INHERENCY

CCS projects are failing to start in the status quo and a national network is lacking
Handwerk 12, national geographic analyst (Brian, Amid Economic Concerns, Carbon Capture Faces a Hazy Future,
National Geographic May 22, 2012 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-andstorage-economic-hurdles/) For a world dependent on fossil fuels, carbon capture and storage But the technology meant to scrub carbon dioxide pollution from the air

(CCS) could be a key to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. is experiencing stiff headwinds that have

stalled many projects at the bottom line.t Many companies have determined that expensive CCS operations simply aren't
worth the investment without government mandates or revenue from carbon prices set far higher than those currently found at the main operational market, the European Trading System, or other fledgling markets. According to a recent Worldwatch Institute report, only

eight large-scale, fully integrated CCS projects are actually operational, and that number has not increased in three years. "In fact, from 2010 to 2011, the number of large-scale CCS plants operating, under construction, or being planned declined," said Matt Lucky, the report's author. Numerous
projects in Europe and North America are being scrapped altogether, Lucky added. Last month, TransAlta, the Canadian electricity giant, abandoned plans for a CCS facility at an Alberta coal-burning plant because financial incentives were too weak to justify costly investment in CCS. "For a very small industry that's still in the developmental state, it's not a good sign when the number of planned projects is declining," Lucky said. "This is a period when it should be exploding, so

this doesn't signal significant

growth of the CCS industry in the near future."

THUS THE PLAN:

The United States federal government should invest in a national pipeline infrastructure system for the purposes of transporting captured supercritical carbon dioxide in the CCS process. We reserve the right to clarify intent.

ADVANTAGE ONE: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Global warming is real and anthropogenic through the emissions of greenhouse gases this is the consensus amongst the most credentialed scientific researchers
Anderegg et al 10 PhD Candidate @ Stanford in Biology
William, Expert credibility in climate change, National Academy of Sciences, p. 12107-12109 Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of cli- mate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary

anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earths average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century (13). Nonetheless,, substantial and growing public
conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): doubt remains about the anthropogenic cause and scientific agreement about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in climate change (4, 5). A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims (68). This group, often termed climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy (7, 914). An extensive literature examines what constitutes expertise or credibility in technical and policy-relevant scientific research (15). Though our aim is not to expand upon that literature here, we wish to draw upon several important observations from this literature in examining expert credibility in climate change. First, though the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural in- fluences in determining who counts as an expert and who is credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in technical (e.g., science-based) decision-making (1519). Furthermore, delineating expertise and the relative credibility of claims is critical, especially in areas where it may be difficult for the majority of decision-makers and the lay public to evaluate the full complexities of a technical issue (12, 15). Ultimately, however, societal decisions regarding response to ACC must necessarily include input from many diverse and nonexpert stakeholders. Because the timeline of decision-making is often more rapid than scientific consensus, examining the landscape of expert opinion can greatly inform such decision-making (15, 19). Here, we examine a metric of climate-specific expertise and a metric of overall sci- entific prominence as two dimensions of expert credibility in two groups of researchers. We provide an broad assessment of the rel- ative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC. Our consideration of UE researchers differs from previous work on climate change skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focus on researchers that have published extensively in the climate field, although we consider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed pro- minent statements concerning ACC (68). Such expert analysis can illuminate public and policy discussions about ACC and the extent of consensus in the expert scientific community. we compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about ACC (SI Materials and Methods). We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each researcher (defined here as expertise) and counted the number of citations for each of the researchers four highest-cited papers (defined here as prominence) using Google Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers. Varying this minimum publication cutoff did not ma- terially alter results (Materials and Methods). We ranked researchers based on the total number of climate publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be representative of the entire cli- mate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public statements about ACC. Therefore, We

have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE and UE groups. Citation and publication analyses must be treated with caution in inferring scientific credibility,
but we suggest that our methods and our expertise and prominence criteria provide conservative, robust, and relevant indicators of relative credibility of CE and UE groups of climate researchers (Materials and Methods). Results and Discussion The

UE [unconvinced by evidence] group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked
by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that 97% of selfidentified publishing climate scientists agree. with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements direct polling of the climate researcher community, which yields quali- tative and self-reported researcher expertise (2). Our findings capture the added dimension of the distribution of researcher expertise, quantify agreement among the highest expertise climate researchers, and provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning ACC. In addition to the striking difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that of the CE group (Fig. 1). Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 pub- lications;

MannWhitney U test: W = 57,020; P < 1014), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications). Furthermore,

researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatory
statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature. We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highest- expertise) researchers from each group. Such subsampling facili- tates comparison of relative expertise between groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers). This method reveals large differences in relative expertise between CE and UE groups (Fig. 2). Though the top-published researchers in the CE group have an average of 408 climate publications (median = 344), the top UE re- searchers average only 89 publications (median = 68; Mann Whitney U test: W = 2,455; P < 1015). Thus, this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science than those in the top UE group. Finally,

Our prominence criterion provides an independent and approximate estimate of the relative scientific significance of CE and UE publications.. Citation analysis complements
publication analysis because it can, in general terms, capture the quality and impact of a researchers contributiona critical component to overall scientific credibilityas opposed to measuring a research- ers involvement in a field, or expertise (Materials and Methods). The citation analysis conducted here further complements the publication analysis because it does not examine solely climate- relevant publications and thus captures highly prominent re- searchers who may not be directly involved with the climate field. We examined the top four most-cited papers for each CE and UE researcher with 20 or more climate publications and found immense disparity in scientific prominence between CE and UE communities (MannWhitney U test: W = 50,710; P < 106; Fig. 3). CE researchers top papers were cited an average of 172 times, compared with 105 times for UE researchers. Because a single, highly cited paper does not establish a highly credible reputation but might instead reflect the controversial nature of that paper (often called the single-paper effect), we also considered the av- erage the citation count of the second through fourth mosthighly cited papers of each researcher. Results were robust when only these papers were considered (CE mean: 133; UE mean: 84; MannWhitney U test: W = 50,492; P < 106). Results were ro- bust when all 1,372 researchers, including those with fewer than 20 climate publications, were considered (CE mean: 126; UE mean: 59; MannWhitney U test: W = 3.5 105; P < 1015). Number of citations is an imperfect but useful benchmark for a groups scientific prominence (Materials and Methods), and we show here that even considering all (e.g., climate and nonclimate) publications, the UE researcher group has substantially lower prominence than the CE group. We

provide a large-scale quantitative assessment of the relative level of agreement, expertise, and prominence in the climate re- searcher community. We show that the expertise and
prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in each group. Despite media tendencies to present both sides in ACC debates (9), which can contribute to continued public misunderstanding re- garding ACC (7, 11, 12, 14), not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of re- searchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.Another common misconception is that global warming doesnt matter. Who cares if the average global temperature rises by a degree or two? Other than a few oceanfront property owners, who cares if sea levels rise by a foot or two?Climate change impacts our health, environment, and economy

