CTL Aff

UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CTL FUEL AFFIRMATIVE
1AC................................................................................................................................................2
RESPONSE TO: CTL = INCREASE CO2 .............................................................................. 13
SOLVENCY EXT MILITARY SHIFT =PRIVATE INDUST. SHIFT TO ALT. FUELS . 15
SOLVENCY EXT AIR POWER KEY TO POWER PROJECTION................................... 17
SOLVENCY EXT CTL FUEL = U.S. ENERGY SECURITY ............................................... 19
ADV EXTENSION – AIRLINES KEY TO ECON.................................................................. 20
OIL DEPENDENCY DECREASES POWER PROJECTION................................................ 21
OIL DEPENDENCY ADV. – ECONOMY INTERNAL ......................................................... 23
OIL DEPENDENCY EXT – JET FUEL PRICE WILL INCREASE ...................................... 24
POWER PROJECTION ADV – EXT...................................................................................... 25
POWER PROJECTION ADV RESPONSE TO – “USAF” OUTDATED .......................... 26
RENEWABLES SHIFT DISAD – AFF ANSWERS .............................................................. 27
OIL SPECULATION REGULATION CP ANS ...................................................................... 28
CONTRACT REFORM CP ANS./FED. INCENTIVES ARE KEYSOLVENCY EXT ....... 29
CTL FUEL NEGATIVE
1NC: RENEWABLE ENERGY SHIFT DISADVANTAGE .................................................. 32
RENEWABLE SHIFT DISADUQ: INCENTIVES WILL PASS ......................................... 35
RENEWABLE SHIFT DISAD.INTERNAL LINK: INCENTIVES KEY............................ 37
RENEWABLE SHIFT DISAD: IMPACT – STOPS RECESSION....................................... 40
RENEWABLE SHIFT DISAD: WARMING IMPACT EXTENSIONS ............................... 41
1NC: CONTRACT REFORM CP ............................................................................................ 42
CONTRACT REFORM CP EXTENSIONS.......................................................................... 44
1NC: OIL SPECULATION REGULATION COUNTERPLAN ............................................ 46
ANS. TO – POWER PROJECTION ADV. ............................................................................. 48
1
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
1AC
OBSERVATION ONE – THE DANGERS OF OIL DEPENDENCY
SUB POINT A - THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL HAS CREATED DANGEROUS VULNERABILITIES FOR

THE DOD – FUEL AND ELECTRICITY DISRUPTIONS ARE INEVITABLE AND COULD
SEVERELY LIMIT U.S. MILITARY COMBAT POWER
Lengyel, Colonel US AIR FORCE, ’07 (Gregory J., 21st Century Defense Initiative
Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution, “Dept of Defense Energy Strategy:
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks”, August)
The United States has a National Security problem, energy security, in which the Department
of Defense has a unique interest. The United States imports 26% of its total energy supply
and 56% of the oil it consumes. The DOD is the largest single consumer of energy in the
United States and energy is the key enabler of US military combat power. Huge energy
consumption, increased competition for limited energy supplies, ever increasing energy costs,
and no comprehensive Energy Strategy or oversight of energy issues in the DOD have created
vulnerabilities. These include potential fuel and electricity supply disruptions as well as foreign
policy and economic vulnerability. The DOD needs a comprehensive Energy Strategy and
organizational structure to implement a strategy to improve National Security by decreasing
US dependence on foreign oil, ensure access to critical energy requirements, maintain or
improve combat capability, promote research for future energy security, be fiscally responsible
to the American tax payer, and protect the environment. This strategy can be implemented
through leadership and culture change, innovation and process efficiencies, reduced demand,
and increased/diversified energy sources.
ENERGY IS KEY TO U.S. COMBAT POWER – HIGH ENERGY COST AND SUPPLY
DEPENDENCE DANGEROUSLY TETHER U.S. FORCES
First, the DOD needs to recognize the problem from a military perspective: energy is the key
enabler of US military combat power. With that comes huge consumption of mostly imported
petroleum based fuels, a command, control, communications, computers, intelligence,
surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) structure dependent on the civilian electrical grid,
and rising costs to support the military’s energy needs. Despite those key elements, DOD has
no comprehensive strategy for energy or organizational structure to implement an energy
strategy. Second, the DOD must recognize that energy security makes the military vulnerable
in several ways. DOD operations require assured access to large amounts of fuel for combat
platforms and electricity for DOD installations from a vulnerable electrical grid. Recent cost
increases and higher projected costs for energy take defense dollars away from other key
budget areas. Energy requirements are directly related to combat effectiveness, and the
infrastructure required to transport and distribute energy to the battlefield is extremely
expensive and diverts resources away from combat. Combat forces are limited by a “tether of
fuel” that needs to be lengthened. Third, energy must be managed like other combat enablers,
such as intelligence, acquisition, and logistics. Present DOD fuel costs represent only a 2.5 –
3% fraction of the national defense budget. That may seem small, but in a fiscally constrained
wartime environment where DOD and Service budgets have been cut again and again – every
dollar is already committed. The forecast is for more of the same. An already huge national
debt, federal budget deficits, a looming fiscal storm of rising national health care costs and a
potential Social Security crisis make fiscally constrained times appear permanent for the US
Government. Fourth, the DOD must have a long-term Energy Strategy and “energy chain of
command”, based on a comprehensive National Energy Strategy and a long-term vision of
energy security 50 years from now and beyond. Ideally, America will reach a clean, carbon-
neutral, domestically controlled, abundant, and affordable energy solution.
2
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RISING FUEL COSTS FROM OIL USE ARE MAKING THE U.S. MILITARY’S ABILITY TO
RESPOND TO HOT SPOTS UNSUSTAINABLE
BENDER, 5-1-07 (BOSTON GLOBE, “PENTAGON STUDY SAYS OIL RELIANCE STRAINS
MILITARY)
A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil --
the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to
respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."The study, produced
by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must
"fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps
toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is
"imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address
alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations,"
according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.
MAINTENANCE OF U.S. ABILITY TO PROJECT POWER IS ESSENTIAL TO A

MORE STABLE AND PEACEFUL WORLD –NUCLEAR WAR MORE LIKELY –
THERE ARE MULTIPLE SCENARIOS - THERE IS NOT A MORE PEACEFUL
ALTERNATIVE
KAGAN, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace, ’07 (Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, Policy Review,
August/Sept,http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.h
tml#n10, )
People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present
American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the
world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world
where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would
remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas
and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know
today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since
the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the
poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of
order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would
have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for
Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment
liberals in the United States and Europe.The current order, of course, is not only far from
perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers.
Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may
erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and
Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its
European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian
victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran
and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers,
including the United States.Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the
United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or
withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where
most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the
region. That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks
gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the
dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist
Japan.Conflicts are more likely to erupt if the United States withdraws from its positions of
regional dominance.In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even
if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia
to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its
3
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the
Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and
therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts
in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States
withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this
could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which
could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances.It is also
optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the
assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital
interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to
other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand
back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more
“even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace,
stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security
became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect
strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military
presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.The subtraction of American
power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the
Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has
raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn ’t change this. It
only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden
end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal
from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not
balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain
relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of
other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if
only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the
region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American
administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the
Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An
American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability
in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in
again.The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is
not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one
of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to
extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of
American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an
easier path.
NUCLEAR WAR MUST BE PREVENTED - IT WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION OF

LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE
CHAZOV ’85
(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1985/physicians-
lecture.html, YEVGENY, INT’L PHYSICIANS FOR PREVENTION OF NUCLEAR
WAR)
Nuclear war, unless it is prevented, would lead to the extinction of life on Earth and possibly in
the Universe. Can we take such a risk?In our medical practice when we deal with a critical
patient in order to save him, we mobilize all our energies and knowledge, sacrifice part of our
hearts and enlist the cooperation of our most experienced colleagues. Today. To save we face
a seriously ill humanity, torn apart by distrust and fear of nuclear war it we must arouse the
conscience of the world's peoples, cultivate hatred for nuclear weapons, repudiate egoism and
chauvinism, and create favorable atmosphere of trust. In the nuclear age we are all
interdependent. The Earth is our only common home which we cannot abandon. The new
suicidal situation calls for the new thinking. We must convince those who take political
decisions.
4
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
SUB-POINT B. THE COMMERCIAL AVIATION INDUSTRY
COMMERCIAL AVIATION IS THE KEY TO U.S. ECONOMIC DOMINANCE
5
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
BUT DANGEROUSLY HIGH FUEL COSTS ARE FUELING AIRLINE INDUSTRY COLLAPSE
MAXON 6-9-08 (TERRY, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, “FUEL COSTS MAY GROUND MORE
AIRLINES”)
It's certain that the summer of 2008 won't be pretty for the airline industry: higher fares and
fees for customers, more red ink for the airlines.But what about next year, assuming that jet
fuel prices remain at their historic highs?Experts are predicting higher fares, a lot fewer
travelers, a lot less capacity, fewer flights to fewer places and maybe a lot fewer airlines.U.S.
airlines are already outlining plans to make huge cuts in capacity. In recent days, United
Airlines Inc., American Airlines Inc. and Continental Airlines Inc. have announced airplane
groundings and schedule reductions for the latter part of 2008 and into 2009.Many airlines
have revealed plans to defer or cancel airplane deliveries in 2008 and 2009. Even rapid
growers such as AirTran Airways, Southwest Airlines Co. and JetBlue Airways Corp. have
slammed on the brakes.But retrenching won't be enough to avoid big financial losses,
industry observers say.Finance professor Harlan Platt at Northeastern University in Boston
said he expects oil prices to drop as the U.S. economy slows down and the impact ripples to
other countries such as India and China. But oil prices must drop considerably from today's
levels to save the airlines."If you don't have an oil price of about $75 or $80 a barrel, at the
end of 2009, you'll have most of the airline industry on the financial ropes," Dr. Platt said.
"They will have run out of cash or virtually run out of cash.He noted one industry analyst's
prediction that oil will hit $150 a barrel soon."If that happens and if that price holds, the
industry will continue to hemorrhage through the end of 2009, and they'll have run out of
options," he said. "They'll need to file for bankruptcy protection. And by 'they,' I mean most
of the airline industry."Richard Gritta, finance professor at the University of Portland, also
sees major financial problems in 2009 if jet fuel bills keep draining money from airlines."I
think you're going to see more consolidations," Dr. Gritta said. "I think we're going to see a
couple more bankruptcies, although at this juncture, it's hard to predict which ones. They're
all so weak."
THIS IS POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC TO THE ECONOMY AS COMMERCIAL

AVIATION IS THE BACKBONE OF GLOBAL TRADE
6
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE = MASS GENOCIDE AND NUCLEAR WAR
THEREFORE W E PRESENT THE FOLLOWING PLAN: THE UNITED STATES

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD REPEAL SECTION 526 OF THE ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007. THE U.S. FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT W ILL PERMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO ENTER INTO
LONG TERM ENERGY CONTRACTS W ITH UNITED STATES DOMESTIC
PRODUCERS OF LIQUIFIED COAL. INVESTMENT TAX CREDITS,EXPENSING
PROVISIONS, AND FEDERALLY GUARANTEED LOANS W ILL BE EXPANDED
FOR CTL FUEL PRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT.
7
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
OBSERVATION 2: SOLVENCY
FEDERAL INCENTIVES COULD BE EXPANDED TO MAKE AN FT/CTL MARKET VIABLE
Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to
pull together the investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by
expanding and enhancing the DOE loan guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act
of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to address funding shortages for front-
end engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-federal
money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel
excise tax credit; providing funding for the DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into
the military;authorizing a study on synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and
perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated with starting a US synthetic fuel
industry, extending existing DOD contracting authority for up to 25 years.41
Long-term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American
taxpayers. If there were a long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay
much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they would otherwise pay for petroleum products.
In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15- or 25-year deals
industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington
DC, Senator Bunning addressed the issue: “I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a
premium for highquality, clean, domestic fuel. Long-term contracts will provide price certainty
and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above and below market
prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is healthy
and normal for long-term contracts.”
COAL COMPANIES NEED FEDERAL INDUCEMENTS TO JUMP START THE CTL

