is the probability of more severe storms due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. The increased energy trapped in the atmosphere seems to be producing greater incidences of hurricanes and local storms. Analysis of the occurrence of such events is receiving greater worldwide attention. An example is the comparison of mesocyclones in the United States and China pef. 31. These strong storms do their worst damage when tornadoes are generated.Tornadogenesis is a complex process that depends on the interaction between the warm updraft and cold rain downdrafts. Only about 20% of the supercell thunderstorms produce tornadoes. This low probability of incidence indicates that only a small change in conditions may be able to “normalize” a thunderstorm.The simulation of tornado formation in a computer program is a significant challenge [Ref. 41. However, reproducing the formation of tornadoes in the storm cell with computer models is crucial to the evaluation of any intervention concept. Computer modeling based on the current research, primarily Project Vortex, must define the fine structure of the storm system. This structure would be modified through selective heating of the cold rain region in analysis by computer programs that synthesize the formation of tomadoes. Tornadoes kill about 100 persons each year. Property damage is in the billions of dollars. If these statistics are compared to the casualties fiom terrorism, it appears to be cost effective to prevent tornadoes.



WFI 11 80

SPS Aff/NegTornadoes Add-On—Impact

Tornadoes are a legitimate threat that only the aff can solve for ieee 3 (Dr. Bernard J., has a B. S. in physics from MIT and a PH. D. in physics from Columbia University. He has started two venture-backed corporations based on applications of microwave power. s. He has published 48 papers and has 15 natents, Lyle M., currently a consultant on development of the tornado-taming project., “Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite-Key to Space Solar Power”, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1235075&userType=&tag=1)

The objective of this paper is to describe a concept for beaming microwave energy into the cold rain down draft of a thunderstorm to disrupt the convective flow needed to concentrate its energy in forming a tornado. The concept uses a “Thunderstorm Solar Power Satellite”(TSPS) for the microwave beam source. Thunderstorms are dangerous and destructive storms which spawn tornadoes. Loss of life and the attendant damage are not balanced by any significant meteorological benefits. The genesis of tornado formation is complex and very sensitive to convection and vorticity. Not all mesocyclones produce tornadoes. This sensitivity represents a potential for application of directed energy to influence the process. Until now, there has been little consideration of concepts for modifying the behavior of these storms. If the critical areas can be accessed with energy, it may be possible to disrupt the formation of a tornado in a thunderstorm. Solar Power Satellites provide the system to generate and focus this energy. Space Solar Power systems have been studied by NASA as a clean, renewable power supply for civilization's energy needs. The concept consists of orbiting solar collectors that provide electricity to microwave generators. An antenna array of these microwave generators forms a beam to direct the energy to a “rectenna” receiver on the surface of the Earth. In the rectenna, the beam is converted back into electricity for use in the commercial power grid. The proposed concept is to direct such a beam of intense energy into the cold rain downdraft of a mesocy clone. This energy will heat the raindrops and is expected to reduce convective flow and diminish vorticity. This heating is intended to disrupt the tornado formation process. To validate the feasibility of the concept, a broad range of issues must be evaluated and resolved. The dynamics of tornado formation, the degree of sensitivity of the process and the range of potential reactions to adding more energy are fundamental to understanding the concept. The technical issues in space systems delivering the energy can be resolved and demonstrated. The decisions to expend resources are political and will depend on the resolve to deal with dangerous and damaging storms. Legal considerations come into play with the uncertainty of natural phenomena and potential safety of microwave beams. The initial objectives must define the process of tornadogenesis, the sensitive fine structure and to simulate the effect of adding energy with a numerical simulation computer program. With the critical points identified, the necessary space system requirements to deliver an energy beam with the duration and accuracy needed to interfere with the formation of the tornado can be defined.


WFI 11 81

SPS Aff/Neg**Solvency**

WFI 11 82

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—Private Industry

The plan spurs private industryNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

The second camp, primarily established private industry, felt that absent a clear demonstration of the viability of Space ‐ Based Solar Power, an adequate launch market would not exist to justify the expense; however, if the technical viability and markets for SBSP were demonstrated, private industry would respond on its own and the lift problem would take care of itself.

***The plan spurs private industryNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by the US Government is likely to catalyze substantially more investment by the private sector. This opinion was expressed many times over from energy and aerospace companies alike. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence that even the activity of this interim study has already provoked significant activity by at least three major aerospace companies. Should the United States put some dollars in for a study or demonstration, it is likely to catalyze significant amounts of internal research and development. Study leaders likewise heard that the DoD could have a catalytic role by sponsoring prizes or signaling its willingness to become the anchor customer for the product. These findings are consistent with the findings of the recent President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) report which recommended the federal government “expand its role as an early adopter in order to demonstrate commercial feasibility of advanced energy technologies.”

WFI 11 83

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—Feasible

SBSP is the next big thing in the energy community Sofge 09(Studies technology, science and culture, October 1, Space-Based Solar Power Beams Become Next Energy Frontier, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4230315)

The idea of using satellites to beam solar power down from space is nothing new--the Department of Energy first studied it in the 1970s, and NASA took another look in the '90s. The stumbling block has been less the engineering challenge than the cost. A Pentagon report released in October could mean the stars are finally aligning for space-based solar power, or SBSP. According to the report, SBSP is becoming more feasible, and eventually could help head off crises such as climate change and wars over diminishing energy supplies. "The challenge is one of perception," says John Mankins, president of the Space Power Association and the leader of NASA's mid-1990s SBSP study. "There are people in senior leadership positions who believe everything in space has to cost trillions." The new report imagines a market-based approach. Eventually, SBSP may become enormously profitable--and the Pentagon hopes it will lure the growing private space industry. The government would fund launches to place initial arrays in orbit by 2016, with private firms taking over operations from there. This plan could limit government costs to about $10 billion. As envisioned, massive orbiting solar arrays, situated to remain in sunlight nearly continuously, will beam multiple megawatts of energy to Earth via microwave beams. The energy will be transmitted to mesh receivers placed over open farmland and in strategic remote locations, then fed into the nation's electrical grid. The goal: To provide 10 percent of the United States' base-load power supply by 2050. Ultimately, the report estimates, a single kilometer-wide array could collect enough power in one year to rival the energy locked in the world's oil reserves . While most of the technology required for SBSP already exists, questions such as potential environmental impacts will take years to work out. "For some time, solar panels on Earth are going to be much cheaper," says Robert McConnell, a senior project leader at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado. "This is a very long-range activity."

We already know how to do itNSS 10(National Space Society, October 7, “Space Based Solar Power As An Opportunity For Strategic Security”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power

(SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.

Plan closes technological hurdles- but USFG leadership is keyNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Over the course of the study several overarching themes emerged: • The SBSP Study Group concluded that space ‐ based solar power does present a strategic opportunity that could significantly advance US and partner security, capability, and freedom of action and merits

significant further attention on the part of both the US Government and the private sector. • The SBSP Study Group concluded that while significant technical

challenges remain, Space ‐ Based Solar Power is more technically executable than ever before and current technological vectors promise to further improve its viability . A government ‐ led proof ‐ of ‐ concept demonstration could serve to catalyze commercial sector development. • The SBSP Study Group concluded that SBSP requires a coordinated national program with high ‐ level leadership and resourcing commensurate with its promise , but at least on the level of fusion

energy research or International Space Station construction and operations.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4230315

WFI 11 84

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—Feasible

No major technological hurdlesNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that Space‐Based Solar Power is a complex engineering challenge, but requires no fundamental scientific breakthroughs or new physics to become a reality. Space ‐ Based Solar Power is a complicated engineering project with substantial challenges and a complex trade ‐ space not unlike construction of a large modern aircraft, skyscraper, or hydroelectric dam, but does not appear to present any fundamental physical barriers or require scientific discoveries to work . While the study group believes the case for technical feasibility is

very strong, this does not automatically imply economic viability and affordability—this requires even more stringent technical requirements. FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that significant progress in the underlying technologies has been made since previous government examination of this topic, and the direction and pace of progress continues to be positive and in many cases accelerating. Significant relevant advances have occurred in the areas of computational science, material science, photovoltaics, private and commercial space access, space maneuverability, power management, robotics, and many others. These advances have included (a) improvements in PV efficiency from about 10% (1970s) to more than 40% (2007); (b) increases in robotics capabilities from simple tele ‐ operated manipulators in a few degrees of freedom (1970s) to fully autonomous robotics with insect ‐ class intelligence and 30 ‐ 100 degrees of freedom (2007); (c) increases in the efficiency of solid state devices from around 20% (1970s) to as much as 70% ‐ 90% (2007); (d) improvements in materials for structures from simple aluminum (1970s) to advanced composites including nanotechnology composites (2007); and many other areas.

SBSP is a feasible and promising solution to the world’s environmental crisis. Kaya et al 2k (N., J. Mankins, B. Erb, D. Vassaux , G. Pignolet, D. Kassing, P. Collins, May 16, REPORT OF WORKSHOP ON CLEAN AND INEXHAUSTIBLE SPACE SOLAR POWER AT UNISPACE III CONFERENCE, http://www.spacecanada.org/docs/report-of-workshop-on-clean-and-inexhaustible-sbsp.pdf).

Humanity is now facing a major environmental crisis, and it is widely recognized that we must reduce CO 2 emissions, especially from electric power stations. However, worldwide energy demand is growing so quickly that we need to investigate and develop new clean energy sources as soon as possible. The SSPis a unique and promising candidate for future electricity generation that could help satisfy the ever-increasing demand for energy without destroying the environment. Recent NASA studies have indicated the feasibility for SSP to deliver power as cheaply as terrestrial power stations in the foreseeable future, an idea once dismissed as unrealistic “science Fction”. At this workshop, Solar Power Satellite (SPS) was discussed as an opportunity for mutually beneficial collaboration between industrialized and developing countries.

The technology for SBSP is available. Coopersmith 10 (Jonathan, Professor at Dept. of History, Texas A&M University and specialty in history of technology, May 6, Solar Power Satellites: Creating the Market, EBSCO)

Interest in SBSP has grown in recent years due to technological advances andgrowing concern about providing future baseload electricity in environmentallyfriendly and economically feasible ways [11-15]. SBSP technology has maturedgreatly since first studied in the 1970s. Advances in solar cells, microwavetransmission, and construction techniques in space have made SBSP much moreattractive technically. The most recent major study, by the National Space SecurityOffice (NSSO) of the American Department of Defense in 2007, concluded that a oneGW solar power station could be built in geosynchronous orbit [16]. Growing interestin SBSP is reflected by papers like the Naval Research Laboratory’s 2008 SBSP study[17], websites [18], and conferences like Space Canada International Symposium onSolar Energy from Space [19]. The International Academy of Astronautics willcomplete an exhaustive study in 2010 on the main technological options and provide aroadmap forward [20]

WFI 11 85

SPS Aff/Neg

WFI 11 86

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—Funding Key

SBSP should be funded by the U.S government to provide sufficient energy needs for the worldGST 8(Global Solar Technology, December 10, “A solution for energy independence & climate change”, http://www.globalsolartechnology.com/solar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1998:space-solar-power-ssp-a150-a-solution-for-energy-independence-a-climate-change&catid=9:technology-news&Itemid=28)

A National Security Space Office (NSSO) study concluded in October of 2007 that "The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include ... space–based solar power." This NSSO report also concluded that SSP has "enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a (SSP) capability." We urge the next President of the United States to include SSP as a new start in a balanced federal strategy for energy independence and environmental stewardship, and to assign lead responsibility to a U.S. federal agency. SSP Falls through the Cracks as Nobody is Responsible: No U.S. federal agency has a specific mandate or clear responsibility to pursue SSP. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) says SSP is a space project, and thus NASA's job. NASA says SSP is an energy project, and thus DOE's job. The NSSO–report found that SSP "'falls through the cracks' of federal bureaucracies, and has lacked an organizational advocate within the US Government." SSP has Significant Long–Term Advantages: SSP is unusual among renewable energy options as it satisfies all of the following criteria: Immensely Scalable –– SSP can scale to provide the energy needs of the entire human civilization at America's standard of living. Most other near–term renewable options are strictly limited in scalability. As the NSSO report states "A single kilometer–wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today." Safe Global Availability –– Nuclear power technology cannot be safely shared with most of the countries on this planet because of proliferation concerns. Steady & Assured –– SSP is a continuous, rather than intermittent, power source. It is not subject to the weather, the seasons, or the day–night cycle. No Fundamental Breakthroughs –– SSP does not require a fundamental breakthrough in either physics or engineering, such as those required by fusion. Highly Flexible and Optimal for Export –– SSP could enable America to become a net energy exporter. We could be the world's largest exporter of energy for the 21st and 22nd Centuries, and beyond. Research and funding will overcome any tech barriers Bansal 11 (Gaurav, staff writer for EcoFriend , May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, EcoFriend, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)

The issue today in front of us is not whether we should have solar energy, but instead the question is when we are ready for solar power. Depleting sources of energy and environmental hazard due to their usage is forcing us to discover new sources of power and solar power is going to be most prominent of them. Thus, despite all the challenges we must work out to reduce the hazards and research further to bring the costs down to make SBSP commercially viable.

Problem isn’t technology, problem is funding and supportBoyle 9 (Alan, a journalist specializing in science and technology news, September nineteen,“Quantum fluctuations in science, space and society, from quarks to Hubble and Mars”, MSNBC Cosmic Log, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/09/18/4350512-making-space-power-pay)

Power-beaming systems are moving from drawing boards and computer slideshow presentations to actual demonstrations on tabletops and in exhibit halls. But what will it take to turn power beams into profitable outer-space ventures? Strangely enough, the challenge of constructing a sheet of thin-film solar cells that unfolds to a width of 1,000 feet (300 meters) in orbit is not the issue uppermost in the mind of William Maness, chief executive officer of Everett, Wash.-based PowerSat Corp. The problems that lead his list have more to do with earthly affairs - such as getting investors, utilities and regulators to buy into the idea. Maness told a small gathering at a National Space Society meeting in Seattle this week that the pitch for space solar power has been directed too often at space enthusiasts who don't have a financial stake in the issue, rather than energy utility executives who do. "This is one of the reasons why this concept has taken so long to start to catch on," he said. Maness favors a more market-centered approach to the issue , and there are signs that the approach is taking hold. But other signs show why the challenge facing Maness and his colleagues in the space-power business is so daunting.

http://www.nsschapters.org/wa/seattle/

http://www.powersat.com/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29387782/


http://www.globalsolartechnology.com/solar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1998:space-solar-power-ssp-a150-a-solution-for-energy-independence-a-climate-change&catid=9:technology-news&Itemid=28

http://www.globalsolartechnology.com/solar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1998:space-solar-power-ssp-a150-a-solution-for-energy-independence-a-climate-change&catid=9:technology-news&Itemid=28

WFI 11 87

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—USFG Key

Government responsibility of the plan is key to implementationNansen 2k (Ralph, Statement of Ralph H. Nansen President, Solar Space Industries Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, United States House of Representatives Committee on Science September 7, the founder and president of Solar Space Industries, Mr. Nansen has been involved in space engineering for over 40 years, primarily with The Boeing Company, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm)

An inherent feature of solar power satellites is their location in space outside the borders of any individual nation with their energy delivered to the earth by way of some form of wireless power transmission that must be compatible with other uses of the radio frequency spectrum. They must also be transported to space. Government involvement to coordinate international agreements covering frequency assignments, satellite locations, space traffic control and many other features of space operations is mandatory in order to prevent international conflicts. Solar power satellites will ultimately become part of the commercial electric utility industry and as such, that industry could be expected to shoulder the majority of the burden of development. However, the utility industry is not the only one that will benefit from the development of solar power satellites. All of the people of the world will eventually be the benefactors, through reduced atmospheric pollution and the availability of ample energy in the future. As a result it makes sense that the development of solar power satellites be accomplished through a partnership of industries and governments of all the nations that wish to participate.

The government is key in getting the ball rollingJenkins 8 (Lyle M., retired from NASA, November 19, “Issues in Development of Space-Based Solar Power”)

A critical parameter is the cost of delivery of components to orbit. There are a variety of concepts with the potential to reduce cost of payload in orbit. It is important to make a commitment to the development of a capability with cost efficiency as the prime objective. Current technology supports viability of the SBSP. A government-supported proof of concept demonstration would focus initial efforts. There are a number of ideas to be described that fit the demonstration objectives. Analysis of SBSP has defined certain key questions. Can the SBSP system be designed to be environmentally safe? Can clear targets for economic viability in markets of interest be identified? Are there technical development goals and a roadmap for reducing risk? Selection of design trades could enable the best options. The government is expected to take the lead in initial action. The transition to commercial application requires a defined vision. This goal needs to be funded with a focus on development of this solution to energy security.