Warming causes polar melting, creating positive methane feedback by 2015

Connor 11, professor of modern literature and theory @ Birkbeck College; Science editor of The Independent quoting PhD,
Doctor of Science, and professor of Ocean Physics (Steve quoting Prof. Peter Wadhams, Climate change melting polar regions faster than ever before One of the clearest signs of climate change is the loss of floating sea ice in the Arctic The Independent November 9, 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-everbefore-6259145.html) The frozen cryosphere of the Earth, from the Arctic sea in the north to the massive ice shelves of Antarctica in the south, is showing the unequivocal signs of climate change as global warming accelerates the melting of the coldest regions of the planet, leading polar scientists warned yesterday. A

rapid loss of ice is clear from the records kept by military submarines,

from land measurements taken over many decades and from satellite observations from space. It can be seen on the ice sheets of Greenland, the glaciers of mountain ranges from the Andes to the Himalayas, and the vast ice shelves that stretch out into the sea from the Antarctic continent, the experts said. The

effect of the melting cryosphere will be felt by rapidly rising sea levels that threaten to flood coastal cities and low-lying nations, changes to the
circulation of ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, and possible alterations to the weather patterns that influence more southerly regions of the northern hemisphere, they said. One

of the greatest threats is the melting of the permafrost regions of the northern hemisphere which could release vast quantities of methane gas from frozen deposits stored underground for many thousands of years. Scientists are already seeing an increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere that could be the result of melting permafrost, they said. The melting of the cryosphere is such a clear, visibly graphic signal of climate change. Almost every

aspect is changing and, if you take the global average, it is all in one direction, said Professor David Vaughan, a geologist at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. One

of the clearest signals of climate change is the rapid loss of floating sea ice in the Arctic, which has been monitored by satellites since the late 1970s and by nuclear submarines since
the beginning of the cold war, said Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, one of the first civilians to travel under the Arctic sea ice on a nuclear submarine. The

sea ice is retreating faster and further than at any time on record and this year it probably reached an all-time record minimum in terms of volume and a close second in terms of surface area. On current projections, if the current rate of loss continues, there could be virtually no September sea ice as early as 2015, Professor Wadhams said at a briefing held at the Science Media Centre in London. The changes are more drastic that we thought. The effect is more dramatic than if you just look at the surface area of the ocean covered by sea ice. Submarine records show a big area north of Greenland is reduced in sea ice thickness, Professor
Wadhams said. The loss of sea ice and the warming of the Arctic region is having an impact on the permafrost regions of the north,

Scientists have documented vast methane releases both on land and above the sea. Methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We can expect the possibility of a methane boost to global warming. We have to warn about the loss of sea ice, and the retreat is accelerating,
both on land and in the shallow sea above the continental shelf of northern Russia, he said. Professor Wadhams said. One of the greatest threats in the coming century will be the possible rapid rise in sea levels as a result of melting mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets. Scientists believe that about two thirds of the current rate of average sea level rise, about 3 millimetres a year, is the result of melting ice, both from mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets. In a warmer world, one thing you can guarantee is that ice will melt. Sea levels are now rising at a third of the rate they were when we had truly massive ice sheets at the end of the last ice age, said Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London, and a former head of the British Antarctic Survey.

This poisons all ecosystems beyond repair. Dealing w/ warming must take top priority.
Morgan 9, Professor of Current Affairs @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea, (Dennis Ray, World on fire: two
scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10, December 2009, Pages 683-693, ScienceDirect]

As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the one consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsible
world leaders change Cold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources and towards the eventual dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another

scenario of human extinction by fire is one that may not so easily be reversed within a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fire
is gradually heating up the planet as industrial civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if responsible world leaders change their thinking about progress and industrial development based on the burning of fossil fuels. The way that global warming will impact humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the proverbial frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually rising. Instead of trying to escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated. Though it finally realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail and the frog dies. Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated water or not is irrelevant; it still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway condition and take humanity by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by the WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.*16+. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior assessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove that the theory had no basis in planetary history and present-day reality; nevertheless, as more andmore research continually provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming

global warming is verifiable. As a matter of fact, according to Bill McKibben [17], 12 years of impressive scientific research strongly confirms the 1995 report that humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energy that they were now damaging the most basic of the earths systemsthe balance between incoming and
hypothesis, that it is indeed human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew stronger that human induced

outgoing solar energy; . . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report a constant strengthening of the simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel. *17+. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only confirms global warming, with a

stronger scientific consensus that the slow burn is very likely human caused, but it also finds that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rate
even than before and the temperature increases would be considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping to cool the planet. *17+. Furthermore, almost everything frozen on earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air, and cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more

frequent. *17+. Unless drastic action

is taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted to rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced in recent years, the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic sheets. This runaway polar melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been previously forecasted. However, what is missing in the IPCC report, as dire as it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but still
plausible worst case scenarios, which could prove to have the most devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter of fact, as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt [18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature relationship, which starkly contrasts with previous times because the very distinction between nature and man as Homo faber has become blurred, as man no longer merely takes from nature what is needed for fabrication; instead, he now acts into nature to augment and transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution of human civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that we make. The more human civilization becomes an integral part of this dynamic system, the more difficult it becomes to extricate ourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform natural processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happenings whose eventual outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or controlling beforehand. The moment we started natural processes of our own - and the splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-made natural process -we not only increased our power over nature, or became more aggressive in our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time have taken nature into the human world as such and obliterated the defensive boundaries between natural elements and the human artifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in *18+. So, in as much as we act into nature, we carry our own unpredictability into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or iron-clad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the unpredictability of Nature increases in proportion to the degree by which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative processes, we carry human unpredictability into the future with a precarious recklessness that may indeed end in human catastrophe or extinction, for elemental forces that we have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very environment that we experiment with. Nature may yet have her revenge

the Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere reach a tipping point, which could turn out to be a point of no return. This is exactly the conclusion reached by the scientist,
and the last word, as inventor, and author, James Lovelock. The creator of the wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that it may be already too late for humanity to change course since climate centers around the world, . . . which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earths physical condition, and the climate specialists see it as seriously ill, and soon to pass into a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earths family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earths surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. . . . Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This global dimming is transient and could disappear in a few days like the smoke that it is, leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fools climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable. [19] Moreover, Lovelock states that the task of trying to correct our course is hopelessly impossible, for we are not in charge. It is foolish and arrogant to think that we can regulate the atmosphere, oceans and land surface in order to maintain the conditions right for life. It is as impossible as trying to regulate your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys *19+. Lovelock concludes his analysis on the fate of human civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to a hell of a climate *19+. Lovelocks forecast for climate change is based on a systems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a multidimensional model that appropriately reflects the dynamism of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one thing, it takes into account positive feedback loops that lead to runaway conditions. This mode of analysis is consistent with recent research on how ecosystems suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on a scientific study by an international consortium, reported that changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific consensus is emerging (after repeated studies of ecological change) that stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady state to something entirely different, according to Stephen Carpenter, a limnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a co-author of the report). Carpenter continues, We realize that there is a common pattern were seeing in ecosystems around the world, . . . Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get a shock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, youre over into another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse. *20+. If ecosystems are in fact mini-models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock maintains, then we can expect the same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author of the Nature report, puts it, Nature isnt linear. Sometimes you can push on a system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the camels back. Also, once the flip occurs, as Foley maintains, then the catastrophic change is irreversible. *20+. When we expand this analysis of ecosystems to the Earth itself, its frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that could break the camels back? Recently, another factor has been discovered in some areas of the arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global heating (as Lovelock calls it) in unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also reported in Nature, concerns the permafrost that has locked up who knows how many tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbon dioxide. Scientists are particularly worried about permafrost because, as it thaws, it releases these gases into the atmosphere, thus, contributing and accelerating global heating. It is a vicious positive feedback loop that compounds the

describes this disturbing positive feedback loop of permafrost greenhouse gasses, as when warming already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on. *21+. The significance and severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have discovered that the
prognosis of global warming in ways that could very well prove to be the tipping point of no return. Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press amount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost called yedoma is much more prevalent than originally thought and may be 100 times [my emphasis] the amount of carbon released into the air each year by the burning of fossil fuels *21+. Of course, it wont come out all at once, at least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in terms of geological time, the several decades that scientists say it will probably take to come out can just as well be considered all at once. Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we live in will be quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted. Professor Ted Schuur, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and coauthor of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a slow motion time bomb. *21+. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which is under dry ground will be released as carbon dioxide. Scientists arent sure which is worse. Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10 years

the greenhouse gasses present in permafrost represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects of global warming and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, is that there are lots of mechanisms
before it dissipates into carbon dioxide or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-trapping agent, carbon dioxide, lasts for 100 years [21]. Both of that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off *21+.14 In an accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks describes the effects as huge and, unless we have a major cooling, - unstoppable *22+. Also, theres so much more that has not even been discovered yet, she writes: Its coming out a lot and theres a lot more to come out. *22+. 4. Is it the end of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind? What Jonathon Schell wrote concerning death by the fire of nuclear holocaust also applies to the slow burning death of global warming: Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When we consider that beyond the horror of nuclear war, another horror is set into motion to interact with the subsequent nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival

seem even smaller. Who knows, even if some small remnant does manage to survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would have on human evolution in the future. A remnant of mutated, sub-human creatures might survive such harsh conditions, but for all purposes, human civilization has been destroyed, and the question concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus, we have no other choice but to consider the finality of it all, as Schell does: Death lies at the core of each persons private existence, but part of deaths meaning is to be found in the fact that it occurs in a biological and social world that survives. *23+.16 But what if the world itself were to perish, Schell asks. Would not it bring about a sort of second death the death of the species a possibility that the vast majority of the human race is in denial about? Talbot writes

it is not only the death of the species, not just of the earths population on doomsday, but of countless unborn generations. They would be spared literal ddeath but would nonetheless be victims . . . *23+. That is the second death of
in the review of Schells book that humanity the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospects that there will be no future. In the second chapter of Schells book, he writes that since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness. *23+.17 In other words, the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side. Will we relinquish the fire and our use of it to dominate the Earth and each other, or will we continue to gamble with our future at this game of Russian roulette while time increasingly stacks the cards against our chances of survival?

Runaway warming causes extinction

Deibel 7 (Terry L. Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007. Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft,
Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today) Finally, there

is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost
though far in the future, demands weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths

warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in
sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double preindustrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms,

spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures.
Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds continuing

enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system . At worst,
says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will

collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global

warming is the post-Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet.

Warming has an acutely negative disproportionate effect on poor communities and minorities
Fischer 9 (Douglas, Daily Climate editor, Climate change hitting poor in U.S. hardest., May 29,
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/05/Climate-Change-hitting-poor-in-U.S.-hardest)

Climate change is disproportionately affecting the poor and minorities in the United States a
"climate gap" that will grow in coming decades unless policymakers intervene, according to a University of California study. Everyone, the researchers say, is already starting to feel the effects of a warming planet, via heat waves, increased air pollution,

the impacts on health, economics, and overall quality of life are far more acute on society's disadvantaged, the researchers found . " Climate change does not affect everyone equally in the United States," said Rachel Morello-Frosch, associate professor at the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley and lead author of The Climate Gap. "People of color and the poor will be hurt the most
drought, or more intense storms. But unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene." Watching this unfold is akin to watching a movie where disparate and seemingly unrelated storylines converge to denouement that is "decidedly tragic, the researchers wrote. For instance, the report

African Americans living in Los Angeles are almost twice as likely to die as other Los Angelenos during a heat wave. Segregated in the inner city, they're more susceptible to the "heat island" effect, where temperatures are magnified by concrete and asphalt. Yet they're less likely to have access to air conditioning or cars. Similarly, Latinos make up 77 percent of California's agricultural workforce and will likely see economic hardship as climate change reworks the state's highest-value farm products. The dairy industry brings in $3.8 billion of California's $30 billion
finds that agriculture income; grapes account for $3.2 billion. Yet climatic troubles are expected to decrease dairy production between 7

Other impacts, according to the researchers: Households in the lowest income bracket spend twice the proportion of their income on electricity than those in the highest income bracket. Any policy that
percent and 22 percent by century's end, while grapes will have trouble ripening, substantially reducing their value. increases the cost of energy will hurt the poor the most. California industries considered heavy emitters of greenhouse gases have a workforce that is 60 percent minority. Any climate plan that fails to transition those workers to new "green energy" jobs threatens to widen the racial economic divide. Minorities

and the poor already breathe dirtier air than other Americans and are more likely to lack health insurance. As higher temperatures hasten the chemical
interactions that produce smog, they're going to feel the most impact. The findings, the researchers say, underscore the need for policymakers to consider environmental justice when addressing climate. Ignoring the climate gap, they warn, could reinforce and amplify current and future socioeconomic and racial disparities. "As America takes steps to prevent climate change, closing

the

climate gap must also be a top priority," said Manuel Pastor, a co-author and director of the Program for
Environmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern California's Center for Sustainable Cities.

