Australian Coal Prices Da

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Coal Prices DA Coal Prices DA................................................................................................................................................................1 *** Main ***..................................................................................................................................................................3 Australia DA – 1NC........................................................................................................................................................3 High coal prices are driving Australian growth..........................................................................................................3 Australia DA – 1NC........................................................................................................................................................4 Coal exports are vital to Australian growth................................................................................................................4 Australian economic collapse destroys ANZUS and relations with the U.S..............................................................4 Australia DA – 1NC........................................................................................................................................................5 That sparks Asian wars...............................................................................................................................................5 Goes nuclear................................................................................................................................................................5 *** Uniqueness ***........................................................................................................................................................7 U – Coal Prices High......................................................................................................................................................7 Domino reaction of oil and gas drove up prices of coal in the US.............................................................................7 Coal prices are rising daily .........................................................................................................................................7 Coal price will be solid high in 2008..........................................................................................................................7 U – Coal Prices High......................................................................................................................................................8 Global demand for coal keeps prices high..................................................................................................................8 Australian Coal prices are at an all-time high.............................................................................................................8 U – Coal Prices High......................................................................................................................................................9 Coal prices high now and expected to continue rising................................................................................................9 The trend of coal prices shows a massive increase.....................................................................................................9 U – Yes US/Australia Relations....................................................................................................................................10 US-Australian alliance high now due to bipartisan support in both countries..........................................................10 US-Australian relations will advance in energy policies and global stability after Bush leaves presidency............10 U – Australian Economy High......................................................................................................................................11 Australian economy performance will be strong for 2008........................................................................................11 Rise in trades strengthen Australian economy in 2008.............................................................................................11 *** Links ***................................................................................................................................................................12 Link – Alternative Energy.............................................................................................................................................12 Alternative policies to replace traditional coal trades off with US investment in Australian coal...........................12 Low coal prices sacrifices Australian economy for renewable ................................................................................12 Investors will stop investing in Australian coal as we shift towards renewable energies.........................................12 Link – Alternative Energy.............................................................................................................................................13 Renewable energy will displace coal........................................................................................................................13 Renewable energy, especially solar and wind, will replace Australian coal industry..............................................13 Link – Solar Power.......................................................................................................................................................14 As solar power prices decline due to demands the price of coal drops due to the lack of demand..........................14 Solar energy will displace coal imports....................................................................................................................14 Link – RPS....................................................................................................................................................................15 Renewable Portfolio Standards decrease demand for coal which decreases the price.............................................15 Renewable Portfolio Standards decrease the price of coal.......................................................................................15 Link – Efficiency..........................................................................................................................................................16 Energy efficiency programs reduce the demand for coal..........................................................................................16 Link- Carbon Tax..........................................................................................................................................................17 Carbon tax cripples Australian coal demands...........................................................................................................17 *** Internals ***...........................................................................................................................................................18 US Key to Australian Coal............................................................................................................................................18 US coal investment key to Australian coal exportation industry..............................................................................18 US commitment in Australian coal industry key to global coal demands................................................................18 Coal Key Australian Economy.....................................................................................................................................19 Coal exportation stabilizes trade deficits in Australia...............................................................................................19 Coal plays a crucial role in Australian economy through exportation and employment..........................................19 Global coal price reduction kills Australian economy..............................................................................................19 Coal production is a major foundation of Australia’s economy. .............................................................................20