Government needs to be catalystNSS 7 (National Space Society, October 10, “Space-Based Solar Power as an opportunity for Strategic Security”, Architecture Feasibility Study, the National Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm)

Several major challenges will need to be overcome to make SBSP a reality, including the creation of low-cost space access and a supporting infrastructure system on Earth and in space. Solving these space access and operations challenges for SBSP will in turn also open space for a host of other activities that include space tourism, manufacturing, lunar or asteroid resource utilization, and eventually settlement to extend the human race. Because DoD would not want to own SBSP satellites, but rather just purchase the delivered energy as it currently does via traditional terrestrial utilities, a repeated review finding is that the commercial sector will need Government to accomplish three major tasks to catalyze SBSP development. The first is to retire a major portion of the early technical risks. This can be accomplished via an incremental research and development program that culminates with a space-borne proof-of-concept demonstration in the next decade. A spiral development proposal to field a 10 MW continuous pilot plant en route to gigawatts-class systems is included in Appendix B. The second challenge is to facilitate the policy, regulatory, legal, and organizational instruments that will be necessary to create the partnerships and relationships (commercial-commercial, government-commercial, and government-government) needed for this concept to succeed. The final Government contribution is to become a direct early adopter and to incentivize other early adopters much as is accomplished on a regular basis with other renewable energy systems coming on-line today.

WFI 11 88

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—US Key

The US must take the initiative to SBSP—will encourage technological and intellectual growth. Bova 8 (Ben, President Emeritus of the National Space Society and a past president of Science Fiction Writers of America, Dr. Bova received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Arthur C. Clarke Foundation in 2005, Oct. 12, An Energy Fix Written in the Stars, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/10/AR2008101002450.html).

It will take foresight and leadership to start a solar power satellite program. That's why, Mr. Future President, I believe that you should make it NASA's primary goal to build and operate a demonstration model SPS, sized to deliver a reasonably impressive amount of electrical power -- say, 10 to 100 megawatts -- before the end of your second term. Such a demonstration would prove that full-scale solar power satellites are achievable. With federal loan guarantees, private financing could then take over and build satellites that would deliver the gigawatts we need to lower our imports of foreign oil and begin to move away from fossil fuels. I know that scientists and academics will howl in protest. They want to explore the universe and don't care about oil prices or building new industries. But remember, they howled against the Apollo program, too. They wanted the money for their projects, not to send a handful of fighter jocks to the moon. What they failed to see was that Apollo produced the technology and the trained teams of people that have allowed us to reach every planet in the solar system. A vigorous SPS program will also produce the infrastructure that will send human explorers back to the moon and on to Mars and beyond. It could also spur young students' interest in space, science and cutting-edge technology. Americans are a frontier people at heart. We have a frontier that begins a scant hundred miles overhead and contains more riches of energy and raw materials than the entire Earth can provide. Mr. Future President, if we use these resources wisely, we can assure prosperity and peace for the world -- and you have the opportunity to write your name in capital letters across the skies.

WFI 11 89

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—Timeframe

Timeframe of launches is 6 to 7 yearsBoyle 9 (Alan, a journalist specializing in science and technology news, September nineteen, “Quantum fluctuations in science, space and society, from quarks to Hubble and Mars”, MSNBC Cosmic Log, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/09/18/4350512-making-space-power-pay)

To be competitive with other power sources, Maness figures that the powersat system's launch costs would have to be around $100 per pound - which is roughly one-hundredth of the current asking price. Launch costs may be heading downward, thanks in part to the rise of SpaceX's Falcon rockets , but Maness can't yet predict when the charts tracing cost and benefit will cross into the profitable zone. For now, Maness is targeting the 2017-2018 time frame for a space demonstration project. In the meantime, he's hoping to work through a tangle of regulatory issues and also keep an eye on his potential competitors - including not only Solaren but also Space Energy Inc., Space Island Group and Welsom Space Consortium.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/02/welsome-space-consortium-solar-space.html

http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2009.08.05.powersat_qanda

http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2009.08.05.powersat_qanda

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31907433

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/09/18/4350512-making-space-power-pay

WFI 11 90

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—AT: ≠ Cost Competitive

SBSP is cost effective on the large scale Nansen 00 (Ralph, Statement of Ralph H. Nansen President, Solar Space Industries Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, United States House of Representatives Committee on Science September 7, the founder and president of Solar Space Industries, Mr. Nansen has been involved in space engineering for over 40 years, primarily with The Boeing Company, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm)

Solar power satellites are only cost effective if implemented on a large scale. Geo-synchronous orbit must be used in order to maximize the sun exposure and maintain continuous energy availability. The transmitter size is dictated by the distance from the earth and the frequency of the power beam. The earth based rectenna also must be large to maximize capture of the beam energy. Given that the system must be implemented on a large scale, the cost of space transportation and the required space based infrastructure becomes the dominating development cost. Development cost of space transportation is driven by the need to dramatically lower the cost of space launches which can only be reduced to low enough levels by the use of fully reusable heavy lift launch vehicles which do not exist today. The existing space transportation market has not been large enough to justify the huge development cost of a reusable heavy lift launch vehicle system. However, solar power satellites would create a large enough market if the perceived risk of their commercial viability is reduced to an acceptable level for the commercial investment community. The commercial investment community has been unwilling to invest in a long term, high cost project of this magnitude. The recent failure of the Iridium global satellite communication system has underscored the potential risks with space based commercial systems.

Declining natural resources make SBSP a viable optionNSS 10(National Space Society, October 7, “Space Based Solar Power As An Opportunity For Strategic Security”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf)

Consistent with the US National Security Strategy, energy and environmental security are not just problems for America, they are critical challenges for the entire world. Expanding human populations and declining natural resources are potential sources of local and strategic conflict in the 21st Century, and many see energy scarcity as the foremost threat to national security. Conflict prevention is of particular interest to security-providing institutions such as the U.S. Department of Defense which has elevated energy and environmental security as priority issues with a mandate to proactively find and create solutions that ensure U.S. and partner strategic security is preserved. The magnitude of the looming energy and environmental problems is significant enough to warrant consideration of all options, to include revisiting a concept called Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) first invented in the United States almost 40 years ago. The basic idea is very straightforward: place very large solar arrays into continuously and intensely sunlit Earth orbit (1,366 watts/m2), collect gigawatts of electrical energy, electromagnetically beam it to Earth, and receive it on the surface for use either as baseload power via direct connection to the existing electrical grid, conversion into manufactured synthetic hydrocarbon fuels, or as low-intensity broadcast power beamed directly to consumers. A single kilometer-wide band of geosynchronous earth orbit experiences enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable conventional oil reserves on Earth today. This amount of energy indicates that there is enormous potential for energy security, economic development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national security for those nations who construct and possess a SBSP capability.The post-9/11 situation has changed that calculus considerably. Oil prices have jumped from $15/barrel to now $80/barrel in less than a decade. In addition to the emergence of global concerns over climate change, American and allied energy source security is now under threat from actors that seek to destabilize or control global energy markets as well as increased energy demand competition by emerging global economies. Our National Security Strategy recognizes that many nations are too dependent on foreign oil, often imported from unstable portions of the world, and seeks to remedy the problem by accelerating the deployment of clean technologies to enhance energy security, reduce poverty, and reduce pollution in a way that will ignite an era of global growth through free markets and free trade. Senior U.S. leaders need solutions with strategic impact that can be delivered in a relevant period of time.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

WFI 11 91

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—AT: Too Expensive

Military use solves cost factor of SBSPBetancourt 10 (august 28, 2010 (Kiantar, is a third-year student at the University of Maryland School of Law, specializing in environmental and international law. He has a Bachelors degree in Political Science, with a minor in International Affairs, http://spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=56407)

The most recent study of SBSP occurred in 2007 when the National Security Space Office (NSSO), a division of the Department of Defense (DoD), conducted its own study on the feasibility of SBSP. The NSSO study requested input from numerous experts in the science and solar power community and with their help made a number of key findings. The NSSO study concluded SBSP presented a strategic opportunity that could significantly advance U.S. and partner security, capability, and freedom of action. Most studies till that point only focused on SBSP as a solution of the power needs of the global community at large. The NSSO study added an additional layer emphasizing the advantages SBSP could offer the U.S. military. In particular the study stated: SBSP and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible “energy on demand” for combat units and installations across an entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on vulnerable over-land fuel deliveries…SBSP could provide the ability to deliver rapid and sustainable humanitarian energy to a disaster area or to a local population undergoing nation-building activities…perhaps the greatest military benefit of SBSP is to lessen the chances of conflict due to energy scarcity by providing access to a strategically secure energy supply. The U.S. military currently spends over $1 per kilowatt hour for electrical power delivered to troops in forward military positions due to transportation and security costs . This cost does not incorporate significant numbers of soldiers killed or injured protecting supply convoys. Thus, unlike in the public sector where SBSP would need to cost as low as 8-10 cents per kilowatt to be a viable energy option, SBSP could still be viable at a cost closer to $1 per kilowatt for military purposes . The NSSO Study proposed the DoD partner with private companies and foreign allies to work together in creating a test model for SBSP. The DoD would act as an anchor tenant customer for the initial SBSP systems. The DoD’s current energy supply costs would justify the high initial implementation cost of SBSP . Private companies working with the DoD could begin to supply SBSP to the public sector as the costs of SBSP lower over tim e.

WFI 11 92

SPS Aff/NegSolvency—AT: ≠ Link to Grid

They’re wrongShinohara 5 ( PhD in engineering, Associate Professor Research Institute for Sustainable Humanosphere (RISH) ,Kyoto University, Wireless Power Transmission for Solar Power Satellite (SPS), http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/wptshinohara.pdf, )

It is widely assumed that a commercially feasible SPS will be on the order of GW. It delivers significant electric power, and can contribute to any national power grid. The technology for connection to the grid already exists, although the output of the SPS is a direct current. The output of thermal or nuclear power plant is an AC, because they must first drive a kind of turbine-generators. The SPS will be steady state base power system without CO2 emission. Its output is predictable. We have no problems economically and technologically with connecting the SPS to an existent power grid. Moreover, a GW class power plant is similar to a nuclear power plant or large hydropower plant. Most of the grid connection issues, therefore, are the same.

WFI 11 93

SPS Aff/NegAFF ANSWERS TO THINGS

WFI 11 94

SPS Aff/NegAT—SPS Bad: Generic

SBSP is better than any other source of energy, study showsNEB 11(New Energy Bank, research study on the effects of SSP, March 6, “Is Space Solar Power a game changer for New Energy”, http://newenergybank.blogspot.com/2011/03/advantages-of-space-solar-power.html)

Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases.Unlike coal and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources.Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to be a major export instead of a fuel provider.Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to be stored and guarded for hundreds of years.Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or wind speed.Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not provide easy targets for terrorists.Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, space solar power does not require environmentally problematic mining operations.Space solar power will provide true energy independence for the nations that develop it, eliminating a major source of national competition for limited Earth-based energy resources.Space solar power will not require dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs, enabling us to expend resources in other ways.Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world, and its energy can be converted for local needs — such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there are no electric power grids. Space solar power can also be used for desalination of sea water.Space solar power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change.Space solar power can provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation system that is required for its deployment. This, in turn, will also bring the resources of the solar system within economic reach.

SBSP is the U.S’s best bet in a clean energy sourceGoel, Jamdagni, Mishra 11 (Aditya, Rishi, N.K, professors at the Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences-PhD, “New Hope for Clean Energy through Exploring Space”, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05712806)

It is most spectacular that non-conventional forms of energy i.e. renewable sources of energy has very vital & promising role on our whole civilization. No doubt our rich cultural heritage and very extraordinary scientific development was some cumulative and exhaustive manipulations in each and every fact of our lives.

Nowadays we have to be very efficient and able to use all these abundant sources of renewable energy to harness our economical and social growth without earning any ecological imbalances and concern to our unique planet Earth looking after each and every kind of life human, animal, plants as well as organisms. The Solar Power Satellites were used for collecting the solar power and then that energy is sent to Earth using Microwaves

from the small antenna on the satellite to the very large area on the ground known as Rectenna. These SPSs delivers the power without disturbing Life-Cycle, environmental balance and Pollution level. SPSs receives the solar energy in intense form, Moreover Space is free from the day-night Cycles and changing Weather Problems. There can be various orientations for these SPSs like Geosynchronous, L1, L2, L3 Earth sun

Lagrange Point which is specially used for the Scientific Purposes. SPSs need an enormous antenna and the ground station an ever larger Rectenna due to phenomenon of Diffraction. Energy from SPSs are reliable and better than the Wind, geothermal, Ground Based Solar Systems, Biomass and Nuclear Energy since it supplies Energy on large scale at Low cost and there are no associated problems like flooding, radiation, terrorism, waste Matter, acid rain, Carbon Di-Oxide and other GHGs etc. Since this form of Energy is transported by Power Lines, hence there is no fuel consumption and Thus It is clean form of energy too. So viewing all these benefits we could very well guess how profitable and futuristic it can be to achieve our objective to meet our Energy challenges without any concern over the Planet earth.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05712806

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05712806

http://newenergybank.blogspot.com/2011/03/advantages-of-space-solar-power.html

WFI 11 95

SPS Aff/NegAT—SPS Bad: GHGs

SBSP is environmentally friendly, large potential and cost competitiveSmith 8 (O. Glenn, a former manager of science and applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA's Johnson Space Center, July 23, “Harvest The Sun -- From Space”, LexisNexisAcademic)

As we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources -- coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar -- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is, however, one potential future energy source that is environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost competitive with any renewable source: space solar power .

Solves environmental impacts while providing legitimate energy sourceBova 8 (Ben, writer for Washington Post, October 12, “An Energy Fix Written in the Stars; Gadflies address the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.”, LexisNexisAcademic)

You're heading into some rough times as you move into the White House, Mr. Future President, what with the economy in recession, financial markets in turmoil, global warming, terrorism, war and soaring energy prices. But I can offer you a tip for dealing with that last issue, at least: Look to the stars.That's right. You can use the powerful technology we've forged over a half-century of space exploration to solve one major down-to-Earth problem -- and become the most popular president since John F. Kennedy in the process. Right now, the United States is shelling out about $700 billion a year for foreign oil. With world demand for energy increasing, gas prices will head toward $10 per gallon during your administration -- unless you make some meaningful changes. That's where space technology can help -- and create new jobs, even whole new industries, at the same time. You'll have to make some hard choices on energy. Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gases, but it has radioactive wastes. Hydrogen fuels burn cleanly, but hydrogen is expensive to produce and hard to distribute by pipeline. Wind power works in special locations, but most people don't want huge, noisy wind turbines in their backyards Solar energy is a favorite of environmentalists, but it works only when the sun is shining. But that's the trick. There is a place where the sun never sets, and a way to use solar energy for power generation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year: Put the solar cells in space, in high orbits where they'd be in sunshine all the time.

WFI 11 96

SPS Aff/NegAT—SPS Bad: Space Debris

Multiple Alt causes—Russia, china, and US ASAT missions Imburgia 11(Lieutenant Colonel Joseph S. Imburgia, (B.S., United States Air Force Academy (1994); J.D., University of Tennessee College of Law (2002); “ Space Debris and Its Threat to National Security: A Proposal for a Binding International Agreement to Clean Up the Junk”, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-of-transnational-law%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D6574&rct=j&q=Joseph%20S.%20Imburgia%20is%20usaf%20University%20of%20Tennessee%20College%20of%20Law&ei=m9wITqmzFsfV0QHt4KnbCw&usg=AFQjCNEglOEqH_3OfmcbgE6HXwiHKrBz8g&sig2=NRXHp8brVZYLKQSpoUqqFA&cad=rja)

Although China drastically increased the space debris population through its 2007 ASAT mission, it is certainly not the only originator of space debris. As evidenced by the February 2009 satellite collision, Russia and the United States are also responsible.108 With its January 2007 ASAT mission, China is the number one space polluter per satellite in terms of the ratio of space debris created to satellites launched.109 However, the United States and Russia rank second and third respectively .

Inevitable—large objects in crowded orbits Bombardelli et. al. 11(Claudio Bombardelli, and Jesus Peláez,Technical University of Madrid, “ Ion Beam Shepherd for Contactless Space Debris Removal”, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1289v1.pdf)

According to a study by Liou and Johnson even assuming no new satellites were launched, the increase rate of trackable objects generated by accidental collisions would exceed the decrease rate due to atmospheric drag decay starting from about the year 2055. This trend is mostly due to large and massive objects placed in crowded orbits, that is, at altitudes between 800 and 1000 km and near-polar inclination.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.1289v1.pdf

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Flaw.vanderbilt.edu%2Fpublications%2Fjournal-of-transnational-law%2Fdownload.aspx%3Fid%3D6574&rct=j&q=Joseph%20S.%20Imburgia%20is%20usaf%20University%20of%20Tennessee%20College%20of%20Law&ei=m9wITqmzFsfV0QHt4KnbCw&usg=AFQjCNEglOEqH_3OfmcbgE6HXwiHKrBz8g&sig2=NRXHp8brVZYLKQSpoUqqFA&cad=rja



WFI 11 97

SPS Aff/NegAT—SPS Bad: Environment

No environmental impact—manufacturing in space NSS 7 (National Space Society, October, “Space Solar Power: Limitless clean energy from space”, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/)

In the longer term, with sufficient investments in space infrastructure, space solar power can be built from materials from space. The full environmental benefits of space solar power derive from doing most of the work outside of Earth's biosphere. With materials extraction from the Moon or near-Earth asteroids, and space-based manufacture of components, space solar power would have essentially zero terrestrial environmental impact. Only the energy receivers need be built on Earth. Space solar power can completely solve our energy problems long term. The sooner we start and the harder we work, the shorter "long term" will be.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/

WFI 11 98

SPS Aff/NegAT—SPS Bad: Health Risk

No. Betancourt 10 (August 28,Kiantar, is a third-year student at the University of Maryland School of Law, specializing in environmental and international law. He has a Bachelors degree in Political Science, with a minor in International Affairs, http://spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=56407)

Public health and safety issues with microwave use have been examined extensively. Microwaves used in SSP have no ionizing effect and there is no danger of cancer or genetic alterations due to microwave radiation. The potential danger of microwaves, like energy from the sun or artificially light source, relates directly to the energy’s density in a given area. The design of SSP systems calls for power densities well within safe limits at the planet’s surface. For example, the average power density of the sun’s rays is about 100 mW/cm2 while the design maximum of satellite solar power systems is 25 mW/cm2 on the planet’s surface. Even high flying birds would still remain well within safe limits. Scientist still plan further safety studies, a necessary precaution for technology on this scale.