Racism is is the stem of all violence. Look to this as the first impact you evaluate in the round. Acts of violence originate from the mentality of racism. Rejection of any form of it is a moral imperative.
Foucault 76 [Michel, Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257 Trans. David
Macey]

What in fact is racism? It is primarily

a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die. But racism does make
the relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die" - function in a way that is completely new and that is quite

racism makes it possible to establish a relationship between my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike relationship of confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more abnormal individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more Ias
compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand, species rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." There is a

race or racism is the precondition that makes killing acceptable. When you have a normalizing society, you have a power which is, at least superficially, in the first instance,
direct connection between the two. In a normalizing society or in the first line a biopower, and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows someone to be killed, that allows others to be killed. And we can also understand why racism should have developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode; we can understand why racism broke out at a number of .privileged moments, and why they were precisely the moments when the right to take life was imperative. Racism

first develops with colonization, or in other words, with colonizing genocide. If you are functioning in the biopower mode, how can you justify the need to kill people, to kill populations, and to kill civilizations? By using the themes of evolutionism, by appealing to a racism. War. How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also expose one's own citizens to war, and let them be killed by the million (and this is precisely what has been going on since the nineteenth century, or since the second half of the nineteenth century), except by activating the theme of racism

Through emission reductions, CCS can solve emissions by the 2015 peak deadline
Claussen 12, bachelors @ George Washington University; masters @ University Of Virginia; Director of Atmospheric
Programs @ EPA; Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs @ National Security Council, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, President of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (Eileen,Speech: Utilizing CCS to Reduce Emissions 11th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration; Center for Climate and Energy Solutions May 1 , 2012 http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capturesequestration)
st

The environmental case for doing this is compelling enough. According to most scenarios, global

emissions of greenhouse gases need to peak by 2015 in order to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. This is the level where many scientists say we can manage
the risks of climate change, but there is considerable debate even on this point and some think we will already be flirting with disaster at 2 degrees Celsius. Whatever the case, 2015 is just three years away. Are emissions showing any signs of peaking? Not even close After a brief downturn due to the recession, newly released figures from the EPA show that U.S. emissions resumed their upward march in 2010, rising by 3.2 percent compared to 2009. And global emissions are projected to grow 17 percent by 2020, and 37 percent by 2035. Under that scenario, we could see average global temperatures rise 3 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. But, even if you are an ardent skeptic of the science of climate change or of our ability to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas

the energy case should be motivation enough for abandoning the status quo and following a new and different road to the future. What do we care about? Reliability. Affordability. Security. Reduced environmental impact. These have to be the hallmarks of U.S. energy policy going forward, and carbon capture and storage can and must be an important component of that policy. It provides us with the means to continue using fossil fuels in a carbonconstrained future. It is especially critical for
emissions, producing electricity from both coal and natural gas, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Coal, of course, has the most at stake in this discussion. Coal, in fact, is at a crossroads itself. The latest figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration confirm that coals share of U.S. electricity generation is decreasing. In 2006, coal-fired generation accounted for more than half (50.4 percent to be exact) of the total generation mix in this country. By the end of 2011, that figure had declined to 43.4 percent of the mix, a drop of 7 percentage points. The biggest factor in coals relative decline, of course, is dropping natural gas prices. According to EIA, natural gas prices are forecast to remain below $5 per million BTUs for the next 10 years. This is why were seeing so many new natural gas power plants. EIAs latest estimates for 2011 and 2012 show around 20 gigawatts of added capacity planned for natural gas versus around 9 gigawatts for coal. Add to this the spare capacity of existing gas-fired power plants that were built to generate electricity during the daytime hours only and you can see the challenges facing coal. New EPA rules also pose challenges for coal. The new Mercury Rule alone, which was issued last December, will affect 1,325 units at 525 power plants of all types around the United States. Some of these plants are more than 50 years old, and companies may retire older plants rather than paying to install new pollution control equipment. In addition, there is EPAs Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and, on the

industrial side, the 2011 rule imposing new emissions reductions requirements on coal-fired boilers. And most notably, of course, earlier this spring the EPA proposed the first-ever national standards for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants.

There is essentially no other way for these plants to reduce their emissions to the level required under this proposal. After detailing all of these challenges for coal, I am inclined to ask the question, Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln,
In order to comply with the rules, new plants would have to install carbon capture and storage technologies. how did you enjoy the play? The proposed GHG rules make it official: In order to keep coals share of the U.S. energy mix from declining further, we need to throw out old ways of thinking. We need to think big. This is not just about trying to compete with natural gas on price; it is about embracing new ideas and new technologies to ensure that coal can continue as a fuel of choice in a world that, whether you like it or not, will become increasingly focused on limiting and reducing carbon emissions. Coal

alone is responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, 43 percent of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion come from coal. Clearly, something has to give. In order for the world to get a
handle on the climate problem, and in order for coal to hold onto its place as a major energy source in the decades to come, we need to show and very quickly that it is possible to achieve substantial cuts in emissions from coal-fired power generation. In other words, we need to find a low-carbon solution for coal. And coal is not our only challenge we need all the low-carbon and carbon-free technologies we can get. The good news about natural gas is that it generates half of the emissions of coal when used as a fuel source. But thats also the not-so-good news about natural gas; it still generates substantial emissions, and in order to achieve the level of reductions that will reduce the risk of climate change, we need CCS for natural gas as well as for coal.