1

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA Australia’s economy is dependent on coal exporting...............................................................................................20 Coal Exports Key US/Australia....................................................................................................................................21 Australian exportation trades is key to Australian-US relations...............................................................................21 Stable coal prices are key to the world economy......................................................................................................21 Exporting coal drives Australia’s economy..............................................................................................................21 Coal Export Key to International Relations..................................................................................................................22 Coal exports are key to maintaining Australian international relations....................................................................22 *** Impacts ***............................................................................................................................................................23 Australian Economy Key to Australian-US Trades......................................................................................................23 Strong Australian economy key to maintaining trades with the US.........................................................................23 US/Australia Good – Democracy.................................................................................................................................24 US-Australian relations promotes democracy .........................................................................................................24 US-Australia Good – China..........................................................................................................................................25 U.S.-Australian relations deter Chinese expansionism.............................................................................................25 US-Australia Good – Terrorism....................................................................................................................................26 U.S.-Australian cooperation is critical to an effective war on terrorism..................................................................26 US-Australia Good – Terrorism....................................................................................................................................27 US-Australia Good – Power Projection in Asia............................................................................................................29 ANZUS is critical to U.S. power projection in Asia.................................................................................................29 US-Australia Good – Power Projection in Asia............................................................................................................30 US-Australia Good – Power Projection in Asia............................................................................................................31 US-Australia Good – NMD..........................................................................................................................................32 U.S.-Australian relations key to the effectiveness of NMD.....................................................................................32 US-Australia Good – NMD..........................................................................................................................................33 NMD prevents nuclear and biological volleys that culminate in Armageddon ......................................................33 US-Australian Trade Good-Global Economy...............................................................................................................34 US-Australian trade strengthens alliance and global economy ................................................................................34 US-Australian Trade Good-US Economy.....................................................................................................................35 US-Australian trade strengthens US economy .........................................................................................................35 Economic collapse leads to nuclear war...................................................................................................................35 A2: ANZUS Bad – Regional Trade-Off.......................................................................................................................36 Strong ties with the U.S. don’t trade off with Australian regional influence............................................................36 DA Turns the Case-Increase in Emission.....................................................................................................................37 Declines in Australian coal exports increase carbon emission ...............................................................................37 *** Aff Answers ***....................................................................................................................................................38 N/U – Coal Prices Low.................................................................................................................................................38 Coal prices are decreasing by 20%...........................................................................................................................38 While coal prices might be temporarily increasing, the overall trend is towards a decrease...................................38 China is insisting on lower coal prices from Australia.............................................................................................38 N/U – Australian Economy Low..................................................................................................................................39 Australia’s economy is failing now..........................................................................................................................39 Business growth collapse puts Australian economic inflation .................................................................................39 Inflation remains high in Australia till 2009.............................................................................................................39 N/U – Coal Disruptions Now........................................................................................................................................40 Non-unique- Australia has faced loss in coal supply, could last several more years................................................40 Link Answers................................................................................................................................................................41 Taxes on CO2 emissions cause coal prices to rise....................................................................................................41 No Link – RPS..............................................................................................................................................................42 Renewable portfolio standards have no overall change in coal prices......................................................................42 RPS will not harm coal consumption .......................................................................................................................42 Global Economy Turns Australia.................................................................................................................................43 Australia’s economy is dependent on the international economy.............................................................................43 US-Australian Relations Increase Terrorism................................................................................................................44

2

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA *** Main ***

Australia DA – 1NC High coal prices are driving Australian growth Chris Richardson, Access Economics, “Global Economy A Cause For Concern” ABC Transcripts (Australia), 71-2008, Lexis CHRIS RICHARDSON ACCESS ECONOMICS: I think they're right to be worried about the potential for more problems on markets. I'm less clear that there are bigger problems ahead for the world economy. Yes, the US is in recession, yes, Japan and Europe are weak, but the emerging economies, particularly China and India, are still travelling at pace. And that means, as far as Australia is concerned, our global backdrop remains surprisingly strong and things like oil prices are high for the same reason that coking coal prices are high. Mostly because of strength in the emerging nations rather than fears over Israel and Iran, but those things are important, but it's the strength in the emerging world which is the main driver and I think the best buffer against the sorts of risks that BIS report's talking about.

3

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Australia DA – 1NC Coal exports are vital to Australian growth Dr. Lila Gurba, Research Manager – Cooperative Research Centre for Coal in Sustainable Development, “Australia–Indonesia Joint Symposium In Science And Technology”, 9-13-2006, http://www.science.org.au/events/indonesia/gurba.htm Australian context Australia has a very substantial coal resource, with significant reserves of both black and brown coal. Black coal currently provides 60 per cent of Australia's electricity. Australia derives significant economic benefit from the competiveness and reliability of its coal-based electricity supply sector. Australia is the world's largest coal exporter making coal vital to the national economy. Australia's large coal resources are low in sulphur and trace elements and are exploited using the best practise in mining.