INDUSTRY
ANDREWS, 5-29-07 (EDMUND, NEW YORK TIMES, “LAWMAKERS PUSH FOR

SUBSIDIES FOR COAL PROCESS”)
Coal executives say that they need government help primarily because oil prices are so
volatile and the upfront construction costs are so high. “We’re not asking for everything.
All we’re asking for is something,” said Hunt Ramsbottom, chief executive of Rentech Inc.,
which is trying to build two plants at mines owned by Peabody Energy.But coal executives
anticipate potentially huge profits. Gregory H. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy,
based in St. Louis, which has $5.3 billion in sales, told an industry conference nearly two
years ago that the value of Peabody’s coal reserves would skyrocket almost tenfold, to
$3.6 trillion, if it sold all its coal in the form of liquid fuels.Coal industry lobbying has
reached a fever pitch. The industry spent $6 million on federal lobbying in 2005 and 2006,
three times what it spent each year from 2000 through 2004, according to calculations by
Politicalmoneyline.com.Peabody, which has quadrupled its annual lobbying budget to
about $2 million since 2004, recently hired Richard A. Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat
who was House majority leader from 1989 to 1995 and a candidate for the Democratic
presidential nomination in 1988 and 2004, to help make its case in Congress.One of the
most vociferous champions of coal-to-liquid fuels is the Southern States Energy Board, a
group organized by governors from 16 states. Last year, the group published a study,
which cost $500,000, that concluded that coal-to-liquid fuel could and should replace
almost one-third of imported oil by 2030.As it happens, the coal industry supplied much of
the financing for the study and subsequent marketing. Peabody Energy contributed about
$150,000 and the National Mining Association added $50,000, officials at the Southern
8
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
States Energy Board said.The inducements under discussion would not only subsidize up
to 10 coal-to-liquid plants, but also guarantee a minimum market through long-term
contracts with the Air Force and minimum prices for at least some producers.“There is
financial uncertainty, which is inhibiting the flow of private capital into the construction of
coal-to-liquid facilities,” said Mr. Boucher, who supports most of the proposals and is
drafting portions of the energy bill.In addition to construction loan guarantees, Mr.
Boucher would protect the first six liquid plants from drops in energy prices. If oil prices
fell below about $40 a barrel, the government would automatically grant loans to the first
six plants that make coal-based fuels. If oil prices climbed to $80 a barrel, companies
would have to pay a surcharge to the government.But the most important guarantee,
many coal producers said, is the prospect of signing 25-year purchase contracts with the
Air Force.The Air Force consumes about 2.6 billion gallons a year of jet fuel, and Air Force
officials would like to switch as much as 780 million gallons a year to coal-based fuels. Air
Force officials strongly support the idea of extremely long contracts, but others at the
Defense Department worry that the military could be left holding the bag for years if oil
prices dropped significantly.For Mr. Boyce, chief executive of Peabody Energy, there is no
reason to be timid.“If America has the will to be one of the great energy centers of the
world,” he told an industry conference last year, “we have the resources right under our
feet.”
F-T/LIQUID COAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD INSULATE THE U.S. FROM THE DANGERS
INHERENT TO THE WORLD OIL MARKET
In coal-rich, oil-poor pre-WWII Germany, Franz Fisher and Hans Tropsch developed a process
to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from coal that supplied a substantial portion of Germany’s
fuel
during the war. The Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process is a catalyzed chemical reaction in which
syngas
(carbon monoxide and hydrogen produced from the partial combustion of coal which has been
gasified and combined with molecular oxygen) is converted into liquid hydrocarbons of various
forms. Typical catalysts used are based on iron and cobalt. Liquid hydrocarbon fuels produced
fromcoal gasification and the FT process are intrinsically clean, as sulfur and heavy metal
contaminantsare removed during the gasification process. The principal purpose of the FT
process is to produce a synthetic petroleum substitute for use as synthetic lubrication oil or as
synthetic fuel. The FT process can be used to produce liquid hydrocarbon fuel from virtually
any carbon-containing feed stock, including low-grade tars, biomass, or shale oil; only the
preprocessing steps would differ from the gasification process used with coal.33 Since the
United States has the largest coal reserves in the world, synthetic fuel, or synfuel,
made from coal is particularly appealing. Synfuel represents a domestically controlled resource
with prices theoretically tied to the coal market instead of the world oil market. In 1948,
Congress extended the project to eight years and doubled funding to $60 million. In
the end, synthetic fuel from coal could not compete economically with gasoline made from
crude oil, especially given the major oil reserve discoveries in the Middle East at the time. In
1953,Congress terminated funding and closed the plants.35At the height of the 1979 oil crisis,
when the United States imported approximately 25% of its crude oil, President Jimmy Carter
proposed an Energy Security Corporation that would use $88 billion of windfall profits tax on
domestic oil producers to subsidize development of 2.5 million barrels per day of synthetic
fuels production. After much debate, Congress passed the Energy Security Act of 1980. The
law created a US Synthetic Fuel Corporation with an initial budget of $17 billion. After four
years the corporation would submit a “comprehensive strategy” for congressional
approval, where the balance of $68 billion would be made available. A combination of
mismanagement, administration change from President Carter to President Reagan, and most
significantly, crude oil prices falling from a 1981 peak of $36 per barrel to $12 in 1986,
effectivelykilled the US Synthetic Fuel Corporation.36 Of the 67 projects proposed in 1981,
9
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
only a few carrieddesign efforts far enough to maturity. Bad business risk became the stigma
attached to syntheticfuels.In 2006 the Secretary of the Air Force directed a project to procure
synthetic jet fuel for ground testing and, if ground tests were successful, flight testing.37 In
December 2006, a B-52 conducted a flight-test mission using a 50/50 blend of manufactured
synthetic fuel and petroleum based JP-8, orsynfuel-blend, on all eight engines, and recently
finished cold-weather testing at Minot AFB, ND,the last step in the testing and certification
process. Test data is being analyzed, and the final testreport is scheduled to be released in
June 2007. Thus far, results have been positive. The Air Force is committed to completing
testing and certification of synfuels for its aircraft by 2010, and aims to acquire 50% of
CONUS fuel from a synfuel-blend produced domestically by 2016. At current
consumption rates this equals approximately 325 million gallons of synfuel-blend.38
This will certainly not eliminate US dependence on foreign oil, but is comparable to a double or
triple in the George Shultz baseball analogy cited at the beginning of this chapter. Subsequent
actions, such as proving the economic viability of synfuels, or improving upon FT process could
“bring these runners home” and further expand domestically produced energy supplies.
Could the world’s single largest energy consumer be the catalyst to successfully launch a new
synthetic fuel industry in the United States? Advocates say with government help FT
technology could supply 10% of US fuels within 20 years. A relatively small synthetic fuel
plant, processing 17,000 tons per day of coal to produce 28,000
barrels per day of fuel, 750 tons per day of ammonia, and 475MW of net electrical power
would cost approximately $3 billion.40 Ten to fifteen such plants could supply all of the DOD’s
fuel requirements
FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY TO THE CTL INDUSTRY – WITHOUT USFG

BACKING THE INDUSTRY WON’T DEVELOP IN TIME TO MEET THE AIR FORCE’S
FUEL DIVERSIFICATION GOALS
MCPHERSON, 10-16-07 (JAMES, TULSA WORLD, “AIR FORCE LACKS SOURCE FOR
COAL BASED SYNTHETIC FUEL” )
The Air Force wants to power half its in-country flights with a synthetic fuel made from
domestic coal by 2016. But it has yet to figure out how to get the fuel. No commercial plants
exist in this country to make it, and industry officials say the government has not offered
enough incentives to build a plant. The idea also faces environmental questions. "The bottom
line is if the government doesn't choose to support the creation of this industry financially,
then the government won't have enough domestically produced fuel in the time frame they've
set," said John Ward, a vice president with Headwaters Energy Services, a division of
Headwaters Inc., of South Jordan, Utah, which has been considering a North Dakota plant to
convert coal to jet fuel. "The industry will still develop, but not fast enough for the military to
meet its goals," Ward said.
AIR FORCE LED MILITARY TRANSITION TO CTL FUELS WILL SPEED THINGS UP FOR
THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Chandler, May 2007 (JEROME, Air Transport World,”Fueling the Future”)
A significant swath of the current research is motivated by military needs. It is very much a
matter of the convergence of the military's need for homegrown fuels and the commercial
arena's craving for stability. "By 2016," says Altman, "the Air Force has a requirement that its
fleet be powered at least 50/50 by Fischer-Tropsch fuels." CAAFI hopes to piggyback on the
USAF initiative to come up with a single specification for a fuel that will serve both military and
commercial needs. "What we're trying to do right now is come up with a singular process," he
says. "FAA doesn't have a timeline but the military does. We're trying to speed things up."
Such commonality opens up the field for more players and increased production.
10
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CTL SYNFUELS ARE A ‘DROP IN’ SOLUTION REQUIRING NO NEW JETS AND CAN
EASILY TRANSITION TO COMMERCIAL AIRLINERS TO ENSURE U.S. ENERGY
SECURITY
ESLER, 9-17-08 (DAVID, AVIATION WEEK, google it)
In addition, serious research is also being devoted to coal liquefaction using the Fischer-
Tropsch (F-T) synthesizing process developed in Germany during the 1920s and used by that
nation and Japan, both with little or no indigenous petroleum reserves, in World War II to
make so-called "syngas." (Collectively, F-T synthesized products are referred to as "synfuels.")
Since none of the fuels derived from these diverse sources is a magic bullet in and of itself, it's
possible that we'll see a variety of them perfected to supplement fossil fuels. Different fuels
may be used in different regions of the world, depending on what local resources are
available: oil, coal or biostock.At this year's Paris Air Show, FAA Administrator Marion Blakey
described two studies then under way and intended to develop "a national roadmap on the
viability of alternative fuels for aviation." Commissioned under the auspices of the FAA's
Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) and scheduled for completion this
month, the studies address feasibility, costs, technical issues and environmental impact of
alternative fuels.Also at the same venue, Blakey and Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne jointly
announced a plan whereby the service would power all its aircraft with a 50/50 mix of
petroleum-derived JP-8 and F-T synfuel as early as 2010. The concoction will be tested in the
Air Force's C-17 tactical transports and data derived from the trials shared with the FAA for
eventual transfer to the nation's airlines, if deemed successful. (The C-17 is powered by a
military derivative of the Pratt & Whitney PW2000, a commercial turbofan, making it an ideal
test bed for the program.) The obvious benefit of a JP/synfuel blend would be to stretch, or
dilute, available supplies of petroleum-based Jet-A.Synfuel StopgapBecause synfuel can be
refined from coal or natural gas (as well as biomass sources) using the F-T process and is
available now, it is expected to emerge first as a supplement to petroleum-based fuels. In this
regard, its primary purpose for the foreseeable future will be as a stopgap to ensure energy
security for the United States and other nations with large coal or natural gas
reserves.However, it is not generally seen as a solution to global warming or the mitigation of
greenhouse gases, as the F-T refining process releases more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the
atmosphere than the refining of crude oil. On the other hand, when burned, its carbon
emissions are about the same as those of conventional petroleum-based fuel. Also, as F-T
fuel's energy density and performance replicate those of conventional Jet-A and military JP-8,
it can be used as a so-called "drop-in" substitute; hence, the Air Force's interest in using it.
And as a number of experts interviewed by B&CA have pointed out, the United States still
holds huge reserves of coal.
11
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
AIRLINES WANT THE USAF TO SPUR THE CTL INDUSTRY TO REDUCE FUEL COSTS –
CTL IS COST EFFECTIVE NOW TO REPLACE JET FUEL
BEZDEK, 4-12-07 (www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/ Bezdek/US-

CongressBriefing-4-12-07.pdf, ROGER, Pres. Management Information Service, Inc.,
“Liquid Coal Technology”)
U.S. AIRLINES CONCERNED ABOUT

FUTURE FUEL AVAILABILITY
Fuel requirements for civilian aviation are increasing rapidly, and by
2030 will account for half of total U.S. domestic oil production
Aircraft have highly specialized demands
for fuel that exceed the requirements for
most other petroleum products
• Synthetic fuel using CTL technology offers
most promise as a alternative aviation fuel
• It can meet current specifications and
no aircraft redesign is required
• CTL can provide a “drop-in” replacement for jet fuel
• Bio-fuels are not currently compatible with
aircraft requirements
• Synthetic aviation fuels derived from coal
are currently being used in some parts
of the world; e.g. South Africa
INDIVIDUAL AIRLINES ARE ENCOURAGING

SYNFUEL DEVELOPMENT
Air Transport Association of America & individual airlines are
encouraging synfuel development
• David Neeleman, JetBlue
founder and CEO
• Fred Smith, Federal Express
founder and CEO
• Richard Branson, Virgin Airlines
founder and CEO
• ATA Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative begun in
October 2006 to assess alternative aviation fuels & address rising
fuel prices & supply instability
• Coal-based “JP900” fuel could be used in commercial jetliners.
Superior performance characteristics & could reduce U.S.
requirements for petroleum-based aviation fuels by 75%
SUMMARY (1)
• U.S. oil imports are increasing, and may exceed 2/3 by 2030
• U.S. energy dependence causing economic, foreign policy, and
national security problems
• Coal can and must play a key role in reducing U.S. energy
imports and enhancing national security
• U.S. coal reserves are twice the oil equivalent of the entire Mideast
• CTL technology is well-proven and currently in use in other
nations
• DOD and USAF have immense liquid fuel needs and need to rely on
CTL fuel
• U.S. airlines concerned about future price and availability of jet
fuel and are interested in CTL fuels
• Airlines are relying on U.S. to develop a viable CTL industry
12
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RESPONSE TO: CTL = INCREASE CO2
CTL FUEL PRODUCES LESS CO2 THAN STANDARD AVIATION FUEL
Blackwell, National Defense Fellow, ’07 (Kristine, June 15, Department of Defense:
Reducing its Reliance on Fossil Based Aviation Fuel-Issues for Congress)
There are many positive qualities associated with Coal-To-Liquid (CTL)

and Gas-To-Liquid (GTL) fuels produced via the Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) process.
The most frequently cited advantage is that it burns cleaner producing fewer carbon
emissions as a result of its consumption in the aircraft. F-T fuels produce
approximately 2.4% less carbon dioxide, 50%-90% less particulate matter, and 100%
less sulphur than traditional petroleum-based fuels. Other positive attributes of F-T
fuels include excellent low temperature properties that improve high altitude
operations and low temperature starting; and “superior” thermal stability, which
makes possible the development of highly fuel efficient engines.29
ITS TRUE THAT TOTAL CARBON EMISSIONS OF F-T FUEL ARE HIGHER THAN
TRADITIONAL AVIATION FUEL, BUT DOD AND DOE RESEARCH WILL SOLVE THE
PROBLEM
Challenges involved with the large-scale production of F-T fuel may

make its long-term use by DOD problematic. Notwithstanding the low carbon
emissions produced by burning F-T fuel in engines, total carbon emissions generated
through the fuel's production and use are estimated to be twice that of petroleumbased
fuel. Although advocates of F-T argue that the carbon emissions generated
during fuel manufacture can be sequestered,33 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
officials and other experts have stated that large-scale carbon sequestration is several
years away.34
Emissions from F-T fuels seems to be of general concern as examination of the
technology continues. The Air Force acknowledges that capturing carbon emissions
is the “big issue” as they move ahead with the exploration of F-T fuels.35 According
to an Air Force spokesperson, DOD is working with the Department of Energy, the
Defense Logistics Agency, and the Task Force on Strategic Unconventional Fuels36 to explore
ways to mitigate the problems that may be associated with F-T fuel
production.37 Furthermore, legislation proposed in January 2007 (S.154, S.155, and
H.R.370. See Appendix A for relevant legislative language.) calls for the Secretary
of Energy, in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Defense, to report on emissions
from F-T products used as transportation fuel
AIR FORCE R + D CAN DEVELOP GREEN FUEL FROM COAL
BROWN, 3-22-08 (Matthew, Associated Press, USA Today)
The Air Force is adamant it can advance the technology used in those plants to turn dirty coal
into a "green fuel," by capturing the carbon dioxide and other, more toxic emissions produced
during manufacturing.However, that would not address emissions from burning the fuel, said
Robert Williams, a senior research scientist at Princeton University. To do more than simply
break even, the industry must reduce the amount of coal used in the synthetic-fuel blend and
supplement it with a fuel derived from plants, Williams said.Air force officials said they were
investigating that possibility.
13
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
R + D WILL REDUCE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF CTL BASED SYNFUELS
Pratt has played an active role in validating F-T fuels for the past 16 years, Adams claimed,
working closely with Sasol Ltd. in South America, and expected U.S. approval for use of
synfuels made from the F-T process in its engines this summer. "The most important thing the
industry can do right now is drive more efficient engine technology, [which is] the other way
to lower carbon emissions," he said."This is where Pratt is investing most of its research --
building more efficient engines. This will have a short-term improvement in footprint and is
consistent with improving the economics of operation for our customers." Adams cited the
geared turbofan Pratt is developing for the narrow-body jetliner market as an example.
Bracketing a thrust range of 14,000 to 30,000 pounds, the engine is touted as delivering
"substantially improved fuel consumption." (Gearing the fan allows significant increases in
bypass ratio -- up to 12 in the initial iteration of the engine and as much as 20 over time in
follow-on versions.)But what about combining new-technology engines with the use of
biomass-derived fuels? "If the engine is fixed [i.e., the technology is the same], and you burn
a biofuel," Adams said, "you'll generate just as much CO2 as with oil, but the advantage will be
in the refining process, as it releases less CO2. So the net process results in a smaller carbon
footprint. Now, combining biomass fuels with a new-technology engine, however, will result in
an improved net result."
14
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
SOLVENCY EXT –MILITARY SHIFT =PRIVATE INDUSTRY SHIFT TO ALT. FUELS
MILITARY DEVELOPMENT OF FUEL DIVERSITY WILL CATALYZE A SHIFT FOR