WFI 11 99

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—Politics DA

Link turn- the plan has broad support from key groups like the military, aerospace lobby, and publicNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP is an idea that appears to generate significant interest and support across a broad variety of sectors. Compared to other ideas either for space exploration or alternative energy, Space‐Based Solar Power is presently not a publicly well‐known idea, in part because it has no organizational advocate within government, and has not received any substantial funding or public attention for a significant period of time. Nevertheless, DoD review team leaders were virtually overwhelmed by the interest in Space‐ Based Solar Power that they discovered. What began as a small e‐mail group became unmanageable as the social network & map‐of‐expertise expanded and word spread. To cope, study leaders were forced to move to an on‐line collaborative group with nearly daily requests for new account access, ultimately growing to over 170 aerospace and policy experts all contributing pro‐bono. This group became so large, and the need to more closely examine certain questions so acute, that the group had to be split into four additional groups. As word spread and enthusiasm grew in the space advocacy community, study leaders were invited to further expand to an open web log in collaboration with the Space Frontier Foundation. The amount of media interest was substantial. Activity was so intense that total e‐mail traffic for the study leads could be as high as 200 SBSP‐related e‐mails a day, and the sources of interest were very diverse. There was clear interest from potential military ground customers—the Army, Marines, and USAF Security Forces, and installations personnel, all of which have an interest in clean, low environmental ‐ impact energy sources, and especially sources that are agile without a long, vulnerable, and continuing logistics chain. There was clear interest from both traditional “big aerospace,” and the entrepreneurial space community. Individuals from each of the major American aerospace companies participated and contributed. The subject was an agenda item for the Space Resources Roundtable, a dedicated industry group. Study leaders were made aware of significant and serious discussions between aerospace companies and several major energy and construction companies both in and outside of United States. As the study progressed the study team was invited to brief in various policy circles and think tanks, including the Marshall Institute, the Center for the Study of the Presidency, the Energy Consensus Group, the National Defense Industry Association, the Defense Science Board, the Department of Commerce’s Office of Commercial Space, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period. There is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space , with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%). How does one account for such significant interest? Perhaps it is because SBSP lies “at the intersection of missionary and mercenary”—appealing both to man’s idealism and pragmatism, the United States’ special mission in the world and her citizens’ faith in business and technology. As an ambitious and optimistic project, it excites the imagination with its scale and grandeur, besting America’s previous projects, and opening new frontiers. Such interest goes directly to the concerns of the Aerospace commission, which stated, “The aerospace industry has always been a reflection of the spirit of America. It has been, and continues to be, a sector of pioneers drawn to the challenge of new frontiers in science, air, space, and engineering. For this nation to maintain its present proud heritage and leadership in the global arena, we must remain dedicated to a strong and prosperous aerospace industry. A healthy and vigorous aerospace industry also holds a promise for the future, by kindling a passion within our youth that beckons them to reach for the stars and thereby assure our nation’s destiny.”

WFI 11 100

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—Politics DA

Support from military lobby takes out the linkWashington Post, 10 [May 16, 2010, “Mr. Gates and the Pentagon Budget”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/opinion/17mon1.html?ref=opinion, 5/30/11,]

There has been a feeding frenzy at the Pentagon budget trough since the 9/11 attacks. Pretty much anything the military chiefs and industry lobbyists pitched, Congress approved - no matter the cost and no matter if the weapons or programs were over budget, underperforming or no longer needed in a post-Cold-War world. Annual defense spending has nearly doubled in the last decade to $549 billion. That does not include the cost of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, which this year will add $159 billion. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has now vowed to do things differently. In two recent speeches, he declared that the nation cannot keep spending at this rate and that the defense budget "gusher" has been "turned off and will stay off for a good period of time." He vowed that all current programs and future spending requests will receive "unsparing" scrutiny. Mr. Gates isn't proposing cutting his budget. He's talking about 2 percent to 3 percent real growth after inflation, compared with 4 percent a year in 2000 to 2009. Given the nation's dire financial state, it's still a lot. The Obama administration has already chopped some big-ticket, anachronistic weapons. (It stood up to the lobbyists and Congressional boosters to kill the F-22 fighter jet.) There has been more investment in needed new weapons, most notably unmanned drones. The Quadrennial Defense Review talked sternly about the need for "future trade-offs," although it failed to start making the hard choices. Mr. Gates said he wants to trim the bloated civilian and military bureaucracy for a modest savings of $10 billion to $15 billion annually. He wants more cuts in weapons spending, and he deserves credit for naming specific systems. Why the Navy should have 11 aircraft carriers (at $11 billion a copy) for the next 30 years when no other country has more than one, he asked at the Navy League exposition in Maryland. He questioned the need for the Marines' beach-storming Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (vulnerable to advances in anti-ship systems) and $7 billion ballistic missile submarines. We're sure the irate calls from Capitol Hill and K Street haven't stopped since. It must be noted that Mr. Gates didn't say for sure whether he would slash any of these systems. Perhaps the most volatile issue is military health care costs, which rose from $19 billion to $50 billion in a decade. Active-duty military and their families rightly do not pay for health care. But what retirees pay - $460 annually per family - has not risen in 15 years. Mr. Gates said that many retirees earn full-time salaries on top of their military retirement pay and could get coverage through their employer. We owe our fighting forces excellent care, but this is a time when everyone must share the burden. Budget experts warn that exploding personnel costs - wages, health care, housing, pensions - will increasingly crowd out financing for new weapons. If there was any doubt about what Mr. Gates is up against, a House Armed Services subcommittee gave him a reminder last week. It added nearly $400 million to the Pentagon's $9.9 billion 2011 request for missile defenses. That included $50 million for an airborne laser that experts agree doesn't work and Mr. Gates largely canceled last year.

Public approval is key to the agendaFriedman 8 , Stratfor chief intelligence officer,[George, "Obama: First Moves," Stratfor, www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081124_obama_first_moves?ip_auth_redirect=1, mss]

Presidents are not as powerful as they are often imagined to be. Apart from institutional constraints, presidents must constantly deal with public opinion. Congress is watching the polls, as all of the representatives and a third of the senators will be running for re-election in two years. No matter how many Democrats are in Congress, their first loyalty is to their own careers, and collapsing public opinion polls for a Democratic president can destroy them. Knowing this, they have a strong incentive to oppose an unpopular president — even one from their own party — or they might be replaced with others who will oppose him. If Obama wants to be powerful, he must keep Congress on his side, and that means he must keep his numbers up. He is undoubtedly getting the honeymoon bounce now. He needs to hold that.

WFI 11 101

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—Spending DA

Turn- SBSP returns much more than it costs- investments, jobs, exports, tech spin-offNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to have significant growth potential in the long run, and a national investment in SBSP may return many times its value . Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP, however, may create new markets and the need for new products that will provide many new, high ‐ paying technical jobs and net significant tax revenues . Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars . The energy market is trillions of dollars, and there are many billions of people in the developing world that have yet to connect to the various global markets. Such a large export market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to mature SBSP are similarly likely to have significant economic spin ‐ offs, each with their own independent revenue stream , and open up or enable other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use of off ‐ world resources . Not all of the returns may be obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility. Estimating the value of utilities is difficult since they benefit society as a whole more than any one user in particular—consider what the contribution to productivity and GDP are by imagining what the world would be like without electric lines, roads, railroads, fiber, or airports. Not all of the economic impact is immediately captured in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the services and products that spring up to support those workers and their communities. Historically such infrastructure projects have received significant government support, from land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural electrification, to development of atomic energy. While the initial‐capability on‐ramp may be slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very significant portion of the world energy portfolio by mid‐century and beyond.

AND- there are immediate short-term payoffsNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

The described scenario represents a fundamentally new roadmap to the realization of SBSP—faster than the very cautious, 25‐year approach presented by NASA in the late 1990s, while being far more cost ‐ effective –validating technology at each stage in order to inform subsequent decisions—than the “all‐up development” approach suggested at the end of the DOE‐NASA studies of the 1970s. This new roadmap also yields significant benefits along the way. Each stage in this pathway has the potential to “ pay for itself ”. The earliest technology developments could directly support near ‐ term applications in space and/or terrestrial markets . The mid‐term technology flight experiments and interim demonstrations in LEO could potentially result in a wide range of high‐leverage novel space systems applications. Finally, the large‐scale demonstration in GEO would “leave behind” the capable to deliver megawatts of power to any location on Earth within view of the platform. This is an approach that could actually prove the technical and economic feasibility of SBSP – and do so within the next decade.

WFI 11 102

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—Space Mil DA

SBSP can’t be weaponizedNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that when people are first introduced to this subject, the key expressed concerns are centered around safety, possible weaponization of the beam, and vulnerability of the satellite, all of which must be addressed with education. • Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low energy density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small, comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire. The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale make the beam very unsuitable as a “secret” weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cut ‐ off mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if occurring would be extremely anti ‐ climactic.

No impact—there won’t be backlash to American space dominance Dolman 5 – Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the US Air Force’s School of Advanced Air and Space Studies(Everett C., “U.S. Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” 9-14-05, http://www.e-parl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20&%20Space.pdf)

This rationality does not dispute the fact that US deployment of weapons in outer space would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity, one that would assist in extending the current period of American hegemony well into the future. This would clearly be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is less threatening than any other state doing so. Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time. On the other hand, an attempt by any other state to dominate space would be part of an effort to break the land-sea-air dominance of the United States in preparation for a new international order, with the weaponizing state at the top. The action would be a challenge to the status quo, not a perpetuation of it. Such an event would be disconcerting to nations that accept the current international order (including the venerable institutions of trade, finance, and law that operate within it) and intolerable to the US. As leader of the current system, the US could do no less than engage in a perhaps ruinous space arms race, save graciously decide to step aside. There is another, perhaps far more compelling reason that space weaponization will in time be less threatening to the international system than without it. One of the more cacophonous refrains against weapons procurement of any kind is that the money needed to purchase them is better spent elsewhere. It is a simple cliché but a powerful one. Space weapons in particular will be very, very expensive. Are there not a thousand uses that are more beneficial for the money? But funding for weapons does not come directly from education, or housing, or transportation budgets. It comes from military budgets. And so the question should not be directed at particular weapons, but at all weapons.

WFI 11 103


Space weaponization is inevitable and here now- but maintaining US dominance is key to solve all warMiller 2, National Review political reporter, 7-15[John, "Our 'Next Manifest Destiny'," cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/manifestdestiny.htm, accessed 9-28-10, mss] What the country needs is an aggressive commitment to achieving space control -- a kind of Monroe Doctrine for the heavens, opening them to the peaceful purposes of commerce and science but closing them to anything that threatens American national security. The United States today is the undisputed leader in space technology,but the gap between our capabilities and those of potential

adversaries won't remain so wide forever. The time for bold action is now. The military space age arguably began during the Second World War, when 1,400 German V-2 rockets rained down on England. The V-2s did not do an enormous amount of physical damage, but they did terrify the public and highlight the revolutionary potential of space weapons. "The significance of this demonstration of German skill and ingenuity lies in the fact that it makes complete nonsense out of strategic frontiers, mountains, and river barriers," said CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow from London. The Pentagon began to exploit the vast emptiness of space soon after. Military satellites have been in orbit for more than 40 years. In this sense, the militarization of space is old hat. Today, in

fact, the armed services rely on space so much that they simply couldn't function as they currently do without access to it. Satellites facilitate communications, monitor enemy activity, and detect missile launches. Their surveillance capabilities are astounding: The KH-11 supposedly can spot objects six inches in size from hundreds of miles up. These functions were critical to the success of American campaigns against Iraq and Serbia

in the 1990s, and they are essential to operations in Afghanistan. Even seemingly mundane uses of space have military value. The Global Positioning System is well known to civilian navigators, but it was designed for military navigational purposes, such as helping cruise missiles locate their targets and special-ops units find their rally points. On June 6, 1944, General Eisenhower surely would have appreciated a weather forecast of the type we now routinely get from satellites via local TV and radio broadcasts. On September 11, 2001, it was the space-enabled transmission of cell-phone signals and instant news that helped Todd Beamer and the other passengers of United Flight 93 prevent an already catastrophic day from turning even worse. These are all examples of "force enhancement," to use Pentagon parlance. By generating and channeling information, space-based assets help earthbound soldiers, sailors, and pilots improve their performance. Yet the United States will also need tools of "force application" -- weapons that act against adversaries directly in and from space, for both offensive and defensive purposes. What our country requires, in short, is the weaponization of outer space. This already would have occurred in at least limited form, but for the mulish opposition of arms-control liberals. Reagan's SDI routinely struggled for funding in the 1980s and early 1990s, and then went on life support during the Clinton administration. The budget for ground-based ABMs was slashed by nearly 80 percent in Clinton's first year -- defense contractors even had their system-development bids returned to them unopened. The Brilliant Pebbles program, an outgrowth of SDI that would have placed a swarm of maneuverable interceptors in orbit, was eliminated completely. "These actions effectively destroyed the nation's space-based missile-defense options for the following decade," says Henry Cooper, who ran the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization at the Pentagon during the first Bush administration. The budgets of other programs, such as the ASAT technology tested by Pearson in 1985, were essentially trimmed to death. In 1990, Democrats in Congress forbade ASAT laser testing (the Republican majority let the ban lapse in 1995). The Army worked on ground-based ASAT missiles through the 1990s, and by 1997 its tests were starting to show real promise. The next year, however, Clinton had a test of his own to run -- the line-item veto, since ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court -- and he used it against the Army program. "We could have had something online," says Steven Lambakis of the National Institute for Public Policy. "Now we'd be forced to cobble together an emergency response if we really needed to knock out a satellite." The United States soon will have at least a residual ASAT capability -- any national missile-defense system that can shoot down ICBMs also can obliterate satellites. What we don't have, however, is a growing architecture of space-based weapons along the lines of what Reagan began to describe in his visionary SDI speech in 1983. This May, Senate Democrats passed big cuts to ground-based missile defense, which is humdrum compared with space-based lasers and the like -- and the White House has not yet beaten back even this challenge. The wrangling over weapons and budgets stems from a fundamental confusion over what space is and how we should use it. From the standpoint of physics, space begins about 60 miles above sea level, which is roughly the minimum height a satellite must attain to achieve orbit. In this sense, space is just another medium, much like land, water, and air, with its own special rules of operation. For military purposes, however, space is more: It's the ultimate high ground, a flank from

above whose importance , for those able to gain access to it, may represent the critical difference in future conflicts. For arms-control fanatics, however, space is a kind of sanctuary, and putting weapons in it poses an unconscionable threat. U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan has called for ensuring "that outer space remains weapons-free." Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information warns of threats to "global stability" and "the potential for starting a damaging and destabilizing space race." With space, there's always the sense that weapons violate some pristine nature. This is clearly one of the sentiments behind the Kucinich bill. Yet it is exactly wrong -- there should be weapons way up there because then there will be fewer of them right down here. Space power is now in its infancy, just as air power was when the First World War erupted in 1914. Back then, military planes initially were used to observe enemy positions. There was an informal camaraderie among pilots; Germans and French would even wave when they flew by each other. Yet it wasn't long before the reality of war took hold and they began shooting. The skies were not to be a safe

haven. The lesson for space is that some country inevitably will move to seize control of it, no matter how much money the United States sinks into feel-good projects like the International Space Station. Americans have been caught napping before, as when the Soviet Union shocked the world with Sputnik in 1957. In truth, the United States could have beaten the Soviets to space but for a deliberate slow-down strategy that was meant to foster sunny relations with the world's other superpower. The United States is the world's frontrunner in space, with about 110 military satellites in operation, compared

with about 40 for Russia and 20 for the rest of the world. Yet a leadershiprole in space is not the same as dominance, and the United States

today lacks the ability to defend its assets against rudimentary ASAT technology or to deny other countriestheir own weapons in space. No country appears to be particularly close to putting weapons in orbit, though the Chinese are expected to launch their first astronaut in the next year or two and they're working hard to upgrade their military space capabilities. "It would be a mistake to underestimate the rapidity with which other states are beginning to use space-based systems to enhance their security," says the just-released annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. At a U.N. disarmament conference two years ago, Chinese officials called for a treaty to keep weapons out of space -- a possible sign that what they really want is some time to play catch-up. The private sector also requires a secure space environment. When the Galaxy IV satellite failed in 1998, paging services shut down, affecting an estimated 44 million customers. Banks and credit-card companies also were affected, along with a few television and radio stations. Saddam Hussein may lack the rocket power to lob a nuclear warhead halfway around the world, but he could mount one on top of a Scud and fire it straight upward. A nuclear explosion in low orbit could disable scores of satellites and wreak havoc on modern economies everywhere -- an example of space-age terrorism. Plenty of people inside the government already recognize how much the United States relies on space. There's a U.S. Space Command headquartered in Colorado Springs, and each branch of the military is to some extent involved in space power. In 1999, secretary of defense William Cohen called space power "as important to the nation as land, sea, and air power." His successor, Donald Rumsfeld, chaired a commission on space and national security right before joining the Bush administration. The panel's report, issued last year, warned of a "Space Pearl Harbor" if the country doesn't develop "new military capabilities." While Cohen's rhetoric was fine, his boss, Bill Clinton, didn't seem to agree with it. Rumsfeld is friendly to the notion of space power, but President Bush so far hasn't talked much about it. When Bush gave his missile-defense speech at the National Defense University a year ago, he spoke of land-, sea-, and air-based defenses -- but made no mention of space. "A lot of us noticed that," says one Air Force officer. The Rumsfeld commission also emphasized defense: how to protect American satellites from foreign enemies. It had almost nothing to say about offense: how to use space for projecting American power around the globe. The commission was a creature of consensus, so this does not necessarily represent Rumsfeld's own thinking. And defense certainly is important. Military satellites are tempting targets because they're so crucial to the United States in so many ways. They are protected by their remoteness, but not much else. Their frail bodies and predictable flight paths are a skeet shoot compared with hitting speedy ICBMs, an ability that the United States is just starting to master. They're also vulnerable to jamming and hacking. Hardening their exteriors, providing them with some maneuverability, and having launch-on-demand replacements available are all key ingredients to national security. Yet defense doesn't win wars. In the future, the mere act of protecting these assets won't