Australian economic collapse destroys ANZUS and relations with the U.S. Rod Lyon, IR – U Queensland and William Tow, Prof IR – U Queensland, The Future of the Australian-U.S. Security Relationship, 2003, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB50.pdf

Some Australian officials also speak of Australia’s continuing impressive economic growth as an important determinant of a larger strategic role. As the Australian economy continues to show good growth figures over a long period, when many of the world’s major economies have been stagnant, it has offered Australian policymakers both a larger sense of Australia’s role in the world and the resources necessary to underpin an expanded role. The Australian intervention in East Timor in 1999 constituted a harbinger of that larger role; in the post-September 11 world an expansive policy of Australian global and regional engagement―in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Solomon Islands―is even more evident. [Continues…] The Australian defense budget might still have some upside in it, but it must reflect the overall health of the Australian economy. Defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) is still low, in part because the defense increases outlined and approved in the 2000 White Paper have been affordable from GDP growth. But the government is cautious about any dramatic longterm increase in defense spending, uncertain of the actual level of public support during a decade when the nation’s “baby boomers” will be starting to move into retirement and impose higher costs on welfare budget items. [Continues…] Australia’s overall strategic policy direction bodes well for the future of ANZUS. Its shift from a concentric circles posture to one reflecting a more balanced approach between global and regional contingencies, many of which involve asymmetrical threats, is compatible with the U.S. force structure reorientation toward fighting more low intensity conflicts against hostile nonstate actors and occasional mid-to-high intensity conflicts against “rogue states” or other anti-Western forces.45 Australia’s new proactive defense identity in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific and, even more centrally, its willingness to participate in American-led military coalitions even without UN support, correlate directly with traditional American concerns about allied loyalty and defense burden-sharing. Latent policy hazards such as leadership disillusionment or economic pressures could yet create future ANZUS crises. Over the nearterm, however, such developments appear unlikely as the nature of currently emerging threats predicate closer rather than qualified security cooperation among the world’s developed states and as Australia endeavors to reconcile its international security objectives with finite resources and capabilities.

4

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Australia DA – 1NC Australian interdependence with the U.S. through ANZUS is vital to control security threats. Lyon and Tow (lecturer of IR @ the U of Queensland; prof. of IR @ U of Queensland) 2003 (Rod and William, “The Future of the Australian-U.S. Security Relationship”, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB50.pdf) accessed 7/2/08 Yet a more intimate relationship is possible. The theme of defense self-reliance has been superceded by events and new thinking in Australian security policy. The theme was instrumental in allowing Australia to cast off its dependency on great and powerful friends in the 1970s and 1980s, but strategic interdependence is an increasingly sound strategic recipe for the challenges

of the 21st century. The ANZUS alliance will remain central to Australian security policy for three key reasons: the nature of the emerging security threat which is asymmetrical and global; Western defensive technological evolution towards network-centric warfare; and the inability of autonomous security policies and “orphan” capital equipment to provide a competent defense even of continental Australia. Rather, we expect a doctrine of interdependence must play a larger role in Australian security policy. Such essential interdependence will clearly pose serious tests for Australian policymakers, in large part because self-reliance previously assumed such a prominent position in the Australian 35 strategic lexicon. It makes more necessary the nurturing of a greater level of bipartisanship within the Australian body politic about the advantages of interdependence and the imperatives of good alliance management. The payoff of such an

effort will be sustained ANZUS credibility and viability―an outcome that should advantage both countries’ ability to anticipate and confront those contingencies that will inevitably emerge to challenge their shared aspirations and their security.

That sparks Asian wars Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. “The Australia-United States Alliance and East Asian Security,” Speech at the University of Sydney conference, 6-29-2001 I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty and the alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable trade-offs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining strong relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest that the depth and strength of our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense. In fact, ANZUS was seen from the outset as a means of enhancing our ties with the region: Percy Spender, who pushed so strongly to conclude the ANZUS Treaty, did so with a clear and expressed conviction that Australia’s destiny was bound up with Asia. He saw the Australia – US alliance as a linchpin for stability in the region. On the eve of his departure for the Colombo Conference in January 1950, Spender said that “Australia and the United States of America are the two countries which can, in co-operation one with the other, make the greatest contribution to stability and to democratic development of the countries of South-East Asia.” This was 13 months before the crucial Canberra negotiations at which the fundamentals of ANZUS were hammered out.