PRIVATE INDUSTRY
EGGERS, CMNDR USAF, ’08 (JEFFREY, ARMED FORCES JOURNAL, MAY, “THE FUEL
GUAGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY”,
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/05/3434573)
At first glance, the military’s slice of demand may not be the intuitive place to focus
effort. The military’s use of oil constitutes about 2 percent of total U.S. oil consumption,
or about the same as a major U.S. airline. And if there is one sector of consumption
where we should gladly pay a premium for high-octane liquid fuel, it is our national
security apparatus. So it is fair to argue that attention is best placed on the civilian side
of usage, where 98 percent of demand lies. There are many near-term solutions that
promise to make a dent in this 98 percent, on the demand and supply sides. Plug-in
hybrids, sustainable bio-fuels, broad-based conservation efforts and general
“greenness” are gaining considerable political traction. But none offers a long-term silver
bullet, and each has limitations. In addition to pulling consumption toward “ready”
technologies, work must be done in parallel to advance high-risk and transformative
solutions. And one of the most successful models for doing so is the military wing of
research and development. Focusing on the 2 percent of military consumption is
important not only because it safeguards the flow, and mitigates risk, to the 98 percent.
The exploration of new sources of energy for our military fighting machinery will directly
sustain future defense readiness and buttress military power and, more significantly, will
indirectly catalyze a revolution in civilian transportation technology and innovation.
FED ACTION KEY TO COMMERICAL AVIATION
15
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
FT FUELS ARE DROP IN SOLUTIONS TO THE CURRENT JET FUEL CRISIS – MILITARY
SPURRED DEVELOPMENT WILL ENABLE A TRANSITION FOR COMMERCIAL JET
LINERS
CHANDLER 5-’07 (JEROME, AIR TRANSPORT WORLD, p. 38)

Engine and airframe builders are high on FTs because they are so-called "drop-in" fuels.
Biddle says it is imperative "that [the transition to synthetics] be invisible to the user so
there's no required redesign at all of the engine or the aircraft." It doesn't hurt that
Fischer-Tropsch fuels also are dramatically more stable thermally; you can put more heat
into them before they break down. "What that means for legacy engines," he says, "is
that you can run them longer and cleaner." FTs also enjoy improved cold flow properties
and emit reduced particulates.While Sasol shines, so does something called Syntroleum,
another Fischer-Tropsch fuel that is derived from natural gas. USAF has been running a
50/50 blend of JP-8 and Syntroleum in a B-52 successfully. The fuel is produced at
Syntroleum's FT demonstration facility near Tulsa, where the company has formulated
more than 400,000 gal. of ultra-clean (90% reduction in particulates) product.A
significant swath of the current research is motivated by military needs. It is very much a
matter of the convergence of the military's need for homegrown fuels and the commercial
arena's craving for stability. "By 2016," says Altman, "the Air Force has a requirement
that its fleet be powered at least 50/50 by Fischer-Tropsch fuels." CAAFI hopes to
piggyback on the USAF initiative to come up with a single specification for a fuel that will
serve both military and commercial needs. "What we're trying to do right now is come up
with a singular process," he says. "FAA doesn't have a timeline but the military does.
We're trying to speed things up." Such commonality opens up the field for more players
and increased production.
16
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
SOLVENCY EXT -AIR POWER KEY TO POWER PROJECTION
AIR POWER, SPECIFICALLY, IS CRITICAL FOR DETERRENCE AND CRISIS

RESPONSE IN KOREA, SOUTH ASIA, THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE SOUTH
CHINA SEAS
Khalilzad and Lesser , 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand,

Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century,
http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR897/MR897.chap3.pdf)
The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia
suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain
critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This
argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent
still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This
potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a
lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China
Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the
United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned
the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air
Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of
these other areas.In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of
an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances
on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational
platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by
any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval
assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies;
and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air
Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high
operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political
objectives are secured.The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic
warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat
support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankers—are
relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional
contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly
modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea,
China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan,and the Persian Gulf.
17
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
SOLVENCY EXT – AIR POWER KEY TO POWER PROJECTION
AIR POWER IS ESSENTIAL TO LOW U.S. CASUALTIES WHICH ENABLES LONG

TERM FORWARD DEPLOYMENT
US Airpower is key to global power projection

General Peck 2007(Allen G Air Force Institute of Technology, Airpower’s Crucial Role
in Irregular Warfare, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/sum07
/peck.html)
Although the capabilities and effects that America’s airpower brings to the fight are not
as visible to the casual observer as the maneuvers of ground forces, airpower (including
operations in the air, space, and cyberspace domains) remains an invaluable enabler for
those forces. Airpower can also serve as a powerful Irregular Warfare capability in its
own right, as it did early in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. No one should
dismiss IW as falling strictly within the purview of ground or special operations forces.
Understanding the IW environment and, in particular, airpower’s immense contributions
is critical for America’s future Air Force leaders, who will prove instrumental in ensuring
that the service continues adapting to an ever-changing enemy and bringing relevant
capabilities to bear in an ever-changing fight.
18
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
SOLVENCY EXT – CTL FUEL = U.S. ENERGY SECURITY
CTL FUELS SOLVE U.S. ENERGY SECURITY PROBLEMS – THEY COULD POWER
THE MILITARY, REDUCE THE IMPACT OF NATURAL DISASTERS ON ENERGY
SUPPLIES AND REDUCE IMPORT OF OIL FROM UNSTABLE REGIMES
COAL TO LIQUIDS COALITION ’08 (www.futurecoalfuels.org,

http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/security.asp)
Production of coal-derived liquid fuels would expand potential uses of America's nearly 250
billion tons of recoverable coal reserves beyond electricity generation to help reduce our
reliance on foreign sources of oil, while promoting national security and providing for sustained
economic growth.With coal reserves and production dispersed widely among more than two
dozen states, the U.S. boasts a geographic diversity of domestic fuel supply that is less
susceptible to natural disasters and terrorist threat.Producing CTL fuel does not depend on
unproven technology nor require extensive R&D. China is already building a $2 billion CTL
plant that will begin using its coal reserves in the fall of 2007, and plans to build many
more.Moreover, U.S. coal reserves cannot be nationalized by a foreign government, require no
costly armed forces to protect, nor costly exploration efforts to discover.Establishing a goal of
producing at least 300,000 barrels of high-grade fuel per day by 2015 using CTL technology is
a feasible target. This is equivalent to the amount of transportation fuel consumed daily by the
U.S. military for domestic operations. In fact, military and commercial aviation are promising
early markets. The Department of Defense is already studying the advantages of CTL fuels to
serve our armed forces on the ground and in the air.For these reasons, CTL fuels are among
the most practical, promising answers to greater energy security for the United States
Synthetic Fuels Can Help Our SecurityIn a geopolitically unstable world, synthetic fuels
canhelp improve energy security.• Production of coal-to-liquid (CTL) synthetic fuels would
drastically reduce imports of oil from unstable and hostile regimes. CTL fuels would be
producedusing America's nearly 250 billion tons of recoverablecoal reserves, by far the largest
coal reserves in theworld. America’s unrivaled coal reserves hold moreenergy than all of the oil
reserves in Saudi Arabia.• With coal reserves and production dispersed widelyacross more than
two dozen states, the U.S. boasts ageographic diversity of domestic fuel supply that isless
susceptible to natural disasters and terroristthreats.• Synthetic fuels from coal could feasibly
supply atleast 300,000 barrels of high-grade fuel per day by2015 – equivalent to the amount of
transportation fuelconsumed daily by the U.S. military for domestic operations.
REDUCING DOD RELIANCE ON AVIATION FUEL WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN THE

BURDEN OF FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENCE
DOD, the largest single consumer of energy in the United States, recognizes the
need to reduce its reliance on fossil fuel. For a number of years, the department has
been making steady progress at decreasing their use of fossil fuels on their
installations and in their facilities1 but following the sharp rise in oil prices after
Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, DOD stepped-up its examination of fuel use in
weapon systems.2 The largest portion of fossil fuel used by DOD is in the form of aviation fuel.
Although formulated for use in aircraft, aviation fuel is also used in other, landbased,
platforms such as tanks and generators to reduce DOD’s logistics
requirements. Reducing DOD’s consumption of aviation fuel could, by itself,
significantly reduce the department’s overall use of and reliance on fossil fuel. In
Fiscal Year 2005, DOD consumed roughly 125 million barrels of oil—approximately
1.2% of the nation’s total. About 74% of DOD’s energy powers its mobility
vehicles—Air Force aircraft, Navy ships, and Army ground vehicles. Over
half–roughly 52%–is aviation fuel
19
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
ADV EXTENSION – AIRLINES KEY TO ECON
HIGH OIL PRICES ARE CRIPPLING THE AVIATION INDUSTRY – SOON THEIR WILL BE
A WAVE OF LIQUIDATIONS THAT WILL CRUSH THE U.S. ECONOMY
PR NEWSWIRE, 7-23-08
The skyrocketing price
of aviation fuel will have devastating implications far beyond new
surcharges for checked bags and in-flight beverage services according to a
new study prepared by the Business Travel Coalition (BTC). Not only are
U.S. airlines and their passengers facing their darkest future, but
fast-approaching airline liquidations will cripple the U.S. economy that
depends on affordable, frequent intercity air transportation.
Massive job losses, supply chain disruption, declining business
activity, shrinking tax revenues, weakened American competitiveness,
devastated communities, and reduced tourism are just some of the
predictable results from airline liquidations that could happen as early as
the second half of 2008 as a direct result of unsustainable fuel prices.
The paper, "Beyond the Airlines' $2 Can of Coke: Catastrophic Impact on
the U.S. Economy from Oil-price Trauma in the Airline Industry," expands on
the analysis released on June 13, 2008 by AirlineForecasts, LLC and BTC and
points to the real news about the airlines' fuel problems: how multiple
liquidations at legacy U.S. airlines -- now a serious possibility -- would
have a wide-ranging impact on many facets of the U.S. economy. The report
will be presented and discussed during a U.S. House Small Business
Committee hearing scheduled by Chairwoman, Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY) for
Thursday, June 26."The airline industry stimulates so much economic activity -- much more
than many people currently understand," said BTC Chairman Kevin Mitchell.
"Airline networks are an integral part of the transport grid that supports
the U.S. economy, and without immediate action to bring down fuel costs, we
face the economic equivalent of a major blackout later this year or early
next. Unlike in a blackout, however, the cabin lights may never come back
on for many U.S. airlines."
20
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
OIL DEPENDENCY DECREASES POWER PROJECTION
FUEL DEPENDENCE CARRIES HIGH COSTS IN COMBAT CAPABILITY – OPERATIONAL