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/manifestdestiny.htm

WFI 11 104


Miller continues—be enough to preserve American military superiority in space. In addition to an assortment of high-tech hardware, the United States could use an Alfred Thayer Mahan for the 21st century. In 1890, Mahan was a captain in the Navy when the first edition of his book, The Influence of Sea Power on World History, was published. Today it ranks among the classic texts of military theory. Mahan argued that nations achieve greatness only if they dominate the seas and their various geographic "pressure points," holding up the example of the British Royal Navy. One of Mahan's early readers was a young man named Theodore Roosevelt, who began to apply these ideas while working in the Department of the Navy during the 1890s, and later as president. Mahanian principles shook the country loose from its traditional strategy of coastal defense and underwrote a period of national dynamism, which included the annexation of Hawaii, victory in the Spanish-American War, and the construction of the Panama Canal. No writer has clearly become the Mahan of space, though one candidate is Everett C. Dolman, a professor at the Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies, in Alabama. Dolman's new book Astropolitik offers a grand strategy that would have the United States "endeavor at once to seize military control of low-Earth orbit" and impose "a police blockade of all current spaceports, monitoring and controlling all traffic both in and out." Dolman identifies low-Earth orbit as a chokepoint in the sense of Mahan -- anybody who wants access to space must pass through it. "The UnitedStates should grab this vital territory now, when there's no real competition for it," Dolman tells me. "Once we're there, we can make sure the entry cost for anybody else wanting to achieve space control is too high . Whoever takes space will dominate Earth." Dolman would benefit from a political benefactor. Mahan enjoyed the patronage of Roosevelt, who took a scholar's ideas and turned them into policies. Space has a number of advocates within the military bureaucracy, mostly among its younger members. It does not have a political champion, with the possible exception of Sen. Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who has made the subject a personal passion. Smith calls space America's "next Manifest Destiny" and believes the Department of Defense should establish an independent Space Force to serve alongside the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Smith, however, may not stay in the Senate much longer, facing stiff political challenges at home. With the right mix of intellectual firepower and political muscle, the United States could achieve what Dolman calls "hegemonic control" of space. The goal would be to make the heavens safe for capitalism and science while also protecting the national security of the United States. "Only those spacecraft that provide advance notice of their mission and flight plan would be permitted in space," writes Dolman. Anything else would be shot down. That may sound like 21st-century imperialism, which, in essence, it would be. But is that so

bad? Imagine that the U nited States currently maintained a battery of space-based lasers . India and Pakistan could inch toward nuclear war over Kashmir, only to be told that any attempt by either side to launch a missile would result in a boost-phase blast from outer space. Without taking sides, the United States would immediately defuse a tense situation and keep the skies above Bombay and Karachi free of mushroom clouds. Moreover, Israel would receive protection from Iran and Iraq, Taiwan from China , and Japan and South Korea from the mad dictator north of the DMZ. The United States would be covered as well, able not merely to deter aggression, but also to defend against it .

WFI 11 105

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—NASA Trade-Off DA

Non-unique – Webb telescopeFlorida Today, 6/4[“ Telescope debacle devours NASA funds,” Jun. 4, 2011, http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110605/NEWS01/110604013/Telescope-debacle-devours-NASA-funds]

NASA’s next great space telescope will cost taxpayers at least four times more than planned and launch at least seven years late. Considered by scientists the most important space mission of the decade, the James Webb Space Telescope project is being overhauled for the second time in five years because of skyrocketing costs and cascading schedule delays. Decision-makers initially were told the observatory would cost $1.6 billion and launch this year on a mission to look deeper into space and further back in time than the Hubble Space Telescope, in a quest for new clues about the formation of our universe and origins of life. NASA now says the telescope can’t launch until at least 2018, though outside analysts suggest the flight could slip past 2020. The latest estimated price tag: up to $6.8 billion. NASA admits the launch delay will push the bill even higher. And, scientists are worried the cost growth and schedule delays are gobbling up more and more of the nation’s astronomy budget and NASA’s attention, threatening funding for other space science programs. Some fear the dilemma will get worse if the replanning work this summer forces NASA to shift billions more science dollars to Webb to get it back on track. So, what went wrong? A FLORIDA TODAY review of five years’ worth of budget records, status reports and independent audits show the Webb observatory is plagued by the same, oft-repeated problems that caused most major NASA projects to bust their budgets and schedules. In short, mistakes included: ‡¤NASA and its contractors underestimated the telescope’s cost and failed to include enough reserve cash to handle the kinds of technical glitches that always crop up in development of a complex spacecraft, including many expensive risks managers knew about. --Leaders at agency headquarters in Washington and Goddard Space Flight Center in Baltimore, which led the project before the problems came to light, failed to act on repeated warnings that cash flow was too tight and technical glitches too many to meet the budget or schedule.

SSP technology key to all future NASA missionsNASA Research Center 8 (May 16,“Advanced Solar Cell And Array Technology For NASA Deep Space Missions” http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4922856&tag=1)

Despite the many issues associated with the use of photovoltaics to power deep space missions, it appears that solar arrays may indeed be a viable option for a number of NASA missions. The NASA GRC study has identified some low power missions (200-300 watts) where near-term solar array designs and SOA multi-junction solar cell technology can provide the capability to perform these missions. The feasibility of PV use critically depends on the specifics of the mission and the spacecraft concept. Even though a PV system may not optimize well in terms of mass, size or payload capability when compared to a nuclear-powered system, it still provides an additional design option for many NASA missions when other issues may be the determining factor. This study concluded that significant improvements in solar cell and array technology have definitely advanced the viability of photovoltaic use much farther into the solar system than previously thought possible. Further investigation into LILT effects on solar cells is required, as well as work on large, high-power solar arrays. Clear technology development paths exist to enhance PV applications in support of these missions. Figure 7 summarizes the benefits of technology development in both the solar cell and array areas, quantifying those benefits for a mission to Saturn. It illustrates that substantial benefits of a balanced development approach.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=4922856&tag=1

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110605/NEWS01/110604013/Telescope-debacle-devours-NASA-funds

WFI 11 106

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—NASA Trade-Off DA

Turn- SBSP returns much more than it costs- investments, jobs, exports, tech spin-offNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP appears to have significant growth potential in the long run, and a national investment in SBSP may return many times its value . Most of America’s spending in space does not provide any direct monetary revenue. SBSP, however, may create new markets and the need for new products that will provide many new, high ‐ paying technical jobs and net significant tax revenues . Great powers have historically succeeded by finding or inventing products and services not just to sell to themselves, but to others. Today, investments in space are measured in billions of dollars . The energy market is trillions of dollars, and there are many billions of people in the developing world that have yet to connect to the various global markets. Such a large export market could generate substantial new wealth for our nation and our world. Investments to mature SBSP are similarly likely to have significant economic spin ‐ offs, each with their own independent revenue stream , and open up or enable other new industries such as space industrial processes, space tourism, enhanced telecommunications, and use of off ‐ world resources . Not all of the returns may be obvious. SBSP is a both infrastructure and a global utility. Estimating the value of utilities is difficult since they benefit society as a whole more than any one user in particular—consider what the contribution to productivity and GDP are by imagining what the world would be like without electric lines, roads, railroads, fiber, or airports. Not all of the economic impact is immediately captured in direct SBSP jobs, but also in the services and products that spring up to support those workers and their communities. Historically such infrastructure projects have received significant government support, from land grants for railroads, to subsidized rural electrification, to development of atomic energy. While the initial‐capability on‐ramp may be slow, SBSP has the capability to be a very significant portion of the world energy portfolio by mid‐century and beyond.

No trade-offs Landis 95[Geoffrey, NASA John Glenn Research Center, “ Footsteps to Mars: An incremental approach to Mars exploration,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 48, pp. 367-342 (1995); http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Footsteps.pdf]

Recently there has been an alarming tendency in the scientific and space advocacy communities for advocates to attack one project, in the belief that if that project could be canceled, the money saved would be used for their own, more desirable projects. This is false. Quoting from senate staffer Steve Palmer [17]: “What space station and ASRM [advanced solid rocket motor] add up to is a drop in the bucket. If Congress cuts out both space station and ASRM, will the money be used for other programs of interest to the space industry? The short answer is no”. Arguments to cancel space projects are eagerly picked up in Congress, by people who have agendas and pet projects that have nothing to do with space. Further, attacking space projects has the result of making enemies out of allies. When we attack someone else’s project, we can count on having them attack ours. The result is that the arguments against both projects will be remembered by a money-starved Congress. It is not true that manned missions eclipse funds for unmanned science missions. In fact, there is an excellent case to be made for precisely the opposite correlation: the presence of large manned missions increases the funding and opportunities for unmanned science missions. Historically, the science budget of NASA has been a roughly constant fraction of the total budget; any major new initiative which increases the overall space budget is likely to increase the funding for science. If Mars advocates adopt the approach of pushing our initiatives by tearing down other space programs, the likely result is that nothing, neither Mars nor other programs, will be accomplished.

http://www.geoffreylandis.com/Footsteps.pdf

WFI 11 107

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—Privatization CP

Government action superior to private sectorBerger 7(Brian, staff writer for space news, October 12, “Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power”, http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html)

Specifically, the report calls for the U.S. government to underwrite the development of space-based solar power by funding a progressively bigger and more expensive technology demonstrations that would culminate with building a platform in geosynchronous orbit bigger than the international space station and capable of beaming 5-10 megawatts of power to a receiving station on the ground. Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to show that space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs.Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power down from space could also enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far flung, hostile regions such as Iraq without relying on vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators needed to keep the lights on. As the report puts it, "beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. [Space-based solar power] and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible 'energy on demand' for combat units and installations across and entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on over-land fuel deliveries." Although the U.S. military would reap tremendous benefits from s pace-based solar power,Damphousse said the Pentagon is unlikely to fund development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said, would be more appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy, both of which have studied space-based solar power in the past. The Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new technology, Damphousse said, and provide a potentially robust market for firms trying to build a business around space-based solar power. "While challenges do remain and the business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based solar power is closer than ever," he said. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this." Damphousse, however, cautioned that the private sector will not invest in space-based solar power until the U nited States buys down some of the risk through a technology development and demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusion researchand perhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space station. Demonstrations are key here ," he said. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the Space Frontier Foundation's directors, agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground. Miller told reporters here that the space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House and Congress embrace the report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kind of incentives it offers the nuclear power industry.

Private sector alone can’t solve NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that adequate capital exists in the private sector to finance construction, however private capital is unlikely to develop this concept without government assistance because the timeframe of reward and degree of risk are outside the window of normal private sector investment . Capital in the energy and other sectors is available on the level needed for such a large project, but capital flows under fairly conservative criteria, and SBSP has not yet experienced a suitable demonstration, nor have the risks been adequately characterized to make informed business plan decisions.

NOTE: READ USFG KEY AND PRIVATIZATION EV IN SOLVENCY SECTION

http://www.space.com/1405-space-advocacy-guide-involved.html

http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html#%23


http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html

WFI 11 108

SPS Aff/Neg2AC—Cooperation CP

1. heg advantage is a da to the cp---

2. Cooperation fails NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that although there was universal agreement that internationalcooperation was highly desirable and necessary, there was significant disagreement on what form thecooperation should take.There are multiple values to be balanced with respect to international cooperation. The variousgoods to be optimized include efficiency, speed of development, cost savings, existingalliances, new partnerships, general goodwill, American jobs and business opportunities,cooperation, safety & assurance, commercial autonomy, and freedom of action. Adding moreand new partners may increase goodwill, but add additional layers of approval and slowdevelopment. Starting with established alliances and shared values fulfills some expectationsand violates others. The spectrum of participation ranges from beginning with a demarchebefore the UN General Assembly, to privately approaching America’s closest allies, to arrangingmulti ‐ national corporate conferences. Many participants felt the International Space Station (ISS) overvalued cooperation for cooperation’s sake, and took mutual dependency too far.

WFI 11 109

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Awards CP

Government responsibility of the plan is key to implementationNansen 00 (Ralph, Statement of Ralph H. Nansen President, Solar Space Industries Before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, United States House of Representatives Committee on Science September 7, the founder and president of Solar Space Industries, Mr. Nansen has been involved in space engineering for over 40 years, primarily with The Boeing Company, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm)

An inherent feature of solar power satellites is their location in space outside the borders of any individual nation with their energy delivered to the earth by way of some form of wireless power transmission that must be compatible with other uses of the radio frequency spectrum. They must also be transported to space. Government involvement to coordinate international agreements covering frequency assignments, satellite locations, space traffic control and many other features of space operations is mandatory in order to prevent international conflicts. Solar power satellites will ultimately become part of the commercial electric utility industry and as such, that industry could be expected to shoulder the majority of the burden of development. However, the utility industry is not the only one that will benefit from the development of solar power satellites. All of the people of the world will eventually be the benefactors, through reduced atmospheric pollution and the availability of ample energy in the future. As a result it makes sense that the development of solar power satellites be accomplished through a partnership of industries and governments of all the nations that wish to participate .

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-RalphNansen.htm

WFI 11 110

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Ground Solar CP

Doesn’t solve – prefer our ev—it’s comparative between the two Mankins 8 (john c, President of ARTEMIS Innovation Management Solutions LLC, a research and development management consulting start-up that solves tough innovation challenges for government, industry and not-for-profit clients, and Co-founder of Managed Energy Technologies LLC, a new energy technology start-up that aspires to transform solar energy solutions for terrestrial and space markets,Spring, ad Astra, Special Report: Space-based Solar Power Inexhaustable Energy From Orbit, page @ http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, )

To be economically viable in a particular location on Earth, groundbased solar power must overcome three hurdles. First, it must be daytime. Second, the solar array must be able to see the sun. Finally, the sunlight must pass through the bulk of the atmosphere itself. The sky must be clear. Even on a seemingly clear day, high level clouds in the atmosphere may reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground. Also various local obstacles such as mountains, buildings or trees may block incoming sunlight. The longer the path traveled, the more sunlight is absorbed or scattered by the air so that less of it reaches the surface. Altogether, these factors reduce the average energy produced by a conventional ground-based solar array by as much as a factor of 75 to 80 percent. And ground solar arrays may be subjected to hours, days, or even weeks of cloud cover—periods when the array produces no energy at all. By comparison, the sun shines continuously in space. And in space, sunlight carries about 35 percent more energy than sunlight attenuated by the air before it reaches the Earth’s surface. No weather, no nighttime, no seasonal changes; space is an obvious place to collect energy for use on Earth. The concept of space solar power first emerged in the late 1960s, invented by visionary Peter Glaser and then studied in some detail by the U.S. Department of Energy, and NASA in the mid-to-late 1970s. However, at that time neither the technology nor the market were ready for this transformational new energy option. Today, that has all changed.

http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

WFI 11 111

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Space Mil K

SPS fosters global cooperation by spurring peaceful energy alliances Space energy 10 (Space Energy Newsletter, 13 July, http://spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=51957)

Space Solar Power is cited as an example where automated in-space construction / servicing could enable new classes of mission, effectively removing launch mass and size constraints from consideration during device design. The time ahead for SBSP development is getting brighter as each day goes by! The White House Unveils New National Space Policy Goals “Fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn and operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space - we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth.” ~President Barack Obama The Administration´s New National Space Policy is focused on promoting peaceful cooperation and collaboration. Key elements include: To remain committed to many long-standing tenets in space activities; to call on all nations to share its commitment to act responsibly in space to help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust; to engage in expanded international cooperation in space activities; to commit to a robust and competitive industrial base; to recognize the need for stability in the space environment; to advance a bold new approach to space exploration; to remain committed to the use of space systems in support of its national and homeland security; to fully utilize space systems, and the information and applications derived from those systems and to study, monitor, and support responses to global climate change and natural disasters. For the full fact sheet from the White House office of the Press Secretary, click here. Need for International Cooperation in Space Yields Open Letter to US Policy Makers: 'Why Not Space Solar Power?' The case for international cooperation in Space Solar Power has been greatly strengthened by US National Space Policy 2010. This is, perhaps, a perfect setting and opportunity for humanity to advance peaceful applications of space as the fossil fuel era tapers off this century.