Goes nuclear Paul Dibb, Prof – Australian National University, Strategic Trends: Asia at a Crossroads, Naval War College Review, Winter 2001, http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Winter/art2-w01.htm The areas of maximum danger and instability in the world today are in Asia, followed by the Middle East and parts of the former Soviet Union. The strategic situation in Asia is more uncertain and potentially threatening than anywhere in Europe. Unlike in Europe, it is possible to envisage war in Asia involving the major powers: remnants of Cold War ideological confrontation still exist across the Taiwan Straits and on the Korean Peninsula; India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and these two countries are more confrontational than at any time since the early

5

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

1970s; in Southeast Asia, Indonesia—which is the world’s fourth-largest country—faces a highly uncertain future that could lead to its breakup. The Asia-Pacific region spends more on defense (about $150 billion a year) than any other part of the world except the United States and Nato Europe. China and Japan are amongst the top four or five global military spenders. Asia also has more nuclear powers than any other region of the world. Asia’s security is at a crossroads: the region could go in the direction of peace and cooperation, or it could slide into confrontation and military conflict. There are positive tendencies, including the resurgence of economic growth and the spread of democracy, which would encourage an optimistic view. But there are a number of negative tendencies that must be of serious concern. There are deep-seated historical, territorial, ideological, and religious differences in Asia. Also, the region has no history of successful multilateral security cooperation or arms control. Such multilateral institutions as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the ASEAN Regional Forum have shown themselves to be ineffective when confronted with major crises.

6

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA *** Uniq ueness ***

U – Coal Prices High Domino reaction of oil and gas drove up prices of coal in the US Mining Exploration News (Environmental Group News Service) May 1 2008 (“Coal Price in World Market and Trade Higher-Coal,” Mining Exploration News, May 1 2008, http://paguntaka.org/2008/05/01/coal-price-in-world-market-and-trade-higher/) Assessed June 29 2008 As consumers struggle to get used to $4-a-gallon gasoline, there’s another source of energy that is becoming more expensive: coal. The price of a ton of Central Appalachian coal on the futures market was $42.65 a year ago and has risen to around $96, according to figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That increase comes at a time when crude-oil prices have roughly doubled and natural-gas prices have risen more than 40 percent. “Crude oil rises up and then natural gas rises up and when natural gas gets crazy, it’s coal,” said Tony Kolton, the president of Chicago-based Logical Information Machines Inc., which provides analysis of commodity trends. “It’s like dominoes.” The rise in coal prices could eventually be bad news for residential and business electrical customers since coal is used to fire many of the electrical generating plants in the United States. Consolidated Edison Inc., the giant Manhattan-based utility company, gets 11 percent of its electricity from plants fired by coal. Orange and Rockland Utilities Inc., the Con Edison subsidiary that serves Rockland County, said coal accounts for the biggest piece of its electricity portfolio, about 30 percent, followed by natural gas at 24 percent.

Coal prices are rising daily Greg Edwards (Staff Writer of Media General News) March 8 2008 (“High coal price may cost you,” Media General Communications Holdings, LLC, March 8 2008, http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-03-08-0039.html) Assessed June 29 2008 An upward trend in coal prices could mean higher electricity bills for consumers. The cash price for coal that utilities burn to generate electricity exceeded $101 per ton this week at a West Virginia mine served by Norfolk Southern Railway. The price was reported yesterday in Platts, a trade publisher for the energy industry. The price adds an exclamation point to a trend that saw the average price of highquality, Central Appalachian coal climb from less than $50 per ton on the spot, or cash, market in October to roughly $85 per ton at the end of February. High-heat, low-sulfur coal from Central Appalachian mines is popular with utilities because it burns cleaner and helps them comply with federal clean-air rules. Five years ago, the same coal was selling for around $30 per ton. With half the state's and half the nation's electricity produced from coal, the price trend could mean higher electricity prices for Virginians. Utilities generally are allowed to pass along the increased cost of fuel for their power plants.

