Ethanol Aff Wave 1

Table of Contents 
1AC INH ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 
1AC Peak Corn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 
1AC Peak Corn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 
1AC Peak Corn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 
1AC Peak Corn ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 
1AC Peak Corn ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 
1AC Peak Corn ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 
1AC Peak Corn ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 
1AC Energy Bubbles....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 
1AC – SOLVENCY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 
1AC – SOLVENCY ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined. 
1AC – SOLVENCY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 
1AC – SOLVENCY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 
AT: Cellulosic Increase Prices...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 
ADDON: AMAZON DEFO .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................26 
Inherency: Tech hurdle...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 
Inherency: Investment Weak....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 
Inherency: EISA Fails ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 
Inherency: No Cellulose Now ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 
Inherency: No Cellulose Now ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31 
Inherency/No Investor Confidence Now...............................................................................................................................................................................................................33 
INHERENCY/NO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE NOW .................................................................................................................................................................................................................34 
INHERENCY/CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 
INHERENCY/CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................36 
Inherency/ MARKET PREDICTABILITY KEY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................38 
Inherency/ TRANSPORTATION KEY/OIL DEPENDENCE SOLVENCY .............................................................................................................................................................................39 
Inherency/  TRANSPORTATION KEY/OIL DEPENDENCE SOLVENCY ............................................................................................................................................................................40 
ECONOMY SOLVENCY/MARKET DIVERSIFICATION ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................41 
Food Prices: “Corn =” 1/4...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................44 
Food Prices: “Corn =” 2/4...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 
Food Prices: “Corn =” 3/3...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................46 
Food Prices: “Corn =” 4/4...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................47 
Food Prices: Bad Need Cellulose ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................48 
Cornbased ethanol causes food price spikes – cellulosic is best ...........................................................................................................................................................49 
Cellulosic doesn’t increase food prices............................................................................................................................................................................................................50 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Food Prices ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Food Insecurity .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................56 
AT: Market Solves Food Prices .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57 
Solvency: Commercialization Solves Land Use ...................................................................................................................................................................................................58 
AT: Hurts Corn Farmers..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................59 
Food Prices: Increasing...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................60 
Food Prices: Increasing...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................62 
Food Prices: Kills Third World Consumption......................................................................................................................................................................................................63 
Food Prices: Starvation...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................64 
Food Prices: Instability ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................65 
Food Prices: Cellulose Solves ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................66 
Bubble Economy Extensions: Cartels will Manipulate Prices........................................................................................................................................................................67 
Bubble Economy Extensions: High Oil Prices Destroy the Economy...........................................................................................................................................................68 
Bubble Economy Extensions: Answer to Infinite Oil.........................................................................................................................................................................................70 
Bubble Economy Extensions: BioFuels Solve Price Shocks...........................................................................................................................................................................72 
Bubble Internal: Inflation ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................77 
Bubble Internal: Inflation ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................78 
Impact: Soil Erosion .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................81 
Cellulose: Investment Key..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................82 
Cellulose: Investment Key..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................83 
Cellulose Solves Ag Crisis ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................84 
Cellulose Solves Dependence....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................85 
Addon: Oil Sands..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................86 
OffCase: Uniqueness Shield ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................87 
OFF Case: Oil Answers .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................88 
Off Case: Saudi Relations Answers ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................89 
***Aff*** ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................90 
Corn Ethanol Bad: Amazon ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................90 
Corn Ethanol Bad: Soil Erosion = Extinction........................................................................................................................................................................................................91 
Corn Ethanol Bad: Soil Erosion Corn Prices = ....................................................................................................................................................................................................93 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Global Warming ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................94 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Emissions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................95 
Corn Ethanol Bad: Water Pollution.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................96 
AT: Biofuels Help the Environment ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Environment ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Dead Zone .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Water Quality........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 105 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Unstable.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 106 
Corn Ethanol Bad – Not Sustainable .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 107 
Corn Ethanol Bad – No Energy Independence .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 108 
AT: Corn Solves Energy Needs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 109 
AT: Corn Fulfills Legal Mandates .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111 
Current Ethanol Bad – Malaysian Forests.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 
Current Ethanol Bad – Amazon Deforestation ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 113 
Cellulose Ethanol Good – General......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114 
Cellulose Good: advanced Biofuels ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 116 
Cellulose Good: TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Gas Demand .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 119 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Global Warming ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Environment ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 122 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Biodiversity............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 124 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Economically Viable ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 125 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Efficient....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 126 
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Feasible....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128 
AT: Cellulose Ethanol Hurts Environment......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 129 
Cellulose EthanolBiotech.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 131 
Oil Dependence Bad .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 132 
AT: High Oil Prices Solve AE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133 
Solvency – Incentives................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 134 
Solvency – Cellulose/Corn Combo........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 135 
Solvency – Banning Biofuels................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136 
Solvency – Free Market ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 137 
Free Market – AT: Ethanol good............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 138 
 
1AC- INH
CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL—WE NEED A NEW POLICY TO CREATE MARKET

BREAKTHROUGH FOR ADVANCED BIOFUELS.
David Rotman, Editor of Technololgy Review, “The price of biofuels: making ethanol from corn is expensive. Better
biofuels are years away from the gas tank. Farmers are reluctant to change their practices. But do we really have any
alternative to biofuels?” Technology Review, Vol. 111 No. 1, January 1, 2008.
But back in the Midwest, there is a "show me" attitude toward suchblue-sky projections, and there are lingering questions
about just how the nation's vast agricultural infrastructure will switch over to biomass. If Khosla's projections prove out,
"then wonderful," says the University of Minnesota's Runge. "Meanwhile, we're stuck in reality." Perhaps the main
point of contention, Runge suggests, is whether corn ethanol will in fact lead to new technologies--or stand in their
way. "It is my opinion that corn ethanol is a barrier to converting to cellulosics," he says, pointing to the inertia
caused by political and business interests heavily invested in corn ethanol and its infrastructure. Runge is not
alone in his skepticism. "Unless the cost is reduced significantly, cellulosic ethanol is going nowhere," says Wally
Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. Making cellulosic ethanol viable will require
either a "policy mechanism" to encourage investment in new technologies or a "phenomenal breakthrough"--and
"the likelihood of that is not too high," Tyner says. Farmers and ethanol producers currently have no incentive to
take on the risks of changing technologies, he adds. There is "no policy bridge" tohelp make the transition. "The
status quo won't do it." Despite the sharp differences of opinion, there's still some common ground between
people like Khosla, whose unbridled faith in innovation has been nurtured by the successes of Silicon Valley, and the
Midwesterners whose pragmatism was forged by the competitive economics of agriculture. In particular, most
observers agree that annual production of corn-derived ethanol will level off within a few years. After that, any
growth in biofuel production will need to come from new technologies. But if cellulosic biofuels are to begin
replacing gasoline within five to ten years, facilities will need to start construction soon. This fall, Range Fuels,
a company based in Broomfield, CO, announced that it had begun work in Georgia on what it claims is the country's first
commercial-scale cellulosic-ethanol plant. The Range facility, which will use thermochemical technology to make ethanol
from wood chips, is scheduled to reach a capacity of 20 million gallons in 2008 and eventually increase to 100 million
gallons a year. Meanwhile, Mascoma has announced several demonstration units, including a facility inTennessee that will
be the first cellulosic-ethanol plant built to use switchgrass. But these production plants are federally subsidized or are a
result of partnerships with state development organizations; attracting private investment for commercial-
scale production will be another matter. Indeed, ramping up the capacity of cellulosic-ethanol production will be
a huge and risky challenge, says Colin South, president of Mascoma. "When people talk about cellulosic ethanol as if it is
an industry, it is an unfair portrayal," he says. "There are a number of pilot plants, but none of them have gotten out of
the pilot scale. We still need to show we can actually run these in the form of an operating chemical plant."
1AC- Peak Corn
SCENARIO ONE: PEAK CORN
RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS FORCE MORE ETHANOL PRODUCTION THAN

PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE- WITHOUT ANY NEW INCENTIVES, CORN WILL HIT A
PRODUCTION WALL.
Tim Sklar, Sklar & Associates, “Obstacles bedevil EISA's RFS biofuels mandate,” Oil & Gas Journal, March 17, 2008.
One such proposal being actively promoted is to replace transportation fuels refined from imported oil with fuels such as
biodiesel, bioethanol, and other advanced biofuels. Often presented in the popular media and in political discourse is the
notion that one of the most effective strategies to reduce our national dependence on imported oil is to have large quantities
of biofuels produced from things that grow, and that somehow the private sector will embrace this strategy and produce all
of the renewable fuels that will be needed. The latest buzz is about using waste materials instead of food crops, because
soaring corn prices have distorted the prices we pay for food as well as for corn ethanol. The public is being told this
second generation of biofuels could be produced from agriwaste, such as corn stover and wheat straw; from fast-growing
cellulosic crops, such as switch grass; from forest residue and other wood waste; and from municipal solid waste retrieved
from land fills. Unfortunately, not being mentioned are the impracticalities of producing large quantities of fuels from these
materials. Not being addressed are other impediments, such as bringing together the varied and often competing interests
into biofuels projects, the technological hurdles that must be overcome, the vast amount of capital investment that will be
needed, and the incentives the public will need to create a new industry. For the last several years our company has been
assisting clients in the development of biofuels projects. It is dismaying that the realities encountered in developing
renewable biofuels are often not even mentioned, let alone discussed. Assumptions upon which so much hope is being
placed are often wrong or shortsighted. The latest example of oversimplification is the presumption built into the
Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS), which is a component of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).
RFS is a legislative mandate requiring increased national production of renewable biofuels--to 36 billion gal/year by 2022
from 9 billion gal/ year in 2008-- without addressing how this can be done. It therefore is in serious need of a reality check.
As shown in Fig. 1, the RFS mandates that US corn ethanol production reach a production peak by 2015 and not
increase thereafter. This will require that cellulosic biofuel and all other advanced biofuels play a larger role in
meeting the RFS mandate, increasing to 58% of the total RFS mandate by 2022 from less than 1% today, with corn
ethanol dropping from its current 99% of the total to 42% in 15 years (Fig. 2). The fundamental question that one must ask
is whether it is reasonable to assume that EISA's RFS mandate for the private sector is realistic. Based on what is known
today, it is not. If nothing is done to assist the private sector, a mandated 36 billion gal/year of renewable fuels within 15
years is wishful thinking.
The SQ lacks incentives for advanced biofuel development- locking in corn

ethanol as the only way to meet RFS mandates.
To meet the RFS mandate, capital investment in advanced biofuels plants must reach $11 billion in 4 years,
increasing to $46 billion in 10 years and $105 billion in 15 years. Added to these amounts is the capital cost of increasing
corn ethanol output to the 15 billion gal/year level at an added capital cost of $75 billion. In other words, the RFS mandate
calls for private capital investment in renewable fuels plant capacity of $180 billion over the next 15 years (see table).
Added to this are the additional amounts that must be invested to improve the technology, provide supporting
pipelines and storage terminal capacity, and upgrade distribution facilities to handle new fuels. Clearly, all of this
private investment is just not going to happen as a result of a legislative mandate. With respect to RFS projections, it
may be realistic to expect corn ethanol production to increase to 15 billion gal/year over the next 10 years from 9 billion
gal/year, assuming that current support programs remain in effect and corn crops are increased without further market
distortion. But it is unrealistic to assume that the RFS projections for advanced biofuels production could match corn
ethanol production in 10-15 years. Cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production is now just a "drop in the bucket." In
4 years, the RFS mandate calls for 2 billion gal of cellulosic biofuel, biodiesel, and other advanced biofuels to be produced,
increasing to 9 billion gal 10 years from now, and 21 billion gal 15 years from now. This growth in advanced biofuels
production will require at least 35 new 55-million gal/year biofuels plants to be operating by 2012, 164 by 2017, and
382 by 2022. New capital investment in advanced biofuels plants of this size could exceed $11 billion by 2012 and
require an additional $34 billion by 2017 and $59 billion more by 2022. EISA does not provide funding or incentives for
this massive investment it is mandating.
1AC- Peak Corn
BIOFUELS DRIVE UP FOOD PRICES- RISKING A GLOBAL RECESSION.

Larry Elliott, journalist, “Soft landings and hard realities: The IMF thinks we can ride out this crisis, but there could be far
worse news to come,” Guardian Weekly, April 18, 2008, lexis, accessed 6/18/2008.
The first is that it is far too early to say that the worst is over. Henry Paulson, who does Summers's old job at the US
treasury, said he expected to see some impact from lower interest rates and tax cuts by the third quarter of this year. But that
depends on the US housing market stabilising, because until it does there is a real risk of a vicious circle of foreclosures,
collapsing consumer confidence, rising unemployment, bigger losses for US banks, tighter credit conditions and a falling
stock market. The IMF says that risks are still heavily weighted to the downside. It produced an alternative scenario in
which there would be a further tightening of credit conditions, a far bigger drop in equity and property prices than it
currently expects, a gloomier assessment of the prospects for long-term productivity growth in the US, and an
unwillingness on the part of foreign investors to continue buying US assets. It already believes there is a 25% risk of a
global recession; under this alternative scenario it says there would be a deeper and longer period of falling growth in the
US, accompanied by an extended period of weakness in the eurozone and spillover effects on the rest of the global
economy through weaker trade flows and tougher credit conditions. This scenario looks just as realistic as the fund's
baseline soft-landing forecast. For one thing, there is a clear disjunction between the idea that this is the biggest financial
shock since the Depression and the idea that there will be only a short-lived and relatively mild impact on growth. In
addition, the soft-landing thesis conveniently ignores the other headwinds facing the global economy. These include
rocketing commodity prices that are contributing to a sharp rise in imported inflation, severe downward pressure on the
dollar that threatens to become a disorderly plunge, the still-sizeable global imbalances that have resulted in massive
trade surpluses in Asia, and massive trade deficits in the US, which have been only slightly reduced by a cheaper
greenback and weaker growth. That list was supplemented last week by global hunger caused by rising food prices. The
world has suddenly woken up to what should have been blindingly obvious: trying to solve the problem of climate
change by using crops for biofuel was a short-term fix with potentially lethal result. If you encourage farmers to use
land that would have produced food for fuel, the price of food will go up. Gordon Brown considers this to be a serious
crisis and is right to call for a global response. Yet apart from the humanitarian need to help those going hungry, rising
food prices make it harder to avoid recession in the West, since they stifle consumer confidence and make policy-
makers warier about cutting interest rates.
[[Impact]]
1AC- Peak Corn
We need accelerated incentives for cellulosic ethanol to reduce commodity price

inflation.
ROSALIE WESTENSKOW, journalist, “Farm bill hikes biofuels funding,” UPI Energy May 22, 2008.
We have a responsibility to carefully assess the impact of our policies on those who face poverty and hunger and to take
actions to make the lives of poor people less difficult. In living up to this commitment, there should be no reason to pit food
security against energy security. The 2005 Energy Policy Act mandated 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be mixed
into gasoline by 2012. Actual ethanol production is at least four years ahead of that schedule, with expected production of
more than 7 billion gallons this year. But this is just the beginning of the planned expansion of corn ethanol. The 2007
Energy Independence and Security Act, mandates 36 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022. While the majority of this amount
is meant to be "advanced biofuels", 15 billion gallons would be corn ethanol. This would double current corn ethanol
production and implies a much larger diversion of corn from food and feed. In addition, the pending farm bill would
continue incentives for corn to ethanol production. The 2008 Farm Bill Conference Report would lower the blender's tax
credit from 51 cents per gallon to 46 cents per gallon to offset a production credit for cellulosic ethanol of $1.01 per gallon.
The Farm Bill would also extend the import tariff of 541 cents per gallon until 2010. Additional provisions include other
tax incentives, supports and investments in research, production and cellulosic technology. Despite minor reductions to the
blender's credit, US support to ethanol is predicted to approach $100 billion for the 2006 to 2012 period and will likely rise
if the new Renewable Fuels Standard is met. The large majority of this support - about 75percent - will be directed to corn
ethanol"'. If the connections between corn ethanol production and increased food prices are accurate, then the policies
associated with incentives for corn to ethanol production need to be reevaluated in light of the global food crisis.
Therefore, Oxfam America recommends that a blue ribbon panel be established to quickly investigate this issue and that the
panel bring recommendations back to the Congress by the end of this calendar year to guide decisions regarding incentives
and subsidies for ethanol production already on the books and those likely to be added should the farm bill become law in
its current form. Clearly, an accelerated strategy is needed to do the research and development necessary to quickly
transition to the so-called "next generation" of cellulosic biofuels. Oxfam believes that the US Congress should
promote research and development for alternative and renewable sources of fuel that do not lead to increased food
insecurity in the developing world.
Federal Action is key to assuring markets

W. Michael Griffin and Lester B. Lave, Executive Director of the Green Design Institute and Professor of Economics at
the Tepper School of Business- Carnegie Mellon University, respectively, “Cellulosic Ethanol in an Oil and Carbon
Constrained World,” in A HIGH GROWTH STRATEGY FOR ETHANOL, 2006, available online at:
www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/EEEethanol2.pdf.
Conclusions
The success of a strategy for adopting ethanol depends on many
issues:
(1) The Government must demonstrate a commitment to the
aggressive use of ethanol in its fuel mix;
a. To assure markets, and
b. To protect the developing alternative energy
market from the inevitable rise and fall of oil prices.
(2) Maximize ethanol production from corn in the near term;
a. To begin rapidly to wean ourselves from gasoline
and to develop the needed infrastructure, and
b. To make the farming community less threatened
by the third recommendation.
(3) Permit imports of ethanol from developing countries;
a. To accelerate the transition away from gasoline,
b. To help exporting nations with their own internal
development and to divert dollars from OPEC.
(4) Build first of a kind cellulosic ethanol production facilities
a. To provide much needed learning by doing.
b. To develop a “front end” that can then be deployed
at current corn ethanol facilities.
(5) Target a cellulosic ethanol price to meet a market where $35
to 45/bbl oil is likely.
Miami inst. ABJ
1AC- Peak Corn
Investment is the key to avoiding low-yield bio-fuels… this avoids the inevitable
food price shock of fuel crops.
Mark W. Rosegrant, director of the Environment and Production Technology Division (EPTD) at International Food
Policy Research Institute, written with Siwa Msangi- a postdoctoral fellow, Timothy Sulser and Rowena Valmonte-Santos
are research analysts in EPTD, “BIOENERGY AND AGRICULTURE: PROMISES AND CHALLENGES,” International
Food Policy Research Institute- FOCUS 14 • BRIEF 3 OF 12 • DECEMBER 2006, available online at:
http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus14.asp
The “aggressive biofuel growth” scenario shows dramatic increases in world prices for feedstock crops (Table 2). If cassava
were to be used aggressively as a feedstock for bioethanol, cassava prices would rise tremendously, causing sizable welfare
losses to the major consumers of this crop, who reside mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa. There would also be high economic
costs. If cassava is not profitable as a biofuel feedstock at today’s oil prices, it certainly would not be at more than double
the cassava price. Thus, this scenario would entail subsidies for the biofuel sector, which already exist for many countries
(such as within the European Union), and could take the form of tax concessions at the pump or producer credits. The high
price increases for oils and cassava suggest that the relatively low-yielding oil and root crops will have to make up fairly
high shares of total production in order to meet the oil-displacement trends embedded in the “aggressive biofuel growth”
scenario. In contrast, the second scenario, which includes the impact of cellulosic technologies, shows a considerable
softening of these effects, especially for cassava and oil crops, and underlines the potential importance of such technical
innovations at the industry level. Improvements in conversion efficiency for non-cellulosic processes are not introduced
into the model, since these technologies have been in use for some time and show little room for improvement, based on
studies cited in the literature. The third scenario illustrates the importance of crop technology innovation at the farm
production level and shows a further softening of price impacts, with cassava undergoing the largest decrease. This third
scenario in particular shows how investments in the biofuel industry and the agricultural sector can be combined to produce
a more favorable outcome, which can mitigate the consumer-level impacts. Moreover, this scenario seems the most
plausible of the three, as neither national governments nor fuel producers would want to engage in a large-scale
expansion of production without the necessary investments being in place to ensure a reliable supply of feedstock
material at a reasonable cost, both for producers and for consumers of food and feed commodities. Although the
mechanisms by which feedstocks might be substituted in and out of biofuel production according to their competitiveness
with long-term fossil-fuel prices and each other have not been modeled, an illustrative set of results (for a “fixed” menu of
inputs) argues strongly for preparatory investments in both the agricultural sector and the fuel industry itself. SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS The results show a “food-versus-fuel” trade-off in cases where innovations and technology
investments are largely absent and where trade and subsidy policies are failing. In view of past agricultural policy, such a
scenario cannot be ruled out, unfortunately, but it could certainly be avoided. This bleak picture changes considerably
when biofuel and crop production technology advancements are taken into account. Although there is some uncertainty
about the timing of eventual large-scale use of cellulosic conversion technologies for biofuel production, the potential
benefits are well recognized in the literature, making a strong case for further research in that area. The strong price
increases for root crops like cassava in the first aggressive scenario suggest that without the necessary productivity
improvements, aggressive growth in biofuels could have adverse effects on well-being in regions like Sub-Saharan Africa,
where a large proportion of cassava consumption is for food. The third scenario, which gives an added boost to
agricultural productivity growth in Africa, demonstrates this clearly.
Page 9 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
1AC- Peak Corn

High oil prices mean that, as long as ethanol production depends on corn, high food prices will decimate
the agriculture industry. Our plan solves the short-term food prices bubble by discouraging investment
in corn ethanol
Runge and Senauer 2007, C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law 
and Director of the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. Benjamin 
Senauer is Professor of Applied Economics and Co‐director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota, 
May/June 2007, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor,” Foreign Affiars, Vol. 86, Issue 3, Ebsco 
This trend has strong momentum. Despite a recent decline, many experts expect the price of crude oil to remain high in 
the long term. Demand for petroleum continues to increase faster than supplies, and new sources of oil are often 
expensive to exploit or located in politically risky areas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administrations latest 
projections, global energy consumption will rise by 71 percent between 2003 and 2030, with demand from developing 
countries, notably China and India, surpassing that from members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development by 2015. The result will be sustained upward pressure on oil prices, which will allow ethanol and biodiesel 
producers to pay much higher premiums for corn and oilseeds than was conceivable just a few years ago. The higher oil 
prices go, the higher ethanol prices can go while remaining competitive‐‐and the more ethanol producers can pay for 
corn. If oil reaches $80 per barrel, ethanol producers could afford to pay well over $5 per bushel for corn.  With the price 
of raw materials at such highs, the biofuel craze would place significant stress on other parts of the agricultural sector. In 
fact, it already does. In the United States, the growth of the biofuel industry has triggered increases not only in the 
prices of corn, oilseeds, and other grains but also in the prices of seemingly unrelated crops and products. The use of 
land to grow corn to feed the ethanol maw is reducing the acreage devoted to other crops. Food processors who use 
crops such as peas and sweet corn have been forced to pay higher prices to keep their supplies secure‐‐costs that will 
eventually be passed on to consumers. Rising feed prices are also hitting the livestock and poultry industries. According 
to Vernon Eidman, a professor emeritus of agribusiness management at the University of Minnesota, higher feed costs 
have caused returns to fall sharply, especially in the poultry and swine sectors. If returns continue to drop, production 
will decline, and the prices for chicken, turkey, pork, milk, and eggs will rise. A number of Iowa's pork producers could go 
out of business in the next few years as they are forced to compete with ethanol plants for corn supplies. Proponents of 
corn‐based ethanol argue that acreage and yields can be increased to satisfy the rising demand for ethanol. But U.S. 
corn yields have been rising by a little less than two percent annually over the last ten years, and even a doubling of 
those gains could not meet current demand. As more acres are planted with corn, land will have to be pulled from other 
crops or environmentally fragile areas, such as those protected by the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve 
Program.  In addition to these fundamental forces, speculative pressures have created what might be called a "biofuel 
mania": prices are rising because many buyers think they will. Hedge funds are making huge bets on corn and the bull 
market unleashed by ethanol. The biofuel mania is commandeering grain stocks with a disregard for the obvious 
consequences. It seems to unite powerful forces, including motorists' enthusiasm for large, fuel‐inefficient vehicles and 
guilt over the ecological consequences of petroleum‐based fuels. But even as ethanol has created opportunities for huge 
profits for agribusiness, speculators, and some farmers, it has upset the traditional flows of commodities and the 
patterns of trade and consumption both inside and outside of the agricultural sector. 
Page 10 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
1AC- Peak Corn
Cellulosic ethanol stops skyrocketing food prices, global wars and economic
collapse – kills billions
Lester R. Brown, Director – Earth Policy Institute, “Massive Diversion of U.S. Grain to Fuel Cars is Raising World Food 
Prices, Risking Political Instability”, 6‐13‐2007, http://www.earth‐policy.org/Transcripts/SenateEPW07.htm 
The escalating share of the U.S. grain harvest going to ethanol distilleries is driving up food prices worldwide. Investment in fuel 
ethanol distilleries has soared since gasoline prices jumped at the end of 2005. Once completed, distilleries now under construction could double
U.S. ethanol output, turning nearly 30 percent of next year's U.S. grain harvest into fuel for automobiles. This unprecedented diversion of the world's 
leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere, risking political instability.  The U.S. corn crop,
accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying nearly 70 percent of the world's corn imports, looms large in
the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa 
alone exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the
world economy. In six of the last seven years, total world grain production has fallen short of use. As a result, world carryover stocks of grain have been drawn down 
to 57 days of consumption, the lowest level in 34 years. (See data.) The last time they were this low wheat and rice prices doubled. Already corn prices have doubled over 
the last year, wheat futures are trading at their highest level in 10 years, and rice prices are rising. Soybean prices are up by half. If the United States were to suffer intense 
heat and severe drought this summer in the Corn Belt, rising grain prices could quickly take the world into uncharted territory. The countries initially hit by rising food prices 
are those where corn is the staple food. In Mexico, one of more than 20 countries with a corn‐based diet, the price of tortillas is up by 60 percent. Angry Mexicans in crowds 
of up to 75,000 have taken to the streets in protest, forcing the government to institute price controls on tortillas. Food prices are also rising in China, India, and the United 
States, countries that contain 40 percent of the world's people. While relatively little corn is eaten directly in these countries, vast quantities are consumed indirectly. The 
milk, eggs, cheese, chicken, ham, ground beef, ice cream, and yogurt in the typical refrigerator are all produced with corn. In effect, the refrigerator is filled with corn. And 
the price of every one of these items in the refrigerator is affected by the price of corn. Rising grain and soybean prices are driving up meat and egg prices in China. January 
pork prices were up 20 percent above a year earlier, eggs were up 16 percent, while beef, which is less dependent on grain, was up 6 percent. For China, which suffered the 
most massive famine in human history in 1959‐61, these food price rises could be approaching a politically dangerous level. In India, the overall food price index in January 
2007 was 10 percent higher than a year earlier. The price of wheat, the staple food in northern India, has jumped 11 percent, moving above the world market price. In the 
United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that the wholesale price of chicken in 2007 will be 10 percent higher on average than in 2006, the price of a 
dozen eggs will be up a whopping 21 percent, and milk will be 14 percent higher. And this is only the beginning.  In the past, food price rises have usually been weather 
related and always temporary. This situation is different. As more and more fuel ethanol distilleries are built, world grain prices are starting to move up toward their oil‐
equivalent value in what appears to be the beginning of a long‐term rise. The food and energy economies, historically separate, are now merging. In this new economy, if 
the fuel value of grain exceeds its food value, the market will move it into the energy economy. As the price of oil climbs so will the price of food. If oil jumps from $60 to 
$80 a barrel, you can bet that your supermarket bills will also go up. If oil climbs to $100, how much will you pay for a dozen eggs? From an agricultural vantage point, the 
automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25‐gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. 
grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. Since the United States is the leading exporter of grain, shipping more than Canada, Australia, 
and Argentina combined, what
happens to the U.S. grain crop affects the entire world. With the massive diversion of grain to
produce fuel for cars, exports will drop. What was for decades the world's breadbasket is fast becoming the U.S. fuel tank. The number of hungry 
people in the world has been declining for several decades, but in the late 1990s the trend reversed and the number began to rise. The United Nations currently 
lists 34 countries as needing emergency food assistance. Many of these are considered failing states, including Chad, Iraq, Liberia, Haiti, and Zimbabwe. Since 
food aid programs typically have fixed budgets, if the price of grain doubles, food aid will be reduced by half. Urban food protests in response to rising 
food prices in low and middle income countries, such as Mexico, could lead to political instability that would add to the growing list of failing states. 
At some point, spreading political instability could disrupt global economic progress. Against this backdrop, Washington is consumed with "ethanol 
euphoria." President Bush in his State of the Union address set a production goal for 2017 of 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels, including grain‐based and 
cellulosic ethanol, and fuel from coal. Given the current difficulties in producing cellulosic ethanol at a competitive cost and given the 
mounting public opposition to coal fuels, which are far more carbon‐intensive than gasoline, most of the fuel to meet this goal might well have
to come
from grain. This could take most of the U.S. grain harvest, leaving little grain to meet U.S. needs, much less those of the hundred or so countries that import 
grain. The stage is now set for direct competition for grain between the 800 million people who own automobiles, and the world's
2 billion poorest people. The risk is that millions of those on the lower rungs of the global economic ladder will start falling off as rising 
food prices drop their consumption below the survival level. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of 
lower‐income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and Mexico. The resulting political 
instability could in turn disrupt the global economy, directly affecting all countries. 
Page 11 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
1AC- Peak Corn
Only development of cellulose ethanol can take us away from the corn ethanol economy because that’s
the only way to insulate agriculture from oil inflation.
 
Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, 8/16/2006, “Ethanol could leave the world hungry,” 
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm 
Once stimulated solely by government subsidies, biofuel production is now being driven largely by the runaway price of 
oil. Many food commodities, including corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, and sugar cane, can be converted into fuel; thus the 
food and energy economies are beginning to merge. The market is setting the price for farm commodities at their oil‐
equivalent value. As the price of oil climbs, so will the price of food. In some U.S. Cornbelt states, ethanol distilleries are 
taking over the corn supply. In Iowa, 25 ethanol plants are operating, four are under construction, and another 26 are 
planned. Iowa State University economist Bob Wisner observes that if all those plants are built, distilleries would use the 
entire Iowa corn harvest. In South Dakota, ethanol distilleries are already claiming over half that state's crop. The key to 
lessening demand for grain is to commercialize ethanol production from cellulosic materials such as switchgrass or 
poplar trees, a prospect that is at least five years away.  
Page 12 of 139
Miami Institute 08 Ethanol
1AC- Energy Bubbles
SCENARIO 2: ENERGY BUBBLE

CYCLICAL SHOCKS IN OIL MARKETS WILL CREATE AN UNPRECEDENTED
GLOBAL ECONOMIC DEPRESSION.
Jeremy Wakeford, Senior Lecturer, School of Economics, University of Cape Town, “Peak Oil
and South Africa: Impacts and Mitigation,” March 8, 2007, Available at
www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf, accessed 5/20/08.
Indeed, the integrity of the world financial system is deeply dependent on continuous economic
growth. This is because new money is created as debt, on which interest payments are required.
The only way that the interest can be repaid in future is if more new money is issued, which
itself increases the stock of debt. The collateral for this debt is continuous economic growth,
which is itself dependent on growing supplies of energy. Should growth fail for an extended
period, the financial system may implode, compounding the economic adversity. In the
medium term, an economic recession and/or investor confidence crash would reduce global
demand for oil and – somewhat perversely – result in the oil price falling again. This in
turn could stimulate a partial economic recovery, only for another price spike to be
triggered and the cycle to repeat itself. In the long term, the world faces a virtually endless
sequence of supply-side oil shocks on the down-slope of the Hubbert curve. Thus we can
reasonably expect a rising oil price trend due to cumulative shocks along with greater
volatility as a result of economic and political fallout. Certainly, efforts will be made to
conserve oil (and energy more generally), and there will be heightened efforts to find substitutes
for depleting oil. However, it will take many years – if not decades – to replace the vast
infrastructure that currently relies on oil. The problem is that economic conditions will be far
less conducive to such investment after Peak Oil as a result of less energy being available, rising
costs, and the business environment being characterised by greater volatility and uncertainty.
Given the combination of repeated supply-side oil shocks and the likelihood of a major
stock market crash, a prolonged economic depression is a distinct possibility if no
mitigating action is taken, or it is begun too late. The US Department of Energy
commissioned a report on Peak Oil by Robert Hirsch et al (2005: 4), who concluded that: “The
peaking of world oil production presents the US and the world with an unprecedented risk
management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will
increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political
costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand
sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of
peaking.”
Page 13 of 139
1AC- Energy Bubbles
OIL DEPENENCE INSURES A HARD LANDING FROM THE RECESSION- IT’S AS BAD
FOR THE ECONOMY AS A TERRORIST ATTACK.
Mark Clayton, Journalist, “Oil Shock 2?” Christian Science Monitor, May 12, 2008, lexis,
accessed 5/25/08.
While many energy-security experts worry about a terrorist attack that suddenly crimps
global oil supplies and hammers the US economy, Dr. Wescott and other experts say a
terror attack is hardly the only, or even the worst, oil threat the nation now faces. "What
we are seeing today is more of a slow-motion, rolling oil crisis rather than a sharp shock,
yet ultimately we end up with the same sorts of impacts [as a terror attack]," says Wescott,
now president of Keybridge Research, a Washington economic-consulting firm. Unlike the
1970s, when an oil embargo left Americans waiting in long lines at gasoline stations and paying
higher prices, today's oil crisis has been stealthy. Its economic impact has been masked by
consumers tapping credit cards and home equity to cover the rising cost of energy and some
consumer goods. "We're having a replay of the 1970s without the Arab oil embargo part, so
it's been hard for many people to see," says Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy scholar at the Baker
Institute at Rice University in Houston. Even with US airlines cutting flights and SUV sales now
tanking, the effects of expensive oil on the American family could be stark, Wescott's report
says. In 2003, with oil approaching $40 per barrel, the average US family spent about $1,900
(4.8 percent of its income) on natural gas, heating oil, and gasoline. But today at the $120 per
barrel level, a family will spend about $6,000 a year or about 15 percent of total annual income,
Wescott's report predicts. Compared with the oil crises of the 1970s, the US paradoxically is in a
bit better, yet also worse, position. The good news is the US economy is less energy intensive -
using only about half the energy it did in the 1980s to produce a dollar of economic growth. That
should make it more resilient. But the bad news is that imported oil has risen to about 12
million barrels a day, about 60 percent of the 21 million barrels the US consumes daily.
That financial drain at $120 per barrel is jamming the brakes on the US economy and
inflating the trade deficit, economists agree. "The question now isn't whether we're going
into recession, it's whether there will be a soft landing ... or we have a hard landing," Ms.
Jaffe says.
Page 14 of 139
1AC- Energy Bubbles
Economic collapse will cause extinction

Bearden 00, Director of Association of Distinguished American Scientists  
[T. E., “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” Space Energy Access Systems,  
http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis‐Bearden.htm] bg
History  bears  out  that  desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to  the  final  economic collapse, the 
stress  on  nations  will  have  increased  the  intensity  and  number  of  their  conflicts,  to  the  point 
where  the  arsenals  of  weapons  of  mass  destruction  (WMD)  now  possessed  by  some  25  nations,  are  almost  certain  to  be 
released.  As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan 
and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long‐
range  nuclear  missiles  (some)  can  reach  the  United  States  —  attacks  Taiwan.  In  addition  to  immediate  responses,  the 
mutual  treaties  involved  in  such  scenarios  will  quickly  draw  other  nations  into  the  conflict,  escalating  it 
significantly.  Strategic  nuclear  studies  have  shown  for  decades  that,  under  such  extreme  stress  conditions,  once a few nukes are 
launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's 
adversary.  The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense,  the only 
chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full‐bore pre‐emptive strikes and try to take 
out  its  perceived  foes  as  rapidly  and  massively  as  possible.  As  the  studies  showed,  rapid  escalation  to  full  WMD  exchange 
occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States 
itself.  The  resulting  great  Armageddon  will  destroy  civilization  as  we  know  it,  and  perhaps  most  of  the 
biosphere, at least for many decades. 
BIOFUELS INSULATE THE US ECONOMY FROM OIL SHOCKS.
Bruce E. Dale, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan State University, “Impacts of

Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy,” in A HIGH GROWTH STRATEGY FOR
ETHANOL, 2006 available online at http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-
659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/EEEethanol3.pdf, accessed 5/20/08.
As a full scale U. S. cellulosic ethanol industry takes hold and grows, it will transform our
economy in at least two ways. First, the domestic fuels and chemicals industry will be
revitalized, with many new jobs being created and new wealth generated. Given the wide
distribution and bulky nature of biomass resources these new jobs and new wealth will largely
be produced in rural America, rather than near oil production/importing sites on the coast.
Second, the entire U. S. economy will benefit by a strengthened fuels and chemicals sector. We
will be able to retain more of our fuel dollars at home and our economy will be much better
insulated from shocks due to high petroleum prices and uncertain availability.
Page 15 of 139
1AC- Energy Bubbles

PUBLIC INVESTMENT WILL STABILIZE OUR ECONOMY- ESCAPING THE CYCLE OF
BUBBLES THAT WE’RE IN NOW.
Sherle R. Schwenninger, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, “A Goldilocks World
Economy?” World Policy Journal Winter 2007, available online at
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/a_goldilocks_world_economy_5374,
accessed 5/20/08.
Increased public investment in the United States must be one of the pillars of any transition out
of the current bubble economy. Public investment is the most effective way to increase both
demand and investment at the same time. If, in spite of low interest rates or low inflation,
companies will not commit to more investment spending because of weak demand or
uncertainty, then the best way to jump-start more investment is to do so directly by increasing
public investment outlays. Such investment would also have the advantage of creating more
jobs, particularly more good jobs, putting upward pressure on wages. Combined with efforts to
promote greater consumption and demand abroad, a public-investment-led strategy would
correct the imbalances created by successive asset bubbles and simultaneously strengthen
America’s productive economy.
PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW MAKES A GOLDI-LOCKS