TEMPO IS BEGINNING TO OUTPACE RE-FUELING CAPABILITY
Lastly, dependence on fuel carries a high cost in combat capability which is impossible to
quantify in dollars. In the early stages of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), USAF MH-53M “Pave
Low” special operations helicopters originally planned to base in Southern Turkey were forced,
after Turkey denied US basing rights, to leap-frog from Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean
Sea across Turkey to an airstrip in Northern Iraq. The MH-53s were tasked to support Army
Special Forces (SF) flown in via MC-130s from Romania, and to stand alert for Combat Search
and Rescue (CSAR) until dedicated CSAR assets would arrive weeks later. The helicopters air
refueled before entering Iraq to “top off” their fuel tanks. For several days during the most
intense fighting of OIF, the fuel in their tanks was the only fuel available to conduct missions
until the nightly MC-130P “Combat Shadow” passed overhead to conduct an air refueling
resupply allowing the Pave Lows to “top off” for the next 24-hour period. An Army special
operations support battalion impressively established fuel logistics support in only a few days,
and the MC-130P tankers eventually co-located with the helicopters, but fuel was clearly the
operational limitation early on.15 Ground units in OIF faced similar problems, as fuel
represents over 50% of the DOD logistics tonnage and over 70% of the tonnage required to
put the US Army into position for battle.16 The pace of advance for some Army and Marine
field units was so rapid that in order to maintain both the velocity and operational tempo of
their highly mobile forces located across a wide battle space the subject of fuel was an ever
present consideration. Lieutenant General James Mattis, 14Commanding General of the First
Marine Division during OIF, issued a post-combat experiencechallenge to the Department of
the Navy research officials to “Unleash us from the tether of fuel.”
SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS TO DOD INSTALLATIONS IS A REAL THREAT
Additionally, in the event of a catastrophic shut down of world oil flow, our government will
ensure that the DOD has priority access to domestic oil production and the 700-1000 million
barrels of oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. However, scenarios of supply disruptions to
DOD installations via the US oil and gas transmission pipeline system or to deployed
operational forces via fuel logistics distribution networks are not completely far fetched.
Almost a half million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline serve the United States. These
pipelines are integral to US energy supply and have vital links to other critical infrastructure,
such as power plants, airports, and military installations. The pipeline networks are
widespread, running through remote and densely populated regions and are vulnerable to
accidents and terrorist attack. Roughly 160,000 miles of pipeline carry over 75% of the
nation’s crude oil and around 60% of its refined petroleum products. The US natural gas
pipeline network consists of around 210,000 miles of pipeline for field gathering and
transmission nation wide.3 Pipelines are vulnerable to vandalism and terrorist attack with
firearms, explosives, or other physical means. Some may also be vulnerable to “cyber-attack”
on computer control systems or be vulnerable to an attack on the electric grid supplying power
to them. Oil and gas pipelines have been targeted extensively by terrorists outside and within
the United States. Rebels have targeted one oil pipeline in Colombia over 600 times since
1995. In 1996, London police foiled a plot by the Irish Republican Army to bomb gas pipelines
and other utilities. Since 9/11, federal warnings about Al Qaeda have specifically mentioned
pipelines as possible targets. The 800 mile long Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which
runs from Alaska’s North Slope oil fields to the marine terminal in Valdez, Alaska, delivers
21
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
nearly 17% of US domestic oil production. TAPS has already been targeted
numerous times, and in January 2006, federal authorities acknowledged a detailed posting on
a website purportedly linked to Al Qaeda that encouraged attacks on US pipelines, especially
TAPS, using weapons or explosives.4
DEPLOYED FORCES ARE VULNERABLE TO SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS
Deployed operational forces are particularly vulnerable to supply disruptions. Fuel is delivered
by convoy to Iraq from Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey. In FY 2006, over 156 million gallons of
fuel were delivered to US/coalition forces in western Iraq. In the north, over 103 million
gallons of fuel were delivered through Turkey.5 In July 2006, USMC Major General Richard
Zilmer, commander of the multi-national force in western Iraq, submitted a priority request for
a self-sustainable energy solution to reduce the number of fuel logistics convoys in Iraq that
are increasingly vulnerable to attack.6
THE ABILITY OF THE U.S. TO PROJECT POWER IS INHIBITED BY FUEL DEPENDENCY
This paper has attempted to objectively address the US National Security problem of
deteriorating energy security from a Department of Defense perspective. Energy is the life
blood of the US economy and the key enabler of US military combat power.
The United States’ unique ability to project military power anywhere on the globe requires
incredible quantities of liquid hydrocarbon fuel. Today, the primary source of fuel is imported
oil from an economically and politically unstable world oil market.
The true cost of fuel is much more than it appears on the purchasing receipt. The DOD’s
never ending need for fuel comes with a high price tag which includes not only the bulk
purchase price of the fuel itself, but also the cost of a fuel logistics system that includes tens
of thousands of personnel, storage facilities, tanker trucks, and major weapons systems such
as the KC-135 whose primary mission is to deliver fuel. Additionally, fuel has a significant cost
in combat capability that is almost impossible to quantify. There are numerous outstanding
energy programs within the Department of Defense. Rising energy costs have given new
emphasis to saving fuel in each of the Services, and the DOD facilities energy management
program is a model for the federal government. Recent energy studies by military and energy
experts provide volumes of recommendations to improve efficiency and save energy.
However, there is no existing comprehensive DOD Energy Strategy, and no single energy
senior official or energy advocate in the Department. The military’s dependence on vast
amounts of fuel and electricity creates vulnerabilities. Disruption in the flow of fuel and
electricity due to natural disaster, sabotage or physical attack on the petroleum or electricity
infrastructure cannot be dismissed as an unlikely event. Also, the fact that so much of US and
other countries energy needs rely on imported oil creates foreign policy and economic
vulnerability.
22
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
OIL DEPENDENCY ADV. – ECONOMY INTERNAL
HIGH OIL PRICES ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON OIL INFRASTRUCTURE – AN ATTACK

WOULD SPIKE PRICES AND DEVASTATE THE WORLD ECONOMY – EVEN IF OIL
INFRASTRUCTURE COULD BE PROTECTED FROM ENEMY DISRUPTION, NATURAL
DISASTERS OR ECONOMIC EMBARGOES WOULD BE JUST AS BAD
“Our nation’s dependence on imported oil leaves it dangerously vulnerable to attack. A single
well-designed attack on the petroleum infrastructure in the Middle East could send oil to well
over $100 per barrel and devastate the world’s economy.”1
A recent Congressional Research Service report to Congress highlighted terrorists emphasis on
exploiting oil vulnerabilities: Al Qaeda leaders’ statements reveal sophisticated consideration
of the economic and military vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies, particularly with
regard to the role of Middle Eastern oil as “the basis of industry” in the global economy.
Statements by Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri urging attacks on oil infrastructure and
military supply lines could indicate a shift in Al Qaeda’s strategic and tactical
planning in favor of a more protracted attritional conflict characterized by disruptive
attacks on economic and critical energy production infrastructure. For example, in an
interview reportedly conducted on or around the fourth anniversary of the
September 11 terrorist attacks, Al Zawahiri urged “mujahidin to concentrate their
campaigns on the Muslims’ stolen oil” and to “not allow the thieves ruling [Muslim]
countries to control this oil.” Bin Laden has called for Muslim societies to become
more self-sufficient economically and has urged Arab governments to preserve oil as “a great
and important economic power for the coming Islamic state.” Bin Laden
also has described economic boycotts as “extremely effective” weapons.
Instability and hostility towards the United States characterizes most of the oil-producing
world, and terrorist organizations have called for attacks on oil infrastructure and military
supply lines.2 An oil supply crisis can no longer be dismissed as a low-probability event.
Hostile governments and terrorist organizations could use oil supply as a strategic weapon to
attack the United States. Oil supply disruptions to the United States could be caused by
several events: natural disaster, politically motivated embargoes, terrorist attacks on
production and transmission infrastructure, or closure of world oil transit chokepoints. Any
long-term disruption in oil supply to the United States is a National Security risk unacceptable
to the US government. However, most of these scenarios assume a major world-wide
upheaval or political and other major changes in the primary oil production regions of the
world and go beyond the scope of this paper.
23
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
OIL DEPENDENCY EXT – JET FUEL PRICE WILL INCREASE
DEMAND FOR JET FUEL SET TO INCREASE, STRAINING U.S. SUPPLIES
Meanwhile, total worldwide demand for Jet-A is forecasted to reach 7.6 million barrels per day
during the same period, compared to 6.8 million barrels in 2007, a demand-growth rate of 2.3
percent. In North America, demand growth is expected to remain relatively flat at 0.6 percent;
however, the IEA predicts that the Jet-A supply will remain tight through 2010 without
additional refining capacity, which could strain U.S. supplies. (Refineries knocked offline by
Hurricane Katrina are still being rebuilt.)Looking further out, the National Petroleum Council
study concludes that global demand for energy -- all of it, including jet fuel -- will grow by as
much as 60 percent by 2030. (Coincidentally, the same week in July the report was released
the price of crude oil shot up to $76 a barrel.)
24
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
POWER PROJECTION ADV – EXT
RESPONSE TO “ALT CAUSE – IRAQ FAILURES ARE CONSTRAINING U.S.POWER”
IN SPITE OF IRAQ, AMERICAN POWER IS CAPABLE OF PROJECTING FORCE
KAGAN, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ’07
(Robert, “End of Dreams, Return of History”, Policy Review,
August/Sept,http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10
,)
These qualities of American foreign policy reflect not one man or one party or one circle of
thinkers. They spring from the nation ’s historical experience and are a characteristic American
response to international circumstances. They are underpinned, on the one hand, by old
beliefs and ambitions and, on the other hand, by power. So long as Americans elect leaders
who believe it is the role of the United States to improve the world and bring about the
“ultimate good,”10 and so long as American power in all its forms is sufficient to shape the
behavior of others, the broad direction of American foreign policy is unlikely to change, absent
some dramatic — indeed, genuinely revolutionary — effort by a future administration.These
American traditions, together with historical events beyond Americans’ control, have
catapulted the United States to a position of pre-eminence in the world. Since the end of the
Cold War and the emergence of this “unipolar” world, there has been much anticipation of the
end of unipolarity and the rise of a multipolar world in which the United States is no longer the
predominant power. Not only realist theorists but others both inside and outside the United
States have long argued the theoretical and practical unsustainability, not to mention
undesirability, of a world with only one superpower. Mainstream realist theory has assumed
that other powers must inevitably band together to balance against the superpower. Others
expected the post-Cold War era to be characterized by the primacy of geoeconomics over
geopolitics and foresaw a multipolar world with the economic giants of Europe, India, Japan,
and China rivaling the United States. Finally, in the wake of the Iraq War and with hostility to
the United States, as measured in public opinion polls, apparently at an all-time high, there
has been a widespread assumption that the American position in the world must finally be
eroding.Yet American predominance in the main categories of power persists as a key feature
of the international system. The enormous and productive American economy remains at the
center of the international economic system. American democratic principles are shared by
over a hundred nations. The American military is not only the largest but the only one capable
of projecting force into distant theaters. Chinese strategists, who spend a great deal of time
thinking about these things, see the world not as multipolar but as characterized by “one
superpower, many great powers,” and this configuration seems likely to persist into the future
absent either a catastrophic blow to American power or a decision by the United States to
diminish its power and international influence voluntarily
25
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
POWER PROJECTION ADV- RESPONSE TO – “USAF” OUTDATED
AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION PLANS ARE ON TRACK
MAGNUSON, ’06 (STEW, APRIL, NATIONAL DEFENSE, “AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION

PLANS ON TRACK”)
Analysts had warned in recent years that the Air Force should brace for drastic cuts in its
aircraft procurement programs. The administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007,
however, not only preserves the service’s key acquisition accounts, but also contains seed
money to begin research and development for new generations of aircraft.
26
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEWABLES SHIFT DISAD – AFF ANSWERS
NO INTERNAL LINK - U.S. INCENTIVES NOT KEY TO THE RENEWABLES

MARKET ANYWAY
FORBES 6-18-08 (FORBES.COM, WASHINGTON FAILS RENWABLE ENERGY AGAIN,

CARL GUTIERREZ)
However, the U.S. represents only 10% to 15% of the solar market, and
ultimately Washington is not that significant of a player in driving demand,
which explains why stocks in the sector didn't react more sharply."The
punch bowl wasn't big enough to begin with," Molchanov said, "so not
much is lost when it's taken away."
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS FAIL
TAYLOR 4-1-06 (JAMES, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE NEWS,

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18799)
Renewable energy projects fail more than often than they succeed, according to a new study
released by the California Energy Commission. The study defines failure as "failure to achieve
scheduled commercial operations," either because they do not meet their timetable for going
online or never go online at all.The study surveyed the success rates of renewable energy
projects in California, other U.S. states, and the European Union. Renewable energy projects
including wind power, solar power, and other so-called "green" power sources tended to fail
for a variety of reasons, including market difficulties, negative environmental impacts, and
immature technology.According to the report, failure rates varied from 37 percent to 78
percent in projects in northeastern U.S. states such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York,
and Pennsylvania. Failure rates reached 63 percent California. In Europe, failure rates varied
from 67 to 78 percent. The report did not attempt to collect data to establish a national rate
for the United States; it gathered data only on the states mentioned here.
SEE THE NUKE POWER AFF + CO2 DA FROM THE INDIAN

COUNTRY AFF FOR MORE ANSWERS!!!!
27
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
OIL SPECULATION REGULATION CP ANS

SPECULATORS NOT THE CAUSE OF HIGH PRICE – SUPPLY AND DEMAND IS THE
DRIVER
CHADDOCK 6-24-08 (GAIL, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, “SPECULATORS ARE

BEHIND RISING OIL COSTS, SOME SAY”)
No one disputes that financial speculators — that is, hedge funds, investment banks, and
other traders who do not take physical possession of the commodities — are surging into
commodities markets.But experts differ widely on the impact these new players have on
prices. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and many financial-industry analysts say prices are
still set by the fundamentals of supply and demand.
SPECULATORS NOT THE CAUSE OF HIGH PRICE – HIGH DEMAND IS

But there is not yet a consensus within the CFTC that further steps to rein in speculation are
needed."There's no evidence of speculative influence. Speculators are not contributing to the
demand for physical oil as they almost always roll positions prior to delivery," says Craig
Pirrong, a professor of finance at the University of Houston and a member of the CFTC energy
markets advisory committee."Speculators are not the cause of high oil prices," said
Representative Joe Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee. Prices are driven
by the lack of supply, he said.Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said June 21, while attending
a meeting of oil producers and consumers in Saudi Arabia, there is "no evidence that
speculators are driving prices."Chakib Khelil, president of the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries, said at the meeting that speculators are driving up prices, along with the
credit crisis and geopolitics."Every crisis needs a culprit," Sanford C. Bernstein analysts
Andrew Keen, Ben Dell, Neil McMahon and Hugh Wynne wrote in a June 20 note. "Active
speculation is a catalyst for market movements, not an underlying cause."
CHINESE AND INDIAN DEMAND ARE BEHIND HIGH PRICES – NOT ENERGY
SPECULATORS
AMBAH 6-23-08 (FAIZA, WASHINGTON POST.COM, “SAUDIS SAY THEY WILL MEET
GLOBAL DEMAND FOR OIL)
U.S. officials had said that financial markets were only following, not creating, the price hikes
and that insufficient oil supplies, partly due to increased demand from booming economies in
China and India, were driving prices up. "We see no evidence that financial market
participation in the commodity market, the oil market in particular, has led to some systematic
bias in energy prices," said Reuben Jeffery III, undersecretary of state for economic affairs.
MORE EVIDENCE – CHINESE+ INDIAN DEMAND IS KEY –