The potential for CCS to reduce emissions is undeniable. Studies show that CCS technology could reduce CO2 emissions from a coal-fueled power plant by as much as 90 percent. Modeling
done by the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that CCS could provide 19 percent of total global GHG emission reductions by 2050. That includes reductions from coal and natural gas-fired power plants, as well as all other sources. But these are just studies, they are merely estimates of what could happen if CCS finally emerges from the world of drawing boards and demonstration projects to actual widespread deployment throughout this country and around the world. What we are doing right now to develop these technologies is not enough; its not even close to enough. We have two decades at most to deploy these technologies at the scale needed to achieve substantial reductions in emissions.

ADVANTAGE TWO: GREEN ENERGY

Incoming EPA regulations will harm the coal industry; CCS is the only solution
Peskoe 12, associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firms Washington D.C., office; focuses
on regulatory, legislative, compliance and transactional issues related to energy and commodities markets (Ari, EPA Proposes to Require Carbon Capture and Sequestration; Creates Uncertainty for the Future of Coal, National Law Review April 15, 2012 http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-proposes-to-require-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-creates-uncertainty-future-) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

proposed the first ever CO2 emissions limits for newly constructed power plants last month. Under the proposal, power plants that have already acquired a preconstruction permit from the EPA and commence construction by March 27, 2013 do not need to comply with the rule. The emissions limit, set at 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour, would effectively require all new coal-fired plants to cut CO2 emissions in half from current rates. The only plausible technology for enabling such drastic cuts is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). EPAs proposed rule allows a new plant to implement CCS ten years after beginning operations, so long as its emissions after CCS are below 600 lb/MWh. That gives the coal industry some extra time to work through the many legal and regulatory issues currently facing the technology. Like any
large-scale energy development, a sequestration project would trigger state and Federal environmental reviews. While there is extensive experience around the country reviewing and approving projects that involve injecting substances into the ground, no other project is designed to store vast quantities of gas underground for hundreds of years. Its not clear how legislators, environmental agencies and the public will evaluate this risk. Long-term liabilities relating to leaks are another legal hurdle. According to a Federal interagency task force report published in 2010, some businesses are uncomfortable with the risk but also unsure of how to quantify it. Insurers, and particularly investors, are fixed on short-term thinking, and 10 or 20 years is considered long-term in business decision making. But sequestered carbon must stay underground for centuries. There is no agreement on how to account for this time horizon. A 2010 paper by a Harvard Law School professor and student researchers proposed a range of regulatory incentives to spur development of large scale test projects. The suggestions included establishing a trust fund paid for by industry to cover liabilities, developing sites on Federal land to streamline the approval process, imposing

caps on liability and preempting nuisance and trespass claims. Regardless of the specifics, instituting any new regulatory system takes time. Fracing is a multi-billion dollar business in the U.S., and yet after a decade of widespread use its
legal framework is not yet firmly established. As EnergyBusinessLaw.com has been documenting, legal norms are still developing, and all three branches of government are issuing new rules and decisions that have major impacts on the industry. Without an impetus to do so, governments will probably ignore CCS, and the lack of legal certainty will hinder development. Perhaps EPAs rule, if implemented, will motivate action. Until then, rather than urging governments to enact rules that create legal certainty for CCS, the coal industry is likely to fight tooth and nail to kill yet another attempt by Washington to regulate CO2 emissions from the power sector.

U.S. coal exports are key to keep the U.S. afloat during these times of economic struggle
Hal (writer for the National Miners Association, WHAT SHOULD U.S. POLICY BE ON ENERGY EXPORTS?, April 13, 2012, http://www.nma.org/pdf/041312_quinn_nj_blog.pdf)

Quinn 12

Exporting U.S. Coal Helps America and Developing World by Hal Quinn, NMA The United States has an unrivalled self-interest in serving international markets that urgently need coal to grow their economies and improve the livelihoods of their people. In fact, increasing our coal exports is an unusually clear example of how unfettered trade benefits both exporting and importing countries. With the worlds largest coal reserves, the U.S. finds itself in the enviable position of having more of
what the fastest-growing countries of the world need. China and India are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by building vast electricity grids that bring coal-generated power to homes and workplaces. Coal is the only fuel for electricity generation that is sufficiently affordable and abundant to literally bring this power to the people. It is also a vital ingredient for the steelmaking plants in Asia and Brazil that are laying foundations for a 21 st century industrial revolution. American metallurgical coal

is a building block of this progress much as it is for our own industrial progress. The benefits

of U.S. coal exports are reciprocal. The U.S. has a 265-year coal supply, more than enough to serve its domestic needs. Far from depriving Americans of opportunities, coal exports provide them high-wage jobs in coal country from Appalachia to the Powder River Basin, in the rail industry that transports coal to ports and in export terminals that exist or are envisioned for the Gulf and both coasts. The $16 billion worth of U.S. coal exported last year also delivered revenue to hardpressed communities across the U.S. heartland. Some critics are blinded by their wealthy lifestyles to the powerful evidence that coal-based generation has greatly improved the lives of millions abroad who are less fortunate. For the 1.4 billion people worldwide who have no access to electricity, efficient coalbased generation provides a
healthier and better life. It often offsets the demands for heat and light that heretofore have been met with fuels derived from deforestation, animal wastes and uncontrolled in-home use of kerosene and other fuels. In short, coal

exports are a classic example of Americas competitive advantage. Recent history offers grim examples of what happens to countries that only buy from the rest of the world and sell nothing to them. The
president appears to understand this lesson with his call to double exports in five years. Presumably he also understands how coal exports, up almost a third last year, are helping him reach this goal.To

forego this competitive advantage would be a classic example of short-sighted public policy that will only deepen the economic gloom Americans now face.

Economic recovery is key to prevent the collapse of U.S. leadership -- causing global power struggles and conflicts
Khalilzad 11 (Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the
presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. "The Econom and National Security" Feb 8 www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/259024) Today, economic and fiscal trends

pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.
The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without

faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending or
require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It

was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east of
Suez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the

United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even
though countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing

of the gap between the United States and its rivals could

intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker
powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions.