ECONOMY POSSIBLE.
Sherle R. Schwenninger, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, “A Goldilocks World
Economy?” World Policy Journal Winter 2007, available online at
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/a_goldilocks_world_economy_5374,
accessed 5/20/08.
A slowdown in U.S. consumption as a result of a correction in the housing market creates some
dilemmas for policymakers who seem to have a limited understanding of macroeconomic policy
in an abundant economy. On the one hand, cutting the budget deficit without other off-setting
measures, as both parties are now proposing, would only push the economy closer to an all-out
post-bubble recession, which by its nature could be prolonged. On the other, responding to a
deflating housing bubble with much easier monetary policy may only create another bubble,
further delaying the transition to a more optimal pattern of economic growth. A more optimal
economic growth path would entail an interrelated two-track strategy of increasing public
spending on productive investment in the United States and expanding consumption demand
abroad, especially in the large, emerging market economies where productivity growth is
improving rapidly. More specifically, the first step out of the bubble cycle without falling
into its weak demand and slow growth trap is not for the United States to cut its budget
deficit, but to increase public investment while the surplus Asian economies and
oilproducing economies increase consumption. In the short term, this combination would
help sustain global economic growth while putting it on a more optimal long-term course.
Increased public investment in the United States would lead to increased private investment and
greater productive capacity, enabling American-based companies to take advantage of rising
export demand for their goods and services. It would also lead to rising wages, enabling
households to reduce their debt burdens without cutting back on consumption. A combination
of increased investment and rising wages at home with consumption-led economic
growth abroad would create the true Goldilocks economy: not too hot, not too cold,
but just rig.
Page 16 of 139
Miami Instit.
PLAN
 
Plan: 
The United States federal government should establish an insurance program for investors in 
the production of cellulosic ethanol.   
Page 17 of 139
Miami Instit.
1AC – SOLVENCY
SOLVENCY: THE PLANS INCENTIVE IS CRITICAL TO FOSTER MARKET CONFIDENCE AND SPUR
FINANICAL INVESSTMENT – THIS IS THE SINGLE LARGEST IMPEDIMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Monsma, 2006 (David W., Rapporteur and Associate Director of the Program on Energy at the Aspen Institute, A
High Growth Strategy For Ethanol, Introduction, Available via the Aspen Institute,
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/{DEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5}/EEEethanol1.pdf)
New technology to produce ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks points the way to a new
generation of ethanol plants. The production chain consists of feedstock production, feedstock
pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation. To make ethanol from cellulose
competitive with gasoline, research is needed to improve the efficiency and economics of
each portion of this chain and to integrate the chain. Emphasis therefore must be placed on
the need to reduce costs by a combination of focused research and process demonstration at
scale. On top of fully funding R&D, a good deal of which is already authorized, financial
investment and large scale commercial plants are needed to convert switchgrass and other
cellulosic biomass to ethanol. The financial investments and market confidence needed to
construct and pilot-test commercially viable biorefineries probably presents the most
challenging single impediment to the new industry. Government assistance, in the form of
loan guarantees or tax incentives for the first commercial plants, is needed to expedite the
development of cellulosic ethanol production.
SPECIFICALLY, A FEDERAL INSURANCE PROGRAM IS CRITICAL TO MITIGATE THE FINANCIAL RISKS

INVOLVED IN THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF CELLULOSIC TECHNOLOGY
Gaffigan, 2007 (Mark, U.S. General Accountability Office Acting Director for Natural Resources and the
Environment, “Biofuels: DOE Lacks a Strategic Approach to Coordinate Increasing Production With Infrastructure
Development and Vehicle Needs”, GAO Report to Congressional Requesters, June,
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07713.pdf)
A third option for increasing biofuel production is to provide support for the development
of cellulosic ethanol production technology. This could involve ensuring continued funding for research
and development, increasing federal cost-sharing efforts to reduce risk to producers, and adding incentives for the
production of biomass feedstocks. These policy options have the advantage of potentially resulting in a huge increase in
cost-competitive biofuel production. The disadvantages are that such policies could require significant federal
expenditures and there are no guarantees as to when or if cost-competitive cellulosic ethanol will be produced.
According to the NREL officials with whom we spoke, DOE’s research and development efforts for cellulosic ethanol
are currently funded and on schedule toward the goal of making production commercially viable by 2012.25 However,
they said that technological uncertainties remain and it is therefore essential that research funding continue to meet
With this goal.26 According to NREL, the primary nontechnological barrier to expanding
cellulosic ethanol production is the perceived financial risk, making it difficult for
companies to secure funding to build facilities. To initially reduce financial risk, DOE provided grants in 2002
totaling $80 million dollars to fund six small-scale cellulosic ethanol biorefineries that support the technology in the
demonstration phase. Then, in February 2007, DOE announced it would give $385 million in grants to six cellulosic
ethanol biorefineries over a 4-year period to help the industry develop larger-scale pilot production facilities.27
Another measure that would help producers to mitigate the financial risks of full-scale
commercial production is a federal insurance program that would pay cellulosic ethanol
producers a settlement if they did not achieve their first-year production goals. According
to one NREL official with whom we spoke, the advantage of an insurance program is that it
can be based on well-defined performance metrics that limit potential government
payments to specific outcomes, as opposed to the potentially larger losses from defaults under a loan
guarantee program for producers. Another option suggested by NREL is a program to provide direct payments to
growers of cellulosic feedstock, such as switchgrass, in order to ensure that an adequate supply of those feedstocks is
available when cellulosic ethanol plants begin full-scale production. The insurance and grower payment programs both
have the potential advantage of helping to increase initial cellulosic ethanol production but could end up being costly.
Page 18 of 139
Miami Instit.
1AC - Solvency
 
AND – THIS FEDERAL INSURANCE PROGRAM WILL OVERCOME THE FINANICAL BARRIERS TO THE
COMMERCIALIZATION OF CELLULOSIC TECHNOLOGY ENSURING ITS EFFECTIVE DEPLOYMENT
Torkelson, 2006 (Roy, Independent Contractor and Director of JP Morgan in New York, “Commercialization of
Cellulosic Ethanol Facilities: A Financial Perspective”, A High Growth Strategy For Ethanol,
The US Department of Energy expends significant amounts of government money conducting
extensive research into biomass technologies in cost sharing arrangements with private sector
industries and at National Laboratories. A high level of frustration has been mounting over
the inability to deploy proven research and development biomass technologies into the
commercial markets. Among the non-technical barriers to successful deployment is the
financial marketplace, which has great difficulty in accepting the real or perceived risks of
commercializing a new technology. Financial barriers may in fact be the most challenging
of the non-technical barriers to address. Although capital is critical to accomplishing the R&D
for a biomass technology, those costs are miniscule compared to the financial requirements for
testing and construction. Figure 1 was prepared by the Office of Biomass Program (OBP) in the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to illustrate the increasing financial burdens that confront a
project developer in deploying a new biomass technology. OBP expanded its efforts to address
the deployment problem by bringing together a number of finance, policy and industry experts to
discuss the barriers from their points of reference and also to suggest ways to improve
deployment success. The following represents the collective thinking of the group regarding the
financial barriers facing developers of new technologies. Financially, the most critical stages
of the deployment process are pilot-testing, and building and operating commercially
viable demonstrations. At the pilot-testing stage developers typically try to validate the
technology. However, at the demonstration stage the developer wants to prove technology
feasibility and profitability in a realistic setting. Ideally, the demonstration should indicate that
the technology could cover its capital costs and provide a moderate margin of return on
investment. However, during these stages capital requirements are high while investment is
relatively low. Typically when constructing a commercially viable demonstration, capital costs
are uncertain and contingency funds need to be available because the technology is not proven.
At this stage investors are skeptical of the technology’s market viability because it has yet to be
proven. In addition, investors typically prefer a multitude of tests to ensure that the given
technology will work under a variety of circumstances. Continued…
Another feasible solution would be for DOE to create a last resort risk mitigation pool for
biomass technology developers, looking to other successful Federal programs, like the
Transportation Infrastructure and Innovation Act (TIFIA), as a model. This would allow DOE
to provide incremental financial guarantees during the commissioning and performance
acceptance stages of the project through the first year of operation, thereby enabling
developers to raise the necessary capital to proceed with development of their new biomass
technology. This program could only be accessed when all other remedies have been exhausted
and when the corrective action will result in a successful commercial launch. It was felt that a
risk mitigation pool coupled with a successful demonstration project would be adequate to
ensure successful deployment of the technology. However, a risk mitigation pool can also be used with a
loan guarantee program to further accelerate technological deployment. DOE would assess the level of severity of a
given deployment barrier, assess the worthiness of the recipient, and issue financing. The developer would be required to
pay a fee for the insurance guarantee including repayment of any draw on that insurance policy by a given period of time
(typically following deployment). The money from the insurance premiums would be recycled back into the insurance
program. Developers who apply to access the insurance program would first have to be approved by a team of
independent engineers who determine whether the technical problem was unavoidable and then outline a cost estimate.
Assistance would only be provided after a solution has been identified and reviewed by independent engineers. Due to
the considerable time, money and effort already invested in most of these projects, it is in the best interest of all parties
(entrepreneurs, investors, contractors, markets, etc.) to overcome these hurdles and deploy these technologies. These
suggested federal insurance guarantees should allow developers to successfully deploy their
Page 19 of 139
Miami Instit.
product and begin realizing revenue streams that not only support operations, pay debt
service but also provide solid equity returns to their investors.
Page 20 of 139
Miami Instit.
1AC – SOLVENCY
AND – THE PLANS INSURANCE PROGRAM IS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY INCENTIVE THAT WILL
INITIATE THE TRANSITION TO CELLULOSIC ETHANOL
Greer, 2005 (Diane, Contributing Editor to Biocycle, “Creating Cellulosic Ethanol: Spinning Straw Into Fuel”,
Biocycle, Enews Bulletin, April,
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm)
The arguments in favor of cellulosic ethanol as a replacement for gasoline in cars and trucks
are compelling. Cellulosic ethanol will reduce our dependence on imported oil, increase our
energy security and reduce our trade deficit. Rural economies will benefit in the form of
increased incomes and jobs. Growing energy crops and harvesting agricultural residuals are
projected to increase the value of farm crops, potentially eliminating the need for some
agricultural subsidies. Finally, cellulosic ethanol provides positive environmental benefits in the
form of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. There is a growing
consensus on the steps needed for biofuels to succeed: increased spending on R&D in
conversion and processing technologies, funding for demonstration projects and joint
investment or other incentives to spur commercialization. "If you do not do all three of these
pieces, the effort is likely to stall," said Greene. "The challenge is to be really focused and make
the commitment to make biofuels a part of our economy. We need to make these technologies
work." There is also agreement on one of the main factors impeding the development of
biofuels - inadequate government funding. "We are grossly under investing in this area," says
Dechton. "We are piddling along at 30 or 40 million dollars per year. This is a national security
issue." Sheehan agrees, adding "the other problem is over the last several years Congressional
earmarking has been horrendous. It is splintering critical resources, as a result effectiveness is
way down. We do not have well aligned, consistently directed R&D effort." The "Growing
Energy" report calls for $2 billion in funding for cellulosic biofuels over the next ten years, with
$1.1 billion directed at research, development and demonstration projects and the remaining
$800 million slated for the deployment of biorefineries. Other advocated subsidies and
incentives for the industry include production tax credits, bond insurance for feedstock sellers
and biofuels purchasers and efficacy insurance. "We would like to see private insurance but
lacking private sector involvement, government should offer the insurance," said Greene.
"The idea has two features, the amount of money available goes down over time, so by 2015 the
industry is ready to stand on its own two feet and, second the dollars available to developers is in
a menu format. We will let them pick subsidies that work best for their product." Given
sufficient investment in research, development, demonstration and deployment, the report
projects biorefineries producing cellulosic ethanol at a cost leaving the plant between $.59-
$.91 per gallon by 2015. The price range is dependent upon plant scale and efficiency factors. At
these prices, biofuels would be competitive with the wholesale price of gasoline. In the past,
discussions regarding ethanol as a potential replacement for gasoline have centered on the
availability of suitable land in addition to a feed versus fuel debate. Technological and process
advances coupled with the promise of biorefineries are allowing us to refocus the debate.
Scenarios exist where well directed public policies emphasizing biofuels investment and
incentives in addition to fuel efficiency could promote a transition to cellulosic ethanol.
Given the right policy choices, America's farmers could one day be filling both our refrigerators
and our gas tanks.
 
Page 21 of 139
Miami Instit.
1AC – SOLVENCY
AND – COMMERCIALIZATION IS CRITICAL TO JUMPSTART CELLULOSIC ETHANOL TECHNOLOGY
Wyman, 2007 (Charles E., Chemical and Environmental Engineering Department, Center for Environmental
Research and Technology, Bourns College of Engineering, University of California, “”What Is (And Is Not) Vital to
Advancing Cellulosic Ethanol", Science Direct, February 22,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCW-4N3X0CY-
1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_u
serid=10&md5=ecec6dd74654d4b640e8571c6c2682e9)
Cellulosic ethanol has tremendous potential for unique and powerful benefits, but none will be
realized until it is commercialized. Commercial application will also dramatically reduce the
cost of existing technology through the learning curve effect that has substantially lowered
ethanol production costs in Brazil and the USA [28]. It cannot be overemphasized that the
operation of a process for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and close to 365 days per year presents
constant opportunities and incentives for improvement, debottlenecking and innovation that
cannot be duplicated in the laboratory or through paper studies. Thus, not only is
commercialization vital to realizing the tremendous benefits of cellulosic ethanol, it is invaluable
to powerful learning curve improvements
Page 22 of 139
MIAMI DEBATE INSTITUTE 2008                                     ABJ 
CELLULOSIC             /    
Government financing is key to widespread use of cellulosic ethanol
Julie Sibbing, National Wildlife Federation, Soil and Water Conservation, May‐June 2007, p. 48A  
But cellulosic technologies have not yet been deployed at commercial scale in the United States. Cellulosic ethanol 
will rely on the development of enzymes that can break down the cellulose in plant materials to starch, which can be 
fermented into ethanol. While there are significant investments, both public and private, into developing this 
enzymatic technology, nobody knows when these enzymes will be available. It could take as little as 2 years or as 
long as 15 years without government leadership to move the technology more quickly to commercialization. There 
are other promising technologies for utilizing biomass as well: pyrolysis, gasification, and various thermochemical 
processes. Yet these are receiving very little public investment. We currently have the unprecedented chance to
develop a new, sustainable energy future for our country. While biofuels are only part of this future, they need
immediate and significant policy attention and public investment to set them on the right path. Since corn ethanol and 
soybean biodiesel are what we have available for biofuels today and can bring about modest net greenhouse gas 
reductions, we must inject some common sense into the debate and commit to sustainable corn ethanol expansion 
targets, along with increased spending on conservation programs and reasonable safeguards to protect the 
conservation gains we have achieved over the past several decades.  
Page 23 of 139
CELLULOSIC             /    
Cellulosic ethanol key to prevent higher corn prices

PG, Progressive Grocer, 4‐20‐2007, Lexis 
WASHINGTON, D.C. - With increased demands on corn from the ethanol industry, Congress and the Bush Administration should
consider tax incentives and other legislative vehicles to support energy‐based opportunities for animal agriculture and 
minimize the adverse affects of rising input costs on meat and poultry packers and processors, said AMI President and 
CEO J. Patrick Boyle in testimony submitted this week to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Boyle said that 
dramatically increased demand for corn has pressed market forces to demand higher feed prices. As a result, animal agriculture 
producers are considering alternatives to their feeding, nutrition, and dietary regimen, which in turn impacts meat 
and poultry quality, consumer offerings, livestock and poultry farm efficiency, and the management of livestock and 
poultry operations. Boyle urged Congress to take four key actions: ‐ Expand research in ethanol byproduct safety, quality, 
and usability and renewable energy technologies, such as renewable diesel, biogas and cellulosic. 
Corn-based ethanol causes food price spikes – cellulosic is best

Lt. Col Amidon, USAF, Joint Force Quarterly, 10‐1‐2005, n. 39, p. 68 
Corn is a poor choice for ethanol feedstock since it is the most irrigation-and fertilizer-intensive crop grown in the United States, 
and corn used for ethanol drives cattle feed prices higher, creating hidden costs at the grocery store. Although a nascent corn 
ethanol industry has developed, future  expansion should be discouraged through a removal of the tax regime. 
Unsubsidized corn ethanol actually costs $2.24 per gallon to produce, making it uneconomical except in times of very 
high oil prices. (13)    The biorefinery and  cellulosic ethanol.  Instead of valuable corn, the biorefinery produces ethanol
using the starches and cellulose present in agricultural waste and byproducts such as corn stalks, rice straw, paper mill 
waste, recycled urban waste, and dedicated woody stemmed crops. (14) Many of these sources of  cellulosic ethanol  
are considered negative-cost feed stocks, meaning they have no food value and farmers must pay for their disposal. This 
gives  cellulosic ethanol  a much higher net energy balance than corn‐based ethanol. Studies at candidate biorefinery 
sites in Indiana and Nebraska found that collocating ethanol biorefineries with existing power plants would allow 
production for $1.05/gallon to $1.60/gallon depending on the biomass selected.  Cellulosic ethanol  offers great 
promise for rural areas that have seen considerable depopulation due to modern farming methods. 
Page 24 of 139
CELLULOSIC             /    
AT: Cellulosic Increase Prices
Cellulosic doesn’t increase food prices

Youmna Sakr, Contributing Writer, Risk Management, 4‐1‐2007, Lexis 
Cellulosic ethanol is different from corn-based ethanol in that itis produced from the cellulose of plant material derived from
agricultural waste such as corn stalks and wood chips. While it is still under development, it is anticipated that cellulosic 
ethanol will require less energy to produce than corn‐based ethanol, and as a fuel, will result in far less carbon 
dioxide emissions with levels 85% less than gasoline and 25% less than traditional ethanol. The reduced emissions 
make it less susceptible to high pollution taxes as 37 governors are prepared to impose measures to cut the carbon 
content of fuels. And since cellulose is not edible, there is little to no effect on food prices. 
Page 25 of 139
CELLULOSIC             /    
ADD-ON: AMAZON DEFO
Cellulosic ethanol solves Amazonian deforestation – species loss alone causes

planetary extinction
Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 2.0 – Rescuing A Planet Under Stress And A Civilization In Trouble, 
2006, p. 35‐6 
Aside from the prospective use of cellulose, current and planned ethanol-producing operations use food crops such as 
sugarcane, sugar beets, corn, wheat, and barley. The United States, for example, in 2004 used 32 million tons of corn
to produce 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol. Although this is scarcely 12 percent of the huge U.S. corn crop, it is enough to 
feed 100 million people at average world grain consumption levels. In an oil‐short world, what will be the economic 
and environmental effects of agriculture's emergence as a producer of transport fuels? Agriculture's role in the global 
economy clearly will be strengthened as it faces a vast, virtually unlimited market for automotive fuel. Tropical and 
subtropical countries that can produce sugarcane or palm oil will be able to full exploit their year‐round growing 
conditions, giving them a strong comparative advantage in the world market.  With biofuel production spreading, the 
world price for oil will, in effect, become a support price for farm products. If food and feed crop prices are weak and 
oil prices are high, commodities will go to fuel producers. For example, vegetable oils trading on European markets 
on any given day may end up in either supermarkets or service stations. The risk is that economic pressures to clear
land for expanding sugarcane production in the Brazilian cerrado and Amazon basin and for palm oil plantations in 
countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia will pose a major new threat to plant and animal diversity. In the absence 
of governmental constraints, the rising price of oil could quickly become the leading threat to biodiversity, ensuring
that the wave of extinctions now under way does indeed become the sixth great extinction. 
Page 26 of 139
CELLULOSIC             /    
Inherency: Tech hurdle
Engineering hurdles preclude SQ cellulose commercialization.

Indeed, announcements about new cellulosic-ethanol plants tend to obscure the fact that the technology is still not
economically viable. Gregory Stephanopoulos, a professor of chemical engineering at MIT,describes himself as "very
optimistic" about the future of biofuels.But even he is quick to add that it will take another 10 years to optimize production
processes for cellulosic biofuels. Among myriad other problems, he says, is the need for more robust and versatile microbes
to make them. In a small conference room outside his office, Stephanopoulos takes out a pencil and paper and begins to
draw a series of circles. You can imagine, he says, a biorefinery surrounded by sources of different types of biomass. He
connects the circles at a central point, making lines like spokes on a wheel. You could, he goes on, imagine pipelines
from these sources. What if the biomass were treated and piped tothe biorefinery as a slurry? Stephanopoulos would be the
first to acknowledge that such an ambitious infrastructure would take years to put in place, and that the idea raises
numerous technical and engineering questions
Page 27 of 139
CELLULOSIC             /    
Inherency: Investment Weak
Current biofuel markets are under-invested. We need rapid commercialization.
Although EISA may have accurately projected a need for 36 billion gal of renewable biofuels by 2022, its dependence on
private enterprise to fill this need is unrealistic for several reasons: * The renewable fuels industry is fragmented, with only
modest participation by large corporate interests. Biodiesel currently is being produced from soybean oil in 20 biodiesel
processing plants, owned by small corporations. A recent National Biodiesel Board survey indicated that a number of small
biodiesel companies were raising equity for about 30 new biodiesel plants. Soybean oil used by these plants is obtained
from 60 crushing plants in 21 states. Outside of a few growers' cooperatives, ownership is concentrated with major
agribusiness giants, such as Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, and Cargill. These crushing operations obtain soybeans from
local soybean growers' cooperatives. There are more than 300,000 farms in the US that grow soybeans on 75 million acres,
most of them alternating with corn in a 50:50 rotation. About 75% of the soybean crop is grown in the Upper Midwest and
Midwest, with the balance coming from the Southeast and Southwest. Crushers in these regions produce about 75% of the
soybean oil and soybean meal. Vegetable oil produced from other oilseed crops such as canola is not now being used in
making biodiesel. Outside of a few small cellulosic ethanol plants that are just becoming operational on a commercial scale,
all of the fuel ethanol is now being produced in 160 corn ethanol processing plants. As with biodiesel, most of these
processing plants are operating in the Corn Belt states and are owned by small companies or growers' cooperatives. The
companies active in developing cellulosic ethanol plants also are mostly small companies. But a few major oil companies
and paper companies are now participating in cellulosic ethanol development projects. * With the exception of processes
now used to convert cornstarch into ethanol, technologies for producing advanced renewable fuels are still in the research
and development or pilot plant stage. * There are only a handful of plants currently being developed to produce cellulosic
ethanol on a commercial scale. One is a plant in Japan that has been producing commercial quantities of cellulosic ethanol
from wood chips and wood waste for the past 2 years. Another is a project, well under way, in which a paper mill is being
converted into a biofuels production facility using wood chips and black liquor as feedstock. In addition, two funded
projects are emerging from pilot operations and are being scaled up to produce cellulosic ethanol from municipal solid
waste. And there is an exciting project under way in which a 2-stage thermal process is being used to convert forest residue
and wood waste into cellulosic ethanol on a commercial scale. However, there is still a long way to go before the RFS
mandate can be met, as additional R&D of biofuels processes remain in progress to perfect and improve process
efficiency, obtain higher biofuels yields, and make a wider range of advanced biofuels from the cellulosic waste.
Despite large cellulosic investments, key parts of an alcohol economy are

underinvested because of perceived market risk.
Barriers to investment Further, there are a number of perceived or actual barriers to attracting the amount of
investment needed to this infant industry: * The market for new advanced biofuels, such as butanol and dimethyl
ether as gasoline replacements, face market resistance. In the case of recently introduced biofuels such as biodiesel and
E85, the oil industry is still not fully convinced that it should be making substantial investments that will be required in
building biofuels processing plants, in establishing new biofuels distribution networks, or in undertaking new biofuels
marketing campaigns. * Growers of soybeans have not yet been convinced to abandon wheat or corn as a second crop
in order to produce canola or other oil seed crops in the hope that biodiesel producers will expand and create a
demand for vegetable oil that does not now exist. Likewise, crushers are reluctant to increase capacity to support yet-to-
be-planted oilseed crops or to produce vegetable oil for yet-to-be-built biodiesel plants. * Grain elevator operators and
farm cooperatives that generate large quantities of agricultural waste are not eager to organize and invest in joint
ventures for collection, preprocessing, and storage operations in anticipation of attracting investors to build new
agriwaste-to-ethanol plants, * Pulp and paper mills that have access to large amounts of pulp wood and wood waste
are not fully convinced that they should produce cellulosic ethanol or other advanced fuels, as they have never been
in the fuels business. They also are reluctant to upset the cost they now pay for wood and wood waste, or to modify their
pulp mill operations if it could in any way adversely impact their paper-making operations. * And no one is running out to
build biofuels plants at a cost of $125-275 million each.
Page 28 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency: EISA Fails

Without the plan- RFS mandates will fail because of insufficient production.
Other problems with RFS The RFS mandate does little to meet EISA's legislative goal of providing energy independence
and energy security, as the 36 billion gal/year renewable fuel target is designed to provide less than 6% of the nation's
transportation fuel needs in 15 years. Nor does the RFS mandate do much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Today, corn
ethanol is the dominant renewable biofuel. The most optimistic assessment is that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gasses
by only 20% compared with conventional fuels. And even though cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels offer
higher reductions (50-60%), these fuels will not be produced in significant quantities for years, even if the RFS mandate is
met. At best, advanced biofuels are expected to be 13.2% of all renewable fuels produced in 2012, increasing to 37.5% in
2017 and 58.3% in 2022. This is only 3.5% of all transportation fuels to be consumed in the US in 2022. On top of the other
deficiencies associated with EISA, the RFS mandate is probably not enforceable, as the mechanism for enforcing it is weak
and ill-defined. The responsibility for seeing that mandates are met is left to the US Environmental Protection Agency
administrator, who has to negotiate with state governments...and grant exceptions when mandates prove impossible to meet.
At best, EISA provides political cover to politicians. The added biofuels to be produced under the RFS mandates would be
only a small part of the energy independence solution EISA seeks to address.
Page 29 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency: No Cellulose Now
No commercial cellulose now- startup risks stall advance.

Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, when the price of a barrel of petroleum peaked, chemical and biological engineers have
chased after ways to turn the nation's vast reserves of "cellulosic" material suchas wood, agricultural residues, and perennial
grasses into ethanol and other biofuels. Last year, citing another of President Bush's goals--reducing U.S. gasoline
consumption by 20 percent in 10 years--the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced up to $385 million in funding for
six "biorefinery" projects that will use various technologies to produce ethanol from biomass ranging from wood chips to
switchgrass. According to a 2005 report by the DOE and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the country has enough
available forest and agricultural land to produce 1.3 billion tons of biomass that could go toward biofuels. Beyond
providing a vast supply of cheap feedstock, cellulosic biomass could greatly increase the energy and environmental benefits
of biofuels. It takes far less energy to grow cellulosic materials than to grow corn, and portions of the biomass can be
used to help powerthe production process. (The sugarcane-based ethanol produced in Brazil also offers improvements over
corn-based ethanol, thanks to the crop's large yields and high sugar content.) But despite years of research and recent
investment in scaling up production processes, no commercial facility yet makes cellulosic ethanol. The economic
explanation is simple: it costs far too much to build such a facility. Cellulose, a long-chain polysaccharide that makes up
much of the mass of woody plants and crop residues such as cornstalks, is difficult--and thus expensive--to break down.
Several technologies for producing cellulosic ethanol do exist. The cellulose can be heated at high pressure in the
presence of oxygen to form synthesis gas, a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen that is readily turned into ethanol
and other fuels. Alternatively, industrial enzymes can break the cellulose down into sugars. The sugars then feed
fermentation reactors in which microorganisms produce ethanol. But all these processes are still far too expensive to use
commercially. Even advocates of cellulosic ethanol put the capital costs of constructing a manufacturing plant at more
than twice those for a corn-based facility, and other estimates range from three times the cost to five. "You can make
cellulosic ethanol today, but at a price that is far from perfect," says Christopher Somerville, a plant biologist at the
University of California, Berkeley, who studies how cellulose is formed and used in the cell walls of plants.
Page 30 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency: No Cellulose Now
Lack of government support means no cellulose for over a decade – placing more emphasis on cellulose
reverses this trend
For now, however, the costs of harvesting, transporting, and converting such plant matters are high, which means that 
cellulose‐based ethanol is not yet commercially viable when compared with the economies of scale of current corn‐
based production. One ethanol‐plant manager in the Midwest has calculated that fueling an ethanol plant with 
switchgrass, a much‐discussed alternative, would require delivering a semitrailer truckload of the grass every six 
minutes, 24 hours a day. The logistical difficulties and the costs of converting cellulose into fuel, combined with the 
subsidies and politics currently favoring the use of corn and soybeans, make it unrealistic to expect cellulose‐based 
ethanol to become a solution within the next decade. Until it is, relying more on sugar cane to produce ethanol in 
tropical countries would be more efficient than using corn and would not involve using a staple food. 
Lowered Cost and Environmental Concerns needed to commercialize cellulosic technology

<State Energy Conservation Office, “Cellulosic Ethanol”, 2006> 
Two things are going to push the commercialization of cellulosic technology. One is driving the cost down,
which is mainly research and development; the other is that environmental concerns are increasingly entering
into commercial calculations about biofuels. Alex Farrell, Energy and Resources Group, UC Berkeley  
We have what we need now to produce ethanol from cellulose. The key is to integrate the pieces into an
economically competitive process and commercialize it. Joel Cherry, Novozymes  
Finding enzyme to overcome cellulose’s resistance key to biofuel's viability.

Goho, Alexandra, “Cellulolytic Enzymes,” Technology Review;Vol. 111 Issue 2, p51‐54, 4p, Mar 2008,  
The precise arrangement of cellulose chains within plant cell walls makes them highly resistant to enzymatic attack. 
The network of hydrogen bonds both within and between chains, plus the presence of hemicellulose and lignin 
polymers, restricts the ability of cellulolytic enzymes to free the sugar molecules that compose the chains, a necessary 
step for biofuel production. Arnold is using the technique to build libraries containing thousands of new cellulase genes. 
She and her colleagues will then screen the cellulases to see how they act as part of a mixture of enzymes. “If you test 
them simply by themselves, you really don’t know how they work as a group,” she says 
To fulfill her ultimate goal of a superbug able to feed on cellulose and produce biofuels, Arnold is working with James 
Liao, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of California, Los Angeles. Liao recently engineered E. coli 
that can efficiently convert sugar into butanol, a higher‐energy biofuel than ethanol.Arnold hopes to be able to 
incorporate her new enzymes into Liao’s butanol producing microbes. Gevo, a startup cofounded by Arnold and based 
in Denver, CO, has licensed Liao’s technology for use in the large‐scale production of advanced biofuels, including 
butanol. Overcoming cellulose’s natural resistance to being broken down is “one of the most challenging protein‐
engineering problems around,” says Arnold. Solving it will help determine whether low emission biofuels will ever be 
a viable substitute for fossil fuels. 
Page 31 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Page 32 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency/No Investor Confidence Now

the lack of a stable investment climate dooms current efforts to incentivize ethanol 
Blowie, 2007 (Elias, Venture Capital Specialist for Alternative Energies at Heller Ehrman LLP, “How To Turn Clean
Energy Into a Powerhouse”, with Alison Freeman-Gleason and Todd Glass, Business Week Online, September 5,
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc2007094_253556.htm)
One problem is that despite investor enthusiasm, the VC [Venture Capital] community traditionally looks for rapid
returns. Market cycles for newer clean technologies from early development to mass deployment often have longer time
frames. And while the world's ever-growing need for energy suggests global market potential, can these technologies be
deployed reliably and at a scale large enough for utilities and other large sectors of the economy to adopt and use? Some
suggest that a clean-tech bubble is likely, similar to the boom and bust in alternative energy in the 1970s or the Internet and
telecommunications in 2000. In fact, some investors are forming funds to buy distressed properties from ethanol production
on the assumption that overinvestment will lead to half-built projects on sale for pennies on the dollar. Also, available
investment capital appears to be greater than the number of companies with good technology, experienced teams, and
significant market potential. Despite the warning signs in certain sectors, such as ethanol, we see a clear path to
developing and sustaining robust markets and businesses in energy and many other clean technologies. But the
industry is at an inflection point: Will it gain real traction or end up as another fad and set of buzzwords? If we are
to avoid another investment bubble where "carbon footprints" become a forgotten yardstick, we must address several
private and public issues. This industry cannot be built on a system of mercurial tax incentives. Tax incentives that
pop up one year, only to disappear the next, do more harm than good. The current federal investment and production
tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2008. If they are not extended soon, the development and financing of most solar
and wind projects in the U.S. will grind to a halt about halfway through next year because such new projects cannot be
placed in service before the credits expire. A more effective tax regime would take a longer view, building an incentive
window of 5 to 10 years, gradually tapering to create a stable, predictable environment for investment, development,
and deployment.
no investor confidence in ethanol now 
Business Week, 2007 (January 26)

But despite the feel-good rhetoric of energy independence and a more environmentally friendly future, Wall Street remains
skeptical. In the days preceding Bush's speech, the shares of ETHANOL producers surged, but by Wednesday they headed
down sharply, and continued the descent on Jan. 25. Aventine's stock has taken a particularly low dip. Having opened at
$43 with the company's initial public offering last June, the shares have since lost more than half their value. The stock fell
another 8.4%, to close at $16.24 Jan. 25 on the New York Stock Exchange. Other ETHANOL producers suffered a similar
fate. Shares of VeraSun Energy (VSE), which went public last year at $30.75, fell 2.6% to close at $17.49 Jan. 25. Pacific
ETHANOL (PEIX), a California-based refiner of corn-derived ETHANOL whose stock hit $44.50 last May, has fallen to
$16.53. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the largest producer of fuel ETHANOL in the U.S., declined less than 1%, to
$31.82, after having rallied 2.6% just ahead of Bush's speech. INVESTORS have been skittish about ETHANOL because
they're concerned about the short-term obstacles to the industry's profitability, analysts say. "These stocks rallied ahead of
the news more because of trading and gamesmanship than people investing in the long run," says Chris Shaw, an analyst at
UBS (UBS) who covers ETHANOL producers Aventine, VeraSun, and Archer Daniels Midland. "[Bush's] speech suggests a
strong long-term demand, but it's not clear how profitable this industry is. The most important factor long-term is that it's a
commodity industry; expansion requires favorable market conditions."
Page 33 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
INHERENCY/NO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE NOW

no investor confidence now  
HOWELL AND MAKHLE, 2007 (DAVID, SHADOW DEPUTY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND
SHADOW SPOKESMAN FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS, AND CAROLE, ENERGY
RESEARCH FELLOW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SURREY, OUT OF THE ENERGY LABYRINTH, P. 164)
“PEER GROUP PRESSURE WORKS AROUND BUSINESS BOARDROOM RABIES AS WELL AS AROUND KITCHEN
TABLES. AND INDUSTRY IN THE ADVANCED NATIONS IS THE BIGGEST CONSUMER IF NOT OF OIL THEN OF
GAS AND ELECTRICITY, WHICH CREATES INDIRECT PRESSURE ON THE OIL SCENE. COMPANIES,
HOWEVER, HAVE BOTTOM LINES AND BACKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS T O SATISFY. THEY CANNOT
AFFORD MERELY TO BE FASHIONABLE WHEN THEY DECIDE TO INVEST OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. THE
BIGGEST DETERRENT TO INVESTMENT IN NEW ENERGY-EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY AND MACHINERY IS THE
FEAR THAT CHEAP OIL WILL RETURN, INVALIDATING ALL COST-SAVING CALCULATIONS AND LEAVING
WHITE ELEPHANT PROJECTS STRANDED. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED TO MANY WELL-
INTENTIONED AND ENTHUSIASTIC BUSINESSES IN THE 1980S. THE BIGGEST INCENTIVE TO MOVE
FORWARD, TO INVEST IN NOT JUST THE NEW METHODS BUT THE NEW PRODUCTS WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE
ALREADY BEGINNING TO DEMAND - IN THE HOME, IN THE KITCHEN, IN THE OFFICE, ON THE ROAD, IN THE
AIR AND IN ALL PUBLIC PLACES - IS THE CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT CHEAP AND RELIABLE OIL WILL
NOT COME BACK FOR YEARS, IF EVER; THAT THE FULL PRICE OF BOTH OIL AND OTHER FOSSIL FUELS
WILL HAVE TO BE PAID AND THAT CHEAPER AND MUCH MORE PROFITABLE ENERGY PLATFORMS ARE
WAITING IN THE WINGS TO BE ROLLED ON STAGE.” 
Current investment is unsustainable- boom and bust cycle will wipe out
investments without federal incentives.
The irrational exuberance over ethanol that swept through the American corn belt over the last few years has given way to a
dreary hangover, especially among those who invested heavily in the sprawling production facilities now dotting the rural
landscape. It's the Midwest's version of the tech bubble, and in some ways, it is remarkably familiar: overeager investors
enamored of a technology's seemingly unlimited potential ignore what, at least in retrospect, are obvious economic realities.
More than a hundred biofuel factories, clustered largely in the corn-growing states of Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana,
South Dakota, and Nebraska, will produce 6.4 billion gallons of ethanol this year, and another 74 facilities are under
construction. Just 18 months ago, they were cash cows, churning out high-priced ethanol from low-priced corn, raising
hopes of "energy independence" among politicians, and capturing the attention--and money--of venture capitalists from
both the East and West Coasts. Now ethanol producers are struggling, and many are losing money. The price of a bushel of
corn rose to record highs during the year, exceeding $4.00 last winter before falling back to around $3.50 in the summer,
then rebounding this fall to near $4.00 again. At the same time, ethanol prices plummeted as the market for the
alternative fuel, which is still used mainly as an additive to gasoline, became saturated. In the face of these two
trends, profit margins vanished. The doldrums of the ethanol market reflect the predictable boom-and-bust cycle
of any commodity: high prices drive increased production, and soon the market is oversupplied, causing prices to
crash. But the large-scale use of corn-derived ethanol as a transportation fuel has economic problems all its own. Even
though crude oil is at near record prices, and companies that use ethanol in their gasoline receive a federal tax credit of 51
cents per gallon, ethanol struggles to compete economically. And with limited infrastructure in place to distribute and sell
the biofuel, demand will remain uncertain for the foreseeable future.
Page 34 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
INHERENCY/CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL

STATUS QUO INCENTIVES INSUFFICIENT TO GUARANTEE STABLE INVESTMENT
EDITORS OF NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY, “IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE?” VOL. 24 NO. 726, 2006, GOOGLE SCHOLAR, ACCESSED 5/20/08 
SCIENTISTS AND BIOTECH EXECUTIVES MIGHT NOT PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO NEWS ARTICLES IN PUBLICATIONS LIKE BLOOMBERG MARKETS. 
BUT THEY WOULD DO WELL TO READ THE SOBERING ARTICLE IN THIS MONTH'S ISSUE ENTITLED "ETHANOL FRENZY" BY JOE CARROLL. CARROLL 
HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT MOST JOURNALISTS COVERING BIOFUELS HAVE NOT: EXAMINED THE UNDERCARRIAGE AND FUEL SOURCE OF THE 
BIOENERGY JUGGERNAUT. HE POINTS OUT, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT FEW THINGS IN THIS WORLD ARE MORE FRAGILE THAN GOVERNMENT 
FUNDING AND INDUSTRY ENTHUSIASM FOR BIG, NEW IDEAS THAT AFFECT THEIR OWN SHARE PRICE AND COMMODITIES PRICES.  GOVERNMENT 
FUNDING FOR BIOFUELS, AT LEAST IN THE CORN‐BASED ETHANOL‐HAPPY UNITED STATES, IS RELATIVELY PUNY AND IS HUGELY POLITICALLY 
CALCULATED. WHICH IS TO SAY THAT IT CAN ALL GO AWAY IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE. LAST YEAR'S ENERGY BILL, WHICH PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED 
INTO LAW, FORCES OIL REFINERS TO NEARLY DOUBLE THEIR BIOFUEL USE BY 2012, FOR EXAMPLE. FORGET THE FACT THAT THIS IS LITTLE MORE 
THAN A STUNT DESIGNED TO WIN OVER VOTERS IN THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS IN MIDWESTERN CORN‐GROWING STATES LIKE MINNESOTA, 
IOWA, KANSAS AND COLORADO.  ALTHOUGH IT GUARANTEES THAT FARMERS WILL HAVE A CAPTIVE MARKET FOR THEIR CORN FOR THE NEXT SIX 
YEARS, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS MANDATE WILL BE EXPANDED OR CONTINUED AFTER THAT WHEN THESE STATES ARE NOT QUITE AS 
POLITICALLY IMPORTANT TO WASHINGTON. FARMERS ARE NEVER GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT GOVERNMENT MARKET SUPPORTS, BUT THEY 
ARE UNDERSTANDABLY AMBIVALENT ABOUT JUST HOW DEEP WASHINGTON'S COMMITMENT TO BIOFUELS TRULY RUNS. THEY ARE ALSO AWARE 
OF THE MONEY LOST IN THE 1980S BY THOSE WHO BET ON BIOFUELS BECAUSE THE US GOVERNMENT, ALONG WITH OIL REFINERS AND COAL 
PRODUCERS, WAS BULLISH ON ENERGY ALTERNATIVES.  
Page 35 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
INHERENCY/CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL
CURRENT INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNTATIVE FUELS WILL FAIL- THEY ARE TOO SMALL AND THEY EXPIRE- WHICH
DETERS INVESTMENT.
Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General with the Maryland Environmental Service, Fall 2007, “OIL AND THE
ENVIRONMENT: REDUCING OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR,” 15 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 1. LEXIS,
accessed 5/10/08.
In order to reduce consumption of oil and stabilize global warming effects, "millions, not thousands," of non-gasoline vehicles need to
be placed in service sooner rather than later. n161 The current policies will not provide enough incentives to accomplish this goal.
Consequently, the downsides to the alternative motor vehicle credit are many. First, the full credit for purchasing a hybrid or advanced
lean-burn vehicle may only be taken on the first 60,000 vehicles sold by a manufacturer. n162 Thereafter, the credit is phased out
"beginning with the second calendar quarter" after the last of the 60,000 hybrids of a manufacturer is sold. n163 The rationale behind
this provision is to allow multiple automakers to benefit from the demand for alternative fuel vehicles. The provision could backfire,
however, and reduce sales if consumers are more attracted to one model than the others and that model's credit has been phased out.
Second, the credit is not enough. Currently, the tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles, as passed by EPAct05 ranges from a low of $
250 for a Model Year (MY) 2007 GMC Sierra 2WD Hybrid Pickup Truck to a high of $ 4,000 for a MY 2007 natural gas Honda
Civic GX. n164 A comparative [*20] example of the price of a car model fueled by conventional fuel versus the price of its alternative
fuel counterpart provides a clear illustration that this current tax credit is insufficient to increase the demand for the alternate fuel
version. For example, Honda sells the MY 2008 Honda Civic Sedan for prices ranging from $ 15,010 to $ 22,460 depending on the
trim level. n165 The Honda Civic Sedan Hybrid for MY 2008 sells for $ 24,350 at the high end. n166 With its tax credit of $ 2,100, this
Hybrid actually saves the taxpayer/purchaser only about $ 300 to $ 400 n167 and ends up costing approximately $ 24,000,
approximately $3,000 more than the same model powered by gasoline. In 2001, a GAO report declared that "a very large tax incentive
would be needed to result in any significant increase in the use of alternative fuel vehicles." n168 Clearly, the current tax incentive is far
from large enough to accomplish this goal, as overall sales of alternative vehicles have shown. n169 Third, the credit expires too soon.
As currently enacted, the tax credit for buying alternative and renewable fuel vehicles expires in 2010, 2011, and 2015 for (1) hybrids
over 8,500 pounds; (2) advanced lean-burn, lighter hybrids, and qualified alternative fuel vehicles, and (3) fuel cell vehicles,
respectively. n170 If the U.S. wants manufacturers to make alternative and renewable fuel vehicles, there must be enough demand to
ensure the manufacturers that new cars will be purchased.
 
current incentives target corn ethanol, not cellulosic  
ROBERT HAHN, DIRECTOR OF THE AEI CENTER FOR REGULATORY AND MARKET STUDIES, “ETHANOL: LAW,
ECONOMICS AND POLITICS,” AEI CENTER FOR REGULATORY AND MARKET STUDIES, 1/08
ONE WAY THAT ETHANOL COULD CONTRIBUTE MORE TO ENERGY SECURITY IS IF IT WERE MADE FROM SOMETHING
OTHER THAN CORN. IN FACT, SOME ENVIRONMENTALISTS SUPPORT CURRENT CORN ETHANOL PRODUCTION
BECAUSE THEY SEE IT AS A STEPPING STONE TO CELLU-LOSIC ETHANOL. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION SPECIFICALLY
112
MENTIONS THE IMPORTANCE OF CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IN THEIR PLAN’S FEASIBILITY.
CELLULOSIC ETHANOL IS BELIEVED TO BE BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAY AC- TUALLY ACHIEVE SOME
ENERGY SECURITY FOR THE U.S. IN FACT, A DEPARTMENT OF EN-ERGY STUDY CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE ESTIMATES THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT BIOMASS IN WOOD CHIPS AND CORN STALKS TO
POTENTIALLY PRODUCE ABOUT 60 BILLION GALLONS OF ETHANOL PER YEAR BY 2030, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 30
PER-CENT OF THE AMOUNT OF GASOLINE CONSUMPTION PROJECTED BY THE ENERGY INFORMA-TION
113
ADMINISTRATION FOR 2030.
Page 36 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
ALTHOUGH MONEY FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR CELLULOSIC ETHANOL HAS INCREASED IN RECENT
YEARS, CELLULOSIC HAS NOT RECEIVED NEARLY THE SUPPORT IN THE FORM OF TAX CREDITS AND OTHER
INCENTIVES THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO CURRENT CORN ETHANOL PRODUCTION. 
Page 37 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency/ MARKET PREDICTABILITY KEY
market predictability will spur capital investment  
Blowie, 2007 (Elias, Venture Capital Specialist for Alternative Energies at Heller Ehrman LLP, “How To Turn Clean
Energy Into a Powerhouse”, with Alison Freeman-Gleason and Todd Glass, Business Week Online, September 5,
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/sep2007/tc2007094_253556.htm)
The federal government needs to establish a floor for renewable-energy use to provide predictable markets where investors and
companies know demand will exist for their products. With these predictable markets and increased demand, capital investment will
flow, and all will gain the benefits of decreased costs from larger volumes. So far, more than 20 states have told utilities that a certain
percentage of their entire electric power requirements need to come from renewable sources. Among these programs, there is a wide
disparity about how such goals are to be met, which leads to risk and ultimately increased costs for utility customers. The U.S. needs
to be more forward-thinking. Although it is fair to speculate about its implementation, China's national renewable-energy law, passed
in February, 2006, is more aggressive in setting mandates for the development and use of renewable energy than any U.S. federal law.
The U.S. needs to create a ready market for innovation in renewable energy generation.
Page 38 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency/ TRANSPORTATION KEY/OIL DEPENDENCE

SOLVENCY
transportation key – plan solves oil dependence  
Monsma, 2006 (David W., Rapporteur and Associate Director of the Program on Energy at the Aspen Institute, A High
Growth Strategy For Ethanol, Introduction, Available via the Aspen Institute,
Two-thirds of U.S. oil consumption is for transportation, and two-thirds ofthat is for cars and light trucks.To reduce our
dependence on oil, therefore, aggressive steps must be taken to reduce consumption of gasoline. A program reflecting
national commitment and leadership is needed. Toward that end, we recommend that the U.S. adopt a very ambitious goal
of producing 100 billion gallons per year of ethanol by 2025, the equivalent of half of today’s U.S. gasoline consumption
or nearly 25 percent of today’s overall U.S.oil use.
transition to biofuels solves oil dependence 
Each of the oil crises of the last 35 years (triggered by the Arab OPEC oil embargo in 1973, the Iranian revolution in
1979, and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990) caused significant economic harm to the U.S. and resulted in calls for
reduced dependence on imported oil. Yet despite some fuel switching and improvements in efficiency, U.S. oil imports
have increased from about 30% in 1972 to almost 60% in 2005. U.S. consumption continues to grow, while domestic
production has declined steadily since 1970. World demand is expected to grow from today’s roughly 85 million barrels
per day to nearly 120 million barrels per day in 2025,and some analysts argue that most readily accessible conventional oil
reserves have been discovered and production is about to peak. Even before the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq,
increasing U.S. and world dependence on oil from the volatile Middle East constrained our foreign policy options.
As U.S. oil imports increase, global demand accelerates, and reserves outside the Persian Gulf region decline, the security
risks of our oil addiction will grow. A transition to using ethanol in our cars, however, along with improved fuel
economy and other alternatives, will help reduce U.S. dependence on oil and thereby decrease our vulnerability to oil
price shocks and increase our foreign policy options, particularly ifother nations follow suit. Environment There is
widespread agreement among scientists that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are
likely to have serious consequences for the world’s climate. To prevent dangerous interference with the climate system,
global carbon emissions over the next 50 years will need to be reduced by about 175 billion tons compared to a business-
as-usual scenario. This will require a variety ofactions in the U.S. and worldwide. More than 25 percent ofmanmade
emissions of CO2in the U.S. are from transportation, and reducing the use ofgasoline in cars is one of the largest
contributions we can make. Compared to gasoline, ethanol made from corn is estimated to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 20-30 percent and ethanol from cellulose – made from the stalks, stems and leaves ofplants – by about 85
percent or more. Using renewable fuels in transportation can also help reduce the air pollution associated with
burning petroleum. With the adoption of sustainable production methods in the agricultural sector, the environmental
impacts offarming practices can also be reduced.
Page 39 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Inherency/ TRANSPORTATION KEY/OIL DEPENDENCE

SOLVENCY
TRANSPORTATION KEY TO ENERGY INDEPENDENCE- WE NEED FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL
Roberta Barkman James, Assistant Attorney General with the Maryland Environmental Service, Fall 2007, “OIL AND THE
ENVIRONMENT: REDUCING OIL DEPENDENCY IN THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR,” 15 U. Balt. J. Envtl. L. 1. LEXIS,
accessed 5/10/08.
A variety of factors caused oil prices to rise sharply in 2003 and stay elevated, in contrast to what most experts predicted. n1 The
increase has been attributed to such factors as "increaseed demand ... terrorism, and the 2005 hurricane season..." n2 Irrespective of the
cause, this rise in oil prices triggered renewed United States' (U.S.) interest in reducing reliance on foreign oil. n3 This renewed
interest, coupled with acknowledgement that burning oil, as well as other fossil fuels, contributes significantly to the global warming
effect, n4 supports the need to avoid energy and environmental crises by reducing oil dependence before the consequences reach crisis
proportions. Factors such as peak oil, the effects of global warming, and the cost to the U.S. economy from the instability of oil prices
and maintaining [*2] access to oil drive the timeline to achieve oil independence, and the market alone cannot make the change
quickly enough. Since vehicle use consumes significant amounts of oil and emits significant amounts of greenhouse gases, legislation
is necessary to create a market for alternative and renewable vehicles and fuels, facilitate the development of new and affordable
technologies and distribution infrastructure for renewable and alternative fuels, and encourage land use patterns that reduce U.S.
dependence on cars and ultimately on oil.
Page 40 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
ECONOMY SOLVENCY/MARKET DIVERSIFICATION

economy – multiple warrants 
Increasing global demand and a lack of spare production capacity, exacerbated by hurricane damage to U.S. production
facilities and turmoil in some exporting countries, have contributed to recent high oil prices and threatened economic
growth. Substituting domestically produced ethanol for a large portion of our gasoline use can dramatically reduce
our oil imports and our balance of trade deficit. If oil averages $60 per barrel for 2006 and imports are over 12.5
million barrels per day, we will send about a quarter of a trillion dollars abroad for oil – nearly a third of last year’s record
trade deficit. Reducing our oil addiction can thus contribute to resolving some of our most difficult current economic
problems as well as reduce our vulnerability to the economic devastation of future oil price shocks. Substituting
ethanol for gasoline can also begin to transform our system of agricultural price supports and land set-aside
programs while creating jobs and stimulating the economy in rural areas. Transitioning some farm support programs
toward assistance for energy crops would be more economically rational and would have significant energy and
environmental benefits. World Trade Organization decisions declaring some current farm subsidies in violation of trade
regulations may require that such a transition be initiated quickly. Reauthorization of basic agriculture programs, required
in 2007,provides an opportunity. Growing energy crops and harvesting agricultural residues will increase the value of
farm output. Expanding the production of cellulosic biomass and adding it to increased production of corn will allow a
substantial increase in ethanol production. The economic benefits will include additional and more diversified
markets for both grain and energy crops that can help agriculture production achieve higher net returns, both
locally and in the world economy. In addition to these benefits, investment in production plants located largely in rural
areas will provide jobs and an increased tax base to help support local governments, schools and other public services.
The benefits combined may even be able to slow the conversion of farmland into residential development and suburban
sprawl.
Page 41 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Biomass feedstocks for ethanol are abundant, varied and relatively inexpensive, and their potential for improved yields and
processing potential are great. (See “Biotechnology for Biofuels Production,” by Richard Hamilton, Appendix D.) With a
concerted effort the U.S. can sustainably produce much more biomass for energy without diminishing our capacity to
produce food. (See “Cellulosic Ethanol in an Oil and Carbon Constrained World,” by W. Michael Griffin and Lester B.
Lave, Appendix A, and “Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy,” by Bruce E. Dale, Appendix B.) With a
corresponding effort, we can greatly reduce the cost of converting that biomass to ethanol, produce the cars to use it, and
provide the fueling infrastructure. On average oil prices are projected to rise over time. Given sufficient development
effort, ethanol can be expected to sell for less than gasoline, even taking into account ethanol’s lower energy content per
gallon. Ethanol from corn and ethanol from cellulose are the same product. Ethanol in the U.S. is currently derived
primarily from the starch in corn kernels. Ethanol from cellulose can be produced from a wide variety of feedstocks,
including plants (switchgrass, sunflowers, hemp), plant waste (corn stover, cereal straws, sugarcane bagasse), and plant
waste from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp, wood chips). Many experts expect switchgrass, a hardy, fast-
growing, perennial crop that can be grown in large parts of the U.S., to be one ofthe major feedstocks ofa mature ethanol
industry. Ethanol from corn is an established industry with substantial additional growth potential. The Renewable Fuels
Standard passed by Congress in the Energy Policy Act of2005 (EPAct 2005) requires the integration of 7.5 billion gallons
of ethanol per year into the gasoline supply by 2012.We cannot, however, reach the goal of 100 billion gallons without
ethanol from cellulose and without improvements in energy crop yields and the development of appropriate
biorefineries. (See “Commercialization of Cellulosic Ethanol Facilities: A Financial Perspective,” by Richard (Roy)
Torkelson, Appendix E.) Ethanol from cellulose can also increase the environmental and other benefits already derived
from corn ethanol. (See “Ethanol and the Environment: Delivering on the Promise of a Sustainable Biofuel,” by Nathanael
Greene,Appendix C.) All cars and light duty trucks in the U.S. can already run on E10, a blend of gasoline containing 10
percent ethanol. There are also over five million flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) on the road today capable of running
interchangeably on gasoline, E85 (a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), or any blend in between.
Relatively few service stations sell E85,however,and many vehicle owners do not know that their cars can use it. The
principal challenge of achieving ethanol’s potential is to increase concurrently feedstock production, conversion capacity,
and availability of FFVs and E85 pumps so that a delay in one does not strand investments in the others. A second set of
challenges is to correct misperceptions and manage expectations related to ethanol. For instance, the widely held
perception in the U.S. that more energy is used to grow, transport and process the feedstock into ethanol than is contained
in the ethanol itselfis simply wrong. A growing number of peer-reviewed studies show that corn ethanol contains
significantly more energy than it takes to produce it. Ethanol from cellulose will provide even higher energy returns. (See
“Impacts of Cellulosic Ethanol on the Farm Economy,” by Bruce E.Dale, in this volume; “Ethanol Can Contribute to
Energy and Environmental Goals,” Farrell et al, Science, January 27, 2006; and “Ethanol’s Energy Return on Investment:
A Survey of the Literature 1990-Present,” by Roel Hammerschlag, Environmental Science and Technology, February
2006.) This misperception also reflects a misplaced concern, because producing and converting primary energy such as oil
or coal into a usable product such as gasoline or electricity always requires large amounts ofenergy. Similarly, we must
manage the expectation that ethanol, or even ethanol from cellulose, is a silver bullet that can reduce gasoline prices
overnight or single handedly solve all of our oil related challenges. It will be several years before we can start to produce a
significant amount of ethanol from cellulose, so we must continue to grow the existing industry. Furthermore, improving
the efficiency with which we use both gasoline and ethanol will always be the cleanest and fastest way for us to reduce our
dependence on oil. In particular, improving the fuel economy of our cars and trucks is essential to managing the land
requirements ofethanol.
Page 42 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
 
FEDERAL INCENTIVES ALLOW ALTERNATIVE FUEL MARKETS TO TAKE HOLD. CURRENT POLICY DOESN’T DO
ENOUGH.
Mona Hymel, Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, 2006, “The United States' Experience with Energy-Based Tax
Incentives: The Evidence Supporting Tax Incentives for Renewable Energy,” 38 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 43, Lexis, accessed 5/10/08.
The U.S. government could encourage taxpayers to decrease their dependence on fossil fuels by facilitating the development of
alternative and renewable fuels and by encouraging greater efficiency when nonrenewable energy sources are used. n192 Individually
these strategies cannot significantly reduce fossil fuel use. Together, however, they can be effective. Increased commercial availability
and reduced cost are necessary for widespread use and acceptance of renewable and alternative fuels to take hold. This section
considers the role of tax incentives in achieving this goal. Until renewable fuels are more commercially viable, alternative fuels that
combine fossil fuels with renewable fuel are a technologically feasible option. Unfortunately, these alternative fuels still incorporate
the use of fossil fuels. As a result, these "environmentally friendly" tax subsidies for alternative fuels still encourage continued
dependence on [*73] fossil fuels. In the long run, alternative fuels should therefore be phased out as renewable fuels become more
viable. The most significant alternative fuel tax provision, the credit or deduction for alcohol fuels, which constitutes over ninety-four
percent of alternative tax incentives directed at reducing gasoline use, n193 grants a subsidy to fossil fuels mixed with an alternative
fuel, typically alcohol or ethanol. n194 Although the incentive ostensibly encourages more efficient fossil fuel consumption, alternative
fuel use has not resulted in lower fossil fuel consumption or reduced our dependence on cars. n195 In fact, both consumption and car
use have increased despite these provisions. Since 1978, when Congress enacted most of the alternative fuel provisions, the United
States has invested between $ 30 and $ 33 billion in alternatives through tax subsidies. During this same period, despite decreases in
oil and gas incentives, the United States invested approximately $ 106 billion in fossil fuels - three times what it spent on alternative
fuels. n196 This kind of differential, not surprisingly, undercuts the likelihood of achieving successful results for alternative fuel
technologies. To date, the tax subsidies for alternative fuels are too small, and they fail to target the real problem: fossil fuel
dependence. Alternative fuels have the potential to reduce petroleum consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and produce
significant energy savings. Therefore, under a long-term strategy, moving to alternative fuels represents an intermediate step in the
right direction.
Page 43 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: “Corn =” 1/4
Our priority of corn ethanol locks in rapid corn inflation.

More alarming, the boom in ethanol production is driving up the price of food. Of the record 93 million acres of corn
planted in the United States in 2007, about 20 percent went to ethanol. Since most of the rest is used to feed animals, the
prices of beef, milk, poultry, and pork are all affected by increases in the cost of corn. The international Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)recently warned that the "rapid growth of the biofuels industry" could
bring about fundamental shifts in agricultural markets worldwide and could even "cause food shortages." All this comes
at a time when the need for alternatives to petroleum-based transportation fuels is becoming urgent. At press time, the price
of crude oil was near $90 a barrel. And worries about the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions from the roughly 142
billion gallons of gasoline used every year in the United States are deepening. Expanded use of biofuels is central to the
federal government's long-term energy strategy. In his State of the Union speech on January 23, 2007, President Bush
set the goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels by 2017, citing the need for independence
from foreign oil. The U.S. Department of Energy has set the similar goal of replacing 30 percent of gasoline use with
biofuel use by 2030. Hitting both targets, however, will require significant technological breakthroughs. In the United
States, for now, ethanol means the corn-derived version. (Brazilian producers were expected to make 4.97 billion gallons of
ethanol in 2007, mostly from sugarcane; but that semitropical crop is agriculturally viable in only a few parts of the United
States.) Even proponents of corn ethanol say that its production levels cannot go much higher than around 15 billion gallons
a year, which falls far short of Bush's goal.
Corn ethanol will fail- it’s too inefficient- but it will drive commodity prices
skyward.
It is not just the short-term economics of ethanol that concern agricultural experts. They also warn that corn-derived ethanol
is not the "green fuel" its advocates have described. That's because making ethanol takes a lot of energy, both to grow the
com and, even more important, to run the fermentation facilities that turn the sugar gleaned from the corn kernels into the
alcohol that's used as fuel. Exactly how much energy it takes has been the subject of intense academic debate in various
journals during the last few years. According to calculations done by Minnesota researchers, 54 percent of the total
energy represented by a gallon of ethanol is offset bythe energy required to process the fuel; another 24 percent is offset
by the energy required to grow the corn. While about 25 percent more energy is squeezed out of the biofuel than is used
to produce it, other fuels yield much bigger gains, says Stephen Polasky, a professorof ecological and environmental
economics at Minnesota. Making ethanol is "not a cheap process," he says. "From my perspective, the biggest
problem [with corn ethanol] is just the straight-out economics and the costs. The energy input/output is not very
good." The high energy requirements of ethanol production mean that using ethanol as fuel isn't all that much
better for the environment than using gasoline. One might think that burning the biofuel would release only the carbon
dioxide that corn captures as it grows. But that simplified picture, which has often been conjured up to support the useof
ethanol fuel, doesn't withstand closer scrutiny. In fact, Polasky says, the fossil fuels needed to raise and harvest corn and
produce ethanol are responsible for significant carbon emissions. Not only that, but the cultivation of corn also produces
two other potent greenhouse gases: nitric oxide and methane. Polasky calculates that corn-derived ethanol is responsible for
greenhouse-gas emissions about 15 to 20 percent below those associated with gasoline: "The bottom line is that you're
getting a slight saving in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions, but not much." If corn-derived ethanol has had little
impact on energy markets and greenhouse-gas emissions, however, its production could have repercussions
throughout the agricultural markets. Not only are corn prices up, but so are soybean prices, because farmers
planted fewer soybeans to make room for corn.
Page 44 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
SQ investment drives up food prices

Ethanol is currently supplied by an industry that consists of more that 90 corn ethanol plants with an
annual production capacity of 4.4 billion gallons. The industry utilizes 1.3 billion bushels of corn, about 13
percent of the US corn crop. At average US corn yields of 148 bushels in 2005, approximately 8 million acres of
corn was required, mainly in the Midwest. Corn is transported to the plants by truck and rail. The ethanol
produced is shipped for blending with gasoline mainly via truck across the US. This ethanol is used a fuel
extender (E10 – a blend of 10 percent ethanol/90 percent gasoline), in oxygenated gasoline (at 7.7 percent), in
reformulated gasoline (at 5.7 percent) or as an alternative fuel (E85). Currently ethanol is about 3 percent of the
total “gasoline” usage for the US light duty fleet. Ethanol enjoys federal and, in some places, state tax
incentives for ethanol-gasoline blends. Recent legislation, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit, provides
for a Federal gasoline excise tax exemption on ethanol blends of $0.52 per gallon of ethanol. For example, a
blender would receive a tax credit of $0.44 per gallon of E85, which most economists believe would be passed
through to the consumer at the pump. It now applies to all blends of ethanol/gasoline. The goal of the Federal
tax subsidy is to make the per gallon cost of ethanol equal to gasoline. All of the federal and state incentive
programs were passed to increase the price of corn, to help farmers and to make a modest reduction in oil
imports.
BIO-FUEL INCENTIVES DRIVE UP GLOBAL FOOD PRICES, AND DISTORT ENERGY MARKETS.
Arvind Subramanian, senior fellow Peterson Institute for International Economics, “US Leadership in the Global Food
Crisis,” Statement before the US House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, hearing on Contributing
Factors and International Responses to the Global Food Crisis, May 14, 2008, available online at:
http://www.petersoninstitute.org/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=931, accessed 6/12/2008.
I would like to make a few general comments about trade and economic incentives. First, U.S. policies related to ethanol.
There is a big debate about the contribution that they make toward raising food prices. The range of estimates will vary and
we will never know the precise magnitudes. But that should not come in the way of action. We can be confident that
eliminating or reducing the distortions generated by the ethanol program will help dampen food prices. Moreover, these
policies are one of the few factors responsible for the crisis that we can control more than we can control climactic factors
that affect supply or the increased demand due to prosperity in the developing world. We need to act on the few things that
U.S. policy-makers can control and eliminating or reducing the ethanol program is one policy lever we have. Moreover, the
ethanol issue should be seen not from the narrow perspective of its contribution to food but from two broader perspectives.
With oil prices at US$126 a barrel, the market by itself is providing a lot of help and incentives for ethanol production.
There seems little need for additional help and incentives at taxpayers' expense. Furthermore, while ethanol interventions
originally had good motivations (reducing dependence on fossil fuels and imported fuels), they have led to some
unintended consequences that are now becoming evident. The question now from an environmental perspective is this:
insofar as the U.S. government needs to provide incentives for the search for alternatives to fossil fuels, why favor one
particular alternative, namely ethanol (which, according to experts is not even the most environmentally efficient one)?
Why not level the playing field so that all new avenues, all potentially new ideas have a good shot at being explored and
discovered? In other words, eliminating all the assistance to ethanol-based biofuels and providing broad-based incentives
for alternative fuel research and production might be better food policy and better environmental policy. The aim of policy
should not be to "pick" winners but to find winners.
Page 45 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ

BIO-FUEL INCENTIVES INCREASE GLOBAL FOOD PRICES
To boost agricultural supply in the medium run, we need to fix the incentives facing agriculture globally. That in turn
means efficient and food-friendly trade policies around the world. But not only are we far away from that objective, we are
moving in the wrong direction. In the U.S., the combination of the Renewable Fuels Standard (the ethanol mandates), the
blenders' tax credit, and tariffs on imported Brazilian ethanol have diverted land, especially from wheat and soya bean
production, and contributed to food price increases. Estimates vary on the magnitude of this contribution (one estimate by
Professor Babcock of Iowa State University says that eliminating all three of these measures would reduce prices by 16
percent, while another by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) suggests that a moratorium on biofuel
production in developed countries through 2008 would ease corn prices by 20 percent and wheat prices by 10 percent), but
as I will explain below, the question of exactly how much is less important than the fact that these three policies contribute
to food price rises.
BIOFUELS DRIVE UP COMMODITY PRICES.
Jim Kleinschmit, Rural communities program director for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “Biofuels Moving
Mainstream– Environmental and Social Implications,” IATP COMMENTARY, September 13, 2007, available online at:
www.iatp.org/iatp/commentaries.cfm?refid=100323, accessed 6/12/2008.
Take, for example, the increasing concern about biofuels’ impact on commodity prices and availability – more commonly
referred to as the “food vs. fuel” issue. There is no doubt that the growing demand of the biofuels sector for feedstocks –
primarily corn and soybeans in the U.S. – is having an impact on the prices of these and other basic commodity crops.
Already, it is expected that ethanol will consume 20 percent of U.S. corn in 2007, and more than 30 percent of the corn
crop by 2009. And if all of the proposed plants as of April 2007 were to be built (which is not likely to happen), this share
could grow to as much as 54 percent. Biodiesel’s market share is much smaller, but is having a similar effect on the soy
market, with the USDA projecting that the sector will consume 20 percent of soy oil production in 2007/08. One clear
result of this increased usage has been a rise in corn prices, but also in other commodities such as soybeans, wheat, oats,
and barley, as farmers have shifted acreage to corn and other users have turned to them as “replacement” feedstocks. The
result is that biofuels are blamed for everything from the higher prices of tortillas in Mexico to higher meat prices in
America, all while raising the specter of worldwide threats of increased food insecurity.
Page 46 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
There are many factors in commodity inflation- but biofuel production is a

controllable one.
The Causes of Food Price Increases Many experts have noted that there is a confluence of forces driving food prices
upward. My co-panelist, Ambassador Sheeran has described it as a "perfect storm." I will just mention a few and then
briefly address one. Factors contributing to high food prices include: --rising demand for higher-protein foods in fast
growing developing countries like India and China; --changing weather patterns and production problems for some
commodities and some regions, notably droughts in wheat producing regions including Australia, North Africa, and
Ukraine; --high energy prices that raise food production costs, food transport costs, and agriculture input costs (e.g.,
fertilizer and fuel for mechanized machinery and pumps for irrigation); --possible speculation emerging from a large
movement of investor capital out of equities and into commodities futures and related instruments; --growth in biofuels
production and consumption. While experts argue about their relative importance, each of these factors appears to be
having an impact. The biofuels issue is of particular importance since much of the growth in biofuels production has been
driven by policy decisions in Washington and Brussels. For this reason, I will address it briefly. In 2008 the US will convert
approximately one-quarter (23.7percent) of our corn production into biofuels. That's an increase from 20 percent last year
and 14 percent the year before. In short, we're rapidly diverting larger portions of our corn supply to fuel, leaving less for
food. Dedicating 3.1 million bushels of corn for ethanol this year will take more than one-tenth of the global corn supply
off the market for food and feed. The US is a massive producer of corn, harvesting more than 40 percent of the world's corn
supply. The US is also a massive exporter of corn, supplying nearly twice as much corn as all the other exporters combined.
USDA's Economic Research Service noted that since 2002/3, nearly 30 percent of the global increase in cereals demand
came from US corn ethanol. So, reduced supply and/or higher prices in the US corn market can have significant
implications for the global corn supply and global prices for food and feed. Although ethanol mandates and subsidies
directly impact corn prices, they also have implications for other agricultural commodities. This is because higher corn
prices encourage farmers to commit more acreage and agricultural inputs to corn production.This leaves less acreage and
agricultural inputs available for other crops, especially soybeans, which are often planted in alternate years with corn. As a
result, production for other commodities like soybeans is lower and prices are higher. In 2007, US soybean plantings
decreased by 15.7 percent to about 63.3 million acres from 2006 levels. Additional demand for soybeans is also generated
through US government encouragement for biodiesel production driving prices up 40 percent from to $10.80 per bushel
from 2006 to 2007. Last month, the World Economic Outlook identified increased biofuels consumption as a major
driver of food price increases: "Rising biofuels production in the United States and the European Union has boosted
demand for corn, rapeseed oil, and other grains and edible oils. Although biofuels still account for only 1.5 percent
of the global liquid fuels supply, they accounted for almost half the increase in the consumption of major food crops
in 2006-7, mostly because of corn-based ethanol produced in the United States. Biofuel demand has propelled the
prices not only for corn, but also for other grains, meat, poultry and dairy through cost-push and crop and demand
substitution effects" Finally, the International Food & Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), one of the premier organizations
tracking food and hunger issues, estimates that biofuels will drive up corn prices by between 27percent and 72percent by
2020, depending on the scenario analyzed. Other commodities (oil seeds used for biodiesel) would rise by 18 percent to 44
percent. IFPRI stated, "in general, subsidies for biofuels that use agricultural production resources are extremely antipoor
because they implicitly act as a tax on basic food, which represents a large share of poor people's consumption expenditures
and becomes even more costly as prices increase..."
Page 47 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Bad- Need Cellulose
Corn ethanol drives up commodity prices- impoverishing developing economies-

only advanced biofuels can solve.
In the May/June 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, C. Ford Runge, a professor of applied economics and law at Minnesota,
cowrote an articletitled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," which argued that "the enormous volume of corn required
by the ethanol industry is sending shock waves through the food system." Six months later, sitting in a large office from
which he directs the university's Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy, Runge seems bemused by the
criticism that his article received from local politicians and those in the ethanol business. But he is steadfast in his
argument: "It is clearly the case that milk prices, bread prices, are all rising at three times the average rate of increase of the
last 10 years. It's appreciable, and it is beginning to be appreciated." The recent OECD report, released in early
September, is just the latest confirmation of his warnings, says Runge. And because a larger percentage of their income
goes to food, he says, "this is really going to hit poor people." Since the United States exports about 20 percent of its corn,
the poor in the rest of the world are at particular risk. Runge cites the doubling in the price of tortillas in Mexico a year ago.
All these factors argue against the promise of corn ethanol as a solution to the energy problem. "My take," says Polasky, "is
that [ethanol] is only going to be a bit player in terms of energy supplies." He calculates that even if all the corn planted in
the United States were used for ethanol, the biofuel would still displace only 12 percent of gasoline consumption. "If I'm
doing this for energy policy, I don't see the payback," he says. "If we're doing this as farm support policy, there may be
more merit there. But we're going to have to go to the next generation of technology to have a significant impact on
the energy markets."
ETHANOL FOCUS FAILS- IT ONLY DRIVES UP PRICES.

<Matt Metcalf, software developer, june,2007, website, http://sufficientlyadvanced.blogspot.com>/  
As predicted by many, increasing demand for corn--driven largely by ethanol plants and foreign
buyers--has driven corn prices to their highest level in more than a decade. Increased corn
prices will have a ripple effect on many segments of the economy.
First, the obvious: higher prices on corn that we eat. And not just corn-on-the-cob and
canned/frozen corn; prices will increase for corn tortillas and shells, corn chips, and anything
that uses high-fructose corn syrup. Between them, that covers a huge array of products. But
corn is also widely used as livestock feed, so higher prices for corn will also increase prices for
meat.
As farmers and ranchers shift to using other grains--such as wheat, oats, and barley--for feeding
their livestock, the increased demand for those grains will also increase prices for products
based on those... flours, breads, oatmeal, beer, and countless other products are based on the
grains grown in this country.
And I haven't even mentioned the ethanol itself yet. Higher prices for corn will obviously
increase the input costs for ethanol production, making ethanol less economical than it currently
is.
It is increasingly obvious that corn-based ethanol will never be the cure (or even a significant
Page 48 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
part of the cure) for our energy woes. A study conducted by the University of Minnesota has
already demonstrated that if all corn grown in this country were converted to ethanol (leaving
nothing for animal feed, human consumption, or as corn syrup for feeding our gluttunous desire
for sugar), it would be able to offset 12% of our gasoline demand.
Until cellulosic ethanol techniques are perfected, trying to use ethanol as a fuel source is a
"solution" that will only benefit the farmers who are enjoying the higher prices.
 