ASSOCIATED PRESS – 6-23-08 Oil prices rose Monday on disappointment over Saudi
Arabia's modest production increase and concerns that output from Nigeria will decline. Retail
gas prices, meanwhile, inched lower overnight, but appear unlikely to change much as long as
oil prices stay in a trading range. Saudi Arabia said Sunday at a meeting of oil producing and
consuming nations that it would turn out more crude oil this year if the market needs it. The
kingdom said it would add 200,000 barrels per day in July to a 300,000 barrel per day
production increase it first announced in May, raising total daily output to 9.7 million barrels.
But that pledge at the meeting held in the Saudi city of Jeddah fell far short of U.S. hopes for
a larger increase. The United States and other nations argue that oil production has not kept
up with increasing demand, especially from China,India and the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and
other OPEC countries say there is no shortage of oil and instead blame financial speculation
and the falling U.S. dollar.
28
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CONTRACT REFORM CP ANS./FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY-SOLVENCY EXT
FEDERAL INCENTIVES COULD JUMP START A CTL INDUSTRY AND FOSTER ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE
ANDREWS, 5-29-07 (EDMUND, NEW YORK TIMES, “LAWMAKERS PUSH FOR

SUBSIDIES FOR COAL PROCESS”)
Prodded by intense lobbying from the coal industry, lawmakers from coal states are proposing
that taxpayers guarantee billions of dollars in construction loans for coal-to-liquid production
plants, guarantee minimum prices for the new fuel, and guarantee big government purchases
for the next 25 years.With both House and Senate Democrats hoping to pass “energy independence”
bills by mid-July, coal supporters argue that coal-based fuels are more American than gasoline and
potentially greener than ethanol.“For so many, filthy coal is a dirty four-letter word,” said Representative
Nick V. Rahall, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
“These individuals, I tell you, have their heads buried in the sand.”Environmental groups are adamantly
opposed, warning that coal-based diesel fuels would at best do little to slow global warming and at worst
would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases tied to global warming as petroleum.Coal
companies are hardly alone in asking taxpayers to underwrite alternative fuels in the name of energy
independence and reduced global warming. But the scale of proposed subsidies for coal could exceed
those for any alternative fuel, including corn-based ethanol.Among the proposed inducements
winding through House and Senate committees: loan guarantees for six to 10 major coal-to-
liquid plants, each likely to cost at least $3 billion; a tax credit of 51 cents for every gallon of
coal-based fuel sold through 2020; automatic subsidies if oil prices drop below $40 a barrel;
and permission for the Air Force to sign 25-year contracts for almost a billion gallons a year of
coal-based jet fuel Coal companies have spent millions of dollars lobbying on the issue, and have
marshaled allies in organized labor, the Air Force and fuel-burning industries like the airlines. Peabody
Energy, the world’s biggest coal company, urged in a recent advertising campaign that people “imagine a
world where our country runs on energy from Middle America instead of the Middle East.”Representative
Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat whose district is dominated by coal mining, is writing key sections of
the House energy bill. In the Senate, champions of coal-to-liquid fuels include Barack Obama, the Illinois
Democrat, and Jim Bunning of Kentucky and Larry Craig of Idaho, both Republicans.President Bush has
not weighed in on specific incentives, but he has often stressed the importance of coal as an alternative to
foreign oil. In calling for a 20 percent cut in projected gasoline consumption by 2017, he has
carefully referred to the need for “alternative” fuels rather than “renewable” fuels.
Administration officials say that was specifically to make room for coal.The political momentum to
subsidize coal fuels is in odd juxtaposition to simultaneous efforts by Democrats to draft global-warming
bills that would place new restrictions on coal-fired electric power plants.The move reflects a tension,
which many lawmakers gloss over, between slowing global warming and reducing dependence on foreign
oil.Many analysts say the huge coal reserves of the United States could indeed provide a substitute for
foreign oil.The technology to convert coal into liquid fuel is well-established, and the fuel can be used in
conventional diesel cars and trucks, as well as jet engines, boats and ships. Industry executives contend
that the fuels can compete against gasoline if oil prices are about $50 a barrel or higher.But coal-to-liquid
fuels produce almost twice the volume of greenhouse gases as ordinary diesel. In addition to the carbon
dioxide emitted while using the fuel, the production process creates almost a ton of carbon dioxide for
every barrel of liquid fuel.Coal industry executives insist their fuel can actually be cleaner than oil,
because they would capture the gas produced as the liquid fuel is being made and store it underground.
Some could be injected into oil fields to push oil to the surface.Several aspiring coal-to-liquid companies
say that they would reduce greenhouse emissions even further by using renewable fuels for part of the
process. But none of that has been done at commercial volumes, and many analysts say the economic
issues are far from settled.“There are many uncertainties,” said James T. Bartis, a senior policy researcher
at the RAND Corporation, who testified last week before the Senate Energy Committee. “We don’t even
know what the costs are yet.”The clash between “energy independence” and global warming will break
into the open next month. The Senate energy bill, being drafted by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of
New Mexico, would promote renewable fuels — but not coal-to-liquid fuels — and would require electric
utilities to produce 15 percent of their power with renewable fuels by 2020.But coal-state Republicans
have vowed to resume their push for coal incentives when the bill reaches the Senate floor,
and many Democrats are likely to support them. In the House, Democrats like Mr. Boucher
and Mr. Rahall will be pushing in the same direction.
29
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CP ANS./FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY-SOLVENCY EXT
TAX BREAKS KEY TO BUILDING OF CTL PLANTS
KOPP 1-‘08
(CARLO, AIR POWER AUSTRILIA, “THE U.S. SYNTHETIC FUELS PROGRAM”
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-USAF-SynFuels.html)
Synthetic fuels currently sit at about half or less the cost per barrel of natural equivalents.
However, typical synthetic fuel production plant is complex and thus expensive, and as a
result the amortisation rate of the investment is slow, relative to the expectations of the
investment industry, which likes fast returns. In the absense of tax breaks on plant
amortisation, the global investment industry has been lukewarm at best in funding synthetic
fuel plant .
526 CP ANSWER - -THE F-T INDUSTRY IS STRUGGLING – EVEN WITH CONTRACTS
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Recent efforts at constructing F-T plants in the United States have proven
challenging. In September 2006, after supplying DOD 100,000 gallons of synthetic
fuel to test in the B-52, Syntroleum, a company that produces synthetic fuel, closed
its demonstration plant in Tulsa, Oklahoma, its revenue falling after completion of
its contracts with DOD and the Department of Transportation.40 In a February 2007
hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Secretary of Energy
Samuel W. Bodman, in response to questions about why the Department of Energy
proposed halting funding for a CTL diesel fuel plant in Pennsylvania, stated that the
“financial viability” of the project was questionable.41 Cost estimates had grown
from an original $612 million in 2003 to approximately $800 million. On the other
hand, potential developers may be encouraged by DOD’s interest in synthetic fuels.
In May 2006, when the Defense Energy Support Center, the agency within the Defense
Logistics Agency that purchases fuel for DOD, asked companies to submit
proposals for the production of 200,000 gallons of F-T fuels for testing by the Air
Force and Navy in 2008 and 2009, it received over 20 responses
IN 2007 THE SENATE REJECTED A $10 BILLION DOLLAR INCENTIVE PACKAGE

THAT COULD’VE CREATED A CTL INDUSTRY LARGE ENOUGH TO FUEL THE U.S.
IVANOVICH 6-20-07 (DAVID, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, “SENATE REJECTS COAL TO

LIQUIDS PROPOSAL”)
The Senate today rejected a measure, pushed by the U.S. Air Force, intended to provide
incentives for revival of an 80-year-old technology that could convert coal into aviation
fuel.With political unrest in far-flung locales able to disrupt world oil supplies and hurricanes
capable of knocking out Gulf Coast refineries, the Senate considered the proposal to spur
production of diesel and jet fuel from an abundant domestic and inland resource..The
Democratic amendment to an energy conservation bill under debate would have authorized up
to $10 billion in loans to develop coal-to-liquds plants.Proponents argued that the incentive
could capitalize on the United States' position as the ''Saudi Arabia of coal."
30
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CP ANS./FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY-SOLVENCY EXT
ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES KEY- THE DOD IS NOT A BIG ENOUGH CONSUMER TO

DRIVE A NEW ALT FUELS MARKET
The Department of Defense uses less than 2% of the oil

consumed in the United States and is therefore not a large enough consumer to
drive the market for conventional or alternative fuels. JASON and others have
suggested that finding substitutes for fossil fuels must be a national endeavor.
According to DOD it uses roughly 340,000 barrels of oil a day whereas the daily
consumption rate for the United States is approximately 21 million barrels.21 DOD
agrees that it plays a significant role in testing, certification, and demonstrating the
use of synthetic jet fuel but is not a large enough consumer to drive the market.
31
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
1NC: RENEWABLE ENERGY SHIFT DISADVANTAGE
A. UNIQUENESS
THE SENATE’S RECENT FAILURE TO PASS AN INCENTIVE PACKAGE FOR THE

RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRY IS ALREADY THREATENING INDUSTRY
PROSPECTS
SHEPARD, 6-10-08 (KATE, GRIST: ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS AND

COMMENTARY)
The Senate once again failed to pass tax-credit extensions for renewable energy on
Tuesday, and folks in the industry are starting to get worried. Companies working in
wind, solar, and other renewables rely on the tax credits, which are set to expire at
the end of the year.Trade organizations that represent renewable-energy firms on
the Hill say they're already seeing a slowing of growth in the sector because
companies are hesitant to start new projects without the assurance that these credits
will be available."We're hearing about companies who are putting off all decisions to
expand in the U.S. until they can get the stability to go forward," said Aaron Severn,
legislative manager for the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA).There have
already been multiple attempts to get these credits passed. A sticking point is that
conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats want to ensure that the measure includes a
"pay-for" -- a provision that would either cut spending or shift taxes to fund the
credits. Republicans argue that a pay-for isn't necessary.Previous versions of the bill
would have funded the credits by revoking tax breaks for the oil and gas industry --
not a popular strategy with many Senate Republicans. The version that failed on
Tuesday would have paid for the credits by closing what Democrats call tax
"loopholes" for hedge funds and multinational corporations -- also not popular with
many Senate Republicans.The Senate might get another chance to vote on the
credits this month; there's talk of lumping the tax extensions into a pending
mortgage-foreclosure bill. If the tax credits don't pass this summer, a one-year
extension could be passed in the fall to prevent the credits from expiring.But in order
to accomplish anything, Senate Democrats and Republicans are going to have to
work out a compromise. Said Severn, "Until you can see a way to bring these guys
together to start talking about this, I don't really see a path forward."
2. FORTUNATELY, BEHIND THE SCENES NEGOTIATIONS BETW EEN

THE PARTIES ARE W ORKING OUT A COMPROMISE DEAL THAT W ILL
SAVE THE LEGISLATION
IVANOVICH, 6-11-08 (DAVID, HOUSTON CHRONICLE)

In a fuel-fight steeped as much in election-year politics as energy policy, senators jousted
Tuesday over a doomed Democratic energy package intended to slap new taxes on the major
oil companies.In the end, Senate Republicans successfully blocked any action on the bill,
although lawmakers took the opportunity to engage in the kind of rhetoric that has
characterized the two parties' continuing debate over what to blame for soaring energy prices
— restrictions on exploration or oil company greed.But behind the scenes, lawmakers were
working to craft a compromise plan that would try to rein in some of the speculators that
many experts believe have helped send oil prices skyward."I think we could come to a
consensus on the speculators issue," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.
1NC: RENEW ABLE ENERGY SHIFT DISADVANTAGE
32
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
B. THE LINK – THE PRIM ARY ISSUE FOR DEM OCRAT HOLD OUTS IS
HOW TO PAY FOR THE SUBSIDIES PACKAGE – THE AFF’S
SUBSIDIES FOR THE COAL INDUSTRY W ILL COMPOUND THE ISSUE
AND DERAIL ANY COM PROM ISE
COILE, 6-18-08 (ZACHARY, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE)
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean,
renewable energy, Congress is in danger of letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth
of wind and solar power expire at the end of the year.The Senate failed for the second time in
a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners switch to renewable energy.
The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a fight
between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them.The stalemate is causing jitters
among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are
making billion-dollar bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to
build solar panels and wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress
acts.Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which helps finance and operate
large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31,
when the credits expire. Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the
company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed."It creates a hiccup that
is very unfortunate," Harris said.The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular
programs can fall victim to gridlock in Washington.House Democrats, seeking to abide by
"pay-as-you-go" budget rules, insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising revenue
elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at every proposal so far to find that
money.The House first passed a measure early last year to extend the renewable energy
credits by cutting subsidies to big oil companies. The oil industry lobbied fiercely, President
Bush vowed to veto it and the Senate blocked it.Last month, the House approved a bill to
extend the credits by delaying an obscure tax break for companies with foreign operations and
closing a tax loophole for hedge fund managers. But Republicans objected to what they called
a stealth tax increase, and the Senate's 52-44 vote Tuesday fell short of the 60 votes needed
to prevent a filibuster and move the legislation forward.The delay is putting at risk a boom in
renewable energy projects in recent years that has the potential to remake the nation's energy
supply.
C. THE IMPACT –U.S. RENEW ABLES ARE KEY TO SOLVING GLOBAL

W ARMING –
RENEWABLE ENERGY W ORLD 1-24-07

(http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/infocus/story?id=47
33
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
208, “INCREASING RENEW ABLE ENERGY IN THE U.S. CAN SOLVE GLOBAL
W ARMING”)
Increasing Renewable Energy in U.S. Can Solve Global Warming The alternative scenario in
this report, which urgently calls for new policy and standards, corrects the record on nukes
and coal.Landmark analysis released by Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy Council
(EREC) and other climate and energy advocates shows that the United States can indeed
address global warming without relying on nuclear power or so-called "clean coal" -- as some
in the ongoing energy debate claim. The new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for
Solving Global Warming" details a worldwide energy scenario where nearly 80% of U.S.
electricity can be produced by renewable energy sources; where carbon dioxide emissions can
be reduced 50% globally and 72% in the U.S. without resorting to an increase in dangerous
nuclear power or new coal technologies; and where America's oil use can be cut by more than
50% by 2050 by using much more efficient cars and trucks (potentially plug-in hybrids),
increased use of biofuels and a greater reliance on electricity for transportation. The 92-page
report, commissioned by the German Aerospace Center, used input on all technologies of the
renewable energy industry, including wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, biomass power
plants, solar thermal collectors, and biofuels, all of which "are rapidly becoming mainstream."
The good news first. Renewable energy, combined with energy efficiency, can meet half of the
world's energy needs by 2050. This new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for Solving
Global Warming," shows that it is not only economically feasible, but also economically
desirable, to cut U.S. CO2 emissions by almost 75% within the next 43 years. These
reductions can be achieved without nuclear power, and while virtually ending U.S. dependence
on coal. Contrary to popular opinion, a massive uptake of renewable energy and efficiency
improvements alone can solve our global warming problem. All that is missing is the right
policy support from the President and Congress.
2. UNCHECKED GLOBAL WARMING WILL CAUSE EXTINCTION