WFI 11 112

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Warming CP (Limits Emissions)

Limiting emissions alone doesn’t solve – only a transition from fossil fuels can Mankins 1 (John C, April 2001, Space Solar Power: A Major New Energy Option?, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, President of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions, an internationally recognized leader in space systems and technology innovation,, 25-year career at NASA and CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) ranged from flight projects and space mission operations, to systems level innovation and advanced technology research & development management. http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JAEEEZ000014000002000038000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2001)14:2(38)&prog=normal)

As a consequence, limiting greenhouse gas emissions globally, while still providing needed new power plant capacity (particularly in non-OECD countries), may require significant new electrical power-generation technologies during the next 50–100 years. Specific CO2 goals that are established internationally will be critical in determining whether the need is for modest extensions of the state of the art or for more ambitious new technologies. However, even modest goals may have far-reaching consequences. For example, limiting atmospheric CO2 concentrations to no more than four times preindustrial levels while meeting global demands for new power plants may require bringing into service a wide range of nontraditional energy sources totaling more than 10,000 GW of capacity by the year 2100

http://scitation.aip.org/getpdf/servlet/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=JAEEEZ000014000002000038000001&idtype=cvips&doi=10.1061/(ASCE)0893-1321(2001)14:2(38)&prog=normal)



WFI 11 113

SPS Aff/Neg2AC Consult India

Perm do the counterplan—it’s normal means Jha 11 (Sauray, “U.S.-India Space Cooperation Could Power Ties” http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-s-india-space-cooperation-could-power-ties, studied economics at Presidency College, Calcutta, and Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Writes and researches on global energy issues and clean energy development in Asia. His first book for Harper Collins India, "The Upside Down Book of Nuclear Power," was published in January 2010. He also works as an independent consultant in the energy sector in India)

Space-based solar power (SBSP) may soon emerge as one of the leading sectors of strategic cooperation between India and the U.S., with a recently released report (.pdf) authored by U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Peter A. Garretson making the case for it being the next focus of the growing partnership. There are a number of reasons why SBSP may emerge as the hub for strategic industrial coordination between the two countries. First, neither country can meet its energy needs through existing clean-energy technologies, including nuclear power, and various technological advances over the past few decades have made space-based solar power a more realistic possibility. Second, the Obama administration wants to build on the foundations of bilateral relations laid by the Bush administration, and space cooperation presents an increasingly attractive option for doing so. Neither SBSP nor the idea of an international partnership as an enabler for it is new. However, the U.S. only began to view India as a major potential partner in such an endeavor in the second half of the last decade. Not surprisingly, given the nature of U.S.-India relations, it was the U.S. private sector that first highlighted India as an important market for future SBSP development, given that a huge chunk of households in India are not yet connected to a conventional electrical grid. In 2007, an interim U.S. assessment of SBSP (.pdf) identified India as a key prospective partner for collaboration. Over the same period, the Indian space program also moved beyond its traditional focus (.pdf) on remote-sensing satellites for developmental needs to more-ambitious programs, such as the Chandrayaan moon mission. India's 2008 moonshot eventually led to the independent discovery of the presence of water on the moon by American and Indian instruments carried on board. This success had a role in convincing U.S. space policymakers about Indian capabilities in integrating systems from varied sources, thereby boosting the prospects of synchronization of U.S. and Indian space architecture for a potential SBSP collaborative effort. The Chandrayaan mission was an early illustration of the space component of the overarching Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue, "Next Steps in Strategic Partnership," announced in January 2004. Unlike the other two pillars -- security and nuclear cooperation, which already have specific agreements in place -- space continues to be characterized by ad hoc arrangements. Indo-U.S. collaboration is currently characterized by a slew of agreements -- some substantial, others rudimentary -- running on parallel tracks. SBSP could be a point of convergence, as it is an area where significant complementarities between the two countries exist. The two most important are India's edge as a low-cost manufacturer for future SBSP components and its cheap satellite-launch capability. Indeed, NASA may soon begin to outsource a significant chunk of low-Earth-orbit launches to the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO). India's attractiveness to U.S. policymakers lies in its promise for reducing costs and increasing returns. Even as NASA has shifted its focus to large, expendable launchers, ISRO continues to back re-usable launch-vehicle technology, which it believes can significantly reduce the cost of satellite launches -- a crucial condition for the sustainability of commercially deployable SBSP. The Chandrayaan mission also demonstrated India's orbit-transfer capability -- a central technical component for geo-stationary and mid-Earth-orbit SBSP concepts. Among the remaining pitfalls to further cooperation, restrictive U.S. controls on high-tech exports -- which target India more than any other major nation besides Pakistan and China -- represent the most significant. Specifically, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) represent the greatest areas for concern. Garretson's report touches on these issues with regard to SBSP, asserting that an exception could be made in the case of ITAR along the lines of similar arrangements in the past. According to Garretson, India would still have to sign the MTCR, in order to assuage U.S. concerns over nonproliferation and intellectual-property rights, given that any SBSP partnership will involve the transfer of cutting-edge technologies. However, India already complies with these regulations to a greater extent than some existing MCTR members do, so an India-specific agreement could be possible. Interestingly, a new report from the Center for New American Security argued that meaningful cooperation on SBSP requires the immediate removal of ISRO from the U.S. Entity List, which designates targets of proliferation concerns (.pdf). Policy heavyweights Karl Indefurth and Raja Mohan also recently advocated for making space the focus not only of the impending Obama visit, but of U.S.-India relations. And U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu stated (.pdf) that the U.S. will prioritize "the partnership between the two countries to advance clean energy, drawing on India's world class science resources," during Obama's visit. SBSP has already been explicitly identified at the highest levels of the Indian government as a strategic priority. With commentators in both countries identifying the dovetailing of space and energy cooperation as the "next big thing" in Indo-U.S. relations, there are now signs that the push on both sides is lining up with all of these circumstantial "pull" factors. There is an expectation that Obama's visit will see movement on removing controls on the sale of high-tech items as a prelude to an agreement on space cooperation, with an SBSP component as a prominent focus. SBSP allows India to keep its space program focused on developmental priorities, such as energy access, while pushing the technological envelope further than ever before. Studies show that SBSP is feasible, but its ultimate deployment will require an unprecedented bilateral effort. That effort could drive an Indo-U.S. partnership that, in Obama's words, would define the 21st century.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-s-india-space-cooperation-could-power-ties

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/6811/u-s-india-space-cooperation-could-power-ties

WFI 11 114

SPS Aff/Neg**SPS CASE NEG**

WFI 11 115

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Solvency Frontline

1. SPS fails---

A. difficulties transmitting energy Bansal, 11(Gaurav, an assistant professor of management information systems for the Austin E. Cofrin School of Business at UW-Green Bay. He received his Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 2008 and his M.B.A. from Kent State University, Ohio in 2002. He completed his Bachelor’s of engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of Gorakhpur, India in 1996., May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)2.Laser beam penetration: Transmission of energy through atmosphere has not yet been done at a large scale and its successful commercial utilization is still under question. The ionosphere, the electrically charged portion of the atmosphere, will be a significant barrier to transmission.

B. high cost and long gestation period Bansal 11 (Gaurav, staff writer for EcoFriend , May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, EcoFriend, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)

1.High costs and long gestation period: Development cost for solar panels of that magnitude would be very large and will also take long time to manufacture as even the first space-based solar project passed California State also has gestation period of 7 long years. Similarly, costs to operationalize even a single large panel is very high, which makes it even more difficult for poor nations to do so. such pilot project by Japan also even runs into more than 20 billions of dollars even before operationalization. 2. Satellite traffic will increase: A large number of such projects can lead to overcrowding of space in the geosynchronous orbit. This may lead to a mishap like the one collision that happened between the Iridium Satellite LLC-operated satellite and the Russian Cosmos-2251 military satellite occurred at about 485 miles above the Russian Arctic on Feb, 2009.

C. takes 40 years Ashworth 8 ( Stephen, director at southwest region resolute, ‘In defense of the knights’, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1)

SSP is not merely expedient ; rather it is strategic, in the sense that it has the potential to permanently raise the whole of human civilization to a higher level of prosperity, security and spatial range. According to Day’s reading of the NSSO study, this is not for us, but only apparently for future generations, many decades in the future:“The NSSO study […] states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP […] that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently exist… and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years.”

D. Too costly Coopersmith 10 (Jonathan, Professor at Dept. of History, Texas A&M University specialty in history of technology, May 6, Solar Power Satellites: Creating the Market, EBSCO)

The technological challenges are great, but can be overcome with sufficient resources. A great deal of research and thinking has produced blueprints of the steps needed to turn SBSP from idea into reality. The major challenge will be economically launching the 3000 metric tons of material and equipment needed to construct a station.Launching that weight to low earth orbit would require 120 shuttle flights or slightly less than the total number of all shuttle flights since the first launch in 1981. Scaling up current launch vehicles to meet this huge demand is impossible. The NSSO study concluded, “the nation's existing EELV-based space logistics infrastructure could not handle the volume or reach the necessary cost efficiencies to support a cost-effective SBSP system.”[21] Nor will new generations of chemical rockets and even air-launched rockets provide the needed advances in capacity andcost. As Table 1 indicates, only radical reductions in launch will make SBSP economically feasible. 105TABLE 1. Cost to launch one solar power station (3000 metric tons) into GEO $/kilogram Billion $ 20,000 60 2000 6200 0.6 20 0.06 At current costs, SBSP is simply unthinkable at $60 billion for transportation alone. At 2000/kilogram, the $6 billion in transportation costs would pay for the construction of a gigawatt nuclear power plant, the most expensive baseload technology. Even at $200/kilogram, the $600 million for transportation would cover a significant percentage of a coal-fired plant. Clearly for SBSP to become a reality, reducing the cost of reaching orbit must be a priority [22].

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1153/1

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/eco-tech-japan-plans-21bn-space-based-solar-farm-for-1gw-of-power/

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/eco-tech-japan-plans-21bn-space-based-solar-farm-for-1gw-of-power/

http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/eco-tech-first-space-based-solar-project-gets-california-s-green-light/


WFI 11 116


2. Ground based solar power is betterShapiro 2 (Finley R., founder of the Shapiro Consulting Company, December First, Utilities in the sky?: Comparison of space-based and terrestrial solar power systems". Refocus (Oxford) (1471-0846), 3 (6), p. 54. ScienceDirect Freedom Collection 2011)

The examples and comparisons show that the space-based solar power systems do not compare favourably to terrestrial photovoltaic systems of the same area. The risks involved in developing the new technology for a space-based solar power system are further reasons to favour the terrestrial photovoltaic system. 3. No solvency- ITAR restrictionsNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found in order to successfully address major world problems in energy,

environmental and national security, the U.S. needs to identify and then reduce or eliminate all unnecessary barriers to effective international cooperation on, and private industry investment in, the development of SBSP. Regardless of the form of international cooperation, Space ‐ Based Solar Power will require modification or special treatment under International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR). • Partnerships between U.S. and foreign corporations are often much easier to create and implement than government to government level partnerships, and more effective when the purpose is fostering economically affordable goods and services. • Application of the International Traffic Arms Regulations (ITAR) may constitute a major barrier to effective partnerships in SBSP and negatively impact national security. Right now ITAR greatly restricts and complicates all space ‐ related business, as it treats all launch and satellite technologies as arms. This has had the effect of causing America’s competitors to develop ITAR ‐ free products, and had a negative impact on our domestic space industries, which can no longer compete on level ground . Many participants in the feasibility study were very vocal that including satellite and launch technology in ITAR has had a counterproductive and detrimental effect on the U.S.’s national security and competitiveness—losing control and market share, and closing our eyes and ears to the innovations of the competition while selling ourselves on a national illusion of unassailable space superiority. Effective collaboration, even with allies on something of this level, could not take place effectively without some special consideration or modification . o Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends the early inclusion of global corporations from America’s allies as partners in the development of this new strategic energy resource. U.S. corporations should be encouraged to develop partnerships with foreign‐owned corporations of America’s closest and most‐trusted allies. In order to achieve this objective, U.S. industry should be exempt from ITAR when working with our closest and most ‐ trusted allies on SBSP systems. U.S. government funded SBSP technology maturation efforts should not include “buy America” clauses prohibiting participation of foreign companies as suppliers to U.S. bidders.

4. NASA can’t solve Discover, 11(Discover Magazine, 2011, “Whence NASA?”, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/08/whence-nasa/)Not to put too fine a point on this, but are you kidding me? They’re comparing where NASA is now to the where we were projected to be in the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey"?NASA folks, let’s be honest here: this does not cast NASA in a good light. Even the image itself is damning: in the movie, that space station was a rotating dock carrying dozens if not hundreds of personnel, and was used as a way station to the Moon, where there was a thriving and expanding lunar base. And that was all supposed to take place seven years ago.NASA has a space station which is doing precious little if no science at all. It takes three people working full time to keep it operating. Yes, in many ways it’s a magnificent achievement, don’t get me wrong. But don’t show me a Volvo and tell me it’s a Lamborghini*, especially when you charge me $150 billion for it.In my opinion, the article linked from the picture does the exact opposite of what it aims to do. If you’re going to compare the predictions of a 40 year old movie — which showed an incredibly ambitious yet believable future — to today’s achievements in space, you need to do better than talk about glass cockpits and flat-screen monitors on the space station. They even say that exercise is routine on the station, and compare that to movie astronaut Frank Poole

WFI 11 117


Discover continues—seen jogging around the rotating wheel of the interplanetary space ship Discovery. C’mon.To me, this drives home the reality of where we are in the manned exploration of space. We have an aging Shuttle fleet which has 11 flights left before retirement, and no working rocket to replace it. We’ll have to rely on Russian spacecraft for years to ferry astronauts and equipment to space and back. The space station has taught us quite a bit about working and living in space, but we would have learned just as much — if not more — if we had built a space station that actually did something. And it’s unclear to me that we’ll be sending humans back to the Moon because of the political reality of funding long-term goals when we get new politicians elected on shorter cycles.Which brings up a point I want to make clear. I’m a supporter of manned space flight, and you won’t find a bigger advocate for what NASA’s robots and space probes have done. And I also understand that NASA is beholden to a variety of forces, putting it at the mercy of whims and breezes from all directions. This is a very complex and delicate situation, with 535 Congresscritters all trying to get their say (with many, perhaps most, having no clue on the importance of space exploration), the White House’s desires on top of that, and a public very unclear on why NASA exists at all (and laboring under gross misunderstandings even then). The Administration at NASA has done an amazing job in most cases getting anything done at all under those circumstances.But trying to compare where we are now to where visionary movies like "2001" were hoping we would be simply hammers home the cold hard fact that we’ve spent the past 45 years since Apollo circling the Earth. There are no Moon bases, no regular Shuttle flights to orbit, no rotating space habitats.It’s politics, I know that. But politics is about choices, and we’ve chosen poorly. We need politicians who will choose wisely, who can see past their own term, past their own partisan desires, past the limits of gravity and atmosphere and current technology, and willing to do what we need to do, what we must do: go into space, do it the right way, the sustainable way, and explore it.Our future is out there, just as our past predicted. We’ve stepped away from the right path, but that path is still there. We simply have to choose to step back on it.