Cellulosic ethanol key to prevent higher corn prices 
PG, Progressive Grocer, 4‐20‐2007, Lexis 
WASHINGTON, D.C. - With increased demands on corn from the ethanol industry, Congress and the Bush Administration should
consider tax incentives and other legislative vehicles to support energy‐based opportunities for animal agriculture and 
minimize the adverse affects of rising input costs on meat and poultry packers and processors, said AMI President and 
CEO J. Patrick Boyle in testimony submitted this week to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Boyle said that 
dramatically increased demand for corn has pressed market forces to demand higher feed prices. As a result, animal agriculture 
producers are considering alternatives to their feeding, nutrition, and dietary regimen, which in turn impacts meat 
and poultry quality, consumer offerings, livestock and poultry farm efficiency, and the management of livestock and 
poultry operations. Boyle urged Congress to take four key actions: ‐ Expand research in ethanol byproduct safety, quality, 
and usability and renewable energy technologies, such as renewable diesel, biogas and cellulosic. 
Corn-based ethanol causes food price spikes –

cellulosic is best
Lt. Col Amidon, USAF, Joint Force Quarterly, 10‐1‐2005, n. 39, p. 68 
Corn is a poor choice for ethanol feedstock since it is the most irrigation-and fertilizer-intensive crop grown in the United States, 
and corn used for ethanol drives cattle feed prices higher, creating hidden costs at the grocery store. Although a nascent corn 
ethanol industry has developed, future  expansion should be discouraged through a removal of the tax regime. 
Unsubsidized corn ethanol actually costs $2.24 per gallon to produce, making it uneconomical except in times of very 
high oil prices. (13)    The biorefinery and  cellulosic ethanol.  Instead of valuable corn, the biorefinery produces ethanol
using the starches and cellulose present in agricultural waste and byproducts such as corn stalks, rice straw, paper mill 
waste, recycled urban waste, and dedicated woody stemmed crops. (14) Many of these sources of  cellulosic ethanol  
are considered negative-cost feed stocks, meaning they have no food value and farmers must pay for their disposal. This 
gives  cellulosic ethanol  a much higher net energy balance than corn‐based ethanol. Studies at candidate biorefinery 
sites in Indiana and Nebraska found that collocating ethanol biorefineries with existing power plants would allow 
production for $1.05/gallon to $1.60/gallon depending on the biomass selected.  Cellulosic ethanol  offers great 
promise for rural areas that have seen considerable depopulation due to modern farming methods. 
Page 49 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic doesn’t increase food prices
 
Youmna Sakr, Contributing Writer, Risk Management, 4‐1‐2007, Lexis 
Cellulosic ethanol is different from corn-based ethanol in that itis produced from the cellulose of plant material derived from
agricultural waste such as corn stalks and wood chips. While it is still under development, it is anticipated that cellulosic 
ethanol will require less energy to produce than corn‐based ethanol, and as a fuel, will result in far less carbon 
dioxide emissions with levels 85% less than gasoline and 25% less than traditional ethanol. The reduced emissions 
make it less susceptible to high pollution taxes as 37 governors are prepared to impose measures to cut the carbon 
content of fuels. And since cellulose is not edible, there is little to no effect on food prices. 
Page 50 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Food Prices
Excessive use of corn for ethanol increases food prices all over the world – corn affects other commodities
Daniel Howden, The Independent (London), 6/23/2007, “The fight for the world's food,” 
http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/features/the‐fight‐for‐the‐worlds‐food‐454279.html 
Then there is corn. While relatively little corn is eaten directly it is of pivotal importance to the food economy as so 
much of it is consumed indirectly. The milk, eggs, cheese, butter, chicken, beef, ice cream and yoghurt in the average 
fridge is all produced using corn and the price of every one of these is influenced by the price of corn. In effect, our 
fridges are full of corn. In the past 12 months the global corn price has doubled. The constant aim of agriculture is to 
produce enough food to carry us over to the next harvest. In six of the past seven years, we have used more grain 
worldwide than we have produced. As a result world grain reserves ‐ or carryover stocks ‐ have dwindled to 57 days. This 
is the lowest level of grain reserves in 34 years. The reason for the price surge is the wholesale diversion of grain crops 
into the production of ethanol. Thirty per cent of next year's grain harvest in the US will go straight to an ethanol 
distillery. As the US supplies more than two‐thirds of the world's grain imports this unprecedented move will affect food 
prices everywhere. In Europe farmers are switching en masse to fuel crops to meet the EU requirement that bio‐fuels 
account for 20 per cent of the energy mix.  
Ethanol causes higher food prices, starving millions

Jeff Goodell, contributing editor at Rolling Stone and a frequent contributor to the New York Times Magazine, 8/9/2007, 
“The Ethanol Scam: One of America's Biggest Political Boondoggles,” 
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15635751/the_ethanol_scam_one_of_americas_biggest_political_boondog
gles/3 
But the biggest problem with ethanol is that it steals vast swaths of land that might be better used for growing food. In a 
recent article in Foreign Affairs titled "How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor," University of Minnesota economists C. Ford 
Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out that filling the gas tank of an SUV with pure ethanol requires more than 450 
pounds of corn ‐‐ roughly enough calories to feed one person for a year. Thanks in large part to the ethanol craze, the 
price of beef, poultry and pork in the United States rose more than three percent during the first five months of this 
year. In some parts of the country, hog farmers now find it cheaper to fatten their animals on trail mix, french fries and 
chocolate bars. And since America provides two‐thirds of all global corn exports, the impact is being felt around the 
world. In Mexico, tortilla prices have jumped sixty percent, leading to food riots. In Europe, butter prices have spiked 
forty percent, and pork prices in China are up twenty percent. By 2025, according to Runge and Senauer, rising food 
prices caused by the demand for ethanol and other biofuels could cause as many as 600 million more people to go 
hungry worldwide.  
Page 51 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn based ethanol causes poverty in the third world – major policy change to pursue cellulosic ethanol
is key
Runge and Senauer 2007, C. Ford Runge is Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Applied Economics and Law and Director of the 
Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. Benjamin Senauer is Professor of Applied Economics and Co‐
director of the Food Industry Center at the University of Minnesota, May/June 2007, “How Biofuels Could Starve the Poor,” Foreign Affiars, Vol. 86, 
Issue 3, Ebsco 
The International Food Policy Research Institute, in Washington, D.C., has produced sobering estimates of the potential 
global impact of the rising demand for biofuels. Mark Rosegrant, an IFPRI division director, and his colleagues project 
that given continued high oil prices, the rapid increase in global biofuel production will push global corn prices up by 20 
percent by 2010 and 41 percent by 2020. The prices of oilseeds, including soybeans, rapeseeds, and sunflower seeds, are 
projected to rise by 26 percent by 2010 and 76 percent by 2020, and wheat prices by 11 percent by 2010 and 30 percent by 2020. In 
the poorest parts of sub‐Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, where cassava is a staple, its price is expected to increase by 33 
percent by 2010 and 135 percent by 2020. The projected price increases may be mitigated if crop yields increase 
substantially or ethanol production based on other raw materials (such as trees and grasses) becomes commercially 
viable. But unless biofuel policies change significantly, neither development is likely.  The production of cassava‐based 
ethanol may pose an especially grave threat to the food security of the world's poor. Cassava, a tropical potato‐like tuber 
also known as manioc, provides one‐third of the caloric needs of the population in sub‐Saharan Africa and is the primary staple for 
over 200 million of Africa's poorest people. In many tropical countries, it is the food people turn to when they cannot afford 
anything else. It also serves as an important reserve when other crops fail because it can grow in poor soils and dry conditions and 
can be left in the ground to be harvested as needed.  
Production of corn ethanol increases global food prices without fulfilling energy needs
<Sarah Tarver-Wahlquist and Tracy Fernandez Rysavy, “Corn Ethanol Isnʼt the Answer: A Co-Op American Exposé”,
Co-Op America Quarterly, Summer 2007 (national non profit organization focusing on economic action to solve social and
environmental problems. Co-Op Quarterly is their magazine)>.
The price of yellow corn on the world market has already hit a ten-year high, in part due to ethanol’s rising popularity,
says the BBC.
But while having the price of Doritos and hamburgers go up in the US hardly seems like a crisis, consider the domino
effect. The US corn crop accounts for 40 percent of the global harvest, supplying 70 percent of the world’s corn exports
and about 25 percent of total world grain exports, according to the Earth Policy Institute (EPI). Substantially reducing this
export flow to make corn ethanol for our cars “would send shock waves throughout the world economy,” says Lester
Brown, EPI’s founder.
Corn prices are tied to other grain prices, so as the cost of corn rises, world grain prices will likely follow suit. While US
consumers, particularly low-income families, will see significant hikes in food prices, the world’s poor, who rely heavily
on imported grain, will be hit the hardest. In May, Ian Cherret, head of the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization, warned that people in Guatemala were facing a hunger crisis, due in large part to the rising cost of corn. The
average benchmark price for corn in Guatemala rose almost 30 percent in the last year.
“The increase in the price of maize has left this sector of the population much more vulnerable than they were before,”
Cherret told Reuters.
And while the world’s poorest would be sent reeling by exorbitant grain prices, we in the US wouldn’t even gain all that
much: Converting the entire US grain harvest to corn for ethanol would satisfy 16 percent of our fuel needs, while the
corn used to fill a 25-gallon vehicle tank with ethanol one time would feed one person for an entire year, says Brown.
Page 52 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Ethanol increases food prices – makes it impossible to fill global demand
The Australian, 3/8/2008, “Biofuels threaten 'billions of lives,'” 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23336840‐11949,00.html 
THE rush towards biofuels is threatening world food production and the lives of billions of people, the British 
Government's Chief Scientific Adviser warned yesterday. British ministers have committed to large increases in the use 
of biofuels over coming decades. But John Beddington described the potential effects of food shortages as the "elephant 
in the room" and a problem to rival climate change. "It's very hard to imagine how we can see the world growing 
enough crops to produce renewable energy and at the same time meet the enormous demand for food," he told a 
sustainability conference in London. "The supply of food really isn't keeping up." His concerns were echoed yesterday by 
UN World Food Program director Josette Sheeran who told the European parliament: "The shift to biofuels production 
has diverted lands out of the food chain. "Food prices such as palm oil in Africa are now set at fuel prices. It may be a 
bonanza for farmers ‐ I hope it is true ‐ but in the short term, the world's poorest are hit hard." By 2030, rising world 
populations would require a 50 per cent increase in food production, Professor Beddington said. By 2080, food 
production must double. But the rush to biofuels ‐ allegedly environmentally friendly ‐ meant increasing amounts of 
arable land were being given over to fuel rather than food. Already biofuels have contributed to rapid rises in 
international wheat prices.  
Corn ethanol boosts food prices

<L.  Leon  Geyer,  Professor,  Virginia  Tech,  Department  of  Agricultural  and  Applied  Economics,  Phillip  Chong,  Research 
Assistant,  Virginia  Tech,  Department  of  Agricultural  and  Applied  Economics  and  Bill  Hxue  Research  Associate,  Virginia 
Tech, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 12 Drake J. Agric. L. 61, 2007, Lexis.>  
Lester Brown, president of Washington D.C. based environmental research group Earth Policy Institute, stated that "the 
competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion 
poorest people who are simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue." The economic pressure created by corn's 
increasing demand and limited supply has already been felt around the world. Since the summer of 2006, "average corn 
prices have leapt to nearly $ 4 a bushel,"  n106 the highest in a decade. Due to the fact corn is the largest component of 
animal feed, the National Chicken Council has estimated that "ethanol demand has already increased the price of 
chicken by six cents per pound wholesale." n107 In Mexico, increasing corn prices have tripled or quadrupled the price of 
tortillas. n108 This has exposed the "country's outsize dependence on tortillas in its diet ‐‐ especially among the poor." n109 
The situations within the U.S. chicken and Mexican tortilla industries illustrate the interconnectedness of the agricultural 
market system. According to William Lapp, the president of Advanced Economic Solutions, such a situation may 
foreshadow "a fairly dramatic inflation scenario for food costs."  
Page 53 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn ethanol increases food prices, threatening the lives of the poor. It doesn’t produce much fuel
Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, 8/16/2006, “Ethanol could leave the world hungry,” 
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383659/index.htm 
The growing myth that corn is a cure‐all for our energy woes is leading us toward a potentially dangerous global fight for 
food. While crop‐based ethanol ‐the latest craze in alternative energy ‐ promises a guilt‐free way to keep our gas tanks 
full, the reality is that overuse of our agricultural resources could have consequences even more drastic than, say, being 
deprived of our SUVs. It could leave much of the world hungry. We are facing an epic competition between the 800 
million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to 
survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources. This year cars, not 
people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption. The problem is simple: It takes a whole lot of 
agricultural produce to create a modest amount of automotive fuel. The grain required to fill a 25‐gallon SUV gas tank 
with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel 
for cars, it would still satisfy less than one‐sixth of U.S. demand. Worldwide increase in grain consumption The U.S. 
Department of Agriculture reports that world grain consumption will increase by 20 million tons this year, roughly 1%. 
Of that, 14 million tons will be used to fuel cars in the U.S., leaving only six million tons to cover the world's growing 
food needs. Already commodity prices are rising. Sugar prices have doubled over the past 18 months (driven in part by 
Brazil's use of sugar cane for fuel), and world corn and wheat prices are up one‐fourth so far this year. For the world's 
poorest people, many of whom spend half or more of their income on food, rising grain prices can quickly become life 
threatening.  
Biofuels from foods combines with rising demand to increase global food prices
Daniel Howden, The Independent (London), 6/23/2007, “The fight for the world's food,” 
http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/features/the‐fight‐for‐the‐worlds‐food‐454279.html 
Like any other self‐respecting trend this one now has its own name: agflation. Beneath this harmless‐sounding piece of 
jargon ‐ the conflation of agriculture and inflation ‐ lie two main drivers that suggest that cheap food is about to become 
a thing of the past. Agflation, to those that believe that it is really happening, is an increase in the price of food that 
occurs as a result of increased demand from human consumption and the diversion of crops into usage as an alternative 
energy resource. On the one hand the growing affluence of millions of people in China and India is creating a surge in 
demand for food ‐ the rising populations are not content with their parents' diet and demand more meat. On the other, 
is the use of food crops as a source of energy in place of oil, the so‐called bio‐fuels boom. As these two forces combine 
they are setting off warning bells around the world. Rice prices are climbing worldwide. Butter prices in Europe have 
spiked by 40 per cent in the past year. Wheat futures are trading at their highest level for a decade. Global soybean 
prices have risen by a half. Pork prices in China are up 20 per cent on last year and the food price index in India was up 
by 11 per cent year on year. In Mexico there have been riots in response to a 60 per cent rise in the cost of tortillas.  
Page 54 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Production of biofuels is propelling high food prices
John Ward Anderson, Washington Post, 5/30/2008, “Food Prices Predicted to Ease Before Entering Steady Climb,” 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052901023_pf.html 
The recent steep jump in global food prices should ease in the near term, according to a new report, but prices over the 
next decade are likely to remain high, spurred by the rising cost of oil, the declining dollar and increasing demand for 
biofuels.  The rush to invest heavily in ethanol and other biofuels needs to be reevaluated, particularly since the benefits 
"are at best modest, and sometimes even negative," according to the annual global agriculture assessment by the U.N. 
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Organization for Economic Co‐Operation and Development (OECD).  
About 33 percent of the expected rise in food prices over the next decade can be tied to biofuels, OECD agriculture 
official Loek Boonekamp said, but the economic, environmental and energy‐security benefits of diverting agriculture 
products to fuel "are probably smaller than commonly expected."  OECD Secretary General Angel Gurría told reporters 
in releasing the 72‐page report that "we do not expect the current price levels to last" but that "the average of most 
agricultural commodity prices over the next 10 years will still exceed the average of the previous decade by about 10 to 
50 percent in real terms, depending on the commodity you look at."  
Use of corn for ethanol increases food prices due to high oil prices
Fred Magdoff is professor emeritus of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont in Burlington and a director of 
the Monthly Review Foundation, May 2008, “The World Food Crisis: Sources and Solutions,” 
http://www.monthlyreview.org/080501magdoff.php 
The reasons for these soaring food prices are fairly clear. First, there are a number of issues related directly or indirectly 
to the increase in petroleum prices. In the United States, Europe, and many other countries this has brought a new 
emphasis on growing crops that can be used for fuel—called biofuels (or agrofuels). Thus, producing corn to make 
ethanol or soybean and palm oil to make diesel fuel is in direct competition with the use of these crops for food. Last 
year over 20 percent of the entire corn crop in the United States was used to produce ethanol—a process that does not 
yield much additional energy over that which goes into producing it. (It is estimated that over the next decade about 
one‐third of the U.S. corn crop will be devoted to ethanol production [Bloomberg, February 21, 2008].) Additionally, 
many of the inputs for large‐scale commercial agricultural production are based on petroleum and natural gas—from 
building and running tractors and harvesting equipment to producing fertilizers and pesticides and drying crops for 
storage. The price of nitrogen fertilizer, the most commonly used fertilizer worldwide, is directly tied to the price of 
energy because it takes so much energy to produce. 
Page 55 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Food Insecurity
Current biofuel policy increases food insecurity – cellulose key
Rajagopal et al 2007, D Rajagopal, Energy and Resources Group, University of California at Berkeley, S E Sexton, D 
Roland‐Holst, and D Zilberman, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California at Berkeley 
and Zilberman is a Member of Giannini Foundation, “Challenge of biofuel: filling the tank without emptying the 
stomach?” 11/30/2007, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748‐9326/2/4/044004/erl7_4_044004.html 
Several researchers have analyzed the environmental and ecological implications of biofuels in detail. But there has 
been little economic assessment of the effects on various markets. In this paper, we have tried to delineate some of the 
short‐run effects of expansion in US ethanol production on welfare. A simple welfare analysis of US corn ethanol 
suggests that the impact of producing biofuels from food crops will be greater on food prices than energy prices. We 
expect further expansion of current biofuels (and even future biofuels) to threaten food security. A smooth transition to 
a biofuel‐intensive future requires considerable technical innovation, such as agricultural productivity growth, 
development and commercialization of cellulosic conversion, and a reduction in the resource intensity of biofuels. 
Corn ethanol increases destabilizes the food supply

Byron King, Peak oil correspondent at Whiskey & Gunpowder (Macroeconomic E‐Newsletter), 1/11/2007, “Investing in 
Ethanol,” http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com/Archives/2007/20070111.html 
The take‐away point here is that the full‐court press now ongoing in the U.S. to build plants and manufacture ethanol 
from agricultural corn will not provide any sort of long‐term energy salvation for the nation. This major industrial and 
agricultural effort will yield ethanol product equivalent to about 3.5% of daily U.S. oil consumption. According to the 
statistics, as published in The New York Times, no less, ethanol production from existing plants and plants under 
construction is on track to consume about half of the U.S. corn crop. In some localities of the U.S. Midwest, almost all 
corn is already under agreement to be sold for ethanol production, essentially leaving no corn for other local farming 
needs. This will certainly cause a ripple effect throughout many farming communities, all the way to the shelves of the 
grocery stores. From a national security standpoint, large‐scale ethanol production from corn will not make the nation 
more secure in any measurable way. It will certainly destabilize the nation's food supply and disrupt traditional export 
patterns.  
Page 56 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Market Solves Food Prices
Increased production damages the environment and isn’t efficient
So corn‐based food, and products derived from corn, will become more expensive. And I know, so you don't have to 
remind me, that farmers will respond to the price signals and grow more corn. But I hope you also realize that the 
farmers will do this by using more tractor fuel, fertilizer, pesticide, herbicide, and myriad of other substances derived 
from oil and natural gas. And the farmers will put into production the more marginal agricultural lands, with the less 
productive soils, which will then become depleted of soil moisture and nutrients. There is no free lunch. 
Page 57 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Solvency: Commercialization Solves Land Use
Commercialization and advanced cellulosic tech will solve land use tensions.
Land use is very sensitive to energy crop yields and the amount of ethanol produced from each ton of crop.
Although the land use requirements quoted here might seem high, we routinely plant 80 million acres of corn
and another 80 million acres of soybean. Corn and soybean are good rotation crops and there is a market for the
protein from the soybeans. Current R&D is developing methods for harvesting protein from switchgrass,
reducing the need for soybeans. This could free acreage for energy crop production. More importantly, the
future developments in cellulosic ethanol production and “learning by doing” with the first plants will greatly
reduce land requirements.
Page 58 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Hurts Corn Farmers
Current ethanol producing corn farmers will be able to easily transition to

cellulose.
How do we get there from here? The first step in an orderly transition to a sustainable ethanol fuel supply is an increase in
the production of corn ethanol. Even given a four-year lead time for development and construction of plants, corn ethanol
could increase production more rapidly than envisioned by EPAct. Potentially, corn ethanol could provide as much as 14
billion gallons of ethanol. Building facilities to transform corn into ethanol helps develop the use of ethanol, paving the way
for cellulosic ethanol in the future. The corn facilities can be fitted with a new “front end” at some future time to handle
cellulosics, corn stalks and leaves, and switchgrass. The resulting ethanol is identical, regardless of the feedstock, so
integrating more corn ethanol into the fuel supply is moving in the right direction. We envision a policy that could
maximize this production.
Page 59 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Increasing
THE SQ LOCKS IN ROCKETING FOOD PRICES

Wallace E. Tyner, Purdue University, Paper presented at the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Conference,
“Biofuels, Energy Security, and Global Warming Policy Interaction,” NATURE, Vol 444 No 7, December 2006.
Certainly, one option is to do nothing – to let the other corn using sectors adjust to higher corn prices. But as can be seen
from the results in the ethanol economics and sensitivity analyses sections above, that option could lead to substantially
higher corn prices than we have seen historically. It certainly would lead to higher costs for the livestock industry (is
happening already) and ultimately for consumers of livestock products. It also would lead to reduced corn exports. The
breakeven corn prices provided above are maximums the ethanol industry could pay to retain profitability. Whether these
prices would be reached would depend on the rate of growth of the ethanol industry compared with the rate of growth of
corn supply. The March planting intentions report revealed an expected corn planted acreage of 90.5 million acres, and
increase of 15 percent over 2006. With that report, the high corn prices moderated somewhat. However, we can certainly
expect to see continued pressure on corn prices if no change is made in federal subsidy policy.
Page 60 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Page 61 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Increasing
Food price inflation is unprecedented in duration and breadth of commodities.

James R. Lyons, Vice President Policy and Communications Oxfam, America Committee on Senate Foreign Relations, CQ
Congressional Testimony, May 14, 2008.
Likewise, international market observers expected low and even declining agriculture commodity prices. The UN Food and
Agriculture Organization said, "Farmers and countries that depend on commodity exports have to contend with the long-
term decline and short-term volatility of real commodity prices on international markets." Instead, agricultural commodity
prices have risen steadily over four years, and accelerated dramatically in the last year. The international food price index
increased by 9 percent in 2006, but accelerated to a 40 percent increase in 2007. Food prices have continued this dramatic
rise in the first three months of 2008. Price volatility in agricultural commodities is not uncommon. What is unusual,
however, is the confluence of the hike in world prices of nearly all major food and feed commodities. This means there is
no safety valve for consumers seeking cheaper alternatives. There are also indications that these high prices may be
sustained over time - meaning that the shock of higher commodity prices may not be a short-term problem, but a longer
term stress that needs a strategic and comprehensive response.
The global food crisis is putting pressure on aid agencies

Some of the first warnings about the high food price crisis came not directly from people facing food insecurity, but from
the humanitarian agencies trying to assist them. In January, the UN World Food Program (WFP) put out a special appeal
for Afghanistan noting that millions of Afghanis could no longer afford to buy the wheat that is a staple in that country.
Since November 2007, the price of bread in Kabul has increased over 90percent, from $0.11 to $0.21. As a result, 1.4
million people in rural areas and 1.1 million in urban areas have been pushed into high risk for food insecurity. Later, the
WFP made an emergency appeal for an additional $755 million, saying that high food prices had made it impossible to
fulfil its 2008 plan to provide food assistance to 73 million people in need. The WFP's original budget was $2.9 billion.
Although new pledges have been made, the WFP's need has not yet been met. As an example of the strains being felt, the
WFP has recently announced that it will suspend a school feeding program for 450,000 children in Cambodia in May,
unless additional funding is found. Other humanitarian agencies are experiencing similar strains and making difficult
decisions. Last week, World Vision International announced it has discontinued feeding programs for more than 1 million
people due to increased food costs and lack of funding. CARE has cut the size of its rations in Somalia.
Page 62 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Kills Third World Consumption
Higher prices hurt poor countries worse- killing their consumption.

Higher prices are affecting markets across the world, increasing the costs of staples and generating spontaneous protests
and civil unrest. Dozens of countries have experienced "food riots" in recent months. While higher agricultural commodity
prices are affecting developed and developing countries, the impact of higher food prices varies greatly in each. Two
factors tend to moderate the impact of higher agricultural commodity prices on consumers in the US, and conversely
magnify their impact for poor people in developing countries. First, most American consumers don't buy agricultural
commodities. American consumers rarely buy wheat, for example. In fact, most households buy wheat flour only
occasionally. Instead, we buy bread. And although bread may be made of wheat, the value of the raw commodity in the
final product is actually quite small, perhaps 20 percent. This contrasts with poor consumers in developing countries, who
often buy food in much less processed forms, as wheat flour or maize kernels. For these consumers, commodity price
increases are felt more directly in their purchasing power. The second factor that tends to moderate the impact of high
agricultural commodity prices for American consumers is the fact that, on average, American households spend only about
10 percent of their disposable income on food. Of course, for some American households, such as those who are poor or on
fixed incomes, food purchases can make up as much as 25 or 30 percent of household expenditures. In fact, food price
inflation in the US is at 5 percent and expected to rise to 8 percent this year prompting a record number of Americans to
request federal food assistance. This is no small matter in the US, and the situation is only magnified in most other
countries where food makes up a larger portion of household incomes. Poor people in developing countries may spend 50-
80 percent of their income on food. So, when commodity prices increase, the capacity of people in developing countries to
respond is much less. In order to feed their families, they must make extremely difficult choices such as reducing food
consumption, switching to a less nutritious diet, foregoing medicines or health care, removing their children from school
(since they are unable to pay school fees), selling important assets - like livestock or land, or some combination of these
actions. These are the awful choices that many poor people are being forced to make today as high food prices are
impacting their lives, their families, and their livelihoods.
Page 63 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Starvation
Billions at risk of starvation.

After a very long and steady decline over the course of decades, the number of people facing chronic hunger globally took a
disappointing turn upwards in the last few years. By some estimates, 1.2 billion people could be chronically hungry by
2025 - 600 million more than previously predicted. It might seem obvious that lack of food is the cause of hunger. And
while that's true, it's actually much more complicated. The truth is that the world does not lack food. Globally, we produce
more than enough calories and nutritious food to sustain humanity. While there are droughts and other circumstances that
create acute food scarcity, more often hunger is caused by other factors. The World Bank recently studied the connection
between food prices and poverty and reported the recent food price increases will expand absolute poverty by 4.5percent.
Projected across the globe, this is an increase of more than 100 million people in poverty. Approximately 1 billion people -
one-eighth of the world's population - survive on an income of less than $1 a day. More than 2.5 billion people scrape by on
less than $2 a day. Approximately 850 million are malnourished.This is a vast pool of vulnerable people, spread out across
the world. For these people and their families, hunger is a constant worry and a looming possibility.
Food prices cause starvation.

I will close, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that just as many Americans are concerned about the state of the US economy,
the price of gasoline, and the cost of food, so, too, are people around the globe. Fortunately, most Americans can 'get by' by
"cutting back", by reducing household expenditures, and by tightening their belts. That is not the case for the billions
around the world who live on less than two dollars a day. When 60- 80 percent of your disposable income is needed to put
food on the table - if you even have a table - increased food prices can literally be a matter of life or death. As the world's
most prosperous nation, we have an obligation to lead in helping others. Americans would expect the United States to help
those in need. In fact, we have long been the most generous nation in providing humanitarian and other assistance in times
of need. The current crisis is a time for leadership, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, t
Page 64 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Instability
Food riots are breaking out- and threaten to destabilize Pakistan and
Afghanistan.
Where incomes are not rising at the same rate as food inflation, high food prices seem certain to cause an increase in food
insecurity and pose risks of widespread food crises in many developing countries. There is a clear connection between
social unrest and rising food prices in many parts of the world. In April, World Bank President Zoellick warned that 33
countries around the world face potential social unrest because of the acute hike in food and energy prices. For these
countries, where food comprises from half to three quarters of consumption, there is no margin for survival. The United
Nation's Global Information Early Warning System identifies 37 countries "in crisis" and "requiring external assistance."
Twenty-one of these are in Africa. Not surprisingly, food riots have erupted in the majority of these countries over the past
few months. Closest to home, Haiti recently experienced food riots leading to the dismissal of Prime Minister Jacques
Edouard Alexis. To illustrate the importance of addressing this issue, one need only look at the impacts of high food prices
on a country like Pakistan, a strategically important US ally. Of the 56 million people living in urban areas in Pakistan,
about 21 million are now deemed food insecure by the WFP. In response to the food crisis, Pakistan recently banned flour
exports to Afghanistan and the government has introduced ration cards for food for the first time since the 1980s. While
banning flour exports was understandable for Pakistan, it greatly exacerbates neighbouring Afghanistan's food insecurity.
Shortly thereafter, on January 177 the WFP made an appeal for 89,000 metric tons of food including wheat, beans, cooking
oils and table salt to help over 2.5 million Afghans.
High commodity prices paralyze developing economies.

Further amplifying the effects of high food prices (as well as one factor creating the rapid increase in food prices) is the
dramatic increase in global oil prices. Many nations now face the impacts of high energy costs and high food prices, leading
to further instability and potentially reversing years of progress in many developing countries. Keep in mind that all but a
few of the world's poorest countries depend on foreign oil imports to drive their economies, and world oil price
vulnerability - and recent price increases - eat away at limited foreign exchange reserves and national budgets. As the price
of oil escalates, the gains of a range of anti- poverty measures are being quickly eroded. Ethiopia, for example, currently
spends six times as much on oil than it has received in debt relief from the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. The
International Energy Agency estimates that for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of crude oil, the economy of a
SubSaharan African oil importing nation is affected more than 10 times as much as the U.S. economy. As a result, rising
energy costs are systematically erasing any gains achieved from significant debt forgiveness initiatives and commitments to
tackle poverty and hunger. Combined with record commodity prices, the effects can be paralyzing for some nations, in
particular those countries referred to as "low income food importing developing countries." Those countries which are also
net energy importers are typically hit the hardest.
Page 65 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Food Prices: Cellulose Solves
Cellulose needed to reduce price pressure on commodities.

Food price increases have delivered a shock to consumers and governments around the world. The impact of these prices is
now being felt and is creating significant turmoil, especially in developing countries that depend on food imports and have
large, vulnerable populations. Not only is the current crisis a humanitarian concern, but as evidenced by events over the
past several months, it has important ramifications for the security and stability of a large number of nation states. As such,
it has important national security ramifications for the United States as well. How we respond as a nation will speak
volumes about how we want to see ourselves and have others view us in a global context. In the short term, the US must
rapidly respond to appeals for food aid from individual countries and the World Food Program, and reform current US food
aid policy to make our food assistance programs more efficient, timely, and cost-effective. In the medium term, the US
must revisit and revamp, if necessary, "food to fuel" mandates and supports, with respect to how these policies
affect global commodity prices and markets. Further, an accelerated effort to transition from corn-based ethanol
production to more advanced cellulosic ethanol is essential to address both domestic energy needs and any
inadvertent impacts on world food prices.
Current US policy locks in a dependence on corn- cellulose can free us.

Financial Express, “FOOD CRISIS AND STAID ARGUMENTS,” May 10, 2008.
Other factors may have contributed even more significantly. The first among these is biofuels in the US and Latin America.
By an FAO study, consumption of cereals has been growing faster in the US at about 11.8% in 2007 over the previous year
compared to 1.8% of China and 2.17% of India. About one-third of the corn produce in the US is being used for making
ethanol. With crude hovering around $120 per barrel, and the grandly stated addiction to gasoline not giving way at all,
farm-level economics will only whet the appetite for biofuels. Every farmer can be in the "oil business" with a little
investment. It is known that corn-based biofuels are more inefficient than sugar-based ones or cellulosic ethanol that can
be produced on non-agricultural farms. Yet, US tax incentives may have already induced a new addiction-to corn-based
biofuel. The second factor is the disincentives to agriculture combined with migrations to cities and choice of other
livelihoods.
Page 66 of 139
Miami inst. AB
Bubble Economy Extensions: Cartels

will Manipulate Prices
US DEPENDENCE LEAVES THE OIL CARTELS ALMOST COMPLETELY IN CHARGE
OF OIL PRICES.
Jean-Michel Bezat, journalist at Le Monde, “Oil: Power Has Changed Sides,” TruthOut.org
5/19/2008, lexis, accessed 6/01/2008.
The strategy of the Vienna cartel - which has given up setting a price range since 2003 - seems
simple: supply the market to avoid any break, reduce the "security cushion" to a minimum (2
million barrels a day) and thus maintain the highest prices possible without compromising
economic growth. With three-quarters of global reserves, the thirteen OPEC member states have
the means to enforce their policy. Consumer countries' dependence is linked to the fragility of
the multinational companies. Oil states and their national public companies share 85 percent of
the world's reserves. The majors no longer hold more than 15 percent and are having trouble
reconstituting that percentage to the extent they draw those reserves down. What weight does
"giant" ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM) - the biggest listed company in the world - carry compared
to Gazprom or Saudi Aramco? The great Western companies' access to oil fields - closed in
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Mexico, ever more difficult in Russia, Venezuela and Algeria - would
involve "returning to the period before the 1970s' nationalizations," believes Nicolas Sarkis,
director of the "Arab Oil and Gas Review."
OIL CARTELS WILL KEEP PRICES HIGH.
Jean-Michel Bezat, journalist at Le Monde, “Oil: Power Has Changed Sides,” TruthOut.org
5/19/2008, lexis, accessed 6/01/2008.
The development of the price per barrel ($128), is being determined behind the scenes in the
Kremlin and in the meanders of the Iranian government, in Nigerian mangroves and on the
banks of the Venezuelan Orinoco, in OPEC's Viennese corridors and in the halls of the New
York Mercantile Exchange. And, above all, in Saudi palaces. The world is experiencing a third
oil shock - slower than those of 1973 and 1980. The barrel, the price of which has increased six
times in as many years, is more expensive in constant dollars than it was in the beginning of
1981. Its price may ebb by some $10 or $20 in coming months, but nothing is less certain.
Analysts as respected as those of investment bank Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) see the price
going to an average of $141 in the second half of 2008 and to $148 in 2009. OPEC no longer
rules out $200. The Wahabite kingdom, the only country able to put a million additional barrels
on the market, balks at that idea. It even stiffened its tone recently, when it announced that
between 2009 and 2020 it would limit daily production to 12.5 million barrels a day to preserve
its reserves and the interests of future generations along with them. "Every time there are new
discoveries, leave them in the ground, for our children will need them," the king has resolved.
Nothing induces the Saudis to open the spigots. They consider the market to be well-supplied
and stocks of crude and gas to be at good levels.
Page 67 of 139
Miami inst. AB
Bubble Economy Extensions: High

Oil Prices Destroy the Economy
OIL PRICES ABOVE $120/BARREL WOULD DEVASTATE THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
Dr. Robert F. Wescott, Former Chief Economist at the U.S. President’s Council of Economic
Advisers, “What Would $120 Oil Mean for the Global Economy?” April 2006, available online
at http://www.secureenergy.org/reports/westcott_report.pdf, accessed 5/20/08.
From this starting point, this short analytical note is designed to give an overview of the broad
economic effects of a scenario in which oil prices surge to $120 a barrel due to coordinated
terrorist attacks on global oil transportation infrastructure. It is not intended to be an exhaustive
analysis. This scenario was the basis for a recent simulation exercise conducted by Securing
America’s Future Energy (safe) at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2006 in Davos,
Switzerland. Dr. Neil McMahon, a prominent oil analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein llc, provided
independent in-depth analysis on the price of crude oil based upon this scenario. In his analysis,
the price of oil was somewhat volatile and climbed above $120 a barrel at certain points, but for
simplicity in this note, it is assumed that the oil price remains constant at $120 for one year. The
main conclusion of this note is that $120 oil would have profound negative effects on the world
economy and global financial markets.
PROLONGED HIGH OIL PRICES WILL CAUSE A SEVERE GLOBAL RECESSION
If oil increased to $120 a barrel and stayed there for a year because of coordinated terrorist
attacks on oil facilities, the world’s oil bill would be about 8% of world gdp (even assuming
some reduction in the quantity of oil demanded)—higher than at any time in modern history.
Such oil prices would almost certainly precipitate a global recession. In addition to negative
demand effects, there would be large negative supply side effects, policy effects, and confidence
effects. Meanwhile, financial markets would likely judge these attacks on global energy supplies
more seriously than Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait or the 9/11 attacks, because of their
continuing disruptive effects. Stock market valuations would likely fall more than they did after
the Kuwait invasion or after 9/11. Given the negative confidence effects and negative supply
effects, the global recession would likely be severe.
PROLONGED HIGH OIL PRICES WILL CAUSE A RETRET OF CONSUMER SPENDING-

CAUSING A GLOBAL RECESSION.
Given that the average household saving rate in the U.S. is negative, even middle income
families have remarkably little capacity to “dig into savings” to sustain their consumer spending.
With oil jumping to $120 a barrel, household energy bills will roughly double to about $6,000 a
year, or about 15% of total annual income for the median family. Most families will have little
choice but to sharply curtail other spending. This same pattern will be mimicked around the
world. Although absolute energy use is lower in other advanced countries than it is in the U.S.,
income levels are also lower, so the fraction of median family budgets devoted to energy in most
countries will roughly double to 10-15% as well. Recent analysis by the Research Department at
the International Monetary Fund finds that a permanent $5 a barrel increase in oil prices would
Page 68 of 139
Miami inst. AB
decrease global gdp by up to 0.3 of a percentage point.3 This means that a $60 increase in oil
prices, from $60 to $120, would cut the level of world gdp by up to 3.6 percentage points.
Similarly, the U.S. Federal Reserve estimates that a $20 a barrel increase in oil prices reduces
U.S. gdp by about 0.75 of a percentage point, suggesting that a $60 increase would lower gdp by
2.3 percentage points.4 World gdp growth in the past 30 years has averaged 3.5% and when
growth slows to just 1% to 2%, a global recession is considered to have occurred. Therefore, a
reduction in world gdp of 2.3% to 3.6% due to $120 oil will likely represent the onset of a global
recession.
Page 69 of 139
Miami inst. AB
Bubble Economy Extensions:

Answer to Infinite Oil
OIL PRODUCTION WILL PEAK AND THEN DECLINE- ALL OF THE OBJECTIVE
RESEARCH POINTS THE SAME DIRECTION.
Timothy Miller, PhD Candidate in History at the University of Kansas, “The coming
utopia/dystopia and communal possibilities”, Spaces of Utopia: An Electronic Journal, no. 1,
Spring 2006, available online at ler.letras.up.pt/uploads/ficheiros/74_8.pdf, accessed 5/20/08.
It seems obvious that a finite resource will eventually be used up, but even among educated
people that is not necessarily accepted. For the average citizen the most noticeable oil shock
comes with increased gasoline and diesel prices, and many seem to think that we are victims of a
vast conspiracy by the multinational oil companies. Although there is probably truth to that
contention, that is the smaller, not the larger, problem. Inescapably, we are burning oil at a
prodigious rate, and supplies are on the brink of major decline. The only scientists and other
specialists who argue that oil supplies are abundant are those who are economically tied to the
energy industry, which even in 2 these perilous days has a vested interest in getting us to use
ever more fossil fuels. The independent observers who have examined the world’s supply of oil
vary in the details of their analysis, but not in their overall conclusion, namely that the
production of oil will start declining in the very near future, and will continue to decline
thereafter. The evidence for that scenario is provided not only by environmentalists and those
who oppose the power of the multinational companies on political grounds, but also by the oil
companies themselves. Richard Heinberg, of the New College of California, USA, provides
strong evidence that the decline of oil will come in the very near future. He concludes that the
peak of production will come between 2006 and 2015, and the latter end of that range will be the
case only if the world economy goes into recession and demand for oil drops (Heinberg 2003:
118-119). The analysis is supported by the data gathered by Richard Duncan, who has looked at
peaks in oil production by country and continent. He finds that production peaked in North
America in 1983, in the former Soviet Union in 1987, and in Asia and the Pacific in 2004.
Looking at current trends, he projects a peak of production in Europe in 2006, in South and
Central America in 2006, in Africa in 2006, and in the Middle East in 2009. Putting all the world
numbers together, he projects a world production peak in 2006 (quoted by Heinberg 2003: 103-
104). Paul Johnson adds an even more sobering note in his book The End of Oil. He notes that
heroic oil-recovery measures have already been used to push the peak of production farther into
the future, and that as a result when the peak does come, the decline will not be as gradual as it
would have been otherwise. In other words, we are facing not a gentle downhill slope but a steep
cliff (Johnson 2004: 52).
REGIONAL ISOLATION OF PETROLEUM RESOURCES CREATES ENERGY

DEPENDENCE- PAVING THE WAY FOR ENERGY WARS.
Rosalie Westenskow, journalist, “Oil prices pummel U.S. security,” United Press International,
5/22/2008, lexis, accessed 6/01/2008.
Unless the United States' energy structure changes radically and rapidly, soaring oil prices will
leave the country at the mercy of hostile states and terrorists, witnesses testified Thursday in
Congress. The United States currently consumes close to 21 million barrels of oil per day and
imports almost 14 million barrels a day, or 60 percent. Countries in the Persian Gulf supply 16
percent of those imports, according to the Energy Information Agency, with another 10 percent
coming from Venezuela. Relying on these countries for the nation's lifeblood puts the United
States at serious risk because it gives power to those who oppose U.S. policy, said Rep. Howard
Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. "Many sources of
fossil fuels on the world market are in parts of the world that are either unstable or politically
unfriendly to the United States," Berman said Thursday at a hearing in the Foreign Affairs
Committee. "This provides leverage for those who control these energy supplies, enabling them
Page 70 of 139
Miami inst. AB
to challenge U.S. foreign policy objectives." Currently unfolding events on the world stage
attest to the willingness of many countries to use their energy resources to gain political power,
said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., ranking member of the committee. "Russia has
demonstrated its willingness to use energy to put political pressure on other countries, such as
Ukraine," Ros-Lehtinen said. As demand for oil and natural gas rises worldwide, emerging
economies, such as China and India, may form unsavory partnerships to get the energy they
need, putting the United States at further risk, said Paul Saunders, executive director of the
Nixon Center, a non-partisan policy institute. "India's growing energy demand has led New
Delhi to cultivate ties with Iran as the world's second-largest holder of natural gas reserves after
Russia," Saunders said Thursday. "Japan, a key U.S. ally in Asia, has thus far resisted similar
pressures but is clearly interested in a deeper energy relationship with Iran if it becomes
possible."
ANALYSIS OF SAUDI PRODUCTION PROVES OIL SUPPLY IS GETTING TIGHT.
Elizabeth Souder, journalist, “T. Boone Pickens' prediction: Oil production is reaching its
peak,” The Dallas Morning News, 5/25/2008, lexis, accessed 6/01/2008.
When T. Boone Pickens talks, oil traders listen. The legendary oilman, who runs a multibillion-
dollar commodities hedge fund in Dallas, appears frequently on CNBC to predict oil prices. He's
often correct. So nearly every time he makes a new prediction, the market moves that very day
in the direction he forecasts. "I think you're going to see $150 before the end of the year," Mr.
Pickens told CNBC viewers Tuesday. Sure enough, oil futures ended the day 1.6 percent higher
at $129.07 a barrel, another record. Mr. Pickens is one of several Texans who are pushing the
Peak Oil theory of oil scarcity into the mainstream. He believes humans will soon use up half the
oil they can extract, and oil production rates will drop, never to recover. The controversial theory
gives oil investors reason to bid prices to record levels and has prompted some local officials to
create contingency plans. Oil company executives try to assure investors and consumers that
there will be plenty of oil for many decades to come, so there's no reason for oil prices to have
doubled during the last year. Oil traders don't seem to be listening. M. King Hubbert, a Shell
geophysicist from San Saba, Texas, came up with the Peak Oil theory in the 1950s. He studied
the way an oil field's production declines as the field matures, until it's barely a trickle. He
correctly predicted that U.S. production rates would peak around 1970. But current Peak Oil
theorists disagree on when global production will peak. Some say it's already happened; others
give it another decade. Part of the problem is that it's impossible to find accurate information on
exactly how much oil lies underground. Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, keep their reserve
data a state secret. Matthew Simmons tried to break through the Saudi silence. Mr. Simmons,
who owns an investment bank and an oil field services company in Houston, pored over
hundreds of technical reports about Saudi fields. He concluded that Saudi production will soon
wane, and the country will no longer be able to turn on the taps anytime humans face an oil
shortage. "Unless I'm totally screwed up in my analysis, we're sitting on the world's biggest
delusion ever," Mr. Simmons said.
Page 71 of 139
Miami inst. AB
Bubble Economy Extensions: Bio-

Fuels Solve Price Shocks
EXPERTS AGREE THAT A FLEX FUEL MANDATE WOULD INSULATE THE US FROM
ENERGY DISRUPTIONS AND TERRORIST ATTACKS.
Mark Clayton, Journalist, “Oil Shock 2?” Christian Science Monitor, May 12, 2008, lexis,
accessed 5/25/08.
One measure Lovins and Ann Korin, chairman of Set America Free, an energy-security
coalition, agree on is for the government to mandate that all vehicles be "flex fuel" burning so
Americans can choose alternatives to gasoline. The move, she says, would reduce the nation's
exposure to a terrorist attack. "There's not much we can do today if an attack occurs other than
band-aid responses like tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve," Ms. Korin says. "If every
garage had a plug-in [hybrid gas-electric] or flex-fuel vehicle, you could still get around. Oil
goes up, but we're not held hostage." The US already has "solutions that can take away the
strategic power of oil," adds Robert "Bud" McFarlane, national security adviser to President
Reagan in the mid-1980s, referring to ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, and electricity for vehicle
propulsion. Dennis McGinn agrees. A retired vice admiral of the Navy and a national-security
expert, he is acutely aware of the fragile oil-supply line and many energy choke points around
the globe. Still, he, too, sees a silver lining in this crisis if Americans can wake up and respond
to it. "Our nation has met a whole lot of crises in our history," he says. "This energy and climate-
change challenge is perfect for the American public, industry, and government to really do
something about. We just need to be honest with ourselves that business as usual can't continue."
Page 72 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
PUBLIC INVESTMENT SPURS PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND GROWTH.
Sherle R. Schwenninger, senior fellow at the World Policy Institute, “A Goldilocks World Economy?” World Policy
Journal Winter 2007, available online at
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/a_goldilocks_world_economy_5374, accessed 5/20/08.
A public-investment-led transition strategy would have advantages over other policy alternatives. First, in terms of demand,
most of the public investment would go to stimulate domestic investment and jobs, and thus would be more efficient than
either supply-side or demand-side tax cuts in countering an economic slowdown. Second, in terms of investment, public
investment— particularly public infrastructure investment— is a more direct and more reliable way to increase both public
and private investment than are supply-side tax cuts or deficit reduction, the policy choices respectively of the Bush
administration and former Clinton administration officials. More public investment is needed to correct the current
shortcomings in both the nation’s physical infrastructure and knowledge capital. Any increase in public investment related
to these unmet needs would have positive returns for the economy and would, in any case, be better than no increase in
public investment at all. Public investment would also be a more efficient way to stimulate private investment. Supply-side
tax cuts are particularly inefficient in that the money saved from reduced taxes is just as likely to be consumed or invested
abroad. As for deficit reduction, its principal purpose is to lower interest rates, but lower interest rates would not do much
to stimulate investment when the cost of capital is already low by historical standards. By contrast, public investment can
enhance private investment in two ways. It can increase the efficiency of existing investment and resources. And it can
“crowd in” private investment by making new private investment feasible in places where earlier it was not. The main
argument against public investment spending as a counter-cyclical tool is that it takes too long to implement—by the time
public projects are approved and implemented the economy is on the way to recovery. But this is not to suggest using
public investment as a classical countercyclical measure. The economy is not facing a business inventory recession; it is
still struggling with the legacy of the bursting of the tech bubble and the follow-on housing bubble. In this case, a healthy
dose of public investment spending is a necessary preventive measure against a prolonged slowdown caused by an
investment stall after the burst of an asset bubble.
PUBLIC INVESTMENT AND THIRD WORLD CONSUMPTION IS THE KEY TO ESCAPING THE BUBBLE
CYCLE- IT’S THE ONLY PATH TO STABLE ECONOMIC GROWTH.
A program of expanded public investment spending would be one pillar of a transition strategy to a sustainable faster-
growing world economy. The other would be measures to encourage greater middle-class consumption abroad. A better
balance between consumption and production at home means more consumption relative to production abroad, especially in
the high savings, newly industrialized, Asian economies. As noted earlier, these economies have experienced rapid
productivity gains over the past decade. The goal of American policy ought to be to help these economies translate those
productivity gains into rising wages and living standards—so that working men and women there can consume more of
what they produce and so that the world economy can grow in a more balanced way. To achieve this goal, American
policymakers need to shift their international economic thinking from the neoliberal, exportoriented nostrums of the 1980s
and 1990s to the Keynesian ideas of the 1940s and 1950s, when the United States dramatically expanded its middle class
and raised living standards. Rather than encourage emerging economies to develop primarily through the export of
manufactured goods and their component parts, U.S. international economic policy should champion middle-class
development aimed at increasing domestic consumption. This means helping emerging economies to expand home
ownership, invest in public infrastructure, improve public education, build a social safety net, and create more small and
medium-size businesses—much as the United States did in the last century. The end goal of this policy should be to build a
larger, global middle class in emerging economies, which could relieve U.S. consumers of some of the burden of serving as
the main consumer locomotive of the world economy. The conditions for rebalancing the world economy in this way are
present in many newly industrialized economies, where there is enormous pent-up consumer demand from rising incomes
and years of suppressed consumption.
OUR SCENARIO FOR THE ECONOMY IS MORE PROBABLE BECAUSE THIS IS AN “ABUNDANCE ECONOMY”
WHICH MAKES OTHER ECONOMIC MODELS FAIL.
Adjusting Our Thinking. The notion of an economy of abundance and plenty is counterintuitive to the experiences and
training of many of today’s leading economists and policymakers who are still rooted in the supply-constrained 1970s and
‘80s. Yet today’s economic conditions of rapid productivity growth and excess labor and capital have less in common with
those decades than with the bubble years of the 1920s. Thus, both in our domestic and international policies, we may be at
risk of repeating, albeit on a smaller scale, the mistake that an earlier generation in the 1920s made in not understanding the
challenges associated with rapid productivity growth and an abundant supply of labor and capital. Those challenges require
Page 73 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
us to think more creatively about spreading economic prosperity not only in the United States but also in emerging
economies.
Page 74 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
NOW IT A MAKE OR BREAK MOMENT FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.
Stephen McMahon, journalist, “Economy `Make or break' months looming,” The Advertiser (Australia), June 13, 2008,
lexis, accessed 6/18/2008.
The next few months will be the ``make or break time'' for the global economy, as it stares down the twin threats of higher
inflation and faltering growth, a top U.S. economist has warned. Professor Marvin Goodfriend, a 20-year veteran of the
U.S. Federal Reserve under former chairman Alan Greenspan's stewardship, said the volatility in oil prices and in global
stock markets would continue until the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. economy begins to clear. ``We are going to have a
very nervous summer (in the northern hemisphere) as we aren't going to get a clear picture until later in the year about
whether the U.S. economy can avoid recession,'' he said. ``The U.S. economy has been whipsawed this year by two
opposing forces.'' Despite the gloom, Professor Goodfriend is optimistic the U.S. economy can maintain its low-growth
trajectory throughout this year - largely thanks to the $US170 billion of rebate cheques given to taxpayers by the
government - and avoid an out-and-out recession. As prices continue to go higher, he forecast Fed chairman Ben Bernanke
will be forced to raise rates once this year. Professor Goodfriend, a visitor at the United States Studies Centre at the
University of Sydney, said if the Fed doesn't move quickly enough against rising inflation, the dreaded stagflation - slow or
no growth combined with rising inflation - could hit for the first time since the 1970s. Today, he is meeting with senior
Reserve Bank of Australia executives to discuss the global scourge of inflation. ``Australia is the flip-side to all the
problems in the global economy, but inflation is its Achilles heel,'' he said.
BIOFUELS DRIVE UP FOOD PRICES- RISKING A GLOBAL RECESSION.
Larry Elliott, journalist, “Soft landings and hard realities: The IMF thinks we can ride out this crisis, but there could be far
worse news to come,” Guardian Weekly, April 18, 2008, lexis, accessed 6/18/2008.
The first is that it is far too early to say that the worst is over. Henry Paulson, who does Summers's old job at the US
treasury, said he expected to see some impact from lower interest rates and tax cuts by the third quarter of this year. But that
depends on the US housing market stabilising, because until it does there is a real risk of a vicious circle of foreclosures,
collapsing consumer confidence, rising unemployment, bigger losses for US banks, tighter credit conditions and a falling
stock market. The IMF says that risks are still heavily weighted to the downside. It produced an alternative scenario in
which there would be a further tightening of credit conditions, a far bigger drop in equity and property prices than it
currently expects, a gloomier assessment of the prospects for long-term productivity growth in the US, and an
unwillingness on the part of foreign investors to continue buying US assets. It already believes there is a 25% risk of a
global recession; under this alternative scenario it says there would be a deeper and longer period of falling growth in the
US, accompanied by an extended period of weakness in the eurozone and spillover effects on the rest of the global
economy through weaker trade flows and tougher credit conditions. This scenario looks just as realistic as the fund's
baseline soft-landing forecast. For one thing, there is a clear disjunction between the idea that this is the biggest financial
shock since the Depression and the idea that there will be only a short-lived and relatively mild impact on growth. In
addition, the soft-landing thesis conveniently ignores the other headwinds facing the global economy. These include
rocketing commodity prices that are contributing to a sharp rise in imported inflation, severe downward pressure on the
dollar that threatens to become a disorderly plunge, the still-sizeable global imbalances that have resulted in massive trade
surpluses in Asia, and massive trade deficits in the US, which have been only slightly reduced by a cheaper greenback and
weaker growth. That list was supplemented last week by global hunger caused by rising food prices. The world has
suddenly woken up to what should have been blindingly obvious: trying to solve the problem of climate change by using
crops for biofuel was a short-term fix with potentially lethal result. If you encourage farmers to use land that would have
produced food for fuel, the price of food will go up. Gordon Brown considers this to be a serious crisis and is right to call
for a global response. Yet apart from the humanitarian need to help those going hungry, rising food prices make it harder to
avoid recession in the West, since they stifle consumer confidence and make policy-makers warier about cutting interest
rates.
BIO-FUEL INCENTIVES DRIVE UP GLOBAL FOOD PRICES, AND DISTORT ENERGY MARKETS.
I would like to make a few general comments about trade and economic incentives. First, U.S. policies related to ethanol.
There is a big debate about the contribution that they make toward raising food prices. The range of estimates will vary and
we will never know the precise magnitudes. But that should not come in the way of action. We can be confident that
eliminating or reducing the distortions generated by the ethanol program will help dampen food prices. Moreover, these
Page 75 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
policies are one of the few factors responsible for the crisis that we can control more than we can control climactic factors
that affect supply or the increased demand due to prosperity in the developing world. We need to act on the few things that
U.S. policy-makers can control and eliminating or reducing the ethanol program is one policy lever we have. Moreover, the
ethanol issue should be seen not from the narrow perspective of its contribution to food but from two broader perspectives.
With oil prices at US$126 a barrel, the market by itself is providing a lot of help and incentives for ethanol production.
There seems little need for additional help and incentives at taxpayers' expense. Furthermore, while ethanol interventions
originally had good motivations (reducing dependence on fossil fuels and imported fuels), they have led to some
unintended consequences that are now becoming evident. The question now from an environmental perspective is this:
insofar as the U.S. government needs to provide incentives for the search for alternatives to fossil fuels, why favor one
particular alternative, namely ethanol (which, according to experts is not even the most environmentally efficient one)?
Why not level the playing field so that all new avenues, all potentially new ideas have a good shot at being explored and
discovered? In other words, eliminating all the assistance to ethanol-based biofuels and providing broad-based incentives
for alternative fuel research and production might be better food policy and better environmental policy. The aim of policy
should not be to "pick" winners but to find winners.
BIO-FUEL INCENTIVES INCREASE GLOBAL FOOD PRICES
To boost agricultural supply in the medium run, we need to fix the incentives facing agriculture globally. That in turn
means efficient and food-friendly trade policies around the world. But not only are we far away from that objective, we are
moving in the wrong direction. In the U.S., the combination of the Renewable Fuels Standard (the ethanol mandates), the
blenders' tax credit, and tariffs on imported Brazilian ethanol have diverted land, especially from wheat and soya bean
production, and contributed to food price increases. Estimates vary on the magnitude of this contribution (one estimate by
Professor Babcock of Iowa State University says that eliminating all three of these measures would reduce prices by 16
percent, while another by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) suggests that a moratorium on biofuel
production in developed countries through 2008 would ease corn prices by 20 percent and wheat prices by 10 percent), but
as I will explain below, the question of exactly how much is less important than the fact that these three policies contribute
to food price rises.
BIOFUELS DRIVE UP COMMODITY PRICES.
Jim Kleinschmit, Rural communities program director for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, “Biofuels Moving
Mainstream– Environmental and Social Implications,” IATP COMMENTARY, September 13, 2007, available online at:
www.iatp.org/iatp/commentaries.cfm?refid=100323, accessed 6/12/2008.
Take, for example, the increasing concern about biofuels’ impact on commodity prices and availability – more commonly
referred to as the “food vs. fuel” issue. There is no doubt that the growing demand of the biofuels sector for feedstocks –
primarily corn and soybeans in the U.S. – is having an impact on the prices of these and other basic commodity crops.
Already, it is expected that ethanol will consume 20 percent of U.S. corn in 2007, and more than 30 percent of the corn
crop by 2009. And if all of the proposed plants as of April 2007 were to be built (which is not likely to happen), this share
could grow to as much as 54 percent. Biodiesel’s market share is much smaller, but is having a similar effect on the soy
market, with the USDA projecting that the sector will consume 20 percent of soy oil production in 2007/08. One clear
result of this increased usage has been a rise in corn prices, but also in other commodities such as soybeans, wheat, oats,
and barley, as farmers have shifted acreage to corn and other users have turned to them as “replacement” feedstocks. The
result is that biofuels are blamed for everything from the higher prices of tortillas in Mexico to higher meat prices in
America, all while raising the specter of worldwide threats of increased food insecurity.
Page 76 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Bubble Internal: Inflation

A WEAKENED ECONOMY MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE FED TO FIGHT INFLATION- RISKING A
GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE.
The Daily Yomiuri(Tokyo), June 17, 2008, lexis, accessed 6/18/2008.

There is little room for relaxing monetary policy as a means of bolstering the economy, given the low-interest-rate policy
already in place. In addition, the nation has a huge fiscal deficit to deal with, making it difficult to increase public spending
on economic pump-priming measures. If the price increase spreads further, it will become even more difficult for the
government to deal with the situation. Discord among Japan, Europe and the United States over policy coordination also
could become a destabilizing factor for the global economy. The European Central Bank is positive about a rise in interest
rates to avoid inflation. But the United States is finding it difficult to raise interest rates due to its fear of a financial system
crash caused by the subprime mortgage crisis. If they fail to take concerted action, there is no denying that the disharmony
could invite worldwide market trouble. Given the unpredictable economic situation, it is important to react flexibly and
come out with measures to mitigate the impact of an economic downturn.
Page 77 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Bubble Internal: Inflation

THE FED HAS A BALANCED APPROACH RIGHT NOW- NEW INFLATION MIGHT FORCE ITS HAND AND
CAUSE ANOTHER GREAT DEPRESSION.
Mark Thompson, journalist, “Talk of recession is premature for U.S.,” The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia) March 24, 2008,
In fact, much of the recent banking news has been focused on the subprime market. Keep in mind that this market accounts
for less than 10 percent of all homeowners, according to the Mortgage Banker's Association. Financial institutions are
paying for their lax lending requirements; unfortunately, consumers and small businesses might also pay a price as it has
spilled over into other areas of the economy. With the onset of a possible, but mild recession, rising prices have brought
the discussion of stagflation to the forefront. Stagflation is when the aggregate price level is rising and the economy is
slowing down. This period of time is difficult for policy makers. To combat rising prices or inflationary pressures, the
Federal Reserve can pursue contractionary monetary policy via raising the federal funds rate. Doing so would further
contract the economy and restrict financial capital. This mistake has been done before (including the Great Depression).
Today, markets are adjusting. The Federal Reserve is pursuing a very aggressive, and in my opinion, appropriate stance as
inflation expectations are holding steady. As each month passes, the Fed will re-evaluate the situation.
THE ECONOMY WILL BE FINE NOW- BUT FASTER INFLATION COULD DESTROY THE RECOVERY.
Business Week Online, “Stocks Sink as Oil Soars,” May 8, 2008, lexis, accessed 6/12/2008.
The Kansas City Fed's Hoenig said in a speech late Tuesday that the Fed must be ready to raise benchmark interest rates in
a timely manner given the "troublesome" inflation outlook. "If inflation gets too high, the economy will suffer
dramatically," a Reuters dispatch from Denver quoted Hoenig as saying. Hoenig strongly hinted that he would not support
more cuts to the Fed's benchmark interest rates at a time higher inflation could be getting entrenched, given prospects for
growth to pick up in the second half of 2008. "The current accommodative stance should be sufficient to cushion the
economy from a deeper slowdown and the risks that financial disruptions could spill over to the broader economy," Hoenig
said. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Paulson said U.S. financial markets are emerging from the credit crunch
that many economists believe has pushed the country to the brink of recession. "I do believe that the worst is likely to be
behind us," Paulson told the newspaper in an interview. The Journal said Paulson's comments appear to be the Bush
administration's most optimistic assessment yet about the financial turmoil that began last year with defaults on subprime
home loans and spread through financial institutions that owned tens of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. In
the interview, however, the Treasury Secretary predicted there would be further "bumps along the road," and that it would
take "some months longer" for the market distress to fully dissipate.
NOW THERE’S A UNIQUE RISK OF GLOBAL INFLATION
Joanna Slater, journalist, “Inflation's bite worsens around world.” The Associated Press June 11, 2008, lexis, access
6/10/2008.
Inflation worries are heating up around the world and jolting financial markets in the process. On Tuesday, China's stock
market was the latest to feel the blow, with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index tumbling by 7.7 percent, to its lowest
close this year. The drop came after the government announced steps to remove cash from the financial system in an
attempt to tamp down inflation. Also Tuesday, officials in Vietnam effectively devalued their currency in a step aimed at
easing market pressures related to soaring inflation rates. And in the U.S., investors sold off U.S. Treasury securities, one
day after Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that the run-up in oil prices is adding to upside risks for
inflation. The price of the two year Treasury note, most sensitive to the Fed's moves, has fallen sharply (and its yield has
risen) as investors grow convinced that the central bank may have to raise rates this autumn to contain inflation. On
Tuesday, the two-year note's yield was 2.9 percent, up from 2.4 percent on Friday, marking a major jump in that rate.
INTEREST RATES CAN’T BE USED AS A CHECK- MAKING ANY INFLATION DANGEROUS.
6/10/2008.
The typical way to fight inflation is to raise interest rates. But that tends to hurt economic growth and weighs on stock
prices. It also complicates efforts by some developing markets to hold their currencies steady, an important mission because
their economies tend to be export-driven. The global economy is showing resilience, to be sure. On Tuesday, the World
Bank predicted modest declines in growth rates and investment in developing countries this year, according to its annual
Page 78 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Global Development Finance report. Skyrocketing energy and food prices are particularly acute for countries with large
numbers of people living in poverty. But there are other inflationary forces at work which preceded the recent surge in
commodity prices. Many developing economies have experienced a flood of capital inflows, leading to an overheated
investment climate and piles of reserves. They've also seen rapid growth in domestic demand and lending, plus tightening
labor markets. The inflation spike is sparking concern among investors. After years of benign conditions, emerging markets
"actually are getting riskier," says Simon Hallett, who manages about $7 billion in international stocks at Harding, Loevner
Management. Central banks across the developing world face a critical test. Many haven't taken aggressive steps to tighten
monetary policy, say economists and investors, and have resorted to temporary measures like price controls on consumer
goods such as flour and gasoline to tame inflation. Governments seeking to dial back costly subsidies risk angering their
populaces. In Egypt, protests broke out in the town of Burullus over the weekend after officials stopped the sale of
subsidized flour to citizens. "The increases in inflation are outpacing the reactions of central banks," says Curtis
Mewbourne, co-head of emerging markets at Pacific Investment Management Co., which manages $70 billion in these
countries. He says his firm has decreased its exposure to interest-bearing instruments like bonds issued in these markets.
INFLATION IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TANKS THEIR FOREIGN INVESTMENT
6/10/2008.
Investors are punishing stocks, bonds, and currencies in other countries that are already experiencing runaway inflation or
where rising prices combine with other economic vulnerabilities. Vietnam was until recently a darling of investors seeking
the next generation of hot markets. But a report that consumer price inflation was 25 percent higher in May from a year
earlier knocked down the value of the local currency in futures markets and set off worries about a financial crisis. China's
inflation rate hasn't yet reached those levels but is a major source of concern for investors. "The time for hard choices is
here," wrote Stephen Green, head of China research at Standard Chartered Bank in Shanghai. In several large emerging
markets, double-digit inflation has already arrived or is expected shortly, including Russia, Turkey, South Africa, India,
Indonesia, and the Philippines. In the last week alone, Russia, the Philippines, and Indonesia all raised their key interest
rates. But some investors worry it's not enough. Even with the increases in interest rates, many governments especially
those in Asia are still running policies that stimulate their economies. That's because their key policy rates are lower than
inflation, which gives investors an incentive to borrow rather than to save. "These guys are falling behind the curve," says
Edwin Gutierrez, an emerging-market bond portfolio manager at Aberdeen Asset Management in London, in the hopes that
the surge in food and energy prices will prove short-lived. "It's a very dangerous game," says Mr. Gutierrez.
Internal: Inflation: US Inflation Key to Global Economy
US INFLATION IS KEY TO A GLOBAL ECONOMIC DECLINE. CURRENTLY- WE ARE SAFE.
Trevor Greetham, director of asset allocation for Fidelity International, “America will lead the way,” Financial Advise
January 25, 2007, lexis, accessed, 6/18/2008.
US consumer strength has been a major driving force for global economic growth and has acted as a power supply for the
rapid economic development of China and other emerging markets in the past few years. With US house prices falling,
fears of a weaker US consumer demand and a fall in business confidence could become more prevalent. For a soft landing
in the US and world economy, there needs to be significant rate cuts from the Federal Reserve and lower mortgage rates.
This, in turn, hinges on the path of inflation. US equities have underperformed more volatile growth-sensitive markets for
the last few years. It is ironic the apparent global slowdown is US-led, but it will probably make Wall Street increasingly
appealing to global investors. At present, European markets look most attractive. Growth remains strong, the European
Central Bank is relatively early in its rate rise cycle and the strength of domestic demand should help offset possible
weakness in exports. The euro's strength also enhances returns. Susceptibility Japan is probably the most susceptible major
economy to a slowdown in US growth. The Bank of Japan officially ended its zero-interest rate policy with a 0.25 per cent
interest rate rise in July 2006. Any further tightening of monetary policy ought to be a delicate process following such an
extended period of deflation. However, official statements seem to suggest a desire to normalise rates at about 3 per cent.
Smaller Asian markets have performed well. After strong performance in 2005, the Korean market slowed in 2006 as a
result of weakened business confidence amid political uncertainties and lower domestic consumption. However, the
economic outlook remains fair, given the strong export growth and stable demand. Domestic demand in Taiwan has been
impacted negatively by weak fixed investment and private consumption, although export growth should continue to support
the economy. The main emerging markets of China, Brazil and India, which together represent about a quarter of global
growth in recent years, should make an increasingly important contribution in the long term. Weakness in developed
economies, however, is likely to have a negative impact on investors.
Page 79 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
US INFLATION RISKS AN INTEREST RATE HIKE WHICH WOULD KILL GROWTH AND SEND A GLOBAL
SIGNAL.
Neil Fullick, journalist, “Monetary policies on the mind of investors,” The International Herald Tribune, June 16, 2008,
Financial markets battered last week by increased anti-inflation talk from the world's two most powerful central banks can
take stock this week of just how aggressive the monetary tightening might be. While future rate increases by the European
Central and the U.S. Federal Reserve would embolden rate setters elsewhere to follow suit, lingering concerns about a
slowdown in economic growth might well keep the policy makers cautious and markets on edge. The dollar is expected to
feel the crosswinds of these competing viewpoints early in the week after the Group of 8 nations failed to endorse a
stronger dollar in a meeting of their finance ministers in Osaka, Japan, during the past weekend. The dollar has been linked
to rising prices because some, including the French economy minister, Christine Lagarde, argue speculators are putting
their money into commodities like oil to hedge against long-term weakness in the currency. ''The result of the G-8 was a
disappointment, with ministers saying they did not discuss currencies,'' said Minoru Shioiri, chief manager of foreign
exchange trading at Mitsubishi UFJ Securities in Tokyo. ''The dollar is likely to start lower on Monday.'' But any dollar
downside may well be limited because the Fed seems poised to raise interest rates, adding to the appeal of investing in U.S.
assets, bankers said. ''The dollar's fall will be gradual because views for higher U.S. interest rates and rising Treasury
yields, bigger factors behind the dollar's recent rise, are still intact,'' said Tohru Sasaki, chief foreign exchange strategist at
JPMorgan Chase in Tokyo. The dollar chalked up its biggest gains in more than three years against the euro last week to
factor in the sudden burst of anti-inflation talk from policy makers at the Fed and the European Central Bank. The Fed
chairman, Ben Bernanke, Enhanced Coverage Linking Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke, said a weak dollar was contributing to
import-price inflation in the United States. He highlighted the need to keep inflation expectations under control, raising
expectations that the Fed would increase rates. The Fed has aggressively cut rates to 2 percent from 5.25 percent since the
global credit crisis blew up last year, so Bernanke Enhanced Coverage Linking Bernanke's comments suddenly put a rate
rise on the agenda. The president of the European bank, Jean-Claude Trichet, was more clear-cut. He said the bank could
raise rates for the first time since 1999 as soon as July. He and other policy makers have talked about being on high alert
over inflation. The reaction in financial markets was dramatic. Bonds were battered. Yields on two-year U.S. Treasury
securities, the most sensitive to changing interest rate expectations, jumped their most last week in 26 years, rising 65 basis
points to more than 3 percent. A basis point is one-hundredth of a percentage point. Stocks fell globally, as measured by
the MSCI world equity index. The Nikkei average, the FTSEurofirst 300, the FTSE 100, the Nasdaq and Standard & Poor's
500-stock index all lost ground. The Dow Jones industrial average rose.
UNCONTROLLED US INFLATION RISKS GLOBAL INFLATION CRISIS.
Hardev Kaur, journalist, “Prudent spending critical for long-term survival,” New Straits Times (Malaysia), June 13, 2008,
In July 2006, the market was forecasting an increase to $80US a barrel. Today, the price has breached the $139US a barrel
and still shows "no sign of weakening soon". Last Saturday, the FT headline was "Crude oil jumps $10US; cost of barrel
now close to $138US". Today, the scenario is no different - record high oil prices and inflation fears are growing. The
United States' Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke sounded inflation concerns on Monday. The assessment of some
central bank officials in the US is that higher interest rates may be needed to offset global inflation. Thus, governments
around the world, oil producers included, are looking into ways to reduce the burden of the unprecedented high oil prices
from adversely affecting government budgets and finances. Subsidies that have capped prices consumers pay hide the real
price of the commodity. And the increased burden of higher world oil prices is borne by governments as the amount of
subsidies continues to increase. The Malaysian government's oil subsidy bill was also on the increase. Last year, the
government spent RM53 billion on fuel subsidies - RM33 billion on diesel and petrol and RM20 billion on natural gas. If
the government continued giving out subsidies as in the past, it is estimated that this year the subsidies would amount to
some RM56 billion. This would mean an increase in government budget deficit which had been reduced to three per cent
of gross domestic product. According to Professor Danny Quah of the London School of Economics, the government
budget deficit could rise to between eight per cent and 10 per cent if the government continues with the subsidies. This
would result in other unacceptable and unwelcome consequences for the economy. The high level of subsidies is
untenable. For the longer-term survival of the nation, the government must be prudent in its spending and financial
management today. Even though Malaysia is an oil producer and exporter, the country still imports oil and can neither
ignore nor be shielded from global developments and price volatility. No country, big or small, developed or developing, is
immune to price increases. Even in the US, a major oil producer, the price at the pump has reached a national average of
$4US a gallon, passing the once unthinkable milestone. And this at the peak summer travel season in the US. Even then,
Jason Toews, co-founder of fuel research site GasBuddy.com, is reported as saying that "I don't think we've felt quite the
full impact of $138US or $139US barrel oil".
Page 80 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Impact: Soil Erosion
US ethanol bias drives up corn prices- causing soil erosion in several ways.
Jeff Tollefson, Energy reporter for Nature Magazine- fellow in science journalism at MIT, “Not your father's biofuels,”
Nature Feb. 20, 2008.
It's all the more discouraging because American farmers had reduced soil erosion by about 40 percent between 1985 and
1995, largely due to government policies like the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). But CRP programs are now
taking a back seat to the desire to cash in on the biofuel bonanza. Erosion is ignored while the US government
provides billions of dollars in subsidies for biofuels. "Biofuels and climate change are real threats to America's soil
health," Cox says. Farmers are eagerly plowing up CRP lands, pastures, and highly erodible land to grow corn--12
million additional acres of corn in 2007 alone--so they can profit from the ethanol boom. Ethanol is mainly made
from corn, and the federal government hopes the US will be producing 35 billion gallons of the stuff by 2017.
Reaching that goal would turn much of the US into a giant cornfield and has already doubled the price of corn in the past
two years. Corn is particularly hard on the soil, requiring plenty of fertilizer, water, and pesticides. Cox says ethanol
has sparked a "gold-rush mentality" among farmers who are mortgaging the future health of their soils for short-
term profits. "There's no question that the ethanol boom is increasing erosion." Not surprisingly, land prices and
rents in the corn belt have jumped upward, creating additional pressure to "mine the soil to pay the mortage."
Farmland has been a popular investment for many years, and in some states, half of all farmland is rented. This reduces the
incentives for soil conservation, since the farmer who works the field is not the permanent caretaker of the land.
Page 81 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose: Investment Key

Investment is key to cellulosic breakthrough- but investors are nervous.
Wallace E. Tyner, Purdue University, Paper presented at the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council Conference,
“Biofuels, Energy Security, and Global Warming Policy Interaction,” NATURE, Vol 444 No 7, December 2006.
One way round this is to invest across the board. This is the strategy pursued by Vinod Khosla, the Silicon Valley venture capitalist
who is one of the founders of Cilion. Khosla is also involved in cellulosic technologies through two companies based in
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Celunol, which has just started to operate its own pilot plant, and Mascoma, which concentrates on
process engineering and which last month raised $30 million in second-round venture funding. Farther afield in the biofuels
world, Khosla is also a major investor in Kergy, a company that turns biomass into fuel in a completely different ‘thermochemical’
way, using just heat and catalysts. For some observers, such as Dan Schrag, a geochemist at Harvard University, these approaches
are more attractive than fermentation, not least because they need no witches’ brews made from fiddly feedstock-specific enzyme.
“When the dust clears, cellulosic ethanol is unlikely to be where we end up,” he predicts (see page 677). To Drinkwater, investors
such as Khosla, with their broad-based approach to the problem, are exactly what the industry needs to drive the market
forwards and get it over the final bump it needs to clear before commercial success. Unfortunately, there are few such people.
In their absence, many in the industry, not without self-interest, see the responsibility resting with governments to provide
attractive tax incentives.
Government financing is key to widespread use of cellulosic ethanol

Julie Sibbing, National Wildlife Federation, Soil and Water Conservation, May‐June 2007, p. 48A  
But cellulosic technologies have not yet been deployed at commercial scale in the United States. Cellulosic ethanol 
will rely on the development of enzymes that can break down the cellulose in plant materials to starch, which can be 
fermented into ethanol. While there are significant investments, both public and private, into developing this 
enzymatic technology, nobody knows when these enzymes will be available. It could take as little as 2 years or as 
long as 15 years without government leadership to move the technology more quickly to commercialization. There 
are other promising technologies for utilizing biomass as well: pyrolysis, gasification, and various thermochemical 
processes. Yet these are receiving very little public investment. We currently have the unprecedented chance to
develop a new, sustainable energy future for our country. While biofuels are only part of this future, they need
immediate and significant policy attention and public investment to set them on the right path. Since corn ethanol and 
soybean biodiesel are what we have available for biofuels today and can bring about modest net greenhouse gas 
reductions, we must inject some common sense into the debate and commit to sustainable corn ethanol expansion 
targets, along with increased spending on conservation programs and reasonable safeguards to protect the 
conservation gains we have achieved over the past several decades.  
Page 82 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose: Investment Key
Advanced enzyme breakthrough is near- we need a broader research effort.