SMH.COM 6-20-03
(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/19/1055828440526.html)
Global warming over the next century could trigger a catastrophe to rival the worst mass
extinction in the history of the planet, scientists have warned.Researchers at Bristol University
have discovered that a mere 6 degrees of global warming was enough to wipe out up to 95
per cent of the species which were alive on earth at the end of the Permian period, 250 million
years ago.United Nations scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
predict up to 6 degrees of warming for the next 100 years if nothing is done about emissions
of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, the chief cause of global warming.The
Permian mass extinction is now thought to have been caused by gigantic volcanic eruptions
that triggered a runaway greenhouse effect and nearly put an end to life on Earth.Conditions
in what geologists have termed this "post apocalyptic greenhouse" were so severe that only
one large land animal was left alive and it took 100 million years for species diversity to return
to former levels.This dramatic new finding is revealed in a book by Bristol University's head of
earth sciences, Michael Benton, which chronicles the geological efforts leading up to the
discovery and its potential implications.Professor Benton said: "The Permian crisis nearly
marked the end of life. It's estimated that fewer than one in 10 species survived."Geologists
are only now coming to appreciate the severity of this global catastrophe and to understand
how and why so many species died out so quickly."Other climate experts say they are
appalled that a disaster of such magnitude could be repeated within this century because of
human activities.
34
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEWABLE ENERGY SHIFT DISAD-UQ: INCENTIVES WILL PASS
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLES TAX CREDIT LEGISLATION EXISTS –
ARIZONA REPUBLIC 5-27-08
Arizona has started to embrace the idea of solar energy with some ambitious
projects, but the looming expiration of a key financing tool could bring those
efforts to a halt.Congressional leaders, a majority of whom appear to support solar
investment, cannot agree on how to pay for a subsidy that would give anyone who
installed or built a solar-energy system a 30 percent rebate of the cost in the form
of a tax credit."It has definitely been a challenge," said Monique Hanis, a
spokeswoman for the Solar Energy Industries Association, based in Washington,
D.C. "Our view is that there is bipartisan support (for extending it), but it does
seem like we are really stuck on the structure of how to do it."
THE DEMOCRATS WILL COMPROMISE TO ALLOW AN INCENTIVES

PACKAGE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY INDUSTRIES TO PASS THE SENATE
BUSINESS GREEN 6-18-08 (BUSINESSGREEN.COM, “RENEWABLE ENERGY

TAX CREDITS DENIED BY SENATE”)
Stocks in US solar and wind energy firms dipped yesterday, after the Senate again blocked
plans to extend a package of renewable energy tax credits that are currently due to expire at
the end of this year.Under the Energy Independence and Tax Relief Act of 2008, tax credits on
wind turbines would have been extended by one year, while similar credits on other renewable
energy sources including biomass and landfill gas would have been extended for three
years.However, Republican opposition meant that a vote of 52-44 in favour fell just short of
the 60 votes required for the $17.7bn package of tax breaks to proceed – the second time the
bill has been blocked in the past week.Observers said that the renewable energy tax credit
had broad cross-party support, but Republican Senators denied the proposals over Democrat
plans to pay for the changes by rescinding tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, closing a
tax "loophole" for hedge funds and delaying a planned tax break for multinational
firms.Speaking to Forbes.com, Raymond James analyst Pavel Molchanov said that the
Democrats would be likely to reach a compromise to allow the renewables tax to break
through. But he warned that with the summer recess, the bill may not be finalised until after
the US presidential elections in November – a situation that would introduce further investor
uncertainty into the US renewables sector.Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy
Industries Association, warned that if the package of tax credits is allowed to lapse it will
"result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in solar".
35
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEW ABLE ENERGY SHIFT DISAD-UQ: INCENTIVES W ILL PASS
DEMOCRATS WILL COMPROMISE WITH THE GOP TO GET TAX CREDIT LEGISLATION
FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PASSED
FORBES 6-18-08 (FORBES.COM, WASHINGTON FAILS RENWABLE ENERGY AGAIN,

CARL GUTIERREZ)
"There is no serious opposition among the Republicans to the Democratic sponsored

tax credits," said Raymond James analyst Pavel Molchanov. "The problem is the bill
includes some unrelated provisions that Republicans do have a problem with."The
Democrats find themselves in a tight spot. On one hand they want the renewable
energy tax credits to get passed; on the other hand, they're trying to adhere to the
principle of "pay-as-you-go", which means ensuring that there is funding for any new
spending. In this case they would like to rescind certain tax provisions for oil and gas
companies, close the so-called hedge fund loophole under which the investment
vehicles can defer certain overseas profits and delay a tax break for multinationals.
Republican opponents of the bill contend that the Democrats are trying to put in
place permanent tax hikes to fund what are only short-term tax breaks."The
Republicans have been playing hardball and the Democrats have made tactical errors
in refusing to separate the uncontroversial parts to the tax increases," Molchanov
said.Molchanov expects the Democrats will cave and take out the "pay-as-you-go"
provisions," recognizing they don't have the votes. The presidential election
complicates things, though. "The political conventions are in about two months and
then Washington shuts down until the November elections," Molchanov said. "It can
be done in the lame-duck Congress, but for the solar industry it would be unhelpful
to have that cloud hanging over the market."
36
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEWABLE SHIFT DISAD.-INTERNAL LINK: INCENTIVES KEY
DESPITE CONGRESSIONAL INFIGHTING INVESTORS ARE BULLISH ON RENEWABLE

ENERGY AND EXPECT CONGRESS TO WORK OUT A COMPROMISE – IF THEY PASS THE
BILL THE INDUSTRY WILL BE IN A GREAT POSITION TO MAKE GAINS AND
STABILIZE GROWTH – IF THEY DON’T PASS THE LEGISLATION, THE RENEWABLES
INDUSTRY WILL BE STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS
COHEN 2-19-08 (STEPHANIE, “PERKING UP THE ECONOMY WITH ENERGY TAX

BREAKS” WALL STREET JOURNAL)
Wall Street remains bullish on clean energy and expects Congress will ultimately deliver
incentives for solar and wind. Analysts seem to agree that the industry can survive another
one-year extension if it sees a big payday in the 2009 post-election period in the form of a six-
or eight-year extension of the investment tax credit and renewal of the production tax credit.
"[A] one-year extension provides ample time for the next administration and legislature to
work out a more-comprehensive plan for supporting solar and other renewable energy, which
would likely go beyond an extension and include an expansion," according to a research note
from ThinkEquity.Wrapped up in the politics of oil industry profits and perceived tax increases,
alternative energy companies are trying to move rapidly to address growing global demand for
greener energy. A January report from Clarus Securities said that with government incentives
solar installations are expected to grow at an annual compound rate of least 40% over the
next several years.Incentives with a longer duration are "needed to help stimulate the
development of large-scale concentrating solar power projects," according to a report on the
solar industry from Pacific Growth Equities. "We believe there will be tremendous risk to the
growth of the solar industry if the legislation remains uncertain, given the current growth
projection for the solar industry in the U.S. for 2009," the report concluded.
UNLESS THE STAND OFF OVER ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES IS RESOLVED, THE
RENEWABLES INDUSTRY WILL BE CRIPPLED
LACEY 5-23-08 (STEPHEN, RENEWABLEENERGYWORLD.COM, “LAST BEST CHANCE

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CUTS)
With Wednesday's passage of a House bill that could extend the production and investment
tax credits, many in the industry are cautiously hoping for an end to a political standoff that
has threatened to cripple the nation's renewable energy industry."Pretty soon there could be
escalating negative consequences down the value chain if something isn't done. Congress
needs to pass these credits and pass them quickly." -- Jeff Deyette, Analyst, Union of
Concerned Scientists - Some advocacy groups worry that the latest legislation is the final
opportunity to get the tax credits passed before the industry starts seeing serious slowdowns
in the market."This House bill, coming in the wake of so many other failed attempts to pass
similar legislation, is really our last best chance to extend the tax incentives," said Chris
Stimpson, executive campaigner for the grassroots advocacy organization Solar Nation. "While
Congress often passes last-minute extenders in December, we shouldn't hold our breath for
that either.Called the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008, the bill extends the
production tax credit (PTC) for one year, extends the investment tax credit (ITC) for six years,
and authorizes $2 billion for new clean renewable energy bonds to finance renewable energy
facilities.Now the tax extension package moves onto the Senate where it is expected to face
an uphill battle because of disagreements over how to pay for the credits — an issue that has
hindered the process from the start. According to industry lobbyists, the House Ways and
Means Committee has been working closely with the Senate Finance Committee to figure out a
funding source that is acceptable to both chambers of Congress; however, it appears that any
"pay-fors" demanded by Democrats are not agreeable to most Republicans.
37
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEW ABLE SHIFT DISAD.-INTERNAL LINK: INCENTIVES KEY
THIS YEAR IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE TIPPING POINT FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY – IF

CONGRESS FLUBS THE INCENTIVE PACKAGE, THE INDUSTRY WILL TANK
LACEY 5-23-08 (STEPHEN, RENEWABLEENERGYWORLD.COM, “LAST BEST CHANCE

FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY TAX CUTS)
By most accounts, this year was supposed to be the tipping point for renewable energy in the
U.S. With ever-bigger wind and solar projects going up at a breakneck pace, the mainstream
news media jumping on any story about the "greening" of America and politicians of every
stripe declaring renewables a national priority, the pieces seemed to be falling together. The
only problem, say analysts, is that the industry still can't get the long-term support it needs to
do the job expected of it."We simply aren't going to create more jobs, pour billions into the
economy and diversify our energy supply if we don't get the support we need," said Sklar. "We
have to remain hopeful that we'll reach a deal. But if Congress somehow flubs this thing...they
are going to see a lot of companies go out of business and a lot of people lose their jobs."
SHEPARD, 6-10-08 (KATE, GRIST: ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS AND

COMMENTARY)
More than 116,000 U.S. jobs and nearly $19 billion in investment could be lost in
just one year if the credits are not renewed, according to a recent report [PDF] by
AWEA and the Solar Energy Research and Education Foundation. Severn warns that
a sharp decline in the amount of installed wind-energy capacity could result. In
previous years when the production tax credit has been allowed to expire, there's
been a 70 to 90 percent decrease in the amount of wind capacity installed, he says.
One German wind company, Enercon, recently told the press that the instability of
the production tax credit is precisely the reason it hasn't expanded into the United
States.Monique Hanis, spokesperson for the Solar Energy Industries Association,
cited one solar energy company based in California, Akeena Solar, that recently cut 8
percent of its employees because of uncertainty about the future of investment in
the industry."In the long term what it means is that the U.S. is going to give up its
leadership position in the technology," said Hanis. "We're going to give up this
potential green tech sector, which right now is a really high-growth sector with the
potential for tens of thousands of jobs."
38
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEW ABLE SHIFT DISAD.-INTERNAL LINK: INCENTIVES KEY
WITHOUT EXTENSIONS OF THE TAX CREDITS, MANY RENEWABLE ENERGY

INITIATIVES WILL COME TO A HALT
ARIZONA REPUBLIC 5-27-08
But those businesses, the utilities say, are likely to hold off without the tax-credit
extension.What's nextSolar advocates here are hopeful that congressional leaders will be
able to work out a compromise between the dueling pieces of legislation in the coming
months.Meanwhile, Arizona utility officials say that if solar-tax credits aren't extended, they
will need to build natural-gas-powered plants to meet the rising demand for electricity in
the state.The cost of power plants, whether fueled by the sun, natural gas or some other
energy, is passed on to customers. But utility officials say they are hoping to build at least
some solar plants to diversify their energy sources and serve as a hedge if natural-gas
prices continue their recent surge."If the tax credits are not extended, we would expect to
see solar installations come to a halt in our service territory," said Lori Singleton, SRP's
manager of sustainability initiatives and technology.
LETTING THE INCENTIVE PACKAGE LAPSE WOULD BE A HUGE BLOW TO THE

RENEWABLES INDUSTRY
COILE, 6-18-08 (ZACHARY, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE)
If the program lapses, "It will result in the loss of billions of dollars in new investments in
solar," warned Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
Many Bay Area tech firms and investors have poured money into renewable energy projects,
and have a great deal at stake in the debate. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and
TechNet, two leading technology industry trade groups, have been among the most vocal
advocates for extending the credits.
Santa Clara-based Applied Materials, a giant in the semiconductor industry, has developed a
$3 billion business over the last two years selling high-tech tools to solar panel manufacturers,
including new equipment that can make thin-film solar photovoltaics the size of garage doors.
But William Morin, director of government affairs for Applied Materials, said that without a
steady policy of tax incentives most manufacturing will continue to go overseas to countries
like Germany, which is now both the world's leading consumer and producer of solar power.
"We are in danger of falling behind because we don't have the right set of public policies in
place to take that leading role," Morin said.
Happened before in 2004 Many renewable energy providers have seen this script before:
Congress let a production tax credit for wind energy lapse three times over a decade. When it
expired in 2004, investments in wind projects plummeted by 77 percent the next year .
39
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEWABLE SHIFT DISAD: IMPACT – STOPS RECESSION
ENERGY TAX CREDIT FOR RENEWABLES COULD STIMULATE THE ECONOMY TO AVOID
A RECESSION
COHEN 2-19-08 (STEPHANIE, “PERKING UP THE ECONOMY WITH ENERGY TAX