Coal price will be solid high in 2008 David Hannon (Staff Writer of Purchasing News Service) Jan 1 2008 (“Xstrata plans to capitalize on high coal prices,” Reed Business Information, Jan 17 2008, http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6518805.html) Assessed June 29 2008 Xstrata, the world's largest exporter of thermal coal, says with global coal prices expected to stay firm in 2008, it will increase its production capacity by 44% to 40 million metric tons in the next three to five years. In a recent Reuters report, Garry Beck, general manager of marketing for Xstrata, said, "We believe that the tightness in today's market reflecting in record spot prices up to $200 indicated that the 2007 price reduction was an over-correction. Ongoing undersupply of prime hard coking coals and current spot pricing in our view points to a very strong price outlook for 2008."

7

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

U – Coal Prices High Global demand for coal keeps prices high IB Times (International Business Times, Business News Service) March 24 2008 (“US to become a major exporter of coal in 2008,” International Business Times, March 24 2008, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080324/commodity-online-new-york-steady-demand-utilities_2.htm) Assessed June 29 2008 NEW YORK: Steady demand from utilities and surging global demand for coal will push up prices of coal in United States, the one fossil fuel the country has in abundance. United States is all set to become major exporter for the first time ever since 1990 s thanks to the vast reorganization of global coal trade. Coal has long been a cheap and plentiful fuel source for utilities and their customers, helping to keep U.S. electric bills relatively low. With global demand rising for coal, it is becoming another hot global commodity, with domestic buyers having to compete with buyers from countries such as Germany and Japan. Environmental concerns have forced some U.S. utilities to cut back plans for coal burning power plants. The prospect of electricity prices shooting up in USA with in a three year period cannot be ruled out if domestic prices of coal were to rise. Coal and utility executives predict that coal will remain the most economical fuel in years to come.

Australian Coal prices are at an all-time high Macdonald-Smith (Energy Writer at Bloomberg News, degree from Victoria University of Wellington) 2007 (Angela, “Australian Coal Prices Reach Record”, The International Herald Tribune, October 30th, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/29/bloomberg/sxcoal.php) accessed June 30, 2008. Energy coal prices at the port of Newcastle, Australia, the world's biggest export harbor for the fuel, rose 1.3 percent to a record on expectations of supply shortages in Asia and a disruption to deliveries from a Queensland State mine. Coal for immediate delivery at Newcastle rose 96 cents to $76.95 a metric ton in the week ended last Friday, according to the globalCOAL NEWC Index. The previous all-time high was $76.16 reached two weeks ago. Supply has struggled to meet demand this year because of bottlenecks in producer countries like Australia and South Africa, and as China became a net importer of coal for the first time. Anglo American, the world's second-biggest mining company, last week declared force majeure on shipments from the Dawson mine in Queensland. "It's the expectations that demand continues to outpace supply so the market is in deficit; it's about people's perceptions of what is around the corner," Rory Simington, a senior coal analyst at AME Mineral Economics in Sydney, said of the record price. "We're coming into a period of higher demand, winter is approaching, and people are wondering where the additional supply is going to come from." Japanese power generators may accept a 22 percent increase in the contract price of coal in the year starting April 1 amid the supply constraints, Citigroup said in a report Friday. The bank forecast prices will be set at $67 a ton, from $55 this year. "Producers are well placed" for negotiations, two Citigroup analysts, Alan Heap and Alex Tonks, said in the report. AME is more bullish, forecasting contract prices next year may be at least $70 a ton. "There's a good chance it's going to have a seven in front of it, a very good chance," Simington said. "We have increased our price forecast a couple of times. We've been surprised by the strength of the prices."

8

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

U – Coal Prices High Coal prices high now and expected to continue rising Mukumbira (Namibian journalist and economist, Diploma in Journalism and Democracy , United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Certificate in Environmental Reporting ) 2008 (Rodrick, “Cheap coal fast becoming history”, May 20, http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=53328&sn=Detail) accessed June 30, 2008. Cheap coal is fast becoming history, with its market - currently going through a period rapid price increases unlikely to peak anytime soon due to the ongoing market dynamics. Although still in the early days of the second quarter, 2008 has so far been an eventful year for the coal market. Even so, all is not well within the ranks of major coal producing countries. Australia has just seen some major weather related production interruptions through flooding, while China, India and South Africa need their coal for domestic electricity generation. This has resulted in the price of coal soaring by hundreds of percent - especially for coking coal, which is used by steelmakers. In less than a year, hard coking coal prices have moved from US$85 to US$98 a ton to the current range of between US$285 to US$300 a ton, depending on the location of the supplier. Some producers are already demanding up to US$350 a ton, higher than the benchmark set by BHP Billiton Ltd., the world's largest mining company, in April