"Cellulose has physical and chemical properties that make it difficult to access and difficult to break down," explains
Caltech's Arnold, who has worked on and off on the biological approach to producing cellulosic ethanol since the 1970s.
For one thing, cellulose fibers are held together by a substance called lignin, which is "a bit like asphalt," Arnold says. Once
the lignin is removed, the cellulose can be broken down by enzymes, but they are expensive, and existing enzymes are not
ideal for the task. Many researchers believe that the most promising way to make cellulosic biofuels economically
competitive involves the creation--or the discovery--of "superbugs," microorganisms that can break down cellulose to
sugars and then ferment those sugars into ethanol. The idea is to take what is now a multistep process requiring the addition
of costly enzymes and turn it into a simple, one-step process, referred toin the industry as consolidated bioprocessing.
According to Lee Lynd, a professor of engineering at Dartmouth College and cofounder of Mascoma, a company based in
Cambridge, MA, that is commercializing a version of the technology, the consolidated approach could eventually produce
ethanol at 70 cents a gallon. "It would be a transformational breakthrough," he says. "There's no doubt it would be
attractive." But finding superbugs has proved difficult. For decades, scientists have known of bacteria that can degrade
cellulose and also produce some ethanol. Yet none can do the job quickly and efficiently enough to be useful for large-scale
manufacturing. Nature, Arnold explains, offers little help. "There are some organisms that break down cellulose," she
says, "but the problem is that they don't make fuels, so that doesn't do you much good." An alternative, she says, is to
genetically modify E. coli and yeast so that theysecrete enzymes that degrade cellulose. But while many different kinds of
enzymes could do the job, "most them don't like to be inserted into E. coli and yeast." Arnold, however, is optimistic that
the right organism will be discovered. "You never know what will happen tomorrow," she says, "whether it's done using
synthetic biology or someone just scrapes one off the bottom of their shoe." She didn't quite scrape it off her shoe, but
Susan Leschine, a microbiologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, believes she just might have stumbled on a
bug that will do the job. She found itin a soil sample collected more than a decade ago from the woods surrounding the
Quabbin Reservoir, about 15 miles from her lab. The Quabbin sample was just one of many from around the world that
Leschine was studying, so it was several years before she finished analyzing it. But when she did, she realized that one of
its bacteria, Clostridium phytofermentans, had extraordinary properties. "It decomposes nearly all the components of
the plant, and it forms ethanol as the main product," she says. "It produces prodigious amounts of ethanol." Leschine
founded a company in Amherst, SunEthanol, that will attempt to scale up ethanol production using the bacterium. There's
"a long way to go," she acknowledges, but she adds that "what we have is very different, and that gives us a leg up. We
already have a microbe and have demonstrated it on real feedstocks." Leschine says that otheruseful microbes are probably
waiting to be discovered: a single soilsample, after all, contains hundred of thousands of varieties. "In this zoo of
microbes," she says, "we can think that there are others with similar properties out there."
Page 83 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose Solves Ag Crisis
Agricultural demand will make biofuel consume nearly all arable land- only
advanced biofuels solve.
Whether ethanol made from cellulosic biomass is good or bad for the environment, however, depends on what kind of
biomass it is and how it is grown. In his office in St. Paul, David Tilman, a professor of ecology atthe University of
Minnesota, pulls out a large aerial photo of a field sectioned into a neat grid. Even from the camera's vantage point far
above the ground, the land looks poor. In one plot are thin rows of grasses, the sandy soil visible beneath. Tilman says the
land was so infertile that agricultural use of it had been abandoned. Then he and his colleagues scraped off any remaining
topsoil. "No farmer has land this bad," he says. In a series of tests, Tilman grew a mixture of native prairie grasses
(including switchgrass) in some of the field's plots and single species in others. The results show that a diverse mix of
grasses, even grown in extremely infertile soil, "could be a valuable source of biofuels," he says. "You could make more
ethanol from an acre [of the mixed grasses] than you could from an acre of corn." Better yet, in apaper published in
Science, Tilman showed that the prairie grasses could be used to make ethanol that is "carbon negative": the grasses might
consume and store more carbon dioxide than is released by producing and burning the fuel made from them. The
findings are striking because they suggest an environmentally beneficial way to produce massive amounts of biofuels
without competing with food crops. By 2050, according to Tilman, the world will need a billion hectares more land for
food. "That's the land mass of the entire United States just to feed the world," he says. "If you did a lot of biofuels on
[arable] land--it is very easy to envision a billion hectares for biofuels--you will have no nature left and no reserve of
land after 50 years." Instead, Tilman argues, it makes sense to grow biomass for fuels on relatively infertile land no
longer used for agriculture.
Page 84 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose Solves Dependence
Cellulose will drop the price of biofuel- crowding out oil entirely
Even in a Silicon Valley culture that reveres successful venture capitalists, Vinod Khosla has a special place of honor. A
cofounder ofSun Microsystems in the early 1980s, Khosla later joined the venturecapital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield and
Byers, where in the late 1990s and early 2000s he gained a reputation for ignoring the dotcom excitement in favor of a
series of esoteric startups in the far less glamorous field of optical networking. When several of the startups sold for billions
of dollars to large companies gearing up their infrastructure for the Internet boom, Khosla became, in the words of one
overheated headline of the time, "The No. 1 VC on the Planet." These days Khosla, who is now among the world's richest
people (the Forbes 400 lists him at 317, with a net worth of $i.5 billion), is putting most of his investments in alternative
energies. He counts among his portfolio companies more than a dozen biofuel startups--synthetic-biology companies LS9
and Amyris, cellulosic companies like Mascoma, and corn ethanol companies like Cilion, based in Goshen, CA. Butto call
Khosla simply an investor in biofuels would greatly understate his involvement. In the last several years, he has emerged as
one of the world's leading advocates of the technology, promoting its virtues and freely debating any detractors (see Q&A,
March/April 2007). Khosla seems exasperated by the biofuels naysayers. Climate change, he says, is "by far the biggest
issue" driving his interest in biofuels. If we want to head off climate change and decrease consumption of gasoline, "there
are no alternatives" to using cellulosic biofuelsfor transportation. "Biomass is the only feedstock in sufficient quantities to
cost-effectively replace oil," he says. "Nothing else exists." Hybrid and electric vehicles, he adds, are "just toys." In
particular, argues Khosla, any transportation technology needs to compete in China and India, the fastest-growing
automotive marketsin the world. "It's no big deal to sell a million plug-in electrics in a place like California," he says. The
difficulty is selling a $20,000 hybrid vehicle in India. "No friggin' chance. And any technology not adoptable by China and
India is irrelevant to climate change," he says. "Environmentalists don't focus on scalability. If you can't scale it up, it
is just a toy. Hence the need for biofuels. Hence biofuels from biomass." In a number of opinion papers posted on the
website of Khosla Ventures, a firm he started in 2004 that has invested heavily in biofuelsand other environmental
technologies, Khosla envisions biofuel production rapidly increasing over the next 20 years. According to his numbers,
production of corn ethanol will level off at 15 billion gallonsa year by 2014, but cellulosic ethanol will increase
steadily, reaching 140 billion gallons by 2030. At that point, he predicts, biofuels will be cheap and abundant enough
to replace gasoline for almost all purposes. While Khosla readily acknowledges the limitations of corn-derived ethanol,
he says it has been an important "stepping-stone": the market for corn ethanol has created an infrastructure and market for
biofuels in general, removing many of the business risks of investing in cellulosic ethanol. "The reason that I like [corn
ethanol] is that its trajectory leads to cellulosic ethanol," he says. "Without corn ethanol, no one would be investing in
cellulosics."
Page 85 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Add-on: Oil Sands
High oil prices = oil sands investment

Leonard L. Coburn, former Director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy
ENERGY MARKETS AND GLOBAL POLITICS, 2006, available online at,
www.aspeninstitute.org/.../EE_ENERGY_MARKETS_AND_GLOBAL_POLITICS_I.PDF.
Today’s high oil price environment encourages the pursuit of oil sands investments and production. Estimates provided of
the cost of supplying oil from the Alberta oil sands were in the $30-$35 per barrel range. With high energy prices Canada
could produce about 3.5 mmbpd by 2020, with a potential to produce more than 5 mmbpd. But the region is experiencing
serious cost escalations due to increased cost for the energy needed to produce oil sands. Oil sands either are mined and
then processed using large quantities of energy to produce the oil, or produced under ground (in situ), again using large
quantities of energy to produce steam that helps turn the heavy bitumen into flowing oil. Both methods also require large
amounts of water. Based on projections using the latest, higher estimates of the cost of production, it is more likely that
Alberta’s oil sands region will produce 2.6 mmbpd by 2015 and 3.2 mmbpd by 2020.
Page 86 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Off-Case: Uniqueness Shield
NU- The farm bill gives massive inventives for cellulose.

The farm bill passed last week by Congress, and promised a veto this week by President Bush, gives a big boost to the
renewable fuels industry. The bill passed by high majorities, with a vote of 318-106 in the House and 85-15 in the Senate --
enough to override a veto if the majority of policymakers vote the same way again. Government subsidies and funding for
the research and development of alternative fuels will increase by $1 billion if the bill becomes law. The provisions target
cellulosic fuels, made out of non-food crops such as switchgrass or waste materials like corn cobs. In recent weeks, as food
prices have skyrocketed, some experts have said increased production of corn-based ethanol is partly to blame. As a result,
Congress wants to get cellulosic fuels up and running as soon as possible." America's energy solution will be achieved by
expanding renewable fuel production and alternative energy through investment in scientific research," said Rep. Nick
Lampson, D-Texas, who met with Senate leaders in conference to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill. "We
need to make sure we are providing incentives and resources to industries that are working to diversify America's energy
platform." The bill certainly does that, allocating the $1 billion for alternative fuels into a variety of different programs,
including $320 million in loan guarantees for biorefineries producing advanced biofuels.
Page 87 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
OFF Case: Oil Answers
Latin American and Asian growth will drive energy prices for the coming
decades.
The Forum first looked at long term projections of energy demand and supply, primarily for oil but also for other resources.
Since unconventional oil is becoming an important element in future supply projections, the discussions also focused in
some detail on Canadian oil sands. The projections raised important energy security questions for policy makers, and the
experts took a hard look at these questions from the U.S. perspective. A baseline energy outlook to 2030, based on energy
demand by countries and end-use sectors, was provided by a major oil company as a basis for discussion. Total energy
growth was linked to economic drivers such as the growth in GDP and population. Population is expected to increase by
one third, growing from about 6 billion people in 2000 to 8 billion in 2030. The non-OECD or developing regions grow at a
rate more than double that of the OECD. The most significant increases will occur in Latin America, Africa and particularly
Asia Pacific (the non-OECD countries of that region, including China, India, and others).World GDP growth will be robust
and will more than double over the 30-year time period, with an annual growth rate of 2.7%. Despite strong growth in the
OECD, the fastest growth will be in Asia-Pacific, led by China, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia. By 2030, the GDP of the
Asia Pacific region will approach that of Europe. This rapid economic growth will be a key driver of energy demand, and
the world will need about 60 percent more energy in 2030 than in 2000. In the OECD countries, technology and efficiency
gains will keep demand growth relatively small. But non-OECD demand, driven especially by the annual growth of 3.2
percent in the Asia-Pacific region,will move past the OECD countries. In addition the overall declining trend in energy
intensity, the amount of energy used per unit of GDP, will continue everywhere, but the trend will accelerate in developing
countries.
Page 88 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Off Case: Saudi Relations Answers
Saudi Arabia is looking passed the West for the sale of its oil.
Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer and exporter. It also holds the largest oil reserves. Future production from Saudi
Arabia can make the difference between adequately supplied or constrained markets. In response to concerns about the
stability of the Saudi regime in the midst of strife throughout much of the Middle East, it was noted that the regime has
been stable for more than 70 years and is likely to be able to make the investments necessary to meet future oil demand.
The Saudi oil industry sees its future inextricably bound together with China and its rapidly growing economy. Long-term
agreements with China are very valuable, and this is one of Saudi Aramco’s approaches to handling future risk. All
agreements with the Chinese have been done on a commercial basis. The Saudis understand India’s and China’s efforts to
diversify their sources of supply, which is not viewed by the Saudis as an attempt to undermine or damage U.S. foreign
policy. As a result, the Saudis increasingly are looking to Asia-Pacific markets for their future and less towards the West.
Saudi Aramco, the Saudi National Oil Company, handles all of Saudi Arabia’s oil production, but Saudi Aramco relies on
international oil companies for many services. Saudi Aramco’s relationship with IOCs is strong, since the Saudis appreciate
the ability of IOCs to handle a variety of risks, including geological, financial and political, and like the IOCs, they would
prefer to let the market operate without much government interference. Saudi Arabia’s long-term strategy is building trust
between consuming and producing nations, both in the West and in the East (Asia-Pacific). Saudi Aramco’s goal is to
invest in many countries, build more downstream capacity to process its crude oil and at the same time enhance trust.
Page 89 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
***Aff***
Corn Ethanol Bad: Amazon
Cellulosic ethanol solves Amazonian deforestation – species loss alone causes

planetary extinction
Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute, Plan B 2.0 – Rescuing A Planet Under Stress And A Civilization In Trouble, 
2006, p. 35‐6 
Aside from the prospective use of cellulose, current and planned ethanol-producing operations use food crops such as 
sugarcane, sugar beets, corn, wheat, and barley. The United States, for example, in 2004 used 32 million tons of corn
to produce 3.4 billion gallons of ethanol. Although this is scarcely 12 percent of the huge U.S. corn crop, it is enough to 
feed 100 million people at average world grain consumption levels. In an oil‐short world, what will be the economic 
and environmental effects of agriculture's emergence as a producer of transport fuels? Agriculture's role in the global 
economy clearly will be strengthened as it faces a vast, virtually unlimited market for automotive fuel. Tropical and 
subtropical countries that can produce sugarcane or palm oil will be able to full exploit their year‐round growing 
conditions, giving them a strong comparative advantage in the world market.  With biofuel production spreading, the 
world price for oil will, in effect, become a support price for farm products. If food and feed crop prices are weak and 
oil prices are high, commodities will go to fuel producers. For example, vegetable oils trading on European markets 
on any given day may end up in either supermarkets or service stations. The risk is that economic pressures to clear
land for expanding sugarcane production in the Brazilian cerrado and Amazon basin and for palm oil plantations in 
countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia will pose a major new threat to plant and animal diversity. In the absence 
of governmental constraints, the rising price of oil could quickly become the leading threat to biodiversity, ensuring
that the wave of extinctions now under way does indeed become the sixth great extinction. 
Page 90 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad: Soil Erosion = Extinction
Soil erosion causes global extinction.
Stephen Leahy, the science and environment correspondent for Inter Press Service News Agency, “Peak soil: the silent
global crisis,” Earth Island Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, March 22, 2008.
A harsh winter wind blew last night, and this morning the thin snow cover has turned into a rich chocolate brown. The dirt
covering the snow comes from cornfields near my home that were ploughed following the harvest, a common practice in
southern Ontario and in the corn-growing regions of the US Midwest. A handful of this dirty snow melts quickly, leaving a
thin, fine-grained wet mess. It doesn't look like much, but the mucky sludge in my hand is the prerequisite for life on
the planet. "We are overlooking soil as the foundation of all life on Earth," says Andres Arnalds, assistant director
of the Icelandic Soil Conservation Service. Arnalds is an eloquent spokesperson for the unheralded emergency of
soil erosion, a problem that is reducing global food production and water availability, and is responsible for an
estimated 30 percent of the greenhouse gases emissions. "Land degradation and desertification may be regarded as
the silent crisis of the world, a genuine threat to the future of humankind." Arnalds is dead serious when he calls soil
erosion a crisis. Each year, some 38,000 square miles of land become severely degraded or turn into desert. About five
billion acres of arable land have been stripped of their precious layer of topsoil and been abandoned since the first wheat
and barley fields were planted 10,000 years ago. In the past 40 years alone, 30 percent of the planet's arable land has
become unproductive due to erosion, mainly in Asia and Africa. At current erosion rates, soils are being depleted faster
than they are replenished, and nearly all of the remaining 11 billion acres of cropland and grazing land suffer from some
degree of erosion. Most of this erosion is simply due to plowing, removal of crop residues after harvest, and
overgrazing, which leaves soil naked and vulnerable to wind and rain. It is akin to tire wear on your car--a gradual,
unobserved process that has potentially catastrophic consequences if ignored for too long. Arnalds has seen our
perilous future crisis by looking into the past. Eleven hundred years ago, the first Icelandic settlers came to a cold island
mostly covered by forests and lush meadows, and blessed with deep volcanic soils. In a pattern repeated around the
world, settlers cleared the forests and put too many animals on the meadows, until 96 percent of the forest was gone
and half the grasslands destroyed. By the 1800s, Iceland had become Europe's largest desert; the people starved, and
the once prosperous country became one of the world's poorest. "Once soil is gone, you can't get it back," Arnalds
says. "It's a non-renewable resource."
Soil erosion has cascading effects- risking extinction.

No one knows how much food-producing land will be left by 2050, when another three billion people are expected to join
the current global population of 6.5 billion. What we do know is that right now, 99 percent of human food calories come
from the land. Global food production has kept pace with population growth thus far thanks chiefly to the extensive use of
chemical fertilizers. But food production per acre of land is starting to decline, primarily due to loss of productiveland and
water shortages. The latter is often the result of soil erosion because soil and vegetation act as a sponge that holds and
gradually releases water. And that soil erosion, in turn, is exacerbated by chemical farming practices that over time
break down soil structure. Add to these challenges climate change's impact on soil erosion and the competition
between growing food and producing biofuels, and it's frightening to consider the challenge of feeding nine billion
people when nearly one billion go hungry fight now. Arnalds summarizes the challenge: More food will have to be
produced within the next 50 years than during the last 101000 years combined. '"Securing food in many places will become
a crisis of rapidly growing proportions." Erosion largely goes unnoticed by farmers as it "nickels and dimes you to death,"
says David Pimentel, an ecologist at Cornell University who has conducted extensive research on the subject. Even if
therewere no humans on the planet, soils would still erode. The soil formation from the weathering of rock and the
breakdown of plants, however, would be faster than the erosion rate; it takes roughly 500 years to create one inch of soil.
Once humans remove natural vegetation, soil is exposed to raindrops that easily dislodge it, washing soil particles
into creeks, streams, rivers, and eventually into the ocean. One rainstorm will wash away .04 inches of soil. This may
not seem likemuch, but over one acre of land that fraction of an inch adds up to tons of topsoil. Wind also disrupts soil, and
can transport dust huge distances. Dry and windy conditions blew nearly two inches of topsoil off Kansas farmlands during
the winter of 1995-96. Contrary to common belief, the topsoil loss in Kansas didn't end up being neatly deposited on
Page 91 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
farmsin neighboring states. More than 60 percent ended up clogging ditches, streams, rivers, and lakes. That makes
waterways more prone to flooding (further exacerbating erosion) and contaminates them with fertilizer and pesticide
residues, Pimentel says. Every rainy day or windy night steals a thin layer of soil from any exposed piece of ground until
there is little left but sand and rock. "Iowa has some of the best and deepest soils in the world," Pimentel says, "and they've
lost nearly 50 percent in the last hundred years." Erosion's potential threat to humanity remains largely ignored by the
world community.
Page 92 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad: Soil Erosion- Corn Prices =

Corn inflation and oil dependence lead to rampant soil erosion.
Such badlands can be found in every country in the world, and are easy to spot. A more worrisome trend is the hidden
danger of losing soil fertility on lands that appear healthy. "Fertility loss on good soils has a much bigger impact than
further degradation of badlands," Stocking says. Healthy topsoil is a complex mixture of minerals, bacteria,
fungi,microscopic invertebrates, and larger invertebrates such as ants andearthworms that break down nutrients
and transfer them to the roots of plants. Degradation of soils diminishes this incredible below-ground biodiversity,
reducing crop yield as well as soils' ability to store and filter water and to regulate the global cycles of carbon,
nitrogen, and phosphorus. While some American farmers control erosion using low- or no-till techniques for planting, the
majority are mining the soil, according to Craig Cox, executive director of the Soil and Water Conservation Society,
headquartered in Iowa. "Soil conservation has taken a back seat to maximizing production," Cox says. As Cox drives the
rural roads of Iowa, he sees fresh signs of erosion on the world's best farmland. "It's amazing to see the extent of erosion
here, mainly because of the absence of basic soil conservation techniques," he says. Those techniques--such as planting
grasses along the edges of waterways and leaving crop residues on the soil are some of the hard lessons learned during the
dust bowl years of the 1930s. But those lessons have been forgotten--or ignored. Driven by the high costs of fertilizer
and fuel, and currently lucrative crop prices, farmers are planting rows of corn right to the edge of stream banks,
and sometimes in the streams themselves. "It's amazing and discouraging to see," Cox says.
Page 93 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Global Warming
Corn Based Ethonal causes Global Warming
<H. Josef Herbert, Associated Press Writer, “Study: Ethanol May Add to Global Warming”, USA Today, February 8, 2008>
WASHINGTON — The widespread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as
the gasoline it would replace because of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study
challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.
"Using good cropland to expand biofuels will probably exacerbate global warming," concludes the study published in
Science magazine.
The researchers said that farmers under economic pressure to produce biofuels will increasingly "plow up more forest or
grasslands," releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decomposition or fires. Globally,
more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert
land to biofuels, the study said.
Corn Ethanol has negative global warming impacts

<Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Truth About Ethanol”, page last revised June 25, 2008>
Accurate lifecycle emissions accounting requires that all of the energy and inputs associated with growing, producing, 
delivering, and using any biofuel are tracked, including emissions associated with changes in land use. Most analyses 
conducted before 2008 indicate that corn ethanol delivers a 10 to 20 percent reduction in global warming emissions 
over its lifecycle compared with gasoline, but these analyses did not include land use changes. The reduction is modest 
because corn production requires a significant amount of fossil fuel inputs for farm operations, processing and distilling, 
and fertilizer production (generally natural gas). Fertilizers used for corn production also generate a substantial amount 
of nitrous oxide, a potent global warming pollutant, as unused fertilizer breaks down in the field. In addition, many corn 
ethanol production facilities operate on natural gas; if new production facilities use coal instead, the emission benefits 
of corn ethanol could be reduced or eliminated. 
The cost to produce corn ethonal outweighs the entire net benefit of it.
In the US today, about 95 percent of our ethanol is derived from corn kernels. Because corn is such an energy-intensive
plant to grow, and because the methods to process corn into ethanol are also energy intensive, it takes seven barrels of oil
to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, from field to processing plant, according to research by the traditionally right-
leaning Cato Institute. So when you factor in production, ethanol curbs climate-changing vehicle emissions by a mere 12
percent over gasoline, according to a 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman. (With blends
like E85—85 percent ethanol, 15 percent gas—that emissions reduction plummets to 2 percent.) And that’s only if the
corn is grown on existing fields. Converting wildlife preserves to cropland to grow more ethanol would result in a net
greenhouse gas release that would exacerbate global warming and negate any benefit, Hill told the University of
Minnesota’s alumni magazine.
Page 94 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Emissions
Corn ethanol causes a significant increase in carbon emissions
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, “How government makes things worse,” 3/9/2008, Lexis 
Take ethanol, the much‐hyped biofuel made (primarily) from corn. Ethanol has been touted as a weapon in the 
fashionable crusade against climate change, because when mixed with gasoline, it modestly reduces emissions of carbon 
dioxide. Reasoning that if a little ethanol is good, a lot must be better, Congress and the Bush administration recently 
mandated a sextupling of ethanol production, from the 6 billion gallons produced last year to 36 billion by 2022.  But 
now comes word that expanding ethanol use is likely to mean not less CO{‐2} in the atmosphere, but more. Instead of 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from gasoline by 20 percent ‐ the estimate Congress relied on in requiring the huge 
increase in production ‐ ethanol use will cause such emissions to nearly double over the next 30 years.  The problem, 
laid out in two new studies in the journal Science, is that it takes a lot of land to grow biofuel feedstocks such as corn, 
and as forests or grasslands are cleared for crops, large amounts of CO{‐2} are released. Diverting land in this fashion 
also eliminates "carbon sinks," which absorb atmospheric CO{‐2}. Bottom line: The government's ethanol mandate will 
generate a "carbon debt" that will take decades, maybe centuries, to pay off.  
Corn ethanol increases carbon emissions – land-use changes

Washington Post, 2/27/2008, “The Problem With Biofuels,” Lexis
AS THE United States searches for alternative ways to feed its addiction to petroleum, ethanol and other biofuels 
derived from organic material have been considered a miracle motor vehicle elixir. The energy bill signed by President 
Bush in December mandates that at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year be used by 2020. Yet separate studies 
released this month by Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy reveal that biofuels are not a silver bullet in the 
battle against global warming. In fact, they could make things worse.  Corn and sugar cane are common sources of 
ethanol. Aside from emitting fewer greenhouse gases than coal or oil when burned as fuel, these biofuel crops remove 
carbon from the atmosphere while they are growing ‐‐ thus making them nearly carbon‐neutral. But the studies show 
that ethanol may be even more dangerous for the environment than fossil fuels are. As the Princeton study points out, 
clearing previously untouched land to grow biofuel crops releases long‐sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. While 
planting corn and sugar cane in already tilled land is fine, a problem arises when farmers churn up new land to grow 
more fuel or the food and feed displaced by biofuel crops.  The impact of these land‐use changes is enormous. As the 
study from the Nature Conservancy warns, "converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce 
biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia and the United States creates a 'biofuel carbon debt' by releasing 17 to 420 times more 
carbon dioxide than the fossil fuels they replace." There are other negative effects. Massive amounts of water are 
needed to irrigate cornfields, setting up potential competition between farms and homes. The runoff of pesticides and 
nitrogen‐based fertilizers used by farmers could lead to increased pollution and oxygen‐depleted waterways. The 
natural gas used to make the fertilizer adds to the carbon deficit created by biofuels.  
Page 95 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad: Water Pollution
Corn dependence for biofuel leads to massive species loss through water
pollution.
The Washington Post, “How Corn Ethanol Could Pollute the Bay,” August 26, 2007.
Despite rising food prices, it seems that nearly everyone is turning to corn-based ethanol as their choice for
alternative fuel. Hidden behind these headlines, though, is an equally important but less visible cost: water pollution.
Corn is a "leaky" crop, losing more nitrogen per acre than most other crops. In the Washington region, much of this
excess nitrogen ends up polluting the Chesapeake Bay and robbing fish, crabs and oysters of oxygen. For farmers, the
demand for alternative fuels has brought much-needed, and deserved, increases in corn prices. Unfortunately, this summer's
drought will keep mid-Atlantic farmers from realizing their potential windfall, and any unused nitrogen will wash into the
bay this winter. Nationally, farmers planted 16 million new acres of corn for ethanol. Maryland farmers provided 200,000
of these acres, but over time, production could grow to as much as 1 million acres -- yielding an extra 8 million to 16
million pounds of nitrogen in the state's runoff. Regional officials are already struggling to reduce nitrogen loads by 100
million pounds. This additional load could set back regional water quality efforts by three to five years. This thirst for
grain-based ethanol will add to the woes of our weakened ecosystems. Three strategies, however, could reduce and
perhaps reverse the damage: Plugging the nitrogen leaks. Many farming methods can yield good crops with less nitrogen
loss. These practices are used to some extent, but they need to be more diligently applied, and states need to ensure that all
farmers adhere to them. With expanded production to support ethanol, these changes are needed now. Expanding
conservation support. To offset the pressure of ethanol on crop production, policymakers should expand the federal and
state programs that fund farmers who implement conservation practices. Congress is currently reauthorizing the farm bill
and should take this opportunity to expand conservation efforts to offset the impacts of ethanol. Looking beyond corn.
Research indicates that we can use native prairie grasses (such as switch grass) or fast-growing trees to fuel ethanol
production. Cellulosic ethanol converts plant matter into ethanol rather than using edible grain. Production,
handling and processing problems, however, may delay commercialization for another decade. Compared with
corn, switch grass loses little nitrogen, traps greenhouse gases and builds better soils. Regional farmers could realize
multiple income streams by harvesting switch grass for ethanol production, selling nitrogen and carbon reduction
credits to sewage treatment and power plants, and collecting federal incentives for improving soils. When added
together, switch grass is worth investing in. And that's before figuring in the benefits to our region's coastal
waterways. We need to accelerate cellulosic ethanol development as we deepen our investment in corn ethanol.
Without better management practices and policies, feeding corn to our cars will continue to pose a huge threat to
our coastal waterways, while also threatening food supplies and prices. If ethanol is to become a truly "green" fuel,
we must look beyond corn and toward cellulosic ethanol from prairie grasses.
Page 96 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Biofuels hurt the environment – increase land use and global warming due to inputs
Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment and Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant in the 
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, 5/15/2008, “Time to Repeal the 
Ethanol Mandate,” http://www.heritage.org/RESEARCH/ENERGYANDENVIRONMENT/WM1925.CFM 
Many environmental organizations have raised concerns about the increased inputs of energy, pesticides, and fertilizer 
needed to grow more corn.[6] The same is true for the stress on water supplies, especially now that corn production is 
being expanded in locales where rainfall is insufficient and irrigation is needed.[7] Even land that is now protected under 
federal conservation programs may soon be cleared for corn.[8]  In addition, the facilities that turn corn into ethanol 
create emissions issues of their own. The goal of the ethanol mandate was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but after 
taking into account the carbon dioxide emitted from ethanol production, the reduction in emissions is modest.[9] These 
effects on the land, air, and water have already raised serious concerns, and we are only one‐quarter of the way toward 
the eventual 36 billion‐gallon target. Clearly, the food and fuel impacts cannot be justified by environmental benefits.  
Even worse is the turnabout on the major environmental issue of the day: climate change. Proponents of ethanol and 
other biofuels claimed that they are responsible for lower carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions than the 
gasoline they displace, but several recent studies challenge this assertion and argue that biofuels increase such 
emissions.[10] Oxfam, an international aid organization, argues that "large‐scale growth in biofuels demand has pushed 
up food prices and so far there is little evidence that it is reducing overall carbon emissions."[11]  
Biofuel efforts at land conversion produce negative carbon emissions for centuries
Fargione et al 2008, Joseph Fargione, Jason Hill, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, Peter Hawthorne, The Nature 
Conservancy, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, and Department of Applied Economics, University of 
Minnesota, “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt,” February 29, 2008, Science Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1235 ‐ 1238 
Our analyses suggest that biofuels, if produced on converted land, could, for long periods of time, be much greater net 
emitters of greenhouse gases than the fossil fuels that they typically displace. All but two—sugarcane ethanol and 
soybean biodiesel on Cerrado—would generate greater GHG emissions for at least half a century, with several forms of 
biofuel production from land conversion doing so for centuries. At least for current or developing biofuel technologies, 
any strategy to reduce GHG emissions that causes land conversion from native ecosystems to cropland is likely to be 
counter‐productive. 
Corn Ethonal can have more of a lifecycle emission than gas

<Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Truth About Ethanol”, page last revised June 25, 2008> 
Several new studies have focused on the contribution of land use changes to lifecycle global warming pollution. If land is 
converted from forest to cropland, there can be a significant increase in global warming pollution. Recent estimates 
suggest that the emissions from these changes in land use may be huge and could dramatically shift the balance of risks 
and rewards for some kinds of ethanol. For example, when lifecycle analysis of corn ethanol includes land use changes 
caused by using corn for ethanol rather than food or animal feed, the lifecycle emissions can end up as high as gasoline 
or potentially much higher (see the UCS Land Use Fact Sheet for more details).  
Page 97 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol releases more harmful emissions than gas.
Robert Hahn, Cochairman, U.S. Alternative Fuels Council, 1990‐1992, Senior Fellow and Executive Director of the AEI 
Center for Regulatory and Market Studies, “Ethanol's Bottom Line,”Wall Street Journal,http://www.aei.org/publications 
/pubID.27152,filter.all/pub_detail.asp, 11/24/07 
If annual production increases by three billion gallons in 2012‐‐a plausibly modest number when the EPA made its own 
calculations‐‐we estimate that the costs will exceed the benefits by about $1 billion a year. If domestic production 
reaches the more "optimistic" Energy Department projection for that year, net economic costs would likely top $2 billion 
annually. Our analysis is deliberately weighted to give ethanol the benefit of a doubt. For example, we assume that, on 
balance, ethanol from corn reduces greenhouse emissions, even though recent science suggests that substituting 
ethanol for gasoline might actually have a negative impact (it increases emissions of nitrous oxide, a more potent 
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). Ethanol distilled from grasses and waste materials has a better environmental 
payoff, but has much higher direct production costs. Even if ways are found to make alcohol cost‐effectively from 
otherwise worthless sources of carbon, the process would undermine local air quality as it slowed global warming. 
Though ethanol is likely to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon monoxide and toxic hydrocarbons including benzene and 
formaldehyde, the extra nitrogen oxides react in sunlight to form smog. The picture on the energy side is a little brighter. 
For each barrel of oil displaced by ethanol, there are benefits in the form of slightly lower oil prices and reduced 
potential for economic dislocation from oil‐price spikes. We estimate these to be in the neighborhood of $500 million 
annually in 2012.   
Corn ethanol increases emissions of noxious fumes.

Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow at CATO, and Peter Van Doren,Senior Fellow at CATO and Editor, Regulation, “The Ethanol Boondoggle,” 
The Milken Institute Review, First Quarter, 2007.  
One of the most commonly heard claims about ethanol is that it reduces automobile pollution. Archer Daniels 
Midland, the gigantic commodities processor, has paid for an avalanche of advertising for some years now suggesting 
that ethanol is the thin yellow kernel standing between us  and environmental Armageddon. Calling these claims the 
equivalent of the Big Lie is probably harsh, but it’s also accurate. The only thorough appraisal of the peer reviewed and 
technical literature of which we are aware of was published last year by Prof. Robert Niven of the Australian Defense 
Force Academy at the University of New South Wales. He found that when evaporative emissions are taken into 
account, E10 (fuel that’s nine parts conventional gasoline to one part ethanol, the standard mix in service stations in the 
United States) actually increases emissions of total hydrocarbons, non‐methane organic compounds and volatile 
toxins. Photochemical smog is worsened by ethanol consumption, while ambient concentrations of toxic chemicals 
are higher as well. By no coincidence,air pollution is even worse from E85, the 85 percent ethanol fuel now being 
heavily promoted by General Motors. The picture is a bit better for greenhouse gas emissions, but not by much. 
Niven’s review found that E10 offers only a 1 percent to 5 percent reduction of greenhouse emissions over 
conventional gasoline. The use of pure ethanol as a transportation fuel, however, as is used in Brazil, might reduce this category 
of emissions by up to 12 percent. 
Page 98 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
Corn ethanol increases overall emissions
gles/3 
Another misconception is that ethanol is green. In fact, corn production depends on huge amounts of fossil fuel ‐‐ not 
just the diesel needed to plow fields and transport crops, but also the vast quantities of natural gas used to produce 
fertilizers. Runoff from industrial‐scale cornfields also silts up the Mississippi River and creates a vast dead zone in the 
Gulf of Mexico every summer. What's more, when corn ethanol is burned in vehicles, it is as dirty as conventional 
gasoline and does little to solve global warming: E85 reduces carbon dioxide emissions by a modest fifteen percent at 
best, while fueling the destruction of tropical forests. 
Page 99 of 139
Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Biofuels Help the Environment
Environmental benefits of current biofuels are miniscule
Nor is corn‐based ethanol very fuel efficient. Debates over the "net energy balance" of biofuels and gasoline‐‐the ratio 
between the energy they produce and the energy needed to produce them‐‐have raged for decades. For now, corn‐
based ethanol appears to be favored over gasoline, and biodiesel over petroleum diesel‐‐but not by much. Scientists at 
the Argonne National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have calculated that the net energy 
ratio of gasoline is 0.81, a result that implies an input larger than the output. Corn‐based ethanol has a ratio that ranges 
between 1.25 and 1.35, which is better than breaking even. Petroleum diesel has an energy ratio of 0.83, compared with 
that of biodiesel made from soybean oil, which ranges from 1.93 to 3.21. (Biodiesel produced from other fats and oils, 
such as restaurant grease, may be more energy efficient.)  Similar results emerge when biofuels are compared with 
gasoline using other indices of environmental impact, such as greenhouse gas emissions. The full cycle of the production 
and use of corn‐based ethanol releases less greenhouse gases than does that of gasoline, but only by 12 to 26 percent. 
The production and use of biodiesel emits 41 to 78 percent less such gases than do the production and use of 
petroleum‐based diesel fuels.  Another point of comparison is greenhouse gas emissions per mile driven, which takes 
account of relative fuel efficiency. Using gasoline blends with 10 percent corn‐based ethanol instead of pure gasoline 
lowers emissions by 2 percent. If the blend is 85 percent ethanol (which only flexible‐fuel vehicles can run on), 
greenhouse gas emissions fall further: by 23 percent if the ethanol is corn‐based and by 64 percent if it is cellulose‐
based. Likewise, diesel containing 2 percent biodiesel emits 1.6 percent less greenhouse gases than does petroleum 
diesel, whereas blends with 20 percent biodiesel emit 16 percent less, and pure biodiesel (also for use only in special 
vehicles) emits 78 percent less. On the other hand, biodiesel can increase emissions of nitrogen oxide, which contributes 
to air pollution. In short, the "green" virtues of ethanol and biodiesel are modest when these fuels are made from corn 
and soybeans, which are energy‐intensive, highly polluting row crops.  
Page 100 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Environment
Corn Ethanol production bad for environment.
Nick Loris and Alison Acosta Fraser,  Director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “Ethanol Loses Ground at U.N. 
Climate Conference: Congress Should Rethink Energy Bill Mandate,” http://www.heritage.org/Resear 
ch/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1750.cfm, Heritage Foundation, 12/17/07 
The claim that ethanol production is good for the environment is misleading for a number of reasons. First, 
transporting ethanol is costlier and requires more energy than transporting other fuels. Ethanol must be transported by 
petroleum‐using trucks, barges, and railroads, because any moisture in the pipelines will contaminate the ethanol and 
make it virtually useless.[3] Second, planting corn requires farmers to use a number of pesticides and fertilizers that 
harm the environment. 1995 Nobel Laureate P.J. Crutzen concluded that the nitrous oxide emitted from biofuel production 
contributes as much or more to global warming than the cooling caused by fossil fuel reduction.[4] Third, the proposed 
mandate would lead to greatly expanded ethanol production; consequently, more acreage would be shifted to corn‐‐
either by clearing forestland or by converting farmland previously used to grow products like soybeans or wheat.[5] 
The first option would damage the environment through deforestation; the second would push food prices even higher.  
Corn ethanol hurts the environment

Another significant impact of ethanol revolves around the environment. Although ethanol has been praised for its ability 
to reduce harmful vehicle emissions, the removal of biomass for energy production intensifies soil erosion, water runoff, 
and soil nutrient loss. As Pimentel states, "the removal of biomass for all purposes, but most especially for energy 
production, threatens the integrity of the entire natural ecosystem." n111 More specifically, this environmental concern  
[*76]  stems from the fear that an increase in corn farming will further stress the environment through fertilizer and 
pesticide runoffs, which will create eutrophication within surrounding watershed areas. 
Page 101 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Ethanol production hurts air quality and the environment
In addition, groups like the Sierra Club note that ethanol produces even more smog than gasoline, contributing to the poor
air quality that’s behind increased instances of childhood asthma and lung problems in adults. A recent study by Stanford
University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson concluded that “a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk
to public health than gasoline,” as widespread use could cause possible increases in respiratory-related deaths and
hospitalizations. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the main player in the ethanol sector, responsible for about 40 percent
of US ethanol production—and its environmental record is nothing to be proud of. According to the nonprofit Corpwatch,
ADM is currently under investigation for approximately 25 violations of Superfund laws. ADM has been cited several
times by the EPA for flouting the Clean Air Act, including 52 plant violations resulting in a $351 million settlement with
the EPA and US Department of Justice in 2003, one of the largest such settlements on record. In 2002, ADM landed in the
top ten of the Political Economy Research Institute’s Toxic 100 index, which ranks the nation’s largest companies based
on pollution levels. And in 2006, Ceres measured how 100 leading global companies are responding to global warming,
looking at board oversight, public disclosure, emissions accounting, and strategic performance. On a 0 to 100 scale, ADM
scored a dismal total of 12 points. ADM and its competitors Cargill and Dunge are also behind 60 percent of the
financing of soy production in Brazil, which has resulted in the deforestation of 1.2 million hectares of Amazon rainforest,
says Greenpeace International.
Corn growth causes pollution

Growing corn at the scale required to switch a significant amount of fuel in the US to ethanol could have devastating
environmental effects. Corn requires more toxic pesticides and fertilizers than any other US food crops, according to the
New York Times. Chlorpyrifos, the most commonly applied pesticide on corn, is banned by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for household use, and EPA studies have linked chlorpyrifos to brain damage in rats. The EPA
has also classified Atrazine, the most commonly used herbicide on corn, as a possible carcinogen. Nitrogen, a main
ingredient in corn fertilizers, encourages algae growth in saltwater, creating oxygen-starved “dead zones”—including a
12,000-foot dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico—that threaten aquatic life and water quality in coastal regions. Nitrogen
runoff from farms is also contaminating water wells around the country. A 1998 study by the National Center for
Environmental Health found that 13 percent of the domestic drinking-water wells in the Midwest contained unsafe levels
of nitrates, which can cause birth defects. 
Page 102 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn ethanol as a way to decrease greenhouse gasses is expensive and bad for the environment.
Jerry Taylor,Senior Fellow at CATO, and Peter Van Doren,Senior Fellow at CATO and Editor, Regulation, “The Ethanol 
Boondoggle,” The Milken Institute Review, First Quarter, 2007 
In any event, this debate about life‐cycle emissions from ethanol misses the point that reducing greenhouse gas emissions via 
ethanol would be an incredibly costly proposition – $250 per ton according to a recent report by the International Energy 
Agency. Moreover, that’s a conservative estimate, because the agency considered only greenhouse gas emissions from automobile 
tailpipes. Given that most of the emissions associated with ethanol come from upstream in the production process, a full accounting 
would inflate its estimate dramatically. Spending $250 (at the very least) to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere is 
an incredibly expensive way to get the job done – and one that surely costs more than it benefits the environment. 
William Nordhaus of Yale, for example, calculates that an optimal policy of greenhouse gas controls would embrace abatement costs 
of between $15 and $22 per ton of carbon in the United States. Accordingly, employing ethanol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
is fantastically wasteful 
Wait, it gets worse. Although the environmental debate regarding ethanol is almost exclusively concerned with air‐
quality issues, a forgotten dimension concerns the effect  of ethanol consumption on land use. Profitable corn 
production requires  tremendous amounts of fertilizer, pesticide and water. Increasing the demand for ethanol would 
increase the amount of land dedicated to corn production. And that would mean more water pollution, less water for 
other uses, and more ecosystem destruction. 
In short, then, ethanol promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not by very much and at an unacceptable 
cost since there are any number of less expensive means to the same end. To add to the insult, ethanol worsens air 
and water quality and contributes to habitat destruction. 
Corn ethanol damages bird habitat

Jim Giles, New Scientist, 8/18/2007, “Can biofuels rescue America's praries?” Vol. 195, Issue 2617, Ebsco 
Spurred on by rising oil prices and the 2005 Energy Policy Act, which demanded that at least 28 billion litres of ethanol 
be produced annually by 2012, the number of US corn ethanol plants has doubled to around 120 in the past five years. 
Indeed, the industry is already close to the 2012 target, according to figures from the Renewable Fuels Association, an 
ethanol industry body‐based in Washington DC. This rapid development has come at a cost. David Sample of the 
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources in Madison told the ESA meeting that corn production jumped 10 per cent 
last year in his state alone. As the cornfields expand, government grants aimed at encouraging farmers to set aside 
marginal land to protect soils and biodiversity are going unused. This trend is especially damaging for birds that nest in 
the grass that grows on set‐aside land. Sample estimates that 16 per cent of land protected under the set‐aside scheme 
will be lost this year. In Wisconsin, the figure could exceed one‐third. "Marginal land is being developed for corn, but 
corn is pretty much useless as a habitat for the birds we care about," says Sample.  
Page 103 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Dead Zone
Excessive corn use increases nitrogen runoffs
Should corn and soybeans be used as fuel crops at all? Soybeans and especially corn are row crops that contribute to soil 
erosion and water pollution and require large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel to grow, harvest, and dry. They 
are the major cause of nitrogen runoff‐‐the harmful leakage of nitrogen from fields when it rains‐‐ of the type that has 
created the so‐called dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an ocean area the size of New Jersey that has so little oxygen it 
can barely support life. In the United States, corn and soybeans are typically planted in rotation, because soybeans add 
nitrogen to the soil, which corn needs to grow. But as corn increasingly displaces soybeans as a main source of ethanol, 
it will be cropped continuously, which will require major increases in nitrogen fertilizer and aggravate the nitrogen 
runoff problem. 
Page 104 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Water Quality
Increase in producing corn ethonal can harm water quality
<The National Academies. "Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality." 
ScienceDaily 11 October 2007.> 
A National Research Council committee was convened to look at how shifts in the nation's agriculture to include more 
energy crops, and potentially more crops overall, could affect water management and long‐term sustainability of biofuel 
production. Based on findings presented at a July colloquium, the committee came to several conclusions about biofuel 
production and identified options for addressing them. 
In terms of water quantity, the committee found that agricultural shifts to growing corn and expanding biofuel crops 
into regions with little agriculture, especially dry areas, could change current irrigation practices and greatly increase 
pressure on water resources in many parts of the United States. The amount of rainfall and other hydroclimate 
conditions from region to region causes significant variations in the water requirement for the same crop, the report 
says.  
Pesticides used for corn growth harm water quality

ScienceDaily 11 October 2007.>
A possible metric to gauge the impact of biofuels on water quality could be to compare the amount of fertilizers and 
pesticides used on various crops, the committee suggested. For example, corn has the greatest application rates of both 
fertilizer and pesticides per acre, higher than for soybeans and mixed‐species grassland biomass. The switch from other 
crops or noncrop plants to corn would likely lead to much higher application rates of highly soluble nitrogen, which 
could migrate to drinking water wells, rivers, and streams, the committee said. When not removed from water before 
consumption, high levels of nitrate and nitrite ‐‐ products of nitrogen fertilizers ‐‐ could have significant health impacts. 
Specific Examples of areas water quality harmed

ScienceDaily 11 October 2007.> 
For example, in the Northern and Southern Plains, corn generally uses more water than soybeans and cotton, while the 
reverse is true in the Pacific and mountain regions of the country. Water demands for drinking, industry, and such uses 
as hydropower, fish habitat, and recreation could compete with, and in some cases, constrain the use of water for 
biofuel crops in some regions. Consequently, growing biofuel crops requiring additional irrigation in areas with limited 
water supplies is a major concern, the report says. 
Page 105 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Unstable
Corn ethanol is not a secure source of energy.
James Eaves,assistant professor in the Department of Finance and Insurance at Laval University, and Stephen Eaves, vice‐president 
of Eaves Devices, “Is Ethanol the “Energy Security” Solution,”Washington Post via CATO, 10/03/07 
Another ethanol shortcoming is that it is not very secure. While it is true that U.S. corn yields have increased
substantially over the past few decades, researchers have observed that the year-to-year percentage gain has
steadily declined. The rate peaked around 4 percent in the early 1960s and was less than 1.5 percent in 2001. That
growth rate is not expected to keep up with food demand.
Moreover, variability in U.S. corn yields appears to be increasing, a point that is underscored by this summer's
drought. Researchers predict that, even under the best-case global warming scenario, corn yields are likely to
decline by 22 percent in the short-run.
For the sake of argument, let us be optimistic and assume yield variability will remain within historical parameters. We
can then use data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service to estimate the frequency and size of ethanol
disruptions that we should expect in the future. We then can compare this variability to the variability in oil imports.
Specifically, let us consider the time period 1960-2005, a period that included, among other oil shocks, the Six-Day
War, the Arab oil embargo, the Iranian revolution, and the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War. If variations in the
supplies of both corn and oil during this period are a reasonable guess about future variability, then in any given
year we should not be surprised if corn yields decline by 11.9 percent. In contrast, a typical decline in Middle Eastern
oil supplies would be only 6.8 percent. Moreover, in one out of every 20 years, we would expect corn yields to decline
by 31.8 percent, while the corresponding disruption in the oil supply would be only 14.9 percent. Thus, based on
history, displacing gasoline with ethanol would exchange geopolitical risk with yield risk. History suggests that
yield risk is about twice as high.
Corn ethanol crops sensitive to weather and natural threats.
 Colin A. Carter, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California at Davis, Henry I. Miller, physician 
and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, “Drunk on Ethanol,”The Washington 
Times,http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/may/24/20070524‐083912‐6259r/, 5/27/07 
Until the recent ethanol boom, more than 60 percent of the annual U.S. corn harvest was fed domestically to cattle, hogs and chickens,
or used in food or beverages. Thus, it is no surprise that competition for corn has doubled its price during the past year --
from $2 to $4 per bushel. Because thousands of food items contain corn or corn byproducts, we see upward pressure on food prices as
the demand for ethanol boosts the demand for corn: Nationally, food prices were up 3.9 percent in April, compared to the same month
a year earlier.
These early effects may be only a hint of things to come. Any sort of shock to corn yields, such as drought,
unseasonably hot weather, pests or disease in the next few years could send food prices into the stratosphere. Even
Gregory Page, the chief executive officer of agribusiness giant Cargill, a major beneficiary of the ethanol boom, shares these fears,
"We just have to be sure that the more-is-better mindset [regarding ethanol] doesn't get way out ahead of the
capacity of the land to provide the fuel. ... What we would like to see is some thoughtfulness about what we will do
if we have a weather calamity."
Such concerns are more than theoretical: In 1970, a widespread outbreak of a fungus called Southern corn leaf
blight destroyed 15 percent of the U.S. corn crop, and in 1988, drought reduced U.S. corn yields almost 30 percent.
 
Page 106 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – Not Sustainable
Biofuels are not sustainable – don’t have a positive energy balance and, even if they did, they produce
other environmental harms
An extensive literature compares the net intensity of energy consumption (and pollution generation) per unit of useful 
energy produced by biofuel and fossil fuels (Cleveland 2005, de Oliveira et al 2005, Farrell et al 2006, Pimentel and 
Patzek 2005, Sheehan et al 2003, Tilman et al 2006). One measure of energy intensity is the energy return on investment 
(EROI), which is defined as the ratio of useful energy delivered by an energy source to energy expended in obtaining that 
energy source. In the case of fuel such as gasoline or ethanol, it measures the amount of energy contained in a litre of 
fuel compared to the amount of energy expended in producing a litre of fuel. Cleveland (2005) reports an EROI of 9:1 for 
oil whereas Farrell et al (2006) report the EROI for US‐produced corn ethanol in the range of 1.2–1.6. Hall et al (2003) 
argue that corn ethanol is not sustainable because of its low EROI. Moreover, the greenhouse gas emissions reductions 
of corn ethanol are reported to be marginal at best (Farrell et al 2006). Corn ethanol is, therefore, ineffectual from a 
climate change perspective and also unsustainable from an energy efficiency perspective. Sugarcane ethanol in Brazil is 
reported to offer higher energy return and greenhouse gas reductions per litre of ethanol than US‐made corn ethanol 
(Goldemberg 2007). Like corn ethanol, however, sugarcane ethanol production is associated with externalities that must 
also be included in the calculus of biofuel sustainability. Biofuel is a land and water intensive technology. Production of 
biofuels takes land away from its two other primary uses—food production and environmental preservation. As farming 
expands to produce energy crops, soil erosion may worsen, application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers may expand 
and biodiversity may suffer on shrinking environmental lands. A positive net energy balance, therefore, is not sufficient 
for sustainability. In fact, sugarcane ethanol can appear unsustainable based on the impact its production has on water 
alone (de Oliveira et al 2005). Likewise, palm biodiesel production in Indonesia is viewed as unsustainable because of its 
consequences for tropical rainforests (Curran et al 2004).  
Page 107 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Corn Ethanol Bad – No Energy Independence
No Solution lies with corn ethonal to solve oil dependence
One of ethanol’s main selling points is that it will heighten US security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from
countries potentially harboring terrorists. But the fact is, growing that much corn for ethanol would make impossible
demands on our agricultural land. The USDA estimates that 90.5 millions acres of corn will be planted in 2007 (up 12
million from 2006), but even if all of this corn were used for ethanol, it would only satisfy about 16 percent of our annual
fuel needs. Any attempt to replace the 200 billion gallons of fuel used by US drivers each year with corn ethanol would
require that 675 million additional acres, or 71 percent of America’s current farmland, be used to grow corn, according to
Popular Mechanics. All told, these statistics reveal that corn ethanol could never hold out the prospect of energy
independence.
Page 108 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Corn Solves Energy Needs
Ethanol can’t be a gasoline substitute – technical problems
gles/2 
But as a gasoline substitute, ethanol has big problems: Its energy density is one‐third less than gasoline, which means 
you have to burn more of it to get the same amount of power. It also has a nasty tendency to absorb water, so it can't 
be transported in existing pipelines and must be distributed by truck or rail, which is tremendously inefficient. 
Not enough corn ethanol to solve oil dependence

gles/3 
The most seductive myth about ethanol is that it will free us from our dependence on foreign oil. But even if ethanol 
producers manage to hit the mandate of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, that will replace a paltry 1.5 million 
barrels of oil per day ‐‐ only seven percent of current oil needs. Even if the entire U.S. corn crop were used to make 
ethanol, the fuel would replace only twelve percent of current gasoline use. 
Replacing gasoline with corn ethanol implausible; prices and cultivation prove.
Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, Senior Fellows at CATO, “Wishful thinking is No Magical Energy Elixir,”
CATO,http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8024, 2/26/07
Ethanol will not lead to energy independence. If all the corn produced in America in 2005 were dedicated to
ethanol production (and only 14.3 percent of it was), U.S. gasoline consumption would have dropped by only 12
percent. For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline in this country, we would need to appropriate all U.S.
cropland, turn it over to ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes the practical limit for domestic ethanol production is about 700,000
barrels per day -- in 2030. In 23 years, that will translate into about 6 percent of the U.S. transportation fuels market.
According to a 2005 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, corn ethanol costs an average of $2.53 to produce --
several times what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline. Without subsidies, costs would be higher still. A study
from the International Institute for Sustainable Development last fall found that ethanol subsidies amount to $1.05 to
$1.38 per gallon, or 42 to 55 percent of ethanol's wholesale market price.
Ethanol does not reduce gasoline prices. If you lived in urban areas that used reformulated gasoline last summer --
that's the environmentally "clean" gasoline required for areas with air pollution problems -- you might have paid up to
60 cents a gallon more for gasoline.
That's because the federal government required oil refineries to use 4 billion gallons of ethanol in 2006, regardless of 
price, and gas pump prices last summer reflected the fact that ethanol was twice as expensive as conventional gas in 
wholesale markets, and far more costly to deliver.  
Page 109 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Corn Solves Energy Needs
Corn ethanol doesn’t generate much energy savings
Such sacrifices might be considered justified if corn ethanol were having a big impact on greenhouse gas emissions. 
However, corn requires large amounts of fertiliser, which is energy‐intensive to produce. As a result, corn ethanol 
releases at most only 25 per cent more energy than is required to grow and process the crop, according to calculations 
published last year by a team led by Alex Farrell of the University of California at Berkeley (Science, DOI: 
10.1126/science.1121416). His team calculated that the total greenhouse gas emissions associated with running a car on 
corn ethanol are just 13 per cent lower than gasoline. The fertilisers used on corn also pollute streams and create dead 
zones ‐‐ water so low in oxygen it kills marine life ‐‐ at the mouths of rivers.  
Current ethanol production doesn’t solve our energy problems

That is, 262 million barrels of ethanol will yield less energy when burned, less than 60%, than an equivalent volume of 
gasoline derived from oil. We won't go into a long discussion of that just now. Nor will we get into the energy return on 
energy investment (EROEI) of ethanol, which is about break‐even at best. No, we won't go there. Let's keep on looking at 
comparisons. Sure, 262 million is a lot of barrels of ethanol, and any way you look at it, the ethanol industry is putting 
big numbers into the energy equation. But let's look at some other big numbers. 262 million barrels of ethanol per year 
translates into about 718,000 barrels per day. (Divide by 365 days in the year.) In terms of volume, this is the energy 
equivalent of replacing about two supertankers full of imported oil every day. OK, not bad, and this looks like a lot of fuel 
if you are standing next to one of the two supertankers, but how much is it really? This is less than 6% of U.S. daily oil 
imports. Let's look some more at the number, 718,000 barrels of ethanol. This number of barrels, coming out of 195 
ethanol plants (116 existing plants, plus 79 under construction), averages about 3,680 barrels of ethanol per plant, per 
day. (More division. And yes, some plants will produce more than others.) The number 3,680 may be a lot of barrels if 
you happen to own the average ethanol plant, but it is a drop in the bucket of U.S. national aggregate demand for liquid 
fuel.  
Corn ethanol is worthless

gles/2 
Nor is all ethanol created equal. In Brazil, ethanol made from sugar cane has an energy balance of 8‐to‐1 ‐‐ that is, when 
you add up the fossil fuels used to irrigate, fertilize, grow, transport and refine sugar cane into ethanol, the energy 
output is eight times higher than the energy inputs. That's a better deal than gasoline, which has an energy balance of 5‐
to‐1. In contrast, the energy balance of corn ethanol is only 1.3‐to‐1 ‐ making it practically worthless as an energy 
source. "Corn ethanol is essentially a way of recycling natural gas," says Robert Rapier, an oil‐industry engineer who runs 
the R‐Squared Energy Blog. 
Page 110 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Corn Fulfills Legal Mandates
Other ethanol key to fulfill legal mandates
gles/2 
The Iraq War has also been a boon for ADM and other ethanol producers. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was 
pushed by Corn Belt politicians, mandated the consumption of 7.5 billion gallons of biofuels by 2012. After Democrats 
took over Congress last year, they too vowed to "do something" about America's addiction to foreign oil. By the time 
Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chair of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, proposed new energy legislation this 
spring, the only real question was how big the ethanol mandate would be. According to one lobbyist, 36 billion gallons 
became "the Goldilocks number ‐‐ not too big to be impractical, not too small to satisfy corn growers." Under the Senate 
bill, only 15 billion gallons of ethanol will come from corn, in part because even corn growers admit that turning more 
grain into fuel would disrupt global food supplies. The remaining 21 billion gallons will have to come from advanced 
biofuels, most of which are currently brewed only in small‐scale lab experiments. "It's like trying to solve a traffic 
problem by mandating hovercraft," says Dave Juday, an independent commodities consultant. "Except we don't have 
hovercraft." 
Page 111 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Current Ethanol Bad – Malaysian Forests
Ethanol destroys Malaysian forests, causing massive extinction and biodiversity loss
George Monbiot, The Guardian, 12/6/2005, “The most destructive crop on earth is no solution to the energy crisis,” 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5349045‐103677,00.html 
Last week, the chairman of Malaysia's federal land development authority announced that he was about to build a new 
biodiesel plant. His was the ninth such decision in four months. Four new refineries are being built in Peninsula Malaysia, 
one in Sarawak and two in Rotterdam. Two foreign consortiums ‐ one German, one American ‐ are setting up rival plants 
in Singapore. All of them will be making biodiesel from the same source: oil from palm trees. "The demand for 
biodiesel," the Malaysian Star reports, "will come from the European Community ... This fresh demand ... would, at the 
very least, take up most of Malaysia's crude palm oil inventories." Why? Because it is cheaper than biodiesel made from 
any other crop. In September, Friends of the Earth published a report about the impact of palm oil production. 
"Between 1985 and 2000," it found, "the development of oil‐palm plantations was responsible for an estimated 87 per 
cent of deforestation in Malaysia". In Sumatra and Borneo, some 4 million hectares of forest have been converted to 
palm farms. Now a further 6 million hectares are scheduled for clearance in Malaysia, and 16.5 million in Indonesia. 
Almost all the remaining forest is at risk. Even the famous Tanjung Puting national park in Kalimantan is being ripped 
apart by oil planters. The orangutan is likely to become extinct in the wild. Sumatran rhinos, tigers, gibbons, tapirs, 
proboscis monkeys and thousands of other species could go the same way. Thousands of indigenous people have been 
evicted from their lands, and some 500 Indonesians have been tortured when they tried to resist. The forest fires which 
every so often smother the region in smog are mostly started by the palm growers. The entire region is being turned 
into a gigantic vegetable oil field. Before oil palms, which are small and scrubby, are planted, vast forest trees, 
containing a much greater store of carbon, must be felled and burnt. Having used up the drier lands, the plantations are 
moving into the swamp forests, which grow on peat. When they've cut the trees, the planters drain the ground. As the 
peat dries it oxidises, releasing even more carbon dioxide than the trees. In terms of its impact on both the local and 
global environments, palm biodiesel is more destructive than crude oil from Nigeria.  
Page 112 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Current Ethanol Bad – Amazon Deforestation
Farm-grown fuels cause of destruction of Amazon – causes Global Warming.
Michael Grunwald, “The Clean Energy Scam,”TIME Magazine,Vol. 171 Issue 14, p40‐45, 4/7/2008  
From his Cessna a mile above the southern Amazon, John Carter looks down on the destruction of the world's greatest ecological
jewel. He watches men converting rain forest into cattle pastures and soybean fields with bulldozers and chains. He sees fires wiping
out such gigantic swaths of jungle that scientists now debate the "savannization" of the Amazon. Brazil just announced that
deforestation is on track to double this year; Carter, a Texas cowboy with all the subtlety of a chainsaw, says it's going to get
worse fast. "It gives me goose bumps," says Carter, who founded a nonprofit to promote sustainable ranching on the Amazon frontier.
"It's like witnessing a rape."
The Amazon was the chic eco-cause of the 1990s, revered as an incomparable storehouse of biodiversity. It's been
overshadowed lately by global warming, but the Amazon rain forest happens also to be an incomparable
storehouse of carbon, the very carbon that heats up the planet when it's released into the atmosphere. Brazil now
ranks fourth in the world in carbon emissions, and most of its emissions come from deforestation. Carter is not a man
who gets easily spooked--he led a reconnaissance unit in Desert Storm, and I watched him grab a small anaconda with his bare hands
in Brazil--but he can sound downright panicky about the future of the forest. "You can't protect it. There's too much money to be made
tearing it down," he says. "Out here on the frontier, you really see the market at work."
This land rush is being accelerated by an unlikely source: biofuels. An explosion in demand for farm-grown fuels
has raised global crop prices to record highs, which is spurring a dramatic expansion of Brazilian agriculture,
which is invading the Amazon at an increasingly alarming rate.
Propelled by mounting anxieties over soaring oil costs and climate change, biofuels have become the vanguard of
the green-tech revolution, the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they're serious about finding alternative sources
of energy and in the process slowing global warming. The U.S. quintupled its production of ethanol--ethyl alcohol, a fuel distilled
from plant matter--in the past decade, and Washington has just mandated another fivefold increase in renewable fuels over the next
decade. Europe has similarly aggressive biofuel mandates and subsidies, and Brazil's filling stations no longer even offer plain
gasoline. Worldwide investment in biofuels rose from $5 billion in 1995 to $38 billion in 2005 and is expected to top
$100 billion by 2010, thanks to investors like Richard Branson and George Soros, GE and BP, Ford and Shell, Cargill and the
Carlyle Group. Renewable fuels has become one of those motherhood-and-apple-pie catchphrases, as unobjectionable
as the troops or the middle class.
Page 113 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose Ethanol Good – General
There are many advantages for cellulosic biofuels over corn ethanol.
Nathanael Greene,Senior Policy Analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, et al,“Growing Energy: How Biofuels Can Help 
End America’s Dependence on Oil,”Natural Resources Defense Council, Dec. 2004 
Biofuels, especially ethanol derived from the cellulosic part of plants rather than just the starch, are the most 
promising alternative fuels for the transportation sector. Replacing oil with biofuels would allow us to reinvest billions 
of dollars in our factories and farms. If we start now on an aggressive plan to develop and deploy advanced biofuels by 
2050: • Cellulosic biofuels can displace nearly 8 million barrels of oil per day—nearly equal to all of the oil used by 
light‐duty vehicles today; • Biofuels can be second only to vehicle fuel economy improvements in the amount of oil 
they save;• Biofuels, vehicle efficiency, and smart growth could eliminate virtually all our demand for gasoline; and • 
Biofuels could reduce global warming pollution by 1.7 billion tons per year—22 percent of total U.S. emissions in 2002.  
Biofuels can make this contribution based on just the land already used to grow crops while we continue to meet our 
other existing agricultural demands. Furthermore, growing the biomass needed to make biofuels could help 
dramatically reduce the environmental footprint of agriculture. 
Corn subsidies encourage market distortions – only cellulose ethanol solves

In  addition  to  the  issues  presented  directly  above,  ethanol  subsidies  present  another  significant  issue.  From  1995 
through 2005, corn producers received $ 51.2 billion in subsidies, which is double that received by producers of wheat, 
the next highest subsidy recipient, at $ 20.9 billion. n113 The concern is that such price supports may create a "completely 
artificial  demand  for  ethanol."  n114  The  reason  for  concern  lies  in  the  fact  such  a  condition  may  propel  supply  beyond 
demand  which  may  encourage  inefficiency  and  market  distortions.  Such  market  distortions  reflect  surging  corn  prices 
which  led  the  National  Cattlemen's  Beef  Association  simply  to  call  for  "a  transition  to  a  market‐  based  approach  to 
renewable energy production, which would help level the playing field for cattle producers and other feed grain users." 
Such  sentiment  expresses  the  fact  that  growth  of  the  corn‐based  ethanol  industry  may  have  been  purely  "artificial," 
propelled  by  eight  to  eleven  billion  dollars  in  annual  subsidies.  n11  In  terms  of  problems  and  threats  to  corn  based 
ethanol,  competition  or  substitute  products  offer  significant  trouble  to  future  prospects.  According  to  Jim  Pease, 
commercial production of economically viable cellulosic ethanol may only be three to five years away.  n118 Furthermore, 
due  to  cellulosic  ethanol's  great  efficiency  and  a  large energy  balance  ratio,  it  represents  the  "biggest  challenge"  as  a 
substitute and competitor to corn‐based ethanol. n119 Yet, "Informa Economics analyst Jim Wiesemeyer told producers at 
the  recent  Illinois  Commodities  Conference  that  'corn  shouldn't  be  worried'  in  the  near  term  about  the  drive  toward 
biomass fuels.
Page 114 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – General
Cellulosic ethanol is a more efficient energy source, and cleaner, than corn ethanol.
Two recent peer‐reviewed studies, one in Science and the other in Environmental Science and Technology, reviewed recent reports 
on the energy return of corn and cellulosic ethanol. Both studies show that there is actually a very strong consensus in the scientific 
community about the positive return from both corn and cellulosic ethanol. This is important because of an outdated public 
perception that the production process uses more fossil fuel energy than is available for use in the ethanol that is produced. 
Cellulosic ethanol has a better energy return and global warming pollution profile in large part because cellulosic 
biomass arrives at the ethanol production facility combined with a renewable source of energy more than sufficient 
to drive the production process. Cellulose, a central component to most plant matter, is bound up with lignin, another 
major component. While lignin cannot be fermented into ethanol, it does have a significant energy value— enough 
energy in fact not only to power the entire ethanol production process but also to export energy either as electricity 
or, possibly, as biofuels using gas‐to‐liquids technology.  
Page 115 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose Good: advanced Biofuels
Advanced fuels increase efficiency, solve land use in 2 ways, increase yields
and avoid a collapse of the corn ethanol industry
Jeff Tollefson, Energy reporter for Nature Magazine- fellow in science journalism at MIT, “Not your father's biofuels,”
Nature Feb. 20, 2008.
Biotechnology has changed the way that drugs are discovered, designed and, often, made. It has spread new capabilities
across the farms of much of the world, sometimes amid much controversy. Now some of its advocates are suggesting that it
is poised to overhaul the energy sector as well, changing both the crops that are grown and the fuels that are made from
them. Entrepreneurs have attracted hundreds of millions of dollars for bio-energy companies working on 'second-
generation' fuels produced from crop residues, grasses or woody materials that avoid the shortcomings of ethanol distilled
from corn starch or biodiesel produced from oil crops. Some are offering hope for higher yields from less land, from more
marginal land, and with less investment in terms of energy and fertilizer; others are promising fuels better suited to the
needs of drivers and the existing fuel infrastructure. Even the major oil companies are getting involved. “The market is
slated to be so big that there will be opportunities for multiple approaches, and it will probably take many years before we
settle on one absolute best approach,” says Doug Cameron, chief science officer for Khosla Ventures, a venture-capital firm
in Menlo Park, California, that is backing a large number of start-up bioenergy companies. Liquid biofuels will never make
up a significant portion of the global transportation fuel supply unless biologists and engineers make the most of these
opportunities. During the past four years alone, global ethanol production has more than doubled to nearly 50 billion
litres (about 13.2 billion gallons) in 2007. Biodiesel, although starting out much lower, nearly quintupled to 9 billion litres
(2.4 billion gallons) during the same period (see A growing concern). This rate of growth is not sustainable — and with
current production methods far from desirable, because the agricultural techniques used often damage the
environment on a scale that far outweighs any good achieved through the biofuels' use.
Page 116 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose Good: TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY
the ‘q microbe’ proves cellulosic technology is already feasible – its only a question of commercialization  
Marshall, 2007 (Matt, Editor of Venture Beat and Ph.D., Venture Beat, August 14,
http://venturebeat.com/2007/08/14/sunethanol-latest-cellulosic-ethanol-company-raises-round/)
SUNETHANOL, AN AMHERST, MASS. BIOFUELS TECHNOLOGY COMPANY, SAID IT HAS RAISED A FIRST ROUND OF
FUNDING TO COMMERCIALIZE THE SO-CALLED “Q MICROBE,” A NATURAL BACTERIA THAT HELPS CONVERT
CELLULOSE INTO ETHANOL. VERASUN ENERGY, BATTERY VENTURES AND LONG RIVER VENTURES, LED THE
INVESTMENT, THE AMOUNT OF WHICH IS UNDISCLOSED. THERE ARE AT LEAST A DOZEN COMPANIES WORKING
ON WAYS TO PRODUCE CELLULOSIC ETHANOL, WHICH IS CLEANER WAY TO MAKE ETHANOL. THE PROCESS
RELIES ON WASTE FROM PLANTS, SHRUBS AND OTHER NATURAL PRODUCTS, AND IS CONSIDERED BY MOST
SCIENTISTS AS POTENTIALLY ONE OF THE MOST ATTRACTIVE SOURCES OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY.ACCORDING
TO SUNETHANOL’S STATEMENT:SUNETHANOL’S Q MICROBE TECHNOLOGY, LICENSED FROM THE UNIVERSITY
OF MASSACHUSETTS, HAS THE POTENTIAL TO MAKE THE PRODUCTION OF ETHANOL FROM CELLULOSE
ECONOMICALLY COMPETITIVE. SUNETHANOL’S Q MICROBE REPRESENTS TRUE CONSOLIDATED BIO-
PROCESSING (CBP), A TECHNOLOGY THAT CONSOLIDATES MULTIPLE STEPS INTO A SINGLE EFFICIENT AND
NATURAL PROCESS, POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN A LOWER COST OF PRODUCTION AND THE ABILITY TO
CONVERT VARIOUS FORMS OF BIOMASS INTO ETHANOL. IT WAS DISCOVERED BY UNIVERSITY OF
MASSACHUSETTS PROFESSOR OF MICROBIOLOGY, DR. SUSAN LESCHINE IN THE SOIL OF NEW ENGLAND, NEAR
THE QUABBIN RESERVOIR, AND IS BEING DEVELOPED FOR CELLULOSIC ETHANOL PRODUCTION BY DR.
LESCHINE AND THE SUNETHANOL LAB TEAM. DR. LESCHINE SERVES AS A SENIOR ADVISOR TO SUNETHANOL.
THE TEAM BELIEVES THAT THE Q MICROBE’S CBP PROCESS CAN BE USED WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF PLENTIFUL
BIOMASS FEEDSTOCKS INCLUDING: SWITCHGRASS, CORN STOVER, WHEAT STRAW, SUGAR CANE BAGASSE, AND
WOOD PULP. IT CAN POTENTIALLY BE USED IN ALL PARTS OF THE WORLD WHERE BIOMASS IS PLENTIFUL.  
Page 117 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
 
cellulosic ethanol is necessary to offset current pretroleum use  
Griffin and Lave, 2006 (W. Michael, Executive Director of the Green Design Initiative at Carnegie Mellon and Lester B.,
Professor of Economics at Carnegie Mellon, “Cellulosic Ethanol in an Oil and Carbon Constrained World”, A High Growth
Strategy For Ethanol, Available via the Aspen Institute, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/{DEB6F227-659B-4EC8-
8F84-8DF23CA704F5}/EEEethanol2.pdf)
To fuel the entire US auto and light truck fleet on E10,15 billion gallons of ethanol per year would be needed (Table 1). A
switch to E85 would require 166 billion gallons of ethanol. But corn ethanol production has limits due to co-product
market saturation, reducing and possibly eliminating their production cost offsets for ethanol production. Also, corn
has other uses. In our judgment, corn-ethanol production would be limited to 7 to 14 billion gallons. Thus, the US will
need other sources of ethanol to embark on a serious reduction of petroleum use. In the immediate term this could
come from imports, but ultimately most of the ethanol produced in the US will have to come from energy crops. Fuel
economy will play an important role in the future. To cali- brate the potential for fuel savings via fuel economy
improvements, the National Academy of Science’s Committee on the Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) Standards found that advanced technologies including direct-injection lean- burn engines, direct-
injection compression-ignition engines, and hybrid electric vehicles could improve fuel economy by 20 to 40 percent. A
40 percent increase in fleet fuel economy would reduce the required amount ofethanol for E85 to 117 billion gallons,
requiring just less the 100 billion gallons ofethanol to fuel the fleet. It is widely recognized that land use will be an
important issue in the ultimate size and acceptance ofusing energy crops for cellulosic ethanol. Without going deeply
into the various process technologies, the anticipated yields from switchgrass (a potential energy crop) and subsequent
conversion to ethanol could produce about 1000 gallons of ethanol per acre. An E85 fuel would likely be used, since E100
would have cold-start problems throughout much of the US. Thus with no increase in fuel economy or in vehicle miles
traveled, the land required to produce enough energy crops to completely displace current gasoline consumption
in the US is around 160 million acres. Doubling fuel economy would reduce this to 80 million acres, although increases
in vehicle miles traveled would increase it.
our aff rocks bitches  
The third step is shifting ethanol production from corn to switch grass. To realize this potential, we need to reenergize the
stalled R&D effort on cellulosic ethanol. A small pilot plant was built at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory years
ago, with little progress since then. At this point there are no commercial plants producing cellulosic ethanol. An
aggressive plan is needed to move the current best concepts to pilot and then full-scale production. The near term goal
should be set so that we (1) rapidly reduce our dependence on petroleum and (2) move toward the development of
cellulosic ethanol. The ultimate endpoint in the amount of ethanol integration into the US fuel supply will simply be
determined by developments in crop yields, cellulosic processing technology, and oil prices. If switchgrass yields and
ethanol production efficiency exceed the modest levels used in this discussion, choices can be made to increase production
or to diminish the ethanol footprint. Oil at $60 per barrel, climate change and other environmental problems, excessive
production of corn, the need to protect our farmland and strengthen our rural economy, and a foreign policy constrained by
the need to protect our oil supply all point toward cellulosic ethanol as the principal source ofour motor vehicle fuel in the
future. There are many benefits, few costs, and no need to make expensive, irreversible commitments. This is a policy that
makes sense and should be pursued with vigor.
Page 118 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Gas Demand
Cellulosic ethanol can offset the majority of the world’s demand for gas without excessive land use
Whereas the first generation of biofuels has provided minimal contributions (if any) to carbon emission mitigation and 
has increased food prices and threatened natural habitat by bringing it into production of energy crop, the second 
generation of biofuels is expected to provide benefits beyond short‐term gasoline price dampening, terms of trade 
improvements, and wealth transfers. The use of cellulosic biomass for energy production is expected to result in 
significantly higher EROI and carbon sequestration compared to starch and sugar based biofuel (Tilman et al 2006, 
Sheehan et al 2003, Farrell et al 2006)Note14. Just as corn is considered an unsustainable feedstock, ethanol is also not 
an ideal biofuel because of its hydrophilic nature, which increases the energy cost of distillation and renders it corrosive 
to the pipes that constitute gasoline distribution networks (Somerville 2007). Future biofuels may encompass a broader 
set of fuels such as bio‐butanol or higher chain hydrocarbon fuels similar in composition to gasoline or diesel (Somerville 
2007). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) fourth assessment report on climate 
change, second‐generation biofuels are considered one of the key mitigation technologies for the transportation sector. 
They are expected to be commercialized by 2030 (IPCC 2007). Regardless of the ultimate form of biofuel, second‐
generation biofuels are likely to depend on cellulosic matter for feedstock, primarily because of the significantly higher 
yield per hectare of cellulose compared to sugar or starch cropsNote15. Cellulosic conversion technologies will also 
enable the use of crop residues in biofuel production. In table 3 we report cellulosic energy production for a 
hypothetical scenario in which 100 million hectares of cropland are allocated to each switchgrass and miscanthus to 
produce lingo‐cellulosic biomass. The table also shows the energy potential of crop residues. Under these assumptions, 
about 14% of today's global cropland along with crop residues from other agricultural lands could offset 91% of current 
global demand for gasoline.  
Cellulose solves energy balances