BREAKS” WALL STREET JOURNAL)
If high energy costs can help push an economy into recessions, can energy tax credits and consumer
spending on green products stimulate the economy and help it avoid the big R?
Democratic leaders in Congress think so and have been trying to move a block of renewable energy tax
breaks through Congress for a year. Democratic leaders attempted earlier this month attach $5.5 billion in
tax breaks for renewable energy to a $168 billion economic stimulus package.
Democrats pushed Republicans to accept the extension of energy tax breaks or deny tax rebates for millions
of Americans. But Republicans blocked this effort and the stimulus package was signed by President Bush
without the energy provisions.Now the House is considering an $18 billion package of energy tax incentives,
the latest effort by Democrats to boost the renewable energy sector.
For years, lobbying groups have pleaded with Washington for long-term extensions of investment and
production tax credits that benefit solar, fuel cells, wind, geothermal and biomass energy sources only to see
the measures locked in a political drama that they say leaves alternative energy investors in a lurch. Groups
like the Solar Energy Industries Association and American Wind Energy Association say U.S. jobs are at
stake.
40
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RENEWABLES DISAD: WARMING IMPACT EXTENSIONS
NOW KEY TIME TO SOLVE WARMING
RENEWABLE ENERGY W ORLD 1-24-07

(http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/infocus/story?id=47
208, “INCREASING RENEW ABLE ENERGY IN THE U.S. CAN SOLVE GLOBAL
W ARMING”)
This report shows that business as usual is a recipe for climate chaos. If the world continues
on its current course, CO2 emissions will almost double by 2050, with catastrophic
consequences for the natural environment, the global economy, and human society as a
whole. We have the opportunity now to change that course, but the window is narrow and
closing quickly.The policy choices of the coming years will determine the world's
environmental and economic situation for many decades to come. The world cannot afford to
stick to the conventional energy development path, relying on fossil fuels, nuclear, and other
outdated technologies. Energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy must play
leading roles in the world's energy future.For the sake of a sound environment, political
stability, and thriving economies, now is the time to commit to a truly secure and sustainable
energy future - a future built on clean technologies, economic development, millions of new
jobs, and a livable environment.
GLOBAL WARMING IMPACTS ON PAR WITH NUCLEAR WAR
LOVELL 9-12-07 (JEREMY, REUTERS AFRICA,

http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnBAN251297.html)
Climate change could have global security implications on a par with nuclear war unless urgent
action is taken, a report said on Wednesday.The International Institute for Strategic Studies
(IISS) security think-tank said global warming would hit crop yields and water availability
everywhere, causing great human suffering and leading to regional strife.While everyone had
now started to recognise the threat posed by climate change, no one was taking effective
leadership to tackle it and no one could tell precisely when and where it would hit hardest, it
added."The most recent international moves towards combating global warming represent a
recognition ... that if the emission of greenhouse gases ... is allowed to continue unchecked,
the effects will be catastrophic -- on the level of nuclear war," the IISS report said.
WARMING = MULTIPLE WARS, NUCLEAR CONFLICT AND WIDESPREAD

FAMINETOWNSEND 2-22-04 (MARK, THE GUARDIAN, “NOW THE PENTAGON TELLS
BUSH: CLIMATE CHANGE WILL DESTROY US”)Climate change over the next 20 years
could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..A
secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that
major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian'
climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt
across the world.The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to
the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling
food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism,
say the few experts privy to its contents.'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of
life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
41
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
1NC: CONTRACT REFORM CP
TEXT – THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS SHOULD REPEAL SECTION 526 OF

THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007. THE U.S.
CONGRESS W ILL PERMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO ENTER INTO
LONG TERM ENERGY CONTRACTS W ITH UNITED STATES’ DOMESTIC
PRODUCERS OF LIQUIFIED COAL.
SOLVENCY
CHANGING THE LAW TO ALLOW DOD TO ENTER INTO MULTI-YEAR FUEL CONTRACTS
WOULD PROVIDE INCENTIVE TO F-T SYNTHETIC FUEL DEVELOPERS
A sixth option for Congress is to pass legislation that would grant DOD the
authority to enter into a contract for fuel for more than five years. Recent proposed
congressional legislation (S. 154, S. 155, and H.R. 370) would allow DOD to enter
into contracts for synthetic fuels for up to 25 years. This option may make it possible
for DOD, through lengthy contracts, to provide potential synthetic fuel developers
an incentive to invest in this capital intensive venture. On the other hand, the
proposed legislation would not mandate that DOD use this contracting option and the
department may not elect to do so.
SECTION 526 PROVISIONS OF THE ’07 ENERGY ACT ARE A BARRIER TO CTL
DEVELOPMENT – LACK OF A GUARANTEE OF U.S. AIR FORCE CONTRACTS WILL
PREVENT COMPANIES FROM INVESTING IN THE INDUSTRY
BREANNE 5-1-08 (WAGNER, NATIONAL DEFENSE, VOL 92, NO. 654, LEXIS)
Despite industry claims of cleaner fuel, the Air Force is uncertain if companies can satisfy the
new energy act requirement. Bollinger points to a lack of standards as the main impediment.
"You heard industry representatives who are producing this fuel say that they can meet this
standard," Bollinger says. "But there is no standard." Industry estimates are based on an
antiquated EPA standard that doesn't measure the life cycle, he explains. Until those life cycle
standards are developed, the Air Force simply can't buy the fuel, Bollinger says. He believes
the requirement is hampering market development because it deters companies from building
facilities. The uncertainty associated with the new rule is viewed as a risk in the market,
Bollinger says. Companies need financing to build plants, but they can't get money until the
standard is defined. The EPA estimated that it would take at least a year to write new
standards. Tom Sayles, Rentech vice president of government affairs and communications,
says that besides the life cycle requirement, the industry has bigger financial concerns. "Long-
term contracts are needed to get this [industry] off the ground." Today, the military purchases
fuel on an annual basis, Sayles says, while electricity is bought in 10-year contracts.
Additionally, Ramsbottom believes the industry won't move forward in a timely manner
without strong government support. The Air Force wants to develop synthetic jet fuel as soon
as possible, but is restricted by Congress. Lawmakers are showing greater interest in
alternative energy, but many caution against moving too quickly.
42
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
1NC: CONTRACT REFORM CP
THE AIR FORCE COULD GET THE CTL INDUSTRY OFF THE GROUND –NOW IS THE KEY
TIME - THIS WOULD PAVE THE WAY FOR A TRANSITION TO SYNTHETIC FUELS BY
COMMERCIAL FLEETS-THE OBSTACLE IS GETTING THE FIRST COUPLE OF PLANTS OFF
THE GROUND
BROWN, 3-22-08 (Matthew, Associated Press, USA Today)
Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel
blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually.With
the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow — from
commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies."Because of our size, we can move the
market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet
fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the
endgame."Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market.
Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the
use of coal-based synthetic fuels.The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the
industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen
proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate
change.That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic
traction under the Air Force's plan."This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John
Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., which is awaiting permits on a proposed
$5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that
would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone."Only about 15% of the 25,000
barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be
suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks
and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry.That means the Air Force would need at
least seven plants of the same size to meet its 2016 goal, said Col. Bobbie "Griff" Griffin,
senior assistant to Anderson.Coal producers have their sights set even higher.A 2006 report
from the National Coal Council said a fully mature coal-to-liquids industry serving the
commercial sector could produce 2.6 million barrels of fuel a day by 2025. Such an industry
would more than double the nation's coal production, according to the industry-backed Coal-
to-Liquids Coalition.On Wall Street, however, skepticism lingers."Is it a viable technology?
Certainly it is. The challenge seems to be getting the first couple (of plants) done," said
industry analyst Gordon Howald with Calyon Securities. "For a company to commit to this and
then five years later oil is back at $60 — this becomes the worst idea that ever happened.
43
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CONTRACT REFORM CP - EXTENSIONS
CP - RESTRICTIONS ON DOD FUEL CONTRACTS PREVENT LONG TERM AGREEMENTS

WITH FUEL PROVIDERS – THIS IS STIPULATION IS DAMPENING INVESTMENT IN F-T
FUEL, EVEN WITH DOD INTEREST
Compounding the difficulties posed by the high cost of constructing a F-T plant
are restrictions on DOD’s ability to enter into long-term contracts for fuel. Currently
the department may only enter into contracts for fuel up to five years–not long
enough, in the opinion of some, to provide potential suppliers with the economic
assurance necessary to justify the up-front costs of building a plant. The five-year
limitation is based on language in 10 U.S.C. 2306b, which outlines the
circumstances under which the department may sign a “multiyear contract.” The
statute defines a multiyear contract as “a contract for the purchase of property for
more than one, but not more than five, program years.”47
Proposed legislation is intended in part to alleviate this contracting restriction
and thus eliminate a perceived barrier to increased F-T synthetic fuel production.
The bills–Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Energy Act of 2007 (S. 154), Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act
of 2007 (S.155), and Coal-To-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007 (H.R.
370)–propose permitting the Department of Defense to enter into contracts for
synthetic fuel for up to 25 years. Critics of the legislation express concern that encouraging
increased CTL production before large-scale carbon sequestration is
available will significantly increase carbon emissions.
CONGRESS COULD MANDATE DOD USE OF A SPECIFIC AVIATION FUEL
And finally, another option for Congress may be to mandate some amount of
alternative aviation fuel that DOD will buy and the fuel's origin. The Air Force has
already expressed the goal of using 50% synthetic fuel by 2016 but the service has
not specified what kind of synthetic fuel it intends to use. Recent tests with
Fischer-Tropsch Gas-To-Liquid (GTL) fuel might lead one to believe DOD is
targeting coal- or gas-based synthetic fuel for its future purchases, an approach that
would likely invite opposition from those who object to CTL and GTL plants because
of their carbon emissions. However, DOD has also awarded a contract for the
development of a synthetic aviation biofuel, which may eventually prove successful
enough to make a mandate for the use of fuel from renewable sources a viable option.
A possible drawback to a synthetic fuel mandate is that domestically produced
alternative fuels may not be available for several years. The high cost of constructing
the plants and the unresolved issue of how to address carbon emissions from them
are two possible limitations. The fact that biofuels are not currently compatible with
jet aircraft engines is another issue. Further, it is unclear that sufficient quantities of
biofuel could be produced.
44
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CONTRACT REFORM CP – EXTENSIONS
THE AIR FORCE WANTS SECTION 526 REPEALED TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR F/T FUEL
USE ON ITS MISSIONS
DuPONT 4-16-08 (DAN, WIRED, “ALTERNATIVE FUEL BAN IRKS AIR FORCE”)
Language in the 2007 energy bill has come under fire because it threatens to derail Air Force
plans to use liquid fuel made from coal to power its aircraft. And some momentum appears to
be building for its repeal, as Defense Environment Alert reports.
The legislation -- section 526 -- prohibits government agencies from buying alternative fuels
that have significantly higher carbon footprints than traditional jet fuels -- and making coal-to-
liquid fuel coughs up a lot of emissions. But the ban has a wide cast of characters upset,
including the Air Force, many members of Congress and the Canadian government, which
fears that fuels made from its oil sands will not be allowed.
Now, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is eyeing the defense authorization bill as a vehicle for a
repeal of section 526.Sources say Inhofe, who recently introduced a bill to repeal the GHG
restrictions in section 526 of the 2007 energy law, may offer the proposal as a floor
amendment to defense authorization legislation, which is currently pending in the Senate
Armed Services Committee. The defense bill is expected to pass out of committee within the
month and go to the floor shortly thereafter. Inhofe is a member of the Armed Services
Committee and the ranking Republican on the Environment & Public Works Committee.
Using the defense authorization bill to address energy issues is not unprecedented, especially
given the Defense Department’s hefty energy use. Last year, coal-to-liquid proponents had
discussed pushing incentives for the technology through the defense bill. Also, Inhofe tried
unsuccessfully last year to add an amendment to assist coal-to-liquid fuels to a homeland
security bill. The Air Force wants half of all its stateside flights to be powered by such
synthetic fuels by 2016. In March, as Inside the Air Force reported, the service began an effort
to "determine which energy sources are the most environmentally friendly by comparing the
total greenhouse gas emission levels for all sources of fuel -- showing which pollute the most
versus the least. The service hopes this will help clear the way to use synthetic fuels on its
missions."
CP – THE CTL INDUSTRY ISN’T EXPECTING GOVERNMENT FUNDING
KING 5-20-08
(BYRON, http://www.energyandoil.com/the-coal-to-liquid-debate-part-i)
During a trip to D.C., I talked with a group of people in the field of energy research. I heard
some of the “inside baseball” information on one major DOD program that will convert large
amounts of U.S. coal into synthetic liquid fuel. This will be a government-industry partnership,
with the U.S. Air Force as the lead agency.In essence, the Air Force is offering a pilot site for a
coal-to-liquid (CTL) project at a base in Montana. This will be the first of many such CTL
facilities around the nation. The idea is that funding will come from the private sector, not the
Air Force or any other government source.The Air Force will sweeten the pot, however, by
guaranteeing that it will purchase the fuel that comes out of the CTL plants. Eventually, much
of the Air Force fleet will fly on a mixture of CTL fuel and traditional petroleum-based fuel. For
the past two years or so, the Air Force has been qualifying its planes to fly on synthetic fuels.
Just recently, a B-1B “Lancer” bomber went supersonic over New Mexico on a mix of synthetic
fuel. So synthetic fuels work.
45
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
1NC: OIL SPECULATION REGULATION COUNTERPLAN
CP – THE USFG SHOULD TIGHTEN RESTRICTIONS ON FINANCIAL SPECULATORS BY

IMPLEMENTING A 50% MARGIN REQUIREMENT AND INCREASING THE ROLE OF THE
COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION IN THE REGULATION OF FINANCIAL
SPECULATION ON OIL MARKETS
SOLVENCY – REGULATION OF ENERGY SPECULATION WOULD CAUSE FUEL PRICES

TO DROP WITHIN THE MONTH - $2/GALLON GAS IS IN OUR FUTURE -- HIGH FUEL
PRICES ARE DUE TO SPECULATORS PROFITING ON ENERGY MARKETS