The trend of coal prices shows a massive increase Sassooon (Undergrad degree from Harvard University, Masters degree from Columbia University's journalism school) 2008 (David, “Party’s Over: Coal Prices up 143%, Never Again to be Cheap”, February 12, http://solveclimate.com/blog/20080212/partys-over-coal-prices-143-never-again-be-cheap) accessed June 30, 2008. The price for a ton of coal has doubled in the United States since January 2007. It has risen 143% in Asia during the same period. Over the last five years, the price has gone from about $20/ton to more than $120/ton there, an increase of 600%. Given surging demand in China that is not likely to relent, growing expansion of coal use in India, and challenges facing global suppliers in Australia, Russia and South Africa, it looks like the price of the fuel that supplies 40% of the world's electricity is on a permanently upward trajectory.

9

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

U – Yes US/Australia Relations US-Australian alliance high now due to bipartisan support in both countries Australian Broadcasting Corporation (Australian News Broadcast) 2008 (“Stephen Smith defends strength of Australian-US alliance,” Huliq News, Jan 25 2008, http://www.huliq.com/48375/stephensmith-defends-strength-australianus-alliance) Assessed July 1 2008 Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith says the strength of Australia's alliance with the United States will continue, despite the change of government. Opposition spokesman Andrew Robb says the Federal Government has sent a lot of mixed signals about Australia's relationship with the US. He says it is critical the strong ties developed between former prime minister John Howard and US President George W Bush are not damaged. But Mr Smith has told Sky Television the Australian-US alliance is above partisan politics. "The alliance is supported by Republicans and Democrats in the United States and it's supported by Labor and Liberals in Australia," he said. "The base of the alliance of course was effected by the Labor prime minister John Curtin in the course of World War II, so it is one of the fundamental pillars." Mr Smith is in the United States for a series of meetings with officials from the United Nations and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. He says he is looking forward to working with the US administration. "The purpose of the visit is to, one, make the point that our alliance with the United States transcends Labor or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, but [also] to make contact with the current administration," he said. "There is effectively 12 months [of the Bush administration] to go and we already have, in terms of contact, a very good relationship with the current administration."

US-Australian relations will advance in energy policies and global stability after Bush leaves presidency The Fiji Times (News Source Online) 2008 (“The Kevin Rudd Alliance,” The Fiji Times Online, June 30 2008, http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=93651) THE 2008 US election is both an end and a renewal in terms of Australian-US relations. It is the final curtain on the uncritical intimacy of the Bush-Howard era and creates the opportunity for Kevin Rudd to put his personal stamp on the American connection. Rudd will seize this opportunity. The departure of George W. Bush early in Rudd's prime ministership is a gift for Labor. It removes a US president deeply unpopular with the Labor Party, the Australian people and much of the world. The contest between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama is a race between two quality candidates who have lived extraordinary lives to become contenders for the presidency. Not even the inevitable mudslinging will obscure that this contest is about change and renewal. With polls showing that 80 per cent of Americans feel their country is on the wrong track, the symbols and reality of a new start are at a premium. The arrival of a new president with a fresh mandate is the perfect recipe for Rudd. Any notion that Rudd will meekly put US relations on ice while he operates in East Asia is mocked by his history and outlook. Rudd understands that Australia's influence in

Washington has been riding a long upward cycle and that the US is pivotal to his ambitious foreign policy aspirations. Rudd's aim, contrary to some analysis, is not to put distance between Australia and the US but to inject relations with a new to identify new areas of strategic co-operation: think climate change, energy policy, managing China's rise, East Asian security and nuclear non-proliferation. It is a long list. Like John Howard, Rudd is a believer in the US relationship and he will become an activist with a new president. Rudd has managed Bush and their differences over Iraq with a disciplined political and intellectual vigour. Rudd wants a bond with the new president strong enough to disagree but, more significantly, strong enough

professionalism. His task was to avoid antagonising the Bush administration and he succeeded. But the pendulum is moving from managing risk to creating opportunities. The US election is the threshold to this new stage.