5. Squo proves SPS fails Atkinson, 9(Nancy, I'm the Senior Editor for Universe Today, producer for Astronomy Cast, and project manager for 365 Days of Astronomy podcast. Also, I'm a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador, February 18, “New Company Looks to Produce Space Based Solar Power Within a Decade”, http://www.universetoday.com/25754/new-company-looks-to-produce-space-based-solar-power-within-a-decade/)Is space-based solar power (SBSP) a technology whose time has come? The concept and even some of the hardware for harnessing energy from the sun with

orbiting solar arrays has been around for some time. But the biggest challenge for making the concept a reality, says entrepreneur Peter Sage of Space Energy, Inc., is that SBSP has never been commercially viable. But that could be changing. Space Energy, Inc. has assembled an impressive team of scientists, engineers and business people, putting together what Sage calls “ “Although it’s a very grandiose vision, it makes total sense,” Sage told Universe Today. “This is an inevitable technology; it’s going to happen. If we can put solar panels in space where the sun shines 24 hours a day, if we have a safe way of transmitting the energy to Earth and broadcasting it anywhere, that is a serious

game changer.” If everything falls into place for this company, they could be producing commercially available SBSP within a decade. The basic concept of SBSP is having solar cells in space collecting energy from sun, then converting the energy into a low intensity microwave beam, sending it down to Earth where it is collected on a rectenna, and then fed into the power grid to provide electricity. Almost 200 million gigawatts of solar energy is beamed towards the Earth every second, which is more energy than our civilization has used since the dawn of the electrical age. We only need a way to harness that energy and make it usable. Space Energy, Inc.’s vision is to help create an energy-independent world, and improve the lives of millions of people by bringing a source of safe, clean energy to the planet from space. They are looking to become the world’s leading, and perhaps the first, SBSP enterprise. “The biggest challenge for SBSP is making it work on a commercial level in terms of bottom line,” said Sage, “i.e., putting together a business case that would allow the enormous infrastructure costs to be raised, the plan implemented, and then electricity sold at a price that is reasonable. I say ‘reasonable’ and not just ‘competitive’ because we’re getting into a time where selling energy only on a price basis isn’t going to be the criteria for purchase.” Currently, there are times in the US when electricity is sold wholesale for close to a dollar a kilowatt

during peak usage or times of emergency when power needs to be shipped around the national grid. Sage said SBSP will never be cost comparable with the current going rate of 6 or 7 cents a kilowatt due to the enormous set-up costs. “We believe we can get it to a reasonable price, a fair market price as the demand for energy increases,” Sage said. A huge energy gap is looming for our world, and that too, will change the energy game. According to a white paper written by aerospace engineer James Michael Snead, “The End of Easy Energy and What Are We Going To Do About It,” in order to meet the world’s projected increase in energy needs by 2100 which likely will be at least three times what is being produced today, today’s sustainable energy production must expand by a factor of over 25. Under that scenario, even if the US were to build 70 new nuclear plants, add the equivalent of 15 more Hoover Dams, expand the geothermal capacity by 50 times what it is today, install over a million large land or sea wind turbines covering 150,000 square miles, build 60,000 square miles of commercial solar voltaic farms, and on top of that convert 1.3 billion dry tons of food mass to bio fuels, still only 30% of the power needs would be filled by 2100, or perhaps even earlier. “Looking at every single technology we can as a civilization to try and fill the energy gap in a clean and resourceful, sustainable way, technologies like SBSP have

to be made to work,” said Sage. Peter Sage. Image courtesy Space Energy, Inc. He says this is an important point. “We’re not setting ourselves up to compete with coal, or nuclear, or ground based solar or wind. I don’t want to pick a fight with any of those industries saying that we’re trying to take a piece of their pie. What we’re saying is that right now, from a responsible perspective in terms of being a good steward for the environment, we need to look at every single source of energy that we can get our hands on, primarily green, and develop it regardless, because we’re going to need it. SBSP is one of the few forms of energy that has the ability to be base-load, i.e., 24-7, and it’s the only form of energy that can be broadcast on demand.” The first phase of Space Energy, Inc.’s plan is to launch a small prototype satellite into low Earth orbit. “This will help validate the numbers we are speculating on at this point, but also validate several different aspects of what SBSP can do,” said Sage. “From a successful demonstration, we are hoping to close power purchase agreements with one of several entities we are in discussions with at present. And on the strength of that we should be able to put the first commercial satellite in orbit.” With regards to the timetable, Sage was hesitant to commit to a schedule. “As timetables go, everything needs to be flexible, but we are looking to close the financing for the demonstrator during the first quarter of this year (2009). The demonstrator is a 24 to 36 month project and, from

WFI 11 118


Atkinson Continues:

there, we will start the commercial build-out of the main satellite, which could take up to four years to be operational.” That’s an aggressive schedule. But Sage said since their plan is being driven from a commercial basis, they can run their operation differently than government agencies who don’t necessarily operate with the bottom line in mind. “Our board members and entrepreneurial group certainly have a lot of experience running commercial entities. We know what we’re doing. We’re in a market that we hope to pioneer, and everyone feels confident that we have what it takes. We certainly have the passion, vision and enthusiasm to make this happen.” What are the biggest hurdles to overcome in this project? “If you would have asked me that question a few months ago,” Sage replied, “I would have said a combination of meeting the right people who could understand the vision and scope of what it is what we’re doing, and raising the initial financing for the demonstrator. Those hurdles, at this point, really seem to be taken care of. The more we have our technical teams talk with investors, the more people understand that we’re real and this isn’t some sort of Star Trek giggle factor. Right now, with the level of due diligence that’s been done not only on SBSP itself, but with ourselves as a commercially viable entity, we’re on the forefront of many people’s agenda in terms of how to move this forward. We see a straight path to making this a reality.” Sage said no new technology is needed for the demonstrator, which will be a working, small prototype, but challenges do remain to move forward beyond that. “Obviously, there are technical challenges because something of this scale has never been done before. We know we can do wireless power transmission, as NASA did some pretty significant tests on this in the 1970s. We know the physics of wireless power transmission, and how everything should work from geostationary orbit.” While the demonstrator won’t be of any scale where energy could be sold commercially, it would be a proof of concept. “Once we’ve demonstrated that we can wirelessly beam power accurately to the ground in a safe, controlled, effective manner, and in a way that can be metered and measured,” said Sage, “we will have taken a massive step forward to prove that SBSP is a technology of the future that has the potential to really fill a gap in the world’s energy needs.” Some have equated developing SBSP to what was accomplished with the Apollo program. “There are so many positive spinoffs to SBSP as a game changing foundation of space commerce, that just by addressing a lot of the challenges that lay ahead, we will be blazing a trail for many other opportunities for a low earth orbit economy,” Sage added. A rectenna on Earth collects microwaved energy from space solar collectors. Image courtesy Mafic Studios. Space Energy, Inc. recently attended the World Future Energy Summit and has been overwhelmed with the response. “We’ve had discussions with many different entities, both governmental and private, in the Middle East; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Dubai, many areas around Europe, and many of the world’s top investment firms. I don’t think we’re going to be short of people that will want to support us.” Sage added that in general, SBSP has strong support in Washington DC, and that SBSP recently was added to a list of technologies being studied by the Obama administration. SBSP has ability to literally change the course of history, and impact the quality of life for people everywhere. Sage said this project is an entrepreneurs’ dream. “I speak for our entire team here, we’re not just focused on how much money are we going to make,” Sage said. “We’re focused on the fact that this is an inevitable technology and someone is going to do it. Right now we’re the best shot. We’re also focused on the fact that, according to every scenario we’ve analyzed, the world needs space based solar power, and it needs it soon, as well as the up-scaling of just about every other source of renewable energy that we can get our hands on.” “Space based solar power will happen whether we crack cold fusion, or whether we suddenly go to 80% efficiency on ground based solar power (currently its only at 50%),” Sage continued. “It has to happen based on the nature on what it is. With that in mind, I’ve been willing to put everything I have on the line to be able to make this work, and that was three years, ago. To see how far we’ve come in the past six to eight months has been amazing.” “This is going to happen.”

WFI 11 119

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Solvency: XTN—Economically Unfeasible

The costs for SBSP are too highBansal, 11(Gaurav, an assistant professor of management information systems for the Austin E. Cofrin School of Business at UW-Green Bay. He received his Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 2008 and his M.B.A. from Kent State University, Ohio in 2002. He completed his Bachelor’s of engineering degree in Mechanical Engineering from University of Gorakhpur, India in 1996., May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)1.High costs and long gestation period: Development cost for solar panels of that magnitude would be very large and will also take long time to manufacture as even the first space-based solar project passed California State also has gestation period of 7 long years. Similarly, costs to operationalize even a single large panel is very high, which makes it even more difficult for poor nations to do so. such pilot project by Japan also even runs into more than 20 billions of dollars even before operationalization.

SBSP is too economically infeaseable, even if military is the rationaleBerger ’07 (Brian, Space News staff writer, October 12, 2007, “Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space- Based Solar Power”, http://www.space.com/4478-report-urges-pursue-space-based-solar-power.html)

Placing a free-flying space-based solar power demonstrator in low-Earth orbit, he said, would cost $500 million to $1 billion. A geosynchronous system capable of transmitting a sustained 5-10 megawatts of power down to the ground would cost around $10 billion, he said, and provide enough electricity for a military base. Commercial platforms, likewise, would be very expensive to build. "These things are not going to be small or cheap," Mankins said. "It's not like buying a jetliner. It's going to be like buying the Hoover Dam."

WFI 11 120

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Solvency: XTN—Long Timeframe

Not feasible for decades Day 8 (Dwayne A., Day works for the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, where he has served as a study director on studies concerning NASA's planetary exploration program, the threat of asteroids striking Earth, NASA workforce skills, radiation hazards to astronauts on long duration spaceflights, and other projects. He has also written extensively on the history of American satellite reconnaissance, June 9, Knights in shining armor, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1147/1)

The reason that SSP has gained nearly religious fervor in the activist community can be attributed to two things, neither having to do with technical viability. The first reason is increased public and media attention on environmentalism and energy coupled with the high price of gasoline. When even Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups are advertised with a global warming message, it’s clear that the issue has reached the saturation point and everybody wants to link their pet project to the global warming discussion. SSP, its advocates point out, is “green” energy, with no emissions—other than the hundreds, or probably thousands, of rocket launches needed to build solar power satellites. The second reason is a 2007 study produced by the National Security Space Office (NSSO) on SSP. The space activist community has determined that the Department of Defense is the knight in shining armor that will deliver them to their shining castles in the sky. Space activists, who are motivated by the desire to personally live and work in space, do not care about SSP per se. Although all of them are impacted by high gasoline prices, many of them do not believe that global climate change is occurring; or if they do believe it, they doubt that humans contribute to it. Instead, they have latched on to SSP because it is expedient. Environmental and energy issues provide the general backdrop to their new enthusiasm, and the NSSO study serves as their focal point. Many people now claim that “the Department of Defense is interested in space solar power.” But it is not true. The NSSO study is remarkably sensible and even-handed and states that we are nowhere near developing practical SSP and that it is not a viable solution for even the military’s limited requirements. It states that the technology to implement space solar power does not currently exist… and is unlikely to exist for the next forty years. Substantial technology development must occur before it is even feasible. Furthermore, the report makes clear that the key technology requirement is cheap access to space, which no longer seems as achievable as it did three decades ago (perhaps why SSP advocates tend to skip this part of the discussion and hope others solve it for them). The activists have ignored the message and fallen in love with the messenger.

At least ten years to develop NSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Recommendation: The complexity of negotiating any type of international legal and policy agreements necessary for the development of SBSP will require significant amounts of time (5 – 10 years ). The SBSP Study Group recommends that the policy and legal framework development should begin simultaneously with any science and technology development efforts to ensure that intangible issues do not delay employment of technology solutions.

WFI 11 121

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Solvency: XTN—NASA Fails

NASA empirically fails at launching satellitesMorello, 11(Lauren, a reporter who covers science, March 4, “Science Satellite's Crash Leaves NASA 'Devastated' and Flummoxed”, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/03/04/04greenwire-science-satellites-crash-leaves-nasa-devastate-66697.html)A NASA satellite designed to study aerosols' influence on climate and measure solar energy failed to reach orbit this morning. The crash marks the second time in two years that a NASA climate satellite has failed to launch. The cause appeared to be a problem with the Taurus XL rocket the space agency was using as the vehicle to launch the $424 million satellite, known as Glory, into orbit. The rocket lifted off from Southern California's Vandenberg Air Force Base just after 5 a.m. Eastern time. Three minutes into the launch, something went wrong, NASA officials said. "We failed to make orbit," said a visibly upset Omar Baez, the NASA launch director for the Glory mission. "All indications are that the satellite and the rocket are in the southern Pacific Ocean somewhere." Baez and other officials from NASA and Orbital Sciences Corp., the makers of the Taurus XL rocket, briefed reporters on the failed launch this morning. The space agency has already started putting together a review panel, known as a "mishap board," to review what went wrong. Much of the discussion focused on the Taurus XL rocket's fairing, a nose cone designed to shield the Glory satellite as it traveled through

Earth's atmosphere. NASA officials said it appears the fairing did not detach from the rocket the way it was supposed to. A similar problem with the Taurus XL rocket's fairing caused the launch failure of another satellite, the $273 million Orbiting Carbon Observatory, in February 2009. That was the last time NASA used the Taurus XL as a launch vehicle (ClimateWire, Feb. 25, 2009).

WFI 11 122

SPS Aff/NegNeg—SPS Bad: Ozone

SBSP launching costs are astronomical and create gigantic disruptions to the ozone layer. Howard 9 (George, President of NSS Heart of America, Sept 6, A Position Paper on Space Solar Power Satellite Technology, http://www.nssheartofamerica.org/sspskc.html)

According to The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Space Technology, copyright 1981; the total mass to be placed in space would be 88,000 to 110,000 US tons for SSPS that could produce a commercially viable amount of power. Using this information we can determine that if boosters capable of placing 100 tons into orbit were used it would require 880 to 1100 such launches. A Saturn 5 booster of the Apollo program could launch about 140 tons into orbit. This is about the size needed for a booster to accomplish the task to launch one booster per day for about 3 years. One hundred tons for cargo and 40 tons for a crew module. 110000 tons of equipment ___ = 1100 days to launch completion or 3.01 years. 100 tons launched per day. Each carrier vehicle with a 100 ton payload would be about the size of an Apollo Saturn 5 rocket, the Apollo program required 15 to 18 Saturn 5 boosters to be built. The SSPS program would require over 1000 of this size booster to be built. This is a tall order to say the least. Environmental impact: There is no real world comparison to launch one Saturn 5 sized rocket every day for three years. However it is known what happens when one Saturn 5 rocket is launched or a Space Shuttle or Energia booster. The launch results in an approximately 150 mile wide disruption of the ozone layer for several days. If you launch one rocket this size each day it would result in a persistent disruption that would extend over several thousand miles. If as an example the ozone hole persisted for 15 days before ozone completely recovered you may end up with the following result. A rough calculation would be 150 miles multiplied by 15 equaling a 2250-mile long disruption area. If you do this for three years it may result in a wider disruption area. The affected area will vary based on the fuels and oxidizers used.

ExtinctionWilliams 96, David Crockett Jr., author of Tetron Natural Unified Field Theory, Chemist, Personal and Financial Agent. February 7, THE SCIENTIFIC SPIRITUAL REVOLUTIONhttp://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/video96.html

Today all life on earth is threatened by many problems associated with the materialistic and shortsighted human activities out of harmony with nature that have led to an oxygen crisis from massive deforestation and fossil fuel combustion which has created global warming responsible for increased weather extremes, flooding, droughts, disease vectors, etc., and an ozone layer depletion that threatens all life on earth by the imminent destruction of the ocean's phytoplankton which produce over half of earth's oxygen and form the beginning of the oceanic food chain . Nuclear testing has caused lasting increases in seismic and volcanic activity, explainable by free energy science, which threatens cataclysmic earth changes. The danger of nuclear conflagration still exists. All these conditions have been predicted independently by many different religious prophecies since many hundreds of years ago. How can this be understood and resolved?

WFI 11 123

SPS Aff/NegNeg—SPS Bad: XTN—Ozone

SBSP damages atmosphere, and raises the risk of cancerBansal 11 (Gaurav, staff writer for EcoFriend , May 23, “The Good, the bad and the ugly: Space based solar energy”, EcoFriend, http://www.ecofriend.com/entry/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-space-based-solar-energy/)

Potential damage to Atmosphere: Till now microwave and other transmission methods that are adopted for all over the world are for communication and broadcast purposes only. However, for energy transmission, the wavelength has to very high which can be potentially dangerous to our atmosphere and will increase the risk of leukemia and cancer among humans. Suggested concentration and intensity of such microwaves at their center would be of 23 mW/cm2 and at periphery would be 1 mW/cm2 , which compares to the current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves. Similarly very high frequency used for such long distance propagation can be very dangerous and may lead to increase in radioactivity in earth’s environment.


WFI 11 124

SPS Aff/NegNeg—SPS Bad: Space Debris

Plan causes a chain reaction of space debris – we’re on the brink now Mehrholz et al 2 (D., L. Leushacke, W. Flury, R. Jehn, H. Klinkrad, M. Landgraf, FGAN Research Institute for High-Frequency Physics and Radar Techniques and European Space Operations Centre (ESOC), Feb, Detecting, Tracking and Imaging Space Debris, http://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet109/chapter16_bul109.pdf)

Today’s man-made space-debris environment has been created by the space activities that have taken place since Sputnik’s launch in 1957. There have been more than 4000 rocket launches since then, as well as many other related debris-generating occurrences such as more than 150 in-orbit fragmentation events. Currently, there are more than 8700 objects larger than 10–30 cm in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and larger than 1 m in Geostationary Orbit (GEO) registered in the US Space Command Satellite Catalogue. US Space Command tracks these objects with radars and optical telescopes to determine their orbits and other characteristic parameters, including their sizes (Fig. 1). Approximately 6% are operational spacecraft, 21% are old spacecraft, 17% are rocket upper stages, 13% are mission-related debris, and 43% are fragments from (mostly) explosions or collisions. Consequently, about 94% of the catalogued objects no longer serve any useful purpose and are collectively referred to as ‘space debris’. In addition, there are a large number of smaller objects that are not routinely tracked, with estimates for the number of objects larger than 1 cm ranging from 100 000 to 200 000.