Michael Masters, portfolio manager of the hedge fund Masters Capital Management, told a
congressional hearing on Monday that with greater regulation oil prices could drop to $65 or
$70 a barrel within about 30 days."That's half of where prices are today, and gas prices would
reflect that," he said, CNNMoney.com reported. Masters and other witnesses speculated that
the price of gas could fall to around $2 a gallon shortly after Congress acted to limit
speculation in energy markets, according to MarketWatch.com.Pension funds, Wall Street
banks and other large investors that have no intention of taking delivery of fuel have
increasingly pumped money into contracts for oil and other commodities as a hedge against
inflation.Democratic House lawmakers said they intend to tighten restrictions on investors
they blame for driving up fuel prices.Many Republicans, analysts and regulators, however, say
soaring oil prices are a reflection of larger economic factors, including the falling dollar, unrest
in the Middle East and increased demand from countries like China and India."Energy
speculation has become a fine growth industry and it is time for the government to intervene,"
said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., at hearing on
Monday.Fixes in the works on Capitol Hill range from new constraints on speculators —
including a 50 percent margin requirement on financial speculators, full disclosure of all
trading by investment banks in all markets, and prohibiting investment banks from holding
energy assets — to a bigger role for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(CFTC).Crude-oil prices have doubled from last year, reaching a record $139.89 a barrel in
trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange June 16. At the pump, gas prices dipped less
than a penny overnight to remain at a national average of over $4.07 a gallon, more than $1
above the year-ago average, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information
Service.Lawmakers have cited the pain prices are causing airlines, trucking companies,
farmers and consumers in calling for restrictions on speculative trading.
OIL SUPPLY IS UP, DEMAND IS DOWN, YET PRICE IS HIGH – SPECULATORS ARE THE
CAUSE OF HIGH FUEL PRICES

BEHIND RISING OIL COSTS, SOME SAY”)Tim Evans, an energy-futures analyst at
Citigroup, thinks the spike in oil prices looks a lot like the Internet bubble of the late 1990s.
And just as dot-com stocks crashed, oil, too, is headed for a fall, he predicts. Evans said oil
prices have become disconnected from the physical market for petroleum, just as dot-com
stocks became unhinged from market fundamentals. Oil prices, too, have taken on a life of
their own, as more and more investors pour billions of dollars into the commodities futures
markets, speculating prices will continue to rise. In fact, recent industry statistics show
demand both within the United States and globally for petroleum has actually been falling and
inventories have been rising as consumers, faced with escalating prices at the pump, use less
fuel, said David Edwards, president and portfolio manager at Heron Capital Management.But it
doesn't seem to have any effect on the direction of prices. "The price pattern looks much like
the Internet stocks index in late 1999, early 2000," he said. On the supply side, Evans noted
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped an average of 32.24 million barrels
per day of crude oil in May, an increase of 370,000 from April. The bottom line: Supply is up,
relative demand is down, and yet the price of oil is soaring.
46
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
CP - SOLVENCY
CONGRESS COULD CLOSE THE “ENRON LOOPHOLE” AND REIN IN OIL SPECULATION

Many of these trades are exempt from CFTC oversight, and Congress is racing to pass laws to change that:
The Enron loophole, the London loophole, the swaps loophole, among others, are on the block in bipartisan
bills pending in both the House and Senate.Before 2000, federal regulators limited the number of contracts
that commodity traders could enter into as a way to prevent excessive speculation. But the "Enron loophole"
— a provision that Congress wrote into the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 at the urging of
the now-defunct energy trader — exempts electronic energy exchanges from most federal regulatory
oversight.
SAUDI ARABIA IS INCREASING PRODUCTION TO CURB HIGH OIL PRICES
BLOOMBERG.COM 7-24-08
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, plans to raise production for a third-straight
month in July and make further increases as needed to curb record prices.
The kingdom will raise daily crude output by 200,000 barrels to 9.7 million barrels next
month, Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi told officials from 35 producing and consuming countries
at a summit yesterday in the Red Sea port of Jeddah. OPEC President Chakib Khelil and
ministers from Venezuela and Libya said the Saudi initiative would fail to lower prices, blaming
oil's climb above $130 a barrel on speculation, rather than a lack of crude.
47
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
ANS. TO – POWER PROJECTION ADV.
ALTERNATE CAUSE – AIR POWER PROJECTION CAPABILITY CONSTRAINED BY

RECENT AWARD OF RE-FUELING TANKER CONTRACTS TO FOREIGN OWNED FIRMS
BOLTON 6-17-08
(http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.28154/pub_detail.asp,JOHN, AEI – THE

HIDDEN SECURITY RISK)
The most sensible line to draw is around those technologies essential to America's massive
force-projection capabilities, the sub-nuclear military attribute that justifiably distinguishes the
United States as the world's sole superpower. No other NATO member, except Britain and
France in limited ways, has such a capability, and outside NATO, only Russia currently has it to
a significant extent. Central to sustained force projection is the ability of U.S. air and naval
assets to range around the globe--attacking far-away targets; inserting, supplying and
protecting friendly ground forces; and acting as a critical deterrent to possible threats.And
central to these global capacities is the seemingly prosaic task of keeping our air and naval
fleets safely refueled. The U.S. Navy over the years shifted from sail to coal to oil, and now to
nuclear power for many of its blue-water ships, reducing the need for refueling stations
around the world. Our air assets, however, do not have that flexibility. Aerial refueling is the
blue-sky equivalent of nuclear propulsion for our blue-water navy.There is no justification for
putting this unimaginably important capability at risk by manufacturing critical elements of it
abroad. It is not enough to say that EADS is largely owned by allies of the United States,
because we may well differ with allies on key issues of national security. Consider, for example
the widely differing views between America and "Europe" on Arab-Israeli affairs, on NATO
expansion, on Iran's nuclear program, or on a host of other issues. Moreover, Russia is a five-
percent owner of EADS. For those who may have forgotten, Russia is not a NATO ally. Finally,
of course, ownership structures in EADS may change, and not necessarily for the better.The
United States simply cannot risk being denied full access to the aerial-refueling planes and
spare parts at times of risk. And yet that is precisely the outcome we will face if awarding the
tanker contract to Northrop/EADS is sustained.
ALTERNATE CAUSE – THE U.S. AIR FORCE IS OUT DATED
48
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
ANS. TO – POWER PROJECTION ADV
TURN -DOD FOCUS ON SYNTHETIC FUELS DIVERTS FOCUS FROM ENERGY

EFFICIENCY AND DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ALTERNATIVES
The government sponsored reports seem to indicate, with limited exceptions,

that DOD should consider various options for reducing its reliance on fossil fuels.
Aviation fuel in particular is viewed as a primary target of that reduction as it
accounts for the largest share of fuel consumed by the department. Generally, DOD
has several available methods for decreasing its use of petroleum-based aviation fuel.
They can be placed in two categories: 1) increasing the use and supply of alternative
fuels and 2) decreasing the demand for petroleum-based fuel.
In the first category, options include producing synthetic fuel from coal, natural
gas, and biomass, as well as hydrogen fuel cells. In the second category, DOD can
use various existing technologies to increase the fuel-efficiency of weapon systems
and modify operating procedures and polices to use less fuel. All the options have
limitations and none provide a perfect solution.
Whether it is more prudent to aggressively pursue alternative fuels or
concentrate resources on decreasing the department’s fuel demand is a matter of
debate. There are many who suggest that DOD can spur the development of a viable
domestic Coal-To-Liquid industry. Others suggest that developing such an industry
would contribute to carbon emissions and divert funds from the development of
alternative fuels produced from renewable sources as well as from efforts to increase
the fuel-efficiency of weapon systems. The following is a discussion of the most
frequently cited options.
49
UTNIF 2008
CTL FUEL AFF
RISK OF ENERGY SHORTAGE IS LOW – DOD SHOULD FOCUS ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY,

NOT ALTERNATIVE FUELS
The JASON report, Reducing DOD

Fossil Fuel Dependence, asserted that an energy shortage was unlikely in the near
term to hinder DOD operations and emphasized the value of optimizing the energy
efficiency of weapon systems over pursuing alternative fuels at this time.14 The
Defense Task Force on Energy Security was an internal cross-functional group that
looked at energy use throughout the department.15 It presented three
recommendations: 1) increase the energy efficiency of weapon systems, 2) accelerate
energy-saving initiatives for facilities, and 3) establish an alternative fuels programs.
The most recent government sponsored report, completed in April 2007 by LMI
Government Consulting, Inc. (LMI), identified areas in which DOD’s energy goals
are not synchronized with their current practices and recommended actions to address
the misalignment.16 Each of these studies is more fully examined below.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF WEAPONS SYSTEMS IS MORE PRESSING THAN ALT FUELS
DOD fuel costs, though high, represent only about 2.5-3% of

the DOD budget and should not be a “primary decision driver at present.”
JASON determined that other fuel related issues such as life-cycle costs of weapon
systems and the supply chain (in terms of both money and human life) were more
significant and compelling factors but that the cost of fuel may become a significant
issue in the future. They further noted that the number of Air Force aircraft, the
largest source of fuel consumption in DOD, is expected to decline significantly in the
next several decades, which should result in a corresponding decrease in fuel use.20
50

CTL Aff

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CTL Aff

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UTNIF 2008

CTL FUEL AFF

DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL HAS CREATED DANGEROUS VULNERABILITIES FOR

MAINTENANCE OF U.S. ABILITY TO PROJECT POWER IS ESSENTIAL TO A

KAGAN, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International

NUCLEAR WAR MUST BE PREVENTED - IT WILL LEAD TO EXTINCTION OF

SUB-POINT B. THE COMMERCIAL AVIATION INDUSTRY

COMMERCIAL AVIATION IS THE KEY TO U.S. ECONOMIC DOMINANCE

THIS IS POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC TO THE ECONOMY AS COMMERCIAL

GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE = MASS GENOCIDE AND NUCLEAR WAR

THEREFORE W E PRESENT THE FOLLOWING PLAN: THE UNITED STATES

FEDERAL INCENTIVES COULD BE EXPANDED TO MAKE AN FT/CTL MARKET VIABLE

COAL COMPANIES NEED FEDERAL INDUCEMENTS TO JUMP START THE CTL

ANDREWS, 5-29-07 (EDMUND, NEW YORK TIMES, “LAWMAKERS PUSH FOR

FEDERAL INCENTIVES ARE KEY TO THE CTL INDUSTRY – WITHOUT USFG

Chandler, May 2007 (JEROME, Air Transport World,”Fueling the Future”)

ESLER, 9-17-08 (DAVID, AVIATION WEEK, google it)

BEZDEK, 4-12-07 (www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/ Bezdek/US-

U.S. AIRLINES CONCERNED ABOUT

INDIVIDUAL AIRLINES ARE ENCOURAGING

RESPONSE TO: CTL = INCREASE CO2

CTL FUEL PRODUCES LESS CO2 THAN STANDARD AVIATION FUEL

There are many positive qualities associated with Coal-To-Liquid (CTL)

Challenges involved with the large-scale production of F-T fuel may

AIR FORCE R + D CAN DEVELOP GREEN FUEL FROM COAL

BROWN, 3-22-08 (Matthew, Associated Press, USA Today)

R + D WILL REDUCE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT OF CTL BASED SYNFUELS

ESLER, 9-17-08 (DAVID, AVIATION WEEK, google it)

SOLVENCY EXT –MILITARY SHIFT =PRIVATE INDUSTRY SHIFT TO ALT. FUELS

MILITARY DEVELOPMENT OF FUEL DIVERSITY WILL CATALYZE A SHIFT FOR

FED ACTION KEY TO COMMERICAL AVIATION

CHANDLER 5-’07 (JEROME, AIR TRANSPORT WORLD, p. 38)

SOLVENCY EXT -AIR POWER KEY TO POWER PROJECTION

AIR POWER, SPECIFICALLY, IS CRITICAL FOR DETERRENCE AND CRISIS

Khalilzad and Lesser , 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers – Rand,

SOLVENCY EXT – AIR POWER KEY TO POWER PROJECTION

AIR POWER IS ESSENTIAL TO LOW U.S. CASUALTIES WHICH ENABLES LONG

US Airpower is key to global power projection

SOLVENCY EXT – CTL FUEL = U.S. ENERGY SECURITY

COAL TO LIQUIDS COALITION ’08 (www.futurecoalfuels.org,

REDUCING DOD RELIANCE ON AVIATION FUEL WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN THE

ADV EXTENSION – AIRLINES KEY TO ECON

OIL DEPENDENCY DECREASES POWER PROJECTION

FUEL DEPENDENCE CARRIES HIGH COSTS IN COMBAT CAPABILITY – OPERATIONAL

SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS TO DOD INSTALLATIONS IS A REAL THREAT

DEPLOYED FORCES ARE VULNERABLE TO SUPPLY DISRUPTIONS

THE ABILITY OF THE U.S. TO PROJECT POWER IS INHIBITED BY FUEL DEPENDENCY

OIL DEPENDENCY ADV. – ECONOMY INTERNAL

HIGH OIL PRICES ENCOURAGE ATTACKS ON OIL INFRASTRUCTURE – AN ATTACK

OIL DEPENDENCY EXT – JET FUEL PRICE WILL INCREASE

DEMAND FOR JET FUEL SET TO INCREASE, STRAINING U.S. SUPPLIES

ESLER, 9-17-08 (DAVID, AVIATION WEEK, google it)

POWER PROJECTION ADV – EXT

RESPONSE TO “ALT CAUSE – IRAQ FAILURES ARE CONSTRAINING U.S.POWER”

IN SPITE OF IRAQ, AMERICAN POWER IS CAPABLE OF PROJECTING FORCE

POWER PROJECTION ADV- RESPONSE TO – “USAF” OUTDATED

AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION PLANS ARE ON TRACK

MAGNUSON, ’06 (STEW, APRIL, NATIONAL DEFENSE, “AIR FORCE MODERNIZATION

RENEWABLES SHIFT DISAD – AFF ANSWERS

NO INTERNAL LINK - U.S. INCENTIVES NOT KEY TO THE RENEWABLES

FORBES 6-18-08 (FORBES.COM, WASHINGTON FAILS RENWABLE ENERGY AGAIN,

TAYLOR 4-1-06 (JAMES, ENVIRONMENT AND CLIMATE NEWS,

SEE THE NUKE POWER AFF + CO2 DA FROM THE INDIAN