Absent CCS these regulations will collapse the economy and undo the entire economic recovery process
Cover 11, senior staff writer for CNS News, Washington D.C.-based newsgroup, winner of the Media Research Center's
Outstanding Journalism Award, neutral newsgroup that does not accept federal tax money, (Matt, EPA Global Warming Regulations Could Send Economy Back Into Recession, Report Says, CNS News March 21, 2011 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-globalwarming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-says)

Regulation of greenhouse gasses by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could reverse the very modest economic recovery and even send it back into a recession, a report from the National Center for Public Policy Research finds. These regulations, author Dana Joel Gattuso wrote, will have a more severe impact on energy costs, U.S. jobs, household income, and economic growth than capand-trade legislation would have had. Furthermore, the regulations could reverse the economy's direction toward recovery and push us back into an economic slump. EPA has
considered regulating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme Court gave the agency the power to regulate greenhouse gasses in the name of fighting air pollution. EPA has not yet enacted the types of greenhouse gas regulations Gattusos paper warns of, but the agency has announced that it plans to do so in the near future. EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively, EPA said in a December 2010 press release. Gattuso also reported that GHG regulations would cost the economy jobs, worsening an already bad employment situation. Particularly hard hit would be AfricanAmericans, who would bear a disproportionate share of the job losses caused by the EPAs anti-global warming regulations. The

U.S. economy will also stand to lose millions of jobs as energy prices soar and industry is forced to cut back or invest overseas, the report said. Furthermore, the rules will have an unjust and disproportionately large impact on minorities, increasing the number of African Americans in poverty by 20 percent, it added. The report also analyzes Republican and Democratic legislation that
would attempt to stop the EPA from issuing GHG regulations during a period of economic hardship and a fragile recovery. The first bill Gattuso reviews is the joint effort from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that would bar the EPA from using its newfound authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs. Many

members of Congress Democrats as well as Republicans are supporting legislation to prevent Obama from expanding the Clean Air Act and imposing more economic costs on Americans, Gattuso reported. Among the Democrat
co-sponsors of the legislation are Representatives Dan Boren (D-OK), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). The Inhofe-Upton bill would completely prevent the EPA from ever using its Clean Air Act authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. Manchin said such an approach was necessary because Congress declined to pass a separate regulatory scheme for greenhouse gasses in 2010. It's time that the EPA realizes it cannot regulate what has not been legislated. Our government was designed so that elected representatives are in charge of making important decisions, not bureaucrats, Manchin said in a statement March 4. The simple fact is that the EPA is trying to seize more power than it should have, and must be stopped, he added. Gattuso also examined competing legislation offered by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would delay EPAs power to regulate by two years, calling it an exercise in kicking the can down the road. The problem with this kick the can down the road approach is that it impedes job creation and economic growth by furthering regulatory uncertainty. Also, it does nothing to stop the EPA from imposing regulations without voter approval. Americans emphatically said no to cap-and-trade legislation, Gattuso said. Telling the EPA to wait two years before it overrides the will of voters is not acceptable and would invite EPA over-reach and encroachment on congressional authority in the future, he added. Gattuso concluded that the Inhofe-Upton effort was the only legislation that would successfully prevent the EPA from enacting economically damaging regulations. The Energy Tax Prevention Act would rein in the EPA, put Congress back in control, and steer our economy toward a complete and healthy recovery not for two years but permanently.

Transitioning from global leaders results in multiple scenarios for nuclear war
Posen and Ross 97 [Barry Posen, Professor of Political Science, MIT, Andrew Ross, Professor of International Security, US
naval War College, Winter 2007, International Security] The United States can, more easily than most, go it alone. Yet we do not find the arguments of the neoisolationists compelling. Their strategy serves U.S. interests only if they are narrowly construed. First, though the neo-isolationists have a strong case in their argument that the Untied States is currently quite secure, disengagement is unlikely to make the United States more secure, and would probably make it less secure. The

disappearance of the United States from the world stage would likely precipitate a good deal of competition abroad for security. Without a U.S. presence, aspiring regional hegemons would see more opportunities. States formerly defended by the United States would have to look to their own military power; local arms competitions are to be expected. Proliferation of nuclear weapons would intensify if the U.S. nuclear guarantee were withdrawn. Some states would seek weapons of mass destruction because they were simply unable to compete conventionally with their neighbors. This new flurry of competitive behavior would probably energize many hypothesized immediate causes of war, including preemptive motives, preventive motives, economic motives, and the propensity for miscalculation. There would likely be more war. Weapons of mass destruction might be used in
some of these wars, with unpleasant effects even for those not directly involved.

SOLVENCY
This green-tech leadership results in global modeling of CCS prompting international action to solve globally
MIT 7, (MIT panel provides policy blueprint for future of use of coal as policymakers work to reverse global warming March 14,
2007, http://web.mit.edu/coal) Washington, DC Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) panel issued a report today that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of worsens, the global warming crisis. The study, "The Future of Coal Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates the U.S. assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions. Led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch, Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. According to Dr. Deutch, "As the world's leading energy user and greenhouse gas emitter,

the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work. Demonstration of technical, economic, and institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should carbon emission controls be adopted, and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner."
Dr. Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a carbon-constrained world higher efficiency generation, perhaps through new materials; novel approaches to gasification, CO2 capture, and oxygen separation; and advanced system concepts, perhaps guided by a new generation of simulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort in the near term will yield significant dividends down the road, and should be undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientific challenge." Key findings in this study: Coal is a low-cost, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing world, and its use is projected to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change unless coal plants

CCS is the critical enabling technology because it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing coal to meet future energy needs. A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic
are deployed with very high efficiency and large scale CCS is implemented. attractiveness of new technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades.

We need large-scale demonstration projects of the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Several
integrated large-scale demonstrations with appropriate measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the United States over the next decade with government support. This is important for establishing public confidence for the very large-scale sequestration program anticipated in the future. The regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration should be developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process. The U.S. government should provide assistance only to coal projects with CO2 capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and environmental performance. Today, IGCC appears to be the economic choice for new coal plants with CCS. However, this could change with further RD&D, so it is not appropriate to pick a single technology winner at this time, especially in light of the variability in coal type, access to sequestration sites, and other factors. The government should provide assistance to several "first of a kind" coal utilization demonstration plants, but only with carbon capture. Congress should remove any expectation that construction of new coal plants without CO2 capture will be "grandfathered" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This

Emissions will be stabilized only through global adherence to CO2 emission constraints. China and India are unlikely to adopt carbon constraints unless the U.S. does so and leads the way in the development of CCS technology.
is a perverse incentive to build coal plants without CO2 capture today. Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy RD&D program to successfully promote CCS technologies. The program must provide for demonstration of CCS at scale; a wider range of technologies should be explored; and modeling and simulation of the comparative performance of integrated technology systems should be greatly enhanced.