Brent D. Yacobucci, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Fuel 
Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues,” 3/28/2008, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33290.pdf 
Cellulosic Ethanol Energy Balance. Because cellulosic feedstocks require far less fertilizer for their production, the 

energy balance and other benefits of cellulosic ethanol could be significant. The Argonne study concluded that with 
advances in technology, the use of cellulose‐based E10 could reduce fossil energy consumption per mile by 8%, while 
cellulose‐based E85 could reduce fossil energy consumption by roughly 70%.64  
Page 119 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Gas Emissions
Cellulosic ethanol is efficient and reduces greenhouse gas emissions
Yet studies presented at the ESA meeting suggest that cellulosic ethanol from native grasses could fix many of these 
problems. Ethanol is fermented from sugars, which can be produced easily from corn starch or extracted directly from 
sugar cane (see "All aboard the Brazilian bandwagon"). But sugars can also be produced from cellulose, which makes up 
most of the biomass of fast‐growing prairie grasses. Although the process of extracting sugar is more complex than for 
corn starch, cellulosic ethanol from wild grasses has big potential energetic and environmental advantages. Robert 
Mitchell of the University of Nebraska in Lincoln has been monitoring 10 farmscale plots of switchgrass since 2000. 
Based on yields from these plots, and models describing the production of cellulosic ethanol, he told the ESA meeting 
that ethanol produced from such grasses would yield up to 15 times more energy than it uses during production, a huge 
improvement on corn. Jason Hill of the University of Minnesota in St Paul has come up with similarly impressive 
projections. Hill did not add the fertiliser that Mitchell's group used, so the energy yield from his grasses was 2 to 6 times 
less. Significantly, though, the grasses took in more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than was released from the 
fuel used to grow and process them. The carbon dioxide removed ‐‐ around a third of a tonne per hectare per year ‐‐ 
was taken up by the roots and so remained in the soil after the harvest. This means that the greenhouse gas savings 
from wild‐grass ethanol could be up to 16 times as great as those from corn (Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1133306).  
Biofuels increase emissions – waste biomass through cellulose is better

Fargione et al 2008, Joseph Fargione, Jason Hill, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, Peter Hawthorne, The Nature 
Conservancy, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, and Department of Applied Economics, University of 
Minnesota, “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt,” February 29, 2008, Science Vol. 319. no. 5867, pp. 1235 ‐ 1238 
Our results demonstrate that the net effect of biofuel production via clearing of carbon‐rich habitats is to increase CO2 
emissions for decades or centuries relative to the emissions caused by fossil fuel use. Conversely, biofuels from 
perennials grown on degraded cropland and from waste biomass would minimize habitat destruction, competition with 
food production, and carbon debts, all of which are associated with direct and indirect land clearing for biofuel 
production. 
Cellulose is a better emissions-reducing investment than corn ethanol

Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, “The Other Team's Playbook,” 1/15/2007, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐
dyn/content/article/2007/01/14/AR2007011400888_pf.html 
A mistaken focus on energy security can undermine good policy on climate. If you just want to cut imports, switching 
cars to corn‐based ethanol sounds great: The United States will get its fuel from the Midwest rather than the Middle 
East, a politically irresistible promise. But corn‐based ethanol is only marginally better than gasoline in terms of 
greenhouse emissions. Federal subsidies for this technology would be better spent elsewhere ‐‐ for example on next‐
generation cellulosic ethanol. 
 
 
Page 120 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Global Warming
Cellulosic ethonal decreases global warming emissions compared to gas and corn ethonal
<Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Truth About Ethanol”, page last revised June 25, 2008> 
Cellulosic ethanol can reduce lifecycle global warming emissions by as much as 80 to 90 percent compared with 
gasoline. Cellulosic materials require less fertilizer to grow and require less land in order to produce an equivalent 
amount of fuel. Additionally, the non‐fermentable parts of the plant can be used as combustible fuel in place of fossil 
fuels. However, if cellulosic ethanol is made from crops that compete with food crops for land, indirect changes in land 
use can reduce or eliminate the benefits of cellulosic ethanol. In order for cellulosic ethanol to achieve its potential, we 
need to make good choices about how and where the cellulosic materials are grown.  
 
transition to cellulosic ethanol solves warming by drastically reducing co2

emissions
   
Even with abundant petroleum, concern for limiting greenhouse gas emissions requires curtailing the use of petroleum and
other fossil fuels. To achieve even modest emissions goals, the use of gasoline-diesel would have to be cut drastically.
In order for the US to continue growing while slowing then eliminating the growth of greenhouse gas,CO2 emissions per
dollar of GDP would have to fall sharply. Assuming that GDP grows at 3 percent per year, emissions per dollar of GDP
would have to fall by 75 percent in 50 years and by 95 percent in 100 years. Thus, a century from now, there cannot be
any CO2 emissions from motor vehicles and gasoline and diesel will not be permissible fuels, even iffuel economy were
increased to 100 miles per gallon. Cellulosic ethanol has the potential to begin the migration to a greenhouse gas
neutral fuel supply over the next few years. The use of cellulosic ethanol simply recycles recent origin CO2 by
capturing the CO2 as the plant grows and then releasing it as the ethanol is burned as a fuel. The fossil fuels used in
growing the biomass (fertilizers, herbicides, tractors, etc.), transporting the biomass, and transporting the ethanol to the
end user are offset to some extent by using excess energy generated from burning the lignin fraction of the biomass for
grid electricity. Process energy for the production of ethanol is provided by lignin combustion. The midpoint of a range of
values from a number of studies looking at life cycle CO2 emissions from “wells to tank” showed on average that E10
could reduce CO2 emissions compared to gasoline by 27 percent, and E85 by about 240 percent. Very recently new
studies have shown even greater reductions in overall CO2 emissions. The cost of CO2 abatement is important. There are
many potential methods for point source emissions reduction, but mobile sources are more difficult. The potential of CO2
reductions generated by producing and using cellulosic ethanol versus gasoline makes cellulosic ethanol an
important approach. The cost of abatement is sensitive to the price differential between cellulosic ethanol and gasoline.
For instance, in 2004 the average US wholesale price for ethanol was $1.72. The corresponding gasoline wholesale price
was $1.27, making the cellulosic ethanol CO2 abatement cost $240 to $270/ton ofCO2for E85 and E10 respectively,
taking into account energy density differences. However, in 2005 the gap between the gasoline and ethanol prices
narrowed to a $0.13 differential. The resulting abatement costs would then decrease to $70 to $77/ton CO2, for E85 and
E10. If the price of gasoline exceeds ethanol, which is entirely plausible, then the CO abatement costs could be essentially
zero.
Page 121 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Environment
Environmental Impacts of corn ethanol compared to cellulosic
<Union of Concerned Scientists, “The Truth About Ethanol”, page last revised June 25, 2008>
The environmental impact is particularly high when forestland is cleared for monocrop farming of current generation 
feedstocks like corn. If done right, next generation feedstocks, such as mixed prairie grasses, may offer a lower‐impact 
alternative, especially if grown with smart farming practices, such as no or low‐till, plant diversification, and lower 
pesticide and fertilizer use. This potential for displacing some of our fossil fuel use makes next generation biomass 
feedstocks a worthwhile target for research and development. As we expand our biofuels production, there must be 
adequate safeguards in place to ensure that fuels are produced in a manner that safeguards the environment.  
Page 122 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Biodiversity
Cellulose ethanol development restores biodiversity
Hill's work also suggests that wild grass could be farmed more efficiently in mixed species plots, mimicking the make‐up 
of natural prairie. When his group combined eight species of grass in a single plot, yields were more than 150 per cent 
higher than from grass monocultures. In 16‐species plots, the improvement was 238 per cent. Such diverse mixes 
provide better havens for wildlife. In Wisconsin, Sample has studied field‐sized plots of mixed grasses of the type that 
would be suitable for biofuel farming. He found that a typical plot hosted three threatened bird species, while the 
average for corn was less than one species per plot. Harvesting the grass should not wipe out these gains in biodiversity, 
because it would have a similar effect to the fires that sweep through natural prairies most years. It all suggests that 
America's prairies, which now cover just 1 per cent of their original area, could be partially restored by biofuel farming, 
Hill says.  
Page 123 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Land Use
Cellulosic ethanol gets more material out of one acre of land and can be grown on marginal land.
<Environmental Protection, “With Cellulosic Ethanol, There is No Food vs. Fuel Debate MSU Scientist States”,  April 1, 
2007> 
Cellulosic ethanol is made from the stems, leaves, stalks and trunks of plants, none of which is used for human food 
production. Having studied ethanol for more than 30 years, Dale said that as the country moves toward large‐scale 
cellulosic ethanol production, the yield of so‐called energy crops ‐‐ grasses and woody materials grown for their energy 
content ‐‐ also will increase dramatically.  
"This will reduce pressure on our land resources," said Dale, who also is associate director of the MSU Office of Biobased 
Technologies. "We'll be able to get more raw material out of one acre of land."  
Dale said that many of these energy crops will be grown on land that isn't prime agricultural acreage. In other words, 
they'll be grown on marginal land that isn't growing a commercial crop right now. 
Cellulosic ethanol require less land than corn ethanol.

David J. Hayes, a partner at Latham & Watkins, is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Roger Ballentine, a PPI senior
fellow, is president of Green Strategies, Inc. Jan Mazurek is director of PPI's Energy & Environment Project, “Harvesting Fuels,”
Progressive Policy Institute, Blueprint
Magazine,http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=254273&knlgAreaID=116&subsecid=153, 4/23/07
Given all this, proponents' enthusiasm about biofuels is certainly warranted. But policymakers should temper their expectations with
two important caveats that have a direct bearing on how government initiatives should be designed.
First, there is a natural limit to the amount of corn that U.S. farmers can grow to make the most common type of
ethanol in production in America today. At best, it is estimated that the United States can produce about 14 billion gallons of
biofuels from corn without seriously disrupting feed and food markets. That is less than 10 percent of its current annual motor fuel
needs.
The real promise of the alternative fuel revolution will be realized when the next generation of cellulosic biofuels
can be brought to market cost-effectively. Cellulosic biofuels are functionally identical, from a driver's point of
view, to the current generation of biofuels made from corn and sugarcane. But they can be produced from the
leftover, inedible parts of food crops, wild grasses, and trees -- which require less fertilizer, water, and energy to
grow and harvest than agricultural crops.
Switchgrass Grows on non farmable land
<David Biello, Scientific American writer, “Grass Makes Better Ethanol than Corn Does”, January 8, 2008>
The use of native prairie grasses is meant to avoid some of the other risks associated with biofuels such as reduced
diversity of local animal life and displacing food crops with fuel crops. "This is an energy crop that can be grown on
marginal land," Vogel argues, such as the more than 35 million acres (14.2 million hectares) of marginal land that farmers
are currently paid not to plant under the terms of USDA's Conservation Reserve Program.
Page 124 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Economically Viable
Corn ethanol increases price of gasoline – switchgrass and other cellulosic blends better.
 Colin A. Carter, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University of California at Davis, Henry I. Miller, physician 
and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, “Drunk on Ethanol,”The Washington 
Times,http://washingtontimes.com/news/2007/may/24/20070524‐083912‐6259r/, 5/27/07 
Politicians like to say ethanol is environmentally friendly, but these claims must be put into perspective. Although corn is a renewable
resource, it has a far lower energy yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol
from many other plants. Moreover, ethanol yields about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage per
gallon in internal combustion engines drops significantly. Finally, adding ethanol raises the price of blended fuel
because it is more expensive to transport and handle. Lower-cost biomass ethanol -- for example, from rice straw (a
byproduct of harvesting rice) or switchgrass -- would make far more economic sense, but large volumes of ethanol from
biomass will not be commercially viable for many years. (And production will be delayed by government policies that specifically
encourage corn-based ethanol with subsidies.)
Cellulosic ethanol is more economically viable and competitive
Brent D. Yacobucci, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, “Fuel 
Ethanol: Background and Public Policy Issues,” 3/28/2008, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL33290.pdf 
A key barrier to ethanol’s expanded role in U.S. fuel consumption is its price differential with gasoline. Since a major part 
of the total production cost is the cost of feedstock, reducing feedstock costs could lead to lower wholesale ethanol 
costs. For this reason, there is a great deal of interest in producing ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks. Cellulosic 
materials include low‐value waste products such as recycled paper and rice hulls, or dedicated fuel crops, such as 
switchgrass32 and fast‐growing trees. A dedicated fuel crop would be grown and harvested solely for the purpose of fuel 
production. However, as the name indicates, cellulosic feedstocks are high in cellulose. Cellulose forms a majority of 
plant matter, but it is generally fibrous and cannot be directly fermented.33 It must first be broken down into simpler 
molecules, which is currently expensive. A 2000 study by USDA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 
estimated a 70% increase in production costs with large‐scale ethanol production from cellulosic biomass compared 
with ethanol produced from corn.34 Therefore, federal research has focused on both reducing the process costs for 
cellulosic ethanol and improving the availability of cellulosic feedstocks. The Natural Resources Defense Council 
estimates that with mature technology, advanced ethanol production facilities could produce significant amounts of fuel 
at $0.59 to $0.91 per gallon (before taxes) by 2012, a price that is competitive with Energy Information Administration 
(EIA) projections for gasoline prices in 2012.35  
Page 125 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Efficient
Cellulosic Ethanol cheaper than gas and Corn Ethanol
<Chuck Tannert, columnist Popular Mechanics, “Ethanol Makes a Mini Comeback: Live at the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, 
January 16,2008>. 
But there’s a silver lining to this rather gray outlook (besides the new biofuel rides described in our slide show below and 
throughout the show): Coskata, a startup biofuel company, has developed a new cellulosic process that can make 
ethanol from almost any carbon‐rich source—including old tires—for less than $1 a gallon. That would be about half as 
much as making gasoline, and much cheaper than other next‐generation biofuels. And that’s what got General Motors 
to invest bigtime.  
The Coskata process relies on gasification and patented microorganisms. The three‐step conversion process turns 
virtually any carbon‐based feedstock—including biomass, municipal solid waste and a variety of agricultural waste—into 
ethanol, making production a possibility in almost any geography. The technology is ethanol‐specific and enzyme 
independent, requiring no additional chemicals or pre‐treatments. 
Why is all of this so promising? It means cheap fuel that will be readily available to the American public because the 
infrastructure is already in place. There’s a fuel station on almost every corner here in the States. Since the distribution 
chain for gas and ethanol are the same, the infrastructure to sell it are already in place—unlike, say, hydrogen. 
Switchgrass has a positive energy balance

<M. R. Schmer et al, K. P. Vogel, R. B. Mitchell, and R. K. Perrin, U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural
Research Service, University of Nebraska, “Net Energy of Cellulosic Ethanol From Switchgrass”, January 15, 2008>
Perennial herbaceous plants such as switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) are being evaluated as cellulosic bioenergy crops.
Two major concerns have been the net energy efficiency and economic feasibility of switchgrass and similar crops. All
previous energy analyses have been based on data from research plots (<5m2) and estimated inputs. We managed
switchgrass as a biomass energy crop in field trials of 3–9 ha (1 ha 10,000m2) on marginal cropland on 10 farms across a
wide precipitation and temperature gradient in the midcontinental U.S. to determine net energy and economic costs based
on known farm inputs and harvested yields. In this report, we summarize the agricultural energy input costs, biomass
yield, estimated ethanol output, greenhouse gas emissions, and net energy results. Annual biomass yields of established
fields
averaged 5.2 -11.1 Mg ha 1 with a resulting average estimated net energy yield (NEY) of 60. Switchgrass produced
540% more renewable than nonrenewable energy consumed. Switchgrass monocultures managed for high yield produced
93% more biomass yield and an equivalent estimated NEY than previous estimates from human-made prairies that
received low agricultural inputs. Estimated average greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cellulosic ethanol derived
from switchgrass were 94% lower than estimated GHG from gasoline. This is a baseline study that represents the genetic
material and agronomic technology available for switchgrass production in 2000 and 2001, when the fields were planted.
Improved genetics and agronomics may further enhance energy sustainability and biofuel yield of switchgrass.
Page 126 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Efficient
Cellulosic ethanol is better than sugar and corn based ethanol
<L. Leon Geyer, Professor, Virginia Tech, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Phillip Chong, Research 
Assistant, Virginia Tech, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics and Bill Hxue Research Associate, Virginia 
Tech, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 12 Drake J. Agric. L. 61, 2007, Lexis.>    
While corn is currently the primary source of ethanol, it is possible that more efficient sources of energy may be 
developed. For example, switchgrass, also called tall panic grass, is a warm‐season plant that is thought by many experts 
as the ideal alternative to corn for cellulosic ethanol production. In the 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush 
pressed the need for "research in cutting‐edge methods of producing ethanol, not just form corn, but from . . . switch 
grass. Preliminary research by USDA scientists has found that switchgrass has an energy output/input ratio more than 
3.5 times greater than corn ethanol. n92 Similarly, sugar feedstock such as sugar cane and sugar beets offer "more 
efficient" alternatives to corn based ethanol. n93 According to scientific data reported by Larry Rohter, Brazil's sugar cane 
ethanol yields nearly eight times as much energy as corn‐based options. n94 
Aside from corn, sugar, and switchgrass based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol is another type of ethanol derived from 
biomass which "refers to a wide variety of plentiful materials obtained from plants ‐‐ including certain forest‐related 
resources . . . , many types of solid wood waste materials, and certain agricultural  [*74]  wastes (including corn stover) ‐‐ 
as well as plants that are specifically grown as fuel for generating electricity."  Cellulosic ethanol may be seven to eight 
times more efficient in respect to corn‐based ethanol's net energy balance ratio. n96 Y.H. Percival Zhang of Virginia Tech 
stated that "if we want to produce 30 to 60 billion gallons of ethanol, which is what is needed to meet the President's 
goal, we have to use the entire plant, or the stover (leaves, stalks, and cobs)." n97 The technology necessary to utilize the 
entire plant lies in cellulosic ethanol and requires the "technologies that can break the cellulose into the sugars that are 
distilled to produce ethanol." n98 Unfortunately, at this point in time, such technologies are not economically viable 
alternatives. 
Page 127 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulosic Ethanol Good – Feasible
Cellulosic ethanol is feasible – infrastructure exists
Roger A. Sedjo, Resources for the Future, 6/13/2008, “Biofuels: Think Outside the Cornfield,” Science Vol. 320. no. 5882, 
pp. 1420 ‐ 1421 
One example is switchgrass, which grows well on marginal lands that are not well suited to corn or many other grains 
(2). Switchgrass would have another advantage: It is a self‐seeding crop, which means farmers would not have to plant 
and reseed after harvesting.  Another alternative biofuel feedstock is wood from sustainably managed forests, which are 
common in much of the world today. These forests, managed for growth and renewability, are an increasing source of 
traditional industrial wood (3). As with grasses, trees can grow readily on land unsuitable for corn and grains. 
Furthermore, the wood is drawn from the incremental growth of a forest, thereby leaving the basic forest system and its 
carbon intact. Wood feedstock could be drawn from existing sources or from additional forests planted on marginal 
agricultural land without compromising the basic sustainable forest system, releasing substantial volumes of carbon, or 
utilizing high‐quality crop lands (4). Moreover, infrastructure systems are currently in place, allowing wood to be 
harvested and transported.  Unlike corn and most grains, studies show that biofuels from grasses and wood have large 
net GHG gas savings. Indeed, grasses and trees enhance the ability of land to capture carbon through biomass and soils 
(5).  
Cellulose is more efficient and cleaner – we’re on the verge of developing the necessary technology
The benefits of biofuels are greater when plants other than corn or oils from sources other than soybeans are used. 
Ethanol made entirely from cellulose (which is found in trees, grasses, and other plants) has an energy ratio between 5 
and 6 and emits 82 to 85 percent less greenhouse gases than does gasoline. As corn grows scarcer and more expensive, 
many are betting that the ethanol industry will increasingly turn to grasses, trees, and residues from field crops, such as 
wheat and rice straw and cornstalks. Grasses and trees can be grown on land poorly suited to food crops or in climates 
hostile to corn and soybeans. Recent breakthroughs in enzyme and gasification technologies have made it easier to 
break down cellulose in woody plants and straw. Field experiments suggest that grassland perennials could become a 
promising source of biofuel in the future. 
Page 128 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Solvency: Market diffusion
<Eggert. Anthony, Principal Researcher, 2007, Transportation Biofuels in the U.S.: A Preliminary Innovation Systems 
Analysis, pg 13‐14> 
“Besides offering R&D and direct market support through incentives and subsidies, the government can also promote
diffusion by acting as a large user of new technologies or products. In the case of biofuels, the government can act to
promote certain types of production processes and technologies by procuring fuels that use those technologies.
I2. Firm entry/activity
A strong factor for the development and diffusion of new technologies is the entry of new firms and the expansion of
existing firms into the area of interest. Firm entry often brings with it new ideas and experience (F1), new resources (F2),
and can help enable the connection to and growth of new markets (F4, F5) and information networks. New firms will also
contribute to the support for favorable policy (I1) treatment through lobbying. The modern biofuels industry had been,
until recently, dominated by a relatively small number of large companies. This is no longer the case. Due to the rapid
growth in the demand for ethanol many new firms have entered the market, such that by October of 2006, there were 90
different firms producing ethanol alone, up from 75 in 2005, and this number is expected to grow to 110 by the end of
2007 [18]. Such rapid growth in firm entry and activity is not without its risks, especially if it results in an oversupply of
product to the emerging market. When this occurs, prices will drop and it will be those firms which have the lowest costs
and/or largest cash reserves that will likely survive the shakeout. Such ‘creative destruction’ as it is sometimes called, can
be a good thing for the system, especially if it helps to select for good design (and weed out the bad) and management
practices.
I3. Feedback from market formation
Feedback from market formation occurs as the market expands to include more actors and a larger customer base and
includes increasing returns to scale (reduced costs), increasing legitimacy of the technologies. For biofuels this feedback
can take the form reduced capital and variable costs through learning, increased external economies and network effects
(e.g. associated biofuel distribution infrastructures), and increased confidence in the technology.”
Page 129 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
AT: Cellulose Ethanol Hurts Environment
Switchgrass reduces agricultural impacts.
In addition to energy and global warming pollution, agriculture can have a profoundly positive or negative impact on soil 
quality, water quality, water use, habitat, and land‐use. There are crops and management practices that yield very 
large amounts of biomass per acre while dramatically reducing the environmental footprint of agriculture. For 
instances, switchgrass is a native perennial prairie grass. It does not need irrigation, requires less fertilizers and pesticides 
than traditional row crops, and provides a better habitat for wildlife.  As a perennial grass, it is mowed annually and thus 
there is no tillage, which reduces soil erosion. Finally and counter intuitively, it actually sequesters more carbon annually 
when it is harvested than when it is simply let to grow. 
Page 130 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Cellulose EthanolBiotech
Cellulose ethanol causes biotech revolution
gles/3 
Khosla is even higher on the prospects for cellulosic ethanol, a biofuel that can be made from almost any plant matter, 
including wood waste and perennial grasses like miscanthus and switchgrass. Like other high‐tech ethanol evangelists, 
Khosla imagines a future in which such so‐called "energy crops" are fed into giant refineries that use genetically 
engineered enzymes to break down the cellulose in plants and create fuel for a fraction of the cost of today's gasoline. 
Among other virtues, cellulosic ethanol would not cut into the global food supply (nobody eats miscanthus or 
switchgrass), and it could significantly cut global‐warming pollution. Even more important, it could provide a gateway to 
a much larger biotech revolution, including synthetic microbes that could one day be engineered to gobble up carbon 
dioxide or other pollutants. 
Page 131 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Oil Dependence Bad
Increasing dependence of oil is bad – harms the economy and discourages political reform
Expressing his outlook on energy that was widely shared by the automotive industry nearly eighty years ago, the future 
that Henry Ford predicted remains a future for our generation. Diminishing worldwide petroleum reserves coupled with 
growing demand from China, India, Brazil and other nations has created a precarious situation in regards to energy 
procurement. In the United States, 40.1% of total energy consumption comes from petroleum, 22.9% from  [*62]  coal, 
22.6% from natural gas, 8.1% from nuclear electric power, and 6.1% from renewable energy. n2 The American 
dependency on petroleum is clearly illustrated by the fact that it constitutes the largest source of energy consumption. 
With 7.5 billion barrels of oil used by Americans in 2006, petroleum's ability to fuel automobiles and heat homes has 
placed it in a category of necessary goods joined by food, water, and shelter. n3 What complicates the energy situation in 
the United States is two‐fold in nature. First, natural resource energy is finite. Second, there is an imbalance of oil stocks 
and reserves due to geological circumstances beyond control. According to the Energy Information Agency, an estimated 
1.32 trillion barrels of oil are left in the world; n4 and only 1.6% of that amount resides in the United States. n5 More 
significantly, of the 1.32 trillion barrels of oil, 6% is in Venezuela, n6 8.7% is in Iraq, n7 10.3% is in Iran, n8 and 19.9% is in 
Saudi Arabia. n9 This petroleum imbalance has created a world where the use of energy as an overt weapon is no longer 
a theoretical threat of the future, but happening now. The 2007 State of the Union address by President George W. Bush 
expressed America's dependence on foreign oil and the fact that it "leaves us America more vulnerable to hostile 
regimes, and to terrorists ‐ who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great 
harm to our economy." n10 This geo‐political situation has allowed regimes such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela to 
avoid democratic reforms and insulate themselves from international and domestic pressures. Furthermore, as Thomas 
Friedman states, "it has fostered a counterwave ‐ a new wave of authoritarian leaders who are not only able to 
ensconce themselves in power because of huge oil profits but also to use their oil wealth to poison the global [political 
and economic] system."  
Page 132 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
AT: High Oil Prices Solve AE
The Status Quo will not drive alternative energy funding and Research
<Richard Heinberg, faculty of New College of California, “The Consequences of Oil Dependency”, The Santa Rosa Press Democrat,
October 6, 2004>.
Economists tell us that higher oil prices will stimulate investment in energy alternatives. However, the prospects for a
painless market-driven transition away from fossil fuels are hardly encouraging. Globally, trillions of dollars will have to
be spent on research and on new infrastructureÑtens or hundreds of billions per year, starting immediately. We are not
seeing anything like that level of investment now; we have to assume that it will begin after the global oil peak (that is,
after an obvious price signal making alternatives more attractive). But then, with less energy available to fuel the
economy, we will have trouble simply maintaining basic services. There won’t be any surplus to jumpstart the new energy
infrastructure, which will take decades to build.
Page 133 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Solvency – Incentives
Government needs to increase incentives for cellulose ethanol – current approach is biased towards corn
ethanol
The biggest obstacles may be political, however. For grass cultivation to really take off, government incentives will be 
needed to build new facilities for large‐scale processing of cellulose and to rival the generous subsidies currently paid to 
corn growers. Yet the powerful agricultural lobby is doing all it can to get politicians to focus on corn ethanol, which 
promises more immediate gains for farmers. Roger Samson, a specialist in biofuels policy at Resource Efficient 
Agricultural Production Canada, a not‐for‐profit organisation based in St Anne de Bellevue, believes corn ethanol is the 
wrong approach. "If this is a horse race, the US government has bet on a donkey," he says.  
Incentives are key to investment and success of cellulosic ethanol

Third, farmer adoption of specialized crops like perennial grasses will depend on whether they have a contract or a 
market for their product. This, in turn, depends on decisions to invest in processing capacity. The adoption of biofuels, 
therefore, is a two‐step dance: industry must take the lead, and farmers will follow. But investments in processing 
capacity require long‐term commitments to biofuels which may demand government incentives. While subsidies are 
necessary to minimize risk for investors, they are currently rigid and not linked to oil price, the impact on energy 
security, or environmental impacts (Koplow 2006). Incentives in the future should be dynamic and flexible so as to adapt 
to changing economic, political and environmental conditions. Agricultural and energy policy must be integrated. In 
particular, whereas agricultural policy has traditionally aimed to restrict supply to reduce downward pressure on 
commodity prices, an era of biofuels demands increased supply of certain crops. Policy, therefore, will need to change to 
enhance supply. Biofuels can serve to reduce the taxpayer burden by eliminating deficiency payments to farmers. 
Page 134 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Solvency – Cellulose/Corn Combo
Limited corn ethanol production is OK – it’s dangerous in excess
Maybe there is a better idea out there for making ethanol from cellulose waste products. And it is not as if a diversity of 
energy resources is ever a bad idea. So some production of ethanol from corn makes sense. But sometimes, just 
because something is a good idea, it does not necessarily follow that more of it is a better idea. It is the same thing with 
corn‐based ethanol. Pro‐ethanol agricultural, industrial, transportation, and tax policies will not provide the country with 
anything like the volumes of motor fuel that it needs to run the existing transportation grid. And manufacturing ethanol 
from corn will dramatically disrupt the U.S. food supply. Eventually, the nation will reap what it sows. 
Second generation biofuels good, but we should continue producing first generation ones
Dan Arvizu, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, 6/13/2008, “Biofuels: Too Soon to Give 
Up,” Science Vol. 320. no. 5882, pp. 1419 ‐ 1420 
There is significant potential for second‐generation biofuels to reduce carbon emissions when compared to first‐
generation biofuels technologies. However, the challenge to our nation in reducing our dependence on foreign oil is too 
great to abandon first‐generation technology for fear of unintended consequences; instead, we must learn from 
comprehensive life‐cycle analyses how to avoid those consequences as the biofuels market evolves. 
Page 135 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Solvency – Banning Biofuels
Biofuels driving rising food prices – a ban would solve the problem
Missy Ryan, Reuters, Planet Ark, “Biofuels Halt Would Ease Food Prices,” 4/30/2008, 
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/48157/story.htm 
A moratorium on global grain‐ and oilseed‐based biofuels would help ease raging wheat and corn prices by up to 20 
percent in the next few years, a leading agriculture research group said on Tuesday. "Our models analysis suggest that if 
a moratorium on biofuels would be issued in 2008, we could expect a price decline of maize by about 20 percent and for 
wheat by about 10 percent in 2009‐10. So it's this significant," Joachim von Braun, who heads the International Food 
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), told reporters in a briefing. "There are biofuels and there are biofuels, good and bad 
ones ... waste‐based and sugarcane‐based can be very good," von Braun said. The role of burgeoning biofuel production, 
which diverts food crops like corn to make ethanol, has become a sharply divisive issue in the United States and 
elsewhere as the world grapples with a dramatic shock in food prices. The soaring cost of basic staples like milk and 
bread has sparked unrest and deepened political instability in many corners of the developing world.  
Page 136 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Solvency – Free Market
Should return to the free market on ethanol
Though intended to help consumers and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the ethanol mandate has done just the 
opposite, contributing to high food and gas prices with little environmental benefit. Representative Jeff Flake (R–AZ) has 
introduced H.R. 5911, the Remove Incentives for Producing Ethanol Act of 2008, which would eliminate the mandate 
and other benefits for ethanol, and other measures may soon be introduced.  A return to a free market for ethanol 
would be a welcome step. Congress should eliminate the ethanol mandate, ethanol‐related tax breaks, and protectionist 
tariffs that keep out potentially cheaper foreign supplies.  
Page 137 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Free Market – AT: Ethanol good
The market solves these arguments
It should be noted that there is little to no downside risk in repealing the ethanol mandate, as well as the generous tax 
credits and protectionist tariffs that also tilt the playing field in favor of corn ethanol use. To the extent that there is a 
valid economic case for fuel ethanol, it will continue to be used even in the absence of government dictates and 
incentives.  The lesson seems clear: The consequences of the ethanol mandate have had detrimental effects on both the 
economy and the environment. Congress should take a hard, honest look at America's ethanol policy, and the mandate 
should be repealed, along with the tax breaks and protectionist tariffs.  
Page 138 of 139

Miami inst. ABJ
Page 139 of 139

Ethanol Aff Wave 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ethanol Aff Wave 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Table of Contents

CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL—WE NEED A NEW POLICY TO CREATE MARKET

SCENARIO ONE: PEAK CORN

RENEWABLE FUEL STANDARDS FORCE MORE ETHANOL PRODUCTION THAN

The SQ lacks incentives for advanced biofuel development- locking in corn

BIOFUELS DRIVE UP FOOD PRICES- RISKING A GLOBAL RECESSION.

We need accelerated incentives for cellulosic ethanol to reduce commodity price

Federal Action is key to assuring markets

1AC- Peak Corn

1AC- Peak Corn

1AC- Peak Corn

1AC- Energy Bubbles

SCENARIO 2: ENERGY BUBBLE

1AC- Energy Bubbles

1AC- Energy Bubbles

Economic collapse will cause extinction

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the

BIOFUELS INSULATE THE US ECONOMY FROM OIL SHOCKS.

Bruce E. Dale, Professor of Chemical Engineering at Michigan State University, “Impacts of

1AC- Energy Bubbles

PUBLIC INVESTMENT IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW MAKES A GOLDI-LOCKS

SPECIFICALLY, A FEDERAL INSURANCE PROGRAM IS CRITICAL TO MITIGATE THE FINANCIAL RISKS

AND – COMMERCIALIZATION IS CRITICAL TO JUMPSTART CELLULOSIC ETHANOL TECHNOLOGY

Cellulosic ethanol key to prevent higher corn prices

Corn-based ethanol causes food price spikes – cellulosic is best

AT: Cellulosic Increase Prices

Cellulosic doesn’t increase food prices

ADD-ON: AMAZON DEFO

Cellulosic ethanol solves Amazonian deforestation – species loss alone causes

Inherency: Tech hurdle

Engineering hurdles preclude SQ cellulose commercialization.

Inherency: Investment Weak

Current biofuel markets are under-invested. We need rapid commercialization.

Despite large cellulosic investments, key parts of an alcohol economy are

Inherency: EISA Fails

No commercial cellulose now- startup risks stall advance.

Lowered Cost and Environmental Concerns needed to commercialize cellulosic technology

Finding enzyme to overcome cellulose’s resistance key to biofuel's viability.

Inherency/No Investor Confidence Now

Business Week, 2007 (January 26)

INHERENCY/NO INVESTOR CONFIDENCE NOW

INHERENCY/CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL

Inherency/ TRANSPORTATION KEY/OIL DEPENDENCE

Inherency/ TRANSPORTATION KEY/OIL DEPENDENCE

ECONOMY SOLVENCY/MARKET DIVERSIFICATION

Food Prices: “Corn =” 1/4

Our priority of corn ethanol locks in rapid corn inflation.

SQ investment drives up food prices

Food Prices: “Corn =” 3/3

BIOFUELS DRIVE UP COMMODITY PRICES.

Food Prices: “Corn =” 4/4

There are many factors in commodity inflation- but biofuel production is a

Food Prices: Bad- Need Cellulose

Corn ethanol drives up commodity prices- impoverishing developing economies-

ETHANOL FOCUS FAILS- IT ONLY DRIVES UP PRICES.

Corn-based ethanol causes food price spikes –

Ethanol causes higher food prices, starving millions

Corn ethanol boosts food prices

Corn ethanol increases destabilizes the food supply

AT: Hurts Corn Farmers

Current ethanol producing corn farmers will be able to easily transition to

Food Prices: Increasing

THE SQ LOCKS IN ROCKETING FOOD PRICES

Food Prices: Increasing

Table of Contents 

History  bears  out  that  desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to  the  final  economic collapse, the 