10

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

U – Australian Economy High Australian economy performance will be strong for 2008 ABC News (News Service) 2008 (“Aust Economy to Remain Strong: Report,” ABC News, Jan 22 2008, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/22/2143421.htm) Assessed July 2 2008 Director Chris Richardson says most states will perform well over the next financial year but with a few notable exceptions. "Victoria has dropped off the pace a little of late, New South Wales having been weak for several years now is slowly starting to show some signs of recovery," he said. He says predicted high consumer spending and Australia's strategic trade partnership with China will further buoy the national economy. "Despite a slow down in the United States, the back drop for Australia's 2008 is still very good." Queensland and Western Australia remain the country's best economic performers.

Rise in trades strengthen Australian economy in 2008 The Treasury (New Zealand Treasury Governmental Website) 2008 (“Special Topic: The Australian Economy,”Monthly Economic Indicators, May 2008, http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/mei/may08/03.htm) Assessed July 2 2008 The Australian economy has experienced a long period of strong expansion (Figure 4).

Real GDP in Australia has grown in each of the last 16 years at an average rate of 3.7% per annum, making it one of the strongest performers in the OECD over this period. Most recently, Australia has seen a rebound in growth from 2.7% in 2007 to 4.4% in 2008 (March years). By comparison, annual economic growth in New Zealand since 1991 was slightly lower (3.4%) and exhibited more volatility, partly due to a fall in real GDP in 1998 (due to a larger impact from the Asian Financial Crisis, tight monetary policy and consecutive droughts). Domestic demand has driven economic growth in Australia in recent years. While export growth in Australia has been dampened by a high exchange rate and low agricultural production due to drought conditions, consumer spending and investment have risen strongly as a result of factors such as a higher terms of trade, strong employment and wage growth, and high population growth. … as the terms of trade surged upwards … An important driver of recent developments in the Australian economy is a strong rise in the terms of trade. The terms of trade in Australia rose 41% in the past five years after falling over much of the 1990s (Figure 5). This strong rise has led to high growth in national incomes. The terms of trade in Australia have been lifted by sharply rising prices for commodity exports, which have benefited from a range of factors, especially growth in developing economies. World prices for Australian commodity exports rose sharply in the last five years, led by base metals. Prices for food commodities, which dominate commodity exports from New Zealand, also rose but not by as much as non-food commodities, hence the smaller rise in the terms of trade in New Zealand. Prices for Australia’s commodity exports have lifted further since the start of 2008 so, given the lags between spot prices and actual export prices, the terms of

trade in Australia are expected to continue rising.

11

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA *** Lin ks ***

Link – Alternative Energy Alternative policies to replace traditional coal trades off with US investment in Australian coal Marian Wikinson and Ben Cubby (Staff Writers of The Sydney Morning Herald) 2008 (“Clean coal dilemma as US cuts $2b project,” The Sydney Morning Herald,” Feb 5 2008, http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/clean-coal-dilemma-as-us-cuts-2bproject/2008/02/04/1202090322439.html) Assessed June 29 2008 THE Government is facing a tough decision over whether to continue funding the world's leading clean coal experiment after the Bush Administration ended its commitment to the $US1.8 billion ($2 billion) project, citing massive budget blow-outs. The US move is a grave setback for the Australian coal industry's hopes that a commercially-viable clean coal plant would be built in the foreseeable future. The US-led FutureGen project was embraced by the Howard government which pledged $15 million to it shortly before last year's election.

Low coal prices sacrifices Australian economy for renewable Lenore Taylor (Staff Writer of The Australian) 2008 (“Coal Union Push for Energy Target,” The Australian News, June 23 2008, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,2390638511949,00.html) Assessed June 30 2008 Now the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union has written to Senator Wong urging her to ignore this advice, arguing that a low initial price on carbon would encourage energy supply from gas, but do nothing to develop technologies that are necessary to deliver the far deeper cuts in emissions that will have to be made in the future. "If we remove the renewable target it will result in a substitution of gas for wind power and other forms of renewable energy," wrote CFMEU mining and energy division general president Tony Maher. "While that will result in a lowering of our average emissions it does not help to prepare the economy and the energy supply industry for the medium to long term."