First, results in accidental nuclear wars due to misperception Ritchie 82 (David, IT Business Relationship Manager at SELEX S&AS, Spacewar, http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1768/)

Perhaps the greatest danger posed by the militarization of space is that of war by accident. At any given time, several thousand satellites and other pieces of equipment -- spent booster stages and the like -- are circling the earth, most of them in low orbit. The space immediately above the atmosphere has begun to resemble an expressway at rush hour. It is not uncommon for satellites to miss each other by only a kilometer or two, and satellites crashing into each other may explain some of the mysterious incidents in which space vehicles simply vanish from the skies. One civillian TV satellite has been lost in space; it never entered its intended orbit, and no signals were heard from it to indicate where it might have gone. Collision with something else in space seems a reasonable explanation of this disappearance. Even a tiny fragment of metal striking a satellite at a relative velocity of a few kilometers per second would wreck the satellite, ripping through it like a Magnum slug through a tin can. Now suppose that kind of mishap befell a military satellite -- in the worst possible situation, during a time of international tension with all players in the spacewar game braced for attacks on their spacecraft. The culpable fragment might be invisible from the ground; even something as small and light as a paper clip could inflict massive damage on a satellite at high velocity. Unaware of the accident, a less than cautious leader might interpret it as a preconceived attack. Wars have begun over smaller incidents .

Second, this turns case—debris chain reaction leaves space unusable Taylor, 7 – Chief of the Space and International Law Division at Headquarters United States Air Force Space Command; B.A, Berry College; J.D. University of Georgia; LL.M. (Air and Space Law), McGill University (Michael W. “Trashing the Solar System One Planet at a Time: Earth’s Orbital Debris Problem,” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Fall, 2007, Gale) // DCM

As the amount of debris in a particular orbital area increases, so does the risk of placing a new satellite into that area. As the NASA study discussed in Part II.D.5 above demonstrated, certain areas of space that are already crowded with debris are particularly susceptible to the creation of new debris. If the feared cascade effect begins for one of these areas, that area of space could become so dangerous that it would be unusable for hundreds or thousands of years. Even if an area of space is not so hazardous that it is unavailable, the risks of putting an operational satellite into that area will be very high. This could increase the costs by requiring more mitigation measures or through increased insurance premiums.

http://spacedebate.org/evidence/1768/

WFI 11 125

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Warming Frontline

1. SBSP can’t solve previous emission levelsWalsh, 11(Bryan, writes for TIME about the environment and energy, January 10, “Climate: Unstoppable Global Warming”, http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/01/10/climate-unstoppable-global-warming/#ixzz1QVftMyb3)One of the biggest obstacles to reducing carbon emissions is the simple fact that political time and climatological time are very, very different. Politicians in elected democracies think on two- or four-year cycles—if that—while even the leaders of an autocratic state like China, without the pressures of an election, are still limited in just how far ahead they can plan. That's not just politics—that's human psychology. We tend not to be very good at planning for the future—just look at the long-term decline in the American savings rate—and that's just thinking over the scale of a human lifetime. Climatological time is closer to "deep time," the writer John McPhee's term for how the planet's geology changes over millions to even billions of years, a span of time simply unfathomable to human beings. Climate can change a lot faster than that—thanks largely to the billions of tons of greenhouse gases we've been pumping into the atmosphere over the past 150 years—but it still moves a lot slower than political time, so it's easy to put off until tomorrow.

But two papers published over the weekend in Nature Geoscience show that the very length of climatological time can frustrate our efforts to slow global warming—assuming we can begin to do that. In one paper, a group of Canadian researchers decided to see how the climate system might react over the next hundreds of years if greenhouse gas emissions kept rising to a high level until 2100, and then were zeroed out. (Download a PDF here.) As of 2100, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reach some 1,000 ppm—two and a half times the current level, and well above the 450 or 350 ppm that many scientists believe would be a safe limit. At that point, emissions magically stop—impossible in the real world, but this is a model. Carbon dioxide, however, can stay in the atmosphere for centuries or even longer, so warming doesn't end when the emissions do. The damage is already done—and continues for the next 900 years.

2. It’s too late to solve for global warmingGitlin, 9(Jonathon M., Jonathan received his BSc in Pharmacology from King’s College London, and his PhD in Pharmacology from Imperial College London, and followed up with postdoctoral work at The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA, and the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY, where he also taught International Science and Technology Policy at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Relations., January 27, “Study: Too late to turn back the clock on climate change”, http://arstechnica.com/author/jonathan-m-gitlin)This week's PNAS brings with it some bad news on the climate front: even if policy makers and the general public get on board with drastic CO2 emission cuts, it's already too late to prevent serious changes to the planet's climate, and those changed will be remarkably persistent. Those are the findings of a group of researchers from the US, Switzerland, and France. In their paper, they look at the effect of increasing CO2 over millennial time frames, and it's worrisome stuff. Currently, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are around 385 ppm, a 35 percent increase over pre-industrial levels. The most optimistic scenarios arrive at a figure of 450 ppm as the best we might be able to achieve in the coming decades, but even at that level, changes in precipitation patterns, temperature increases, and a rise in sea level appear to be locked in for at least the next thousand years. The dynamics of the oceans are to blame. According to Susan Soloman, Senior Scientist at NOAA and lead author, "In the long run, both carbon dioxide loss and heat transfer depend on the same physics of deep-ocean mixing. The two work against each other to keep temperatures almost constant for more than a thousand years, and that makes carbon dioxide unique among the major climate gases." One of the most profound effects looks to be a severe decrease in rainfall that will affect the southeastern US, the Mediterranean, southern Asia, and swathes of subtropical Africa and South America. Sea levels are going to rise too. Without even accounting for melting ice sheets, the sheer thermal expansion of the Earth's oceans will be between 0.4-1m, and as with the temperature rise and the changes to rainfall, these effects look set to persist for at least until the year 3000.

3. Warming is not anthropogenic— it’s because of solar irridanceRavilious, 7(Kate, free lance science writer with a degree in geology. She has written for New Scientist, The Economist, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, Focus Magazine, Archaeology Magazine, EPSRC Publications such as 'Pioneer', National Geographic Daily News, BBC Science News,and Environmental Research Web., February 28, “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says”, National Georgraphic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages

WFI 11 126


Ravilious Continues

throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

4. CO2 emissions have no effect on climate change and global warmingMoore 95(Thomas Gale, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in international trade, deregulation, and privatization, current research focuses on global warming, environmental issues, regulatory issues, and privatization in former communist countries, Winter 1995, “GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals,” Hoover Institution Working Paper series, http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html)

Studies of climate history show as was mentioned above that sharp changes in temperatures over brief periods of time have occurred frequently without setting into motion any disastrous feedback systems that would lead either to a runaway heating that would cook the earth or a freezing that would eliminate all life. In addition, carbon dioxide levels have varied greatly. Ice core data exhibit fluctuating levels of CO2 that do not correspond to temperature changes.[22] Most past periods display a positive relationship between CO2 and temperature, however, with a relationship roughly corresponding to that of the Global Climate Models.[23] During interglacial periods high latitudes enjoyed temperatures that were about 5deg. to 11deg.F warmer than today.[24] Middle latitudes experienced temperatures only about 4deg. to 5deg.F warmer. These warmer periods brought more moisture to the Northern Hemisphere with the exception during the Holocene of central North America. At the time of the medieval warm period, temperatures in Europe, except for the area around the Caspian Sea basin, were 1deg. to 3deg.F higher and rainfall more plentiful than today.[25] This historical evidence is consistent with only some of the forecasts of the computer climate models. Most climate estimates indicate that a doubling of CO2 would generate greater rainfall in middle latitudes, and history shows that warm climates do produce more wet weather.[26] As has been found in the historical record, land temperatures should increase more than water thus strengthening monsoons. The models also predict that sea-surface temperatures in the tropics would be higher with increased CO2 but evidence from the past evinces no such relationship.[27] Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been up to sixteen times higher about 60 million years ago without producing runaway greenhouse effects.[28] Other periods experienced two to four times current levels of CO2 with some warming. Scientists have been unable to determine whether the warming preceded or followed the rises in carbon dioxide. For virtually all of the period from around 125 million to about 75,000 years ago, CO2 levels were markedly higher than now.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_to_Man_fn.html#fn27




http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boonto%20Man_fn.html#fn23



WFI 11 127


5. History proves that warming follows patterns and will have little effect on life on EarthMoore 95 (Thomas Gale, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in international trade, deregulation, and privatization, current research focuses on global warming, environmental issues, regulatory issues, and privatization in former communist countries, Winter 1995, “GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals,” Hoover Institution Working Paper series, http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html)

History provides the best evidence for the effect of climate change on humans, plants and animals, but a few researchers have challenged its relevance. David Rind, a climate modeler and NASA scientist, has questioned the applicability of past warming episodes to the modern issue of climatic alteration caused by increased CO2 concentrations.[17] He attributes the origin of past periods of warmth and cold to shifts over time in the orbital position of the earth which impose more or less energy on the poles, as contrasted to a general world-wide warming that might result from the addition of man-made greenhouse gases. [See Appendix A on factors determining climate]. He also argues that the swiftness in warming that would occur following increased levels of CO2 is unprecedented in history. On the latter point, he ignores other research, such as that by a German academic, Burkhard Frenzel, who writes, "During the Holocene, very rapid changes of climate occurred. According to dendroclimatology [tree ring analysis applied to climatology], they often lasted about 20 to 30 years, or [were] even as brief as 2 to 3 years."[18] Other climate historians have found that a rapid cooling in the late glacial period -- about 11,000 years ago --took about 100 to 150 years to complete and realized about 5deg.F variation in temperature within 100 years, more than is being forecast for the next century.[19] Although changes in the earth's orbital position may easily have played a role in warming the earth after the last Ice Age, the effect was world-wide rather than concentrated in northern latitudes. Ice retreated in the Southern as well as in the Northern Hemisphere. Moreover, in the subsequent warming, from around 7,000 to 4,000 years ago, the climate around the world appears to have improved. Although the evidence for warming in the Southern Hemisphere is weaker, even if higher temperatures had been localized in one hemisphere or one continent, the effect on human beings would still tell us about the benefits or costs of climatic change. Dr. Rind argues that greenhouse warming would raise winter as well as summer temperatures while past warmings, driven by orbital mechanics, have raised summer temperatures alone. Even though his models suggest that these past warmings should have boosted temperatures solely in June, July, and August, the evidence, albeit a little tenuous for the three thousand year period of Climatic Optimum, supports warmer winters. For the Little Climate Optimum that coincided with the High Middle Ages, researchers have found strong support for mild winters. Moreover, at a recent conference the Russians have put forward the hypothesis that past climate changes support the proposition that the cause of the warming or cooling is irrelevant; the pattern has been the same.[20] This conclusion , disputed by some, is based on a large number of past shifts in average weather conditions dating back millions of years. The Russians contend that the climate models overstate the amount of temperature change at the equator and understate it at the poles.

WFI 11 128

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Warming: XTN—Emissions/ Warming Inevitable

Climate change is inevitableRiddle, 7(Richard, writer for The Western Mail, September 17, “Letter: Can’t Stop Climate Change”, http://www.lexisnexis.com:80/lnacui2api/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T12376984823&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T12376984831&cisb=22_T12376984830&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=244366&docNo=3)

Sir - a great speech by Jill Evans MEP at the Plaid conference on Thursday was marred by the same mistake made by so many politicians and Green campaigners. She, like they, spoke about the efforts we must all make "to stop climate change".Trying to "stop" climate change is like trying to cure dysentery with a sticking plaster. In the past million years there have been 16 ice ages with their intervening hot periods, unaided by a single smoking chimney, car or short-haul flight, We can't even delay our inevitable advance into the middle of the current inter-glacial period and the next ice age.What we can and must do, however, is make every effort not to speed up climate change. There is no doubt whatever that our civilisation has increased, and is increasing, humanity's carbon footprint which, in turn, is hastening the inevitable.By not hastening the process, we will gain a little time in which we can prepare for the natural consequences of global warming, such as desertification, rising sea levels and great movements of displaced people.We should plan for aid for people most affected by these consequences, so that they can survive in their own countries. In the UK, we must prepare for the relocation of living areas above the seven-metre contour and for the closure of our borders to possible waves of desperate people trying to take a share of our sceptred isle. So let's get it right - stop hastening climate change AND, as a matter of urgency, prepare for the inevitable consequences.

Residual CO2 emissions will continue global warming, plan can’t solveHempsella 6 (Mark, professor at University of Bristol, “Space power as a response to global catastrophes,” Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 524-530, EBSCO host)

The key contributor to global warming gases is anthropogenic carbon dioxide and its removal from the atmosphere would clearly be desirable. The natural process of fixing carbon dioxide is far slower than the annual production rate of around 30 Gtonnes a year and artificial fixing is clearly of interest [29]. To remove a tonne of the gas over a year and split the carbon from the oxygen would require around 1 kW. It follows a 5 GW system dedicated to a removal and processing plant would remove 5 million tonnes a year, which is a factor of ten thousand below the current production rate. Taking a scenario of the expanded reference system with around 200 SPS in place providing most of the world's energy needs without any carbon dioxide being produced there would still be a need to remove the carbon dioxide already there. Assuming another 200 satellites are constructed and dedicated to CO2 removal the removal rate would be 1 Gtonne/year, still a factor of 30 below the current production rate. Such a system (doubling mankind's energy consumption on the Earth) would need to be operational for a thousand years to undo the few decades of heavy dependence on energy from fossil fuels.




WFI 11 129

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Warming: XTN— CO2 Emissions ≠ Warming

Co2 levels have little to do with global warmingCunningham, 10(Walter, United States Marine Corps, National Aeronautics and Space Administration - pilot of Apollo 7, graduate degrees from UCLA in physics and the Harvard Graduate School of Business, member of the Advisory Board for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2010, “Global Warming: Fact Versus Fait”, http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/FactsFaith.pdf)The advocates of AGW say the United States must impose a devastating tax scheme to force industry to emit less carbon dioxide, thereby reversing the warming trend. This policy prescription is based on three assumptions: (1) that CO2 is the cause of changes in the Earth’s temperature; (2) that a warmer Earth would be bad for the planet’s flora and fauna, including humans; and (3) that humans are capable of controlling the temperature of the Earth. In reality, water vapor has more than twice the impact on temperature as atmospheric CO2, aided and abetted by other greenhouse gases, like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). With CO2 representing just 3.6 percent of greenhouse gases, by volume, and human activity responsible for only 3.2 percent of that, we can influence only a tiny portion of the total greenhouse gases. Some studies have found CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global warming. The true believers in AGW base their case on a broad and weak correlation between CO2 and global temperature in the last half of the twentieth century. They cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect. Looking at much longer periods of the Earth’s history, it becomes clear that temperature increases have preceded high CO2 levels by anywhere from 100 to 800 years, suggesting that higher temperatures cause CO2 levels to rise, rather than vice versa. The only other time in history that temperature and CO2 levels were this low, together, was 300 million years ago. There have been periods when atmospheric CO2 levels were as much as 16 times higher than they are now—periods characterized not by warming but by glaciations. You might have to go back half-a-million years to match our current level of atmospheric CO2, but you have to go back only to the Medieval Warm Period, from the tenth to the fourteenth century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age. Neither of those events can be attributed to variations in CO2 levels. Since CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of “greenhouse gases,” and human activity contributes only a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, why have alarmists made it the whipping boy for global warming? Probably because they know how fruitless it would be to propose controlling other atmospheric drivers of climate—water, methane, and nitrous oxide—not9 to mention volcanic eruptions, or ocean temperature, or solar activity, etc. So they wage war on man-made CO2, no matter how ridiculous it makes them appear. Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the planet would have an average temperature of -18 degrees Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a comfortable +15 degrees Celsius. Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists: Carbon dioxide is a non-polluting gas that is essential for plant photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere produce bigger crop harvests and larger and healthier forests—results

environmentalists used to like. There are legitimate reasons to restrict emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere.

CO2 is not the cause of global warming and lowering the amount of CO2 could have devastating impactsBedard, 11(Paul, writes for U.S news, October 7, “Scientist: Carbon Dioxide doesn’t cause global warming”, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/10/07/scientist-carbon-dioxide-doesnt-cause-global-warming)Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth. Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity. In taking on lawmakers pushing for a cap-and-trade plan to deal with emissions, Steward tells Whispers that he's worried that the legislation will result in huge and unneeded taxes. Worse, if CO2 levels are cut, he warns, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water. He also said that higher CO2 levels are not harmful to humans. As an example, he said that Earth's atmosphere currently has about 338 parts per million of CO2 and that in Navy subs, the danger level for carbon dioxide isn't reached until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.

WFI 11 130

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Warming: AT—Temp Fluctuations

Temperature fluctuations are inevitablePumphrey 8(Carolyn, In addition to her position as Assistant Teaching Professor of History at North Carolina State University, Carolyn Pumphrey is Coordinator for the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) - an organization dedicated to improving understanding and knowledge of national and international security., May, “Global Climate Change: National Security Implications”, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB862.pdf)We did so (and I think most of the scientific community would agree with this statement) during the period in which there was a lot of sulphur and other pollutants in the atmosphere. These caused the temperature to level off before it went screaming northward again, and we kept getting higher and higher temperatures. There is a great deal of variation in temperature from month-to month, season-to-season, and even year-to-year. The computer models tell us to expect such variability, and indeed variability is likely to grow as the temperature of the planet warms.