Non-federal actors fail lack eminent domain, fail to spur investment and lack uniformity on pipelines. This drives up prices, causes delays, and lacks nationwide solvency
Horne 10, JD @ U of Utah (Jennifer, Getting from Here to There: Devising an Optimal Regulatory Model for CO2 Transport in a
New Carbon Capture and Sequestration Industry, Journal Of Land, Resources & Environmental Law Volume 30 Number 2 http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/viewPDFInterstitial/337/277)

Regulations affect companies' ability to build where pipelines are needed, or wanted. Unless necessarily cross state lines. Federal eminent domain authority thus will be key for CCS pipelines. This is because siting under the auspices of multiple layers
Siting CCS develops on a localized scale, some pipelines will of government will almost inevitably hinder rapid development of a pipeline network needed for commercial-scale CCS. Such a system would be more time-and resource-intensive, and would mean more uncertainty for pipeline developers. Federal eminent domain authority for interstate pipelines would give pipelines, with appropriate federal approvals, authority to cut through the red tape of multiple state and local land use requirements while still compensating landowners and protecting local ecosystems. A complex siting process that requires approval under multiple state and local regimes may slow the progress of the entire CCS industry. 108 The Congressional Research Service recently described the problem: As CO<2> pipelines get longer, the state-by-

state siting approval process may become complex and protracted, and may face public opposition. Because
CO<2> pipeline requirements in a CCS scheme are driven by the relative locations of CO<2> sources and sequestration sites, identification and validation of such sites must explicitly account for CO<2> pipeline costs if the economics of those sites are to be fully understood. 109 Consider the siting of a hypothetical interstate pipeline that traverses three separate states. Absent preemptive federal siting regulation, the pipeline developer would have to struggle through three separate sets of regulatory requirements, apply for approval to build along the chosen corridor in

each state, and potentially face legal challenges

in three separate jurisdictions. One reason that pipeline siting under a state-based model would be resource-intensive is
the regulatory redundancy - and risk of conflicting decisions - that can occur when a pipeline corridor runs through multiple jurisdictions. This has proven to be a hindrance in other industries. For example, a state-based siting process continues to pose daunting challenges to interstate electric transmission siting. 110 It has contributed to the "very slow pace of transmission enhancements," 111 in the [*374] face of increasing energy demands and an electric grid in need of expansion. 112 In general, pipeline projects adhere to rigid timelines. 113 Delays in securing necessary easements drive

up costs and holdup projects. 114 The problem is only compounded when delays occur in multiple jurisdictions at once, or when one state erects a
unilateral roadblock to a project even though other states have signed on. Even disapproval by a single locality can be a significant hindrance to project development. 115 Second, an approval process that involves multiple, potentially conflicting requirements is not just more resource-intensive, but also creates uncertainty. To begin with, the "lack of timing coordination" 116 among various entities may force pipelines to site one part of a pipeline corridor before the pipeline has siting approval for the rest of the corridor. 117 In addition, the generalized nature of the benefit brought by climate change mitigation makes localized siting decisions particularly vulnerable to not in my backyard (NIMBY) opposition. 118 CCS will serve generalized interests, but impose localized costs. It will provide a worldwide benefit - the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions - but do so at the immediate expense (in terms of landscape disruption and related environmental effects) to the local landowners where CCS pipelines are sited. Take, for example, the immediate risks from a sudden CO<2> pipeline leakage in a highly populated area. 119 Damage from such a release to human health and the environment would be borne by the immediate locality. 120 In addition to safety risks, the environmental and aesthetic impacts of pipeline construction are also felt most acutely on a localized level. The problem of public opposition to new pipelines is likely to be greater in CCS than it has been in EOR. EOR pipelines are located primarily in remote areas, and in states "accustomed to the presence of large energy infrastructure." 121 In CCS, many of the sources of CO<2> - power plants - are located in more populated [*375] areas, "many with a history of public resistance to the siting of energy infrastructure." 122 Of course, this will not bear out everywhere. Some states are bound to be pro-CCS, even when the in-state proportion of the climate change benefit would seem too slight to justify action. 123 For example, important coal interests in Wyoming prompted the state to move early to establish a CCS regulatory model. 124 For such states heavily dependent on coal for revenue, a "push for new clean coal technologies" is understandable. 125 Given this, a climate like Wyoming's may be particularly friendly territory for siting of CCS pipelines. However, these particular states may not match where potential storage repositories are located. Other states and localities lack the sort of incentive that exists in states like Wyoming. Political pressure to pave the way for CCS pipeline siting will vary dramatically from one state to the next, as evidenced by the inconsistency in state action on CCS generally so far. 126 This lack of political uniformity points to a single conclusion: some states and localities will have stronger incentives to promote CCS than others. Professor Victor Flatt has aptly summarized the potential hindrance that may arise from this kind of multijurisdictional control of CCS pipeline siting: "Each entity that has jurisdiction over CCS may have a way to veto a CCS project for reasons unrelated to the original purpose of the legal regime being used." 127 Comprehensive

federal regulation, however, could minimize such uncertainty by providing one set of requirements in lieu of multiple, varying, and even potentially conflicting sets of mandates. B. The Case for a Comprehensive Federal Approach The challenge of
transitioning to a commercial-scale CCS industry calls for a well-coordinated, comprehensive approach to regulation. A national market will require a high degree of uniformity and certainty. The surest and most expedient [*376] path to a market with those