Climate temperatures naturally fluctuateCalvin 2(William H., William H. Calvin, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine, affiliated with the Program on Climate Change. He is the author of Global Fever: How to Treat Climate Change (University of Chicago Press 2008, see Global-Fever.org) and thirteen earlier books for general readers. He studies brain circuitry, ape-to-human evolution, climate change, and civilization’s vulnerability to abrupt shocks., 2002, “A Brain for All Seasons Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change”, http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/092011.html)One of the most shocking scientific realizations of all time has slowly been dawning on us: the earth's climate does great flip-flops every few thousand years, and with breathtaking speed. Many times in the lives of our ancestors, the climate abruptly cooled, just within several years. Worse, there was much less rainfall in many places, together with high winds and severe dust storms. Many forests, already doing poorly from the cool summers, dried up in the ensuing decade. Animal populations crashed—and likely early human populations as well. Lightning strikes surely ignited giant forest fires, denuding large areas even in the tropics, on a far greater scale than seen during an El Nino because of the unusual winds. Sometimes this was only the first step of a descent into a madhouse century of flickering climate. Our ancestors lived through hundreds of such episodes—but each became a population bottleneck, one that eliminated most of their relatives. We are the improbable descendants of those who survived—and later thrived. There was very little food after the fires. Once the grasses got started on the burnt landscape, however, the surviving grazing animals had a boom time, fueled by the vast expanses of grass that grew in the next few decades. Had the cooling taken a few centuries to happen, so that the forests could have gradually shifted, our ancestors would not have been treated so badly. The higher-elevation species would have slowly marched down the hillsides to occupy the valley floors, all without the succession that follows a fire. Each hominid generation could have made their living in the way their parents taught them, culturally adapting to the shifting milieu. But when the cooling and drought were abrupt, surviving the transition was a serious problem. It was one unlucky generation that suddenly had to improvise amidst crashing populations and burning ecosystems.

WFI 11 131

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Warming: Good—Ag Industry

Global warming boosts agriculture industryMoore 95(Thomas Gale, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who specializes in international trade, deregulation, and privatization, current research focuses on global warming, environmental issues, regulatory issues, and privatization in former communist countries, Winter 1995, “GLOBAL WARMING: A Boon to Humans and Other Animals,” Hoover Institution Working Paper series, http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html)

Only if warmer weather caused more droughts or lowered agricultural output would even Third World countries suffer. Should the world warm -- and there is little evidence or theory to support such a prognostication -- most climatologists believe that precipitation would increase. Although some areas might become drier, others would become wetter. Judging from history, Western Europe would retain plentiful rainfall, while North Africa and the Sahara might gain moisture. The Midwest of the United States might suffer from less precipitation and become more suitable for cattle grazing than farming. On the other hand, the Southwest would likely become wetter and better for crops. A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth's climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished. Warmer nighttime temperatures, particularly in the spring and fall, create longer growing seasons, which should enhance agricultural productivity. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that the added boost from enriched CO2 would enhance output by 17 percent.[11] Researchers have attributed a burgeoning of forests in Europe to the increased CO2 and the fertilizing effect of nitrogen oxides.[12] Professor of Climatology Robert Pease writes that we may now be living in an "icehouse" world and that a warming of about two degrees Celsius, which is what his model indicates, may actually make the earth more habitable. The higher temperatures combined with more carbon dioxide will favor plant and crop growth and could well provide more food for our burgeoning global populations. Geologic history reveals that warmer global temperatures produce more, not less, precipitation, a fact reflected by a recent scientific investigation that shows the Greenland ice-cap to be thickening, not melting. So much for the catastrophic prediction that our coastlines will be flooded by a rise in sea level from polar meltwaters.[13] The United States Department of Agriculture in a cautious report reviewed the likely influence of global warming on crop production and world food prices. The study, which assumed that farmers fail to make any adjustment to mitigate the effects of warmer, wetter, or drier weather -- such as substituting new varieties or alternative crops, increasing or decreasing irrigation -- concludes that: The overall effect on the world and domestic economies would be small as reduced production in some areas would be balanced by gains in others, according to an economic model of the effects of climate change on world agricultural markets. The model ... estimates a slight increase in world output and a decline in commodity prices under moderate climate change conditions .[14][Emphasis added.]

WFI 11 132

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Hegemony Frontline

1. American hegemony can never be sustainableAnderson’04 (James, is a professor of political geography and co-director of the Centre for International Borders Research at Queen's University Belfast, October 16, “Key issue is how to save world from US dominance”, The Irish Times, LexisNexisAcademic)

The central problem facing the US is twofold. Firstly, local states, whether democracies or dictatorships, cannot always be relied on to "behave themselves" as the US wants. Local states and ruling classes have their own interests. The recalcitrant may need "persuading" to enforce the rules of the market, especially if externally-owned capital is the main beneficiary. Secondly, while the US "persuades" on behalf of capital from other leading powers, they too have their own interests, to the point of challenging US hegemony .

2. Iraq proves that American hegemony and deterrence doesn’t workAnderson 4 (James, is a professor of political geography and co-director of the Centre for International Borders Research at Queen's University Belfast, October 16, “Key issue is how to save world from US dominance”, The Irish Times, LexisNexisAcademic)

But Iraq and its underestimated national resistance are now a crisis for US hegemony . Military devastation was to become shockingly awful at making the world safe for Halliburton or US capital, never mind capital in general, the Iraqis, or people in general. With far too few troops on the ground, Iraq reveals the economic limits on US occupation compared to its capabilities after the second World War. It shows that military intervention to deal with disruptions to "normal" profit-making can lead to even more disruptions - including the knock-on effects of rising oil prices. The warning to other states may backfire. The French and Chinese may be encouraged in their bid for a multi-polar world, rather than a unipolar US one, while the EU may be encouraged to deal with China independently of the US because, as in Israel/Palestine, their interests diverge. Does Bush have an exit strategy? To end the Iraq occupation admits defeat, while staying can hardly bring any meaningful victory, and here the Democratic Party has nothing better to offer. We don't get to vote for the US president - one problem with hegemony is that the rest of the world does not have a say in who "leads" it. But, more importantly, we need to move beyond inherently dangerous hegemony as the way to run the world, whoever

3. Hegemony is a paradox, American hegemony brings prosperity to others but will lead to a collapse of hegemonyMuzaffar 9 (Chandra, is a professor of global studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia and president of the International Movement for a Just World, November 10, End looks near for American hegemony, New Straits Times, LexisNexisAcademic)

Other direct and indirect consequences of hegemony also manifest themselves in East Asia . The global climate-change and economic crises are inextricably linked to hegemony , just as hegemony is the barrier to both the emergence of global democracy and the universal application of international law in a number of spheres. It is partly because of US and Western hegemony that the autonomous intellectual development of Asia - in spite of its profoundly rich philosophical values - has been stymied. If the present generation of political leaders in East Asia is generally less critical of hegemony (compared to, say, the new crop of leaders in Latin America), it is mainly because the region's relationship with the US appears to have brought a degree of prosperity to segments of society.

WFI 11 133

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Hegemony Frontline

4. Hegemony is complex and needs more than just military and leadershipNoor 3 (Dr. Farish, is a Malaysian political scientist and historian and is presently a Senior Fellow at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, January 15, “The hamburger road to American hegemony”, The Straits Times, LexisNexisAcademic)

And the same young boys who spoke of vengeance against the US were drinking Coca Cola, eating American hamburgers, wore T-shirts with Nike written on them, and watched the same movies as their American teenage counterparts. Had they been born white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant, would they have held the same sentiments? Watching these angry young Muslim men preach the downfall of America while consuming everything it had to offer, should tell us one thing: That American hegemony is far more complex and confounding than it seems. Hegemony is not just about military power. While every single empire in the past might have maintained its stranglehold on foreign dominions by force of arms, weapons alone cannot win the battle for hearts and minds, nor hold together an empire. As Napoleon said: One can build a throne of swords but one cannot sit on it. Hegemony works only when it operates on different and complementary registers. Aside from the use of arms, there has to be the all-important ideological war to win the support and acquiescence of the defeated and subjugated. This is why at the height of Western imperial expansion in the 19th century, the idea of Western civilization was of paramount importance.

5. American hegemony will end, and that end will cause a perception change of American dominanceBubalo 10 (Anthony, is director of the West Asia program at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, “AMBIVALENCE ON THE MIDDLE EAST DOES NOT WORK”, The Australian, LexisNexisAcademic)

Such an attitude will be challenged by two major changes under way in the region. The first is the end of American hegemony . It is often forgotten that American hegemony in the Middle East -- in the sense of an overwhelmingly dominant position -- dates only to 1991. During the Cold War, the competing power of the Soviet Union and the US limited what each could do. The American defeat of Iraq in 1991, and the Soviet Union's meek acquiescence in the war, signaled a change. After 1991, Washington could contemplate ways to transform the Middle East, something that was unthinkable in the Cold War era. Under Bill Clinton, it sought transformation via Israeli-Arab peace; under George W. Bush it sought change via democratic revolution. Yet the next two decades only demonstrated the limits of US power. Israeli-Arab peace proved elusive, despite the microscopic attention of Clinton. Bush's democratic revolution never escaped the tar pit of its birth, Iraq. Iran, meanwhile, moved steadily towards a nuclear capability. The end of America's hegemony does not mean the end of US power in the Middle East, but it does mean a change in perceptions of that power. As former French foreign minister Herbert Vedrine once observed of US hegemony globally, it was not oppressive, but existed ``in people's heads'' -- and so it has been in the Middle East. Had the US been more successful, or less ambitious, in its designs for regional transformation over the past two decades, it might still be in people's heads. Instead, diplomatic and military failures have confirmed in the minds of foes and friends that American hegemony has proven to be something less than was initially promised or feared. Which brings us to the second major change under way in the Middle East: the region's reconnection with Asia. Today, the rise of China and India and an expanding web of economic and strategic links across the Asian continent are reviving the old idea of ``the Orient'' as one region stretching horizontally from the Middle East to East Asia. The Middle East's reintegration into Asia is not just economic. West Asia has become East Asia's energy lifeline, a fact already feeding into Asian rivalries. For example, Japan's decision in 2006 to increase to 40 per cent the amount of its oil secured by Japanese-owned companies followed the success of Chinese companies in getting access to Middle East (and African) oil resources. This reconnection with Asia is also helping to erode American hegemony . China cannot challenge US military power in the region, but regional states are being drawn to China's economic power.

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

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

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

WFI 11 134

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Hegemony: XTN—Unsustainable

American hegemony is coming to an end, and isn’t sustainableMuzaffar 9 (Chandra, is a professor of global studies at Universiti Sains Malaysia and president of the International Movement for a Just World, November 10, End looks near for American hegemony, New Straits times, LexisNexisAcademic)

Governments in East Asia should now demonstrate even greater determination to safeguard their nations' independence and stave off hegemony , for a reason that may seem paradoxical. US hegemony is declining. Its own economic and social malaise, its inability to impose its will upon others in spite of its military supremacy, especially in the Middle East, the revolt of the masses against US dominance in much of Latin America, and the ascendancy of a number of other centres of power such as China, India and Russia, all indicate that the era of overbearing US power is coming to an end. One should not expect this declining power to ride quietly into the sunset. It is not inconceivable that the US will try to perpetuate its hegemonic power by seeking to dominate East Asia, the planet's most dynamic region, accounting for more than 50 per cent of the world's foreign currency reserves.

America comparable to Hegemonic Britain, America losing hegemony nowHowe 6 (Brendan, is an assistant professor of diplomacy and security at Ewha GSIS, April 22, “Geopolitics and hegemonic decline”, The Korea Herald, LexisNexisAcademic)

Meanwhile the U.S. appears already to have succumbed to the twin geopolitical bugbears of maritime empires; overexpansion and continental commitment. In many ways the American hegemony can be seen as mirroring remarkably that of the preceding British hegemony . Both set out to rule the world through commerce, emboldened by possession of the world's largest and most innovative economies, and with a firm belief in the virtue of free trade. However, both ended up controlling, or perhaps more accurately, failing to control large tracts of land that had been taken primarily in order to deny possession of them to enemies rather than for any intrinsic worth. These territories tend to consume rather than generate resources for the mother country (only India and Malaya actually turned a profit for the British empire, and U.S. intervention in Iraq has done nothing to stabilize oil prices, or ensure a steadier supply, while at the same time draining the Federal budget). It is interesting therefore to examine the geopolitical history of British declining hegemony to see if it holds any indicators as to the future prospects of the current incumbent.

WFI 11 135

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Politics

SBSP is a giant project- requires lots of political willNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

Space ‐ Based Solar Power is not a small project, but might be considered comparable in scale to the national railroads, highway system, or electrification project than the Manhattan or Apollo endeavors. However, unlike such purely national projects, this project also has components that are analogous to the development of the high ‐ volume international civil aviation system. Such a large endeavor carries with it significant international and environmental implications and so would require a corresponding amount of political will to realize its benefits .

WFI 11 136

SPS Aff/NegNeg—EIS CP

SBSP should not be done without an environmental impact assessmentNSSO, 7 [National Security Space Office, report compiled by coloration of more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts, "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security," 10-10-2007, www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf, accessed 7-13-11, mss]

FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that although SBSP holds great promise to deliver clean and renewable energy to all nations of the world, the potential environmental impacts of the various systems and mitigation options to minimize those impacts require greater study. Potential environmental impacts for the development and deployment of SBSP technology have been preliminarily defined. Department of Energy reports from the 1970s and early 1980s, and NASA reports from 1995 ‐ 2003, as well as numerous international reports, identify the possible effects of power beaming on astronomy, atmosphere, biological systems, electromagnetic systems, general environmental impact, land use, effects on space workers, effects on geosynchronous satellites, et cetera . While the DOE and EPA conducted extensive health effects studies, these studies were not 100% complete nor definitive, did not cover all potential SBSP technical approaches, and are now a couple decades old. Recommendation: The SBSP Study Group recommends that the U.S. Government: ƒ Must study the potential environmental impacts of the various approaches early enough to help make effective choices between the various technical alternatives. These studies should be led by agencies with the required scientific expertise, credibility, and independence, and need to include all relevant stakeholders. ƒ Environmental studies should be piggybacked to demonstrations of the technologies to minimize the environmental impact in the eventual large ‐ scale use of SBSP; therefore, maximizing the environmental benefit of SBSP. Should task one or more federal agencies for research and assessment of the� potential environmental impacts of SBSP. Should perform a thorough review of all electromagnetic energy � exposure literature, including DoD resources. ƒ Should identify and engage with US Government agencies and other academic institutions capable of conducting additional research to address public concern. ƒ Should include, and communicate with, all environmental stakeholders in the research agenda, including major environmental organizations. ƒ Should be open and transparent about the potential environmental impacts of SBSP, and the current status of what we know and do not know

WFI 11 137

SPS Aff/NegNeg—Privatization CP

Privatization of SBSP is key to lowering launch costs. Hadhazy 09 (Adam, Editor in Chief of Portal to the Universe and freelance science writer to magazines such as Scientific American, Popular Mechanics, and Discover, April 16, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=will-space-based-solar-power-finally-see-the-light-of-day&page=3)

Though Solaren is tight-lipped about what its pilot power plant will look like, a 2005 patent retained by the company indicates that the firm intends to use mirrors—another oft-explored SBSP element—to gather and focus sunlight prior to converting it to microwaves. According to the patent, Solaren also looks to eliminate many of the structural connectors on its craft—that is, some or all of the satellite's components, including the mirrors, power module and microwave emitter could be "free-floating" in space, orbiting in tandem. "The big thing is to get the weight down so the weight costs don't kill you," says Solaren's Boerman. Backers of SBSP hope that the rising commercialization of space—sparked by the allure of space tourism and the economics of cheaper access—will bring down the expense of rocketing into orbit. Some of the best-known entrepreneurial ventures include Richard Branson 's Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk 's SpaceX, but almost 20 companies are trying their hand at lowering launch overhead. "These organizations could potentially change the picture of launch costs," Best says.

.

WFI 11 138

SPS Aff/NegNuclear War good—Global Cooling

Small nuclear war could reverse global warmingChoi 11(Charles Q., a science journalist. Freelance writer for Scientific American, The New York Times, Science, Nature, National Geographic News, and others for 7 years., February 22, “Small Nuclear War Could Reverse Global Warming for Years”, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/) Even a regional nuclear war could spark "unprecedented" global cooling and reduce rainfall for years, according to U.S. government computer models. Widespread famine and disease would likely follow, experts speculate. During the Cold War a nuclear exchange between superpowers—such as the one feared for years between the United States and the former Soviet Union—was predicted to cause a "nuclear winter." In that scenario hundreds of nuclear explosions spark huge fires, whose smoke, dust, and ash blot out the sun for weeks amid a backdrop of dangerous radiation levels. Much of humanity eventually dies of starvation and disease. Today, with the United States the only standing superpower, nuclear winter is little more than a nightmare. But nuclear war remains a very real threat—for instance, between developing-world nuclear powers, such as India and Pakistan. To see what climate effects such a regional nuclear conflict might have, scientists from NASA and other institutions modeled a war involving a hundred Hiroshima-level bombs, each packing the equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT—just 0.03 percent of the world's current nuclear arsenal. The researchers predicted the resulting fires would kick up roughly five million metric tons of black carbon into the upper part of the troposphere, the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere. In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky. Reversing Global Warming? The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest. At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said. After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict. Years Without Summer For a time Earth would likely be a colder, hungrier planet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/

sps aff-neg wfi 2 week.docwfi.wikispaces.com/file/view/sps+aff-neg+wfi+2+week.doc · web viewunlike...

Documents