features is comprehensive federal regulation - for CCS generally, and transport specifically. Like natural gas and oil pipelines - both complex, enormous systems with national reach 128 - CCS will benefit from the sort of consistent regulation from one state to the next that a federal approach can provide, and that a piecemeal state-based approach cannot. 129 This is especially true if CCS is to become a national industry that helps to solve the climate change dilemma. As Delissa Hayano has argued: The costs and logistics of compressing, transporting, and sequestering CO<2> on the scale necessary to address [climate change] concerns requires a national interest parallel to that motivating the construction of equivalent-scale national infrastructure projects such as the interstate road system. 130 While state-based regulation can be effective for certain types of markets, it would be a less-than-ideal fit for CCS transport. State-based regulation would create too much inconsistency and complexity. 131 In another context, Professor Lincoln Davies has described a state-based approach to promoting renewable energy development as risking "crazy-quilt" regulation. 132 Specifically, the sheer variety of state-based Renewal Portfolio Standard (RPS) models that have sprung up in recent years have yielded widely varying standards from one state to the next. 133 The result is a fragmenting of renewable energy into multiple markets, not the creation of a single uniform national one. While the differentiation possible from state regulation long has been lauded as promoting innovations through laboratories of democracy, 134 to promote an industry that necessarily will be interstate in nature, such as CCS transport, federal models often are invoked. 135 The rationales typically offered for federal regulation include: (1) that uniform regulation is needed to ensure a well-functioning [*377] market; 136 (2) that federal regulation is necessary to avoid state "races to the bottom;" 137 and (3) that such regulation is essential to avoid fragmentation across borders in creating a network system national or regional in scope. 138 As the Supreme Court has observed in the dormant Commerce Clause context, "This principle that our economic unit is the Nation ... has as its corollary that the states are not separable economic units." 139 For each of the different CCS transport regulatory design elements, these rationales apply, albeit to somewhat varying extents. Pipeline safety is regulated at the federal level, rather than state-by-state, for good reason. The PHMSA regulates design, construction, and on-going operations and testing for interstate pipelines in various industries. 140 A consistent set of standards provides consistent protection for the public and the environment no matter where the pipeline's location. Effects from an accident may be localized, 141 but the possible effects on global warming from CO<2> leakage reach far and wide. 142 Indeed, the

need for uniform regulation often is invoked for industries where standards of performance or operation are more efficient if standardized. 143 They clearly apply for safety regulation in a network industry like CCS transport,
where the need for safe operation does not change from one jurisdiction to the next and the risk of different safety requirements could unnecessarily increase construction costs, or worse, result in incompatible subsystems. For rate and access regulation, federal regulation may be somewhat less important than it is for safety or siting, but it will still facilitate consistency and avoid confusion in the transport market, particularly when it comes to access. Nondiscriminatory access requirements can come in different forms. For example, in natural gas, pipelines must offer nondiscriminatory access but operate as contract carriers. 144 That means that the pipeline owner contracts in advance with a customer to provide access to a set amount of its capacity. 145 In oil, pipelines operate under a system of prorationing. In this system, even when the pipeline capacity is fully utilized, if another customer requires transport service, the pipeline is obliged to accommodate the new customer and adjust the capacity available to other customers accordingly. 146 In CCS, if a pipeline runs through multiple states, and each state uses a different nondiscriminatory access model, [*378] confusion and inefficiency would result. In such circumstances, a uniform set of requirements for access will be far more workable.

Pipelines are the necessary catalyst for CCS deployment

IRGC 8 (International Risk Governance Council, Geneva 2008, Regulation of Carbon Capture and Storage,
http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/Policy_Brief_CCS.pdf)

Large-scale CCS deployment cannot proceed until extensive pipeline infrastructure is in place. Large volumes of CO2 a 1,000 MW coal-red power plant produces 5 to 8 million tonnes of CO2 annually will need to be transported from source to sink. Linkages are complex, and the business model for pipeline operators includes
signicant risk, as their operations are subject to uncertainties beyond their control at both ends of the pipe. This risk puts upward pressure on pipeline costs, as do recent steel price increases. Transport infrastructure investment requires regional and sitespecic knowledge of geological storage prospects, as well as knowledge of current and future CO2 source locations, volumes, and characteristics. Pipeline

transport of CO2 is successfully regulated for enhanced oil recovery in the US, but with a framework that does not necessarily translate to the industrial organisation of CCS. Regulation of risks related to
pipeline transport is straightforward, but more complicated regulatory decisions will relate to funding, siting and construction of pipeline networks off-shore, onshore, and through urban zones, natural monopoly concerns, and issues of eminent domain. Different regulatory models for CO2 pipeline ownership, a privately owned, common carrier approach or a public utility approach could stimulate different levels of investment, potentially inuencing the ultimate organisational structure of the CCS industry.

CCS storage is technologically available and empirically proven

Dooley and Davidson 10 leader of the Joint Global Change Research Institute's and the Global Energy Technology
Strategy Project's research related to carbon dioxide capture and storage and senior member of the Joint Global Change Research

Institute's Integrated Assessment modeling team; Senior Research Scientist. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington (JJ and CL, A Brief Technical Critique of Ehlig-Economides and Economides 2010: Sequestering Carbon Dioxide in a Closed Underground Volume US Department of Energy April 2010 http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19249.pdf) MLRThe technical feasibility of storing CO2 in deep geologic formations is entirely proven by The existence of the Statoil

Sleipner project, has been injecting approximately 1 MtCO2/year into a deep geologic formation below the North Sea for nearly 15 years. The fate of the CO2 injected at Sleipner has been monitored via an extensive and scientifically rigorous measurement,
monitoring and verification (MMV) program. This MMV process continues to verify that CO2 injected into the storage formation

it can not contribute to anthropogenic climate change. The more than 25 years of cumulative experience and the significant scientific and technological knowledge gained from Sleipner and the other three large commercial end-to-end commercial CCS projects Snhvit, In Salah and Weyburn are further prove that underground CO2 sequestration via bulk CO2 injection is feasible and that the cost of doing so must not be infinite as asserted by
remains isolated in the subsurface where EhligEconomides and Economides.The assertion that subsurface storage of large volumes of fluids is impossible is also inconsistent with the experience gained from CO2 injection pilot projects around the world and countless other fluid injection projects over the last several decades such as the injection of hundreds billions of gallons of waste fluid into the subsurface under the auspices of the U.S. EPA Underground Injection Control Program (EPA, 2002). Not only

are these projects technically and economically viable, they are effectively managed, and safely regulated. The CCS policy and regulatory
communities are in need of robust, well-founded science and engineering upon which to base their decisions regarding how to govern geologic CO2 storage. Innovative ideas that challenge the conventional wisdom on issues critical to the success of commercial-scale CO2 storage are and will continue to be welcomed by the technical.Dooley et al. (2009) provide an overview of the CO2 capture, storage and measurement, monitoring and verification technologies that have been successfully employed at Sleipner, Snhvit, In Salah and Weyburn.PNNL-19249community. While the Ehlig-Economides and Economides paper does highlight the need for continued research and field work to better understand how CCS will deploy in the real world, unfounded conclusions such as underground carbon dioxide sequestration via bulk CO2 injection is not feasible at any cost and geologic sequestration of CO2 [is] a profoundly nonfeasible option for the management of CO2 emissions do not withstand scientific scrutiny. Unsupported opinions and hyperbole do not represent a constructive contribution to the ongoing technical, policy, or regulatory dialogues related to the potential benefits and challenges associated with CCS