Investors will stop investing in Australian coal as we shift towards renewable energies Sven Teske (Renewable Director of Greenpeace International) 2007 (“An Overdue Farewell for Old King Coal,” Sydney Morning Herald Newspaper, June 8 2007, http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/opinion/old-king-coal) Assessed June 30 2008 So what might global trends mean for Australians heading into a federal election? Investors will start to cool on coal companies that stake their futures on unproven and financially risky clean coal technology. Investors will compare the risks and likely delays in clean coal to the annual growth in solar and wind of more than 30 per cent over the next decade. When consumers understand that renewable energy offers more security, coal will begin to face real political trouble.

12

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Link – Alternative Energy Renewable energy will displace coal Union of Concerned Scientists, “Renewable Energy Can Help Ease Natural Gas Crunch”, 8/26/2005, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/renewable-energy-can-help-ease-natural-gascrunch.html. accessed 7/1/08 Because increased renewable energy use reduces the demand for natural gas, and creates new competitors to traditional power plants, increasing renewable energy would reduce natural gas prices. Achieving the 10 percent RES could reduce gas prices by 1.9 percent ($0.12 per million Btu) compared to business as usual in 2020. A 20 percent standard could reduce natural gas prices by as much as $0.25/million Btu, resulting in cumulative gas bill savings of $15 billion (Fig. 5) through 2025. Under current EIA forecasts, renewable energy begins to displace new coal-fired power plants (which become economically competitive) instead of natural gas facilities after 2020. As a result, renewable energy has less of an impact on natural gas prices in these later years, but it continues to provide total energy bill savings to consumers from lower electricity prices, and even greater air pollution reduction benefits. The analysis found that a 10 percent renewable standard would decrease electricity prices throughout the study period. Under a 20 percent standard, electricity prices would be lower than business as usual through 2018. Between 2019 and 2025, as renewable energy displaced more coal, electricity prices would increase slightly (7.0 ¢/kWh) compared to business as usual (6.9 ¢/kWh). Electricity prices under a 20 percent RES would still be 1.7 percent lower in 2025 compared to today’s prices. Cumulative electricity bill savings would reach $10.9 billion through 2025.

Renewable energy, especially solar and wind, will replace Australian coal industry MEFL (Moreland Energy Foundation: Energy and Environment Efficiency for Home and Business) 2006 (“Renewable Energy Can Replace Coal,” MEFL, 2006, http://www.mefl.com.au/documents/MW_renewable_baseload.pdf) Assessed July 1 2008 Renewable energy is big business. The solar and wind industries are amongst the fastest growing businesses in the world. Renewable energy is threatening the market share of the coal and nuclear industries globally. An estimated US $38 billion was invested in renewable energy plant in 2005 alone - up from $30 billion the previous year4. It’s because renewable energy can and is replacing fossil fuels that the fossil fuel based industries are fighting back to protect their market share. Their primary line of attack is to belittle renewable energy technologies and attempt to prevent progressive policy which fast-tracks renewable energy. By casting doubts in the public’s mind about whether renewable energy can deliver, the coal industry buys further delays in climate change action, while the nuclear industry attempts to recast itself as a climate change solution. In Australia the coal industry and the nuclear lobby have been very effective in controlling Federal energy policy, although some states are starting to support renewables. While Prime Minister Howard clearly continues to toe the coal industry line, he’s even being left behind by President Bush who recently declared that wind

power alone could meet 20% of the US’s massive energy needs.5 Renewable energy and energy savings programs can replace coal-fired generation in Australia. What’s lacking is not the technology – it’s the political will to make it happen.

13

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Link – Solar Power As solar power prices decline due to demands the price of coal drops due to the lack of demand Sam Dinkin (Staff Writer of The Space Review, Scientific Review) 2005 (“Rectifying the Case for beaming Lunar Solar Power,” The Space Review, April 11 2005, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/354/1) Assessed June 30 2008 One benefit that cannot be banked on (at least not without intervention or a complete turnover of the capital stock) is reduction of carbon pollution. Cost of coal is about nil. It is between $10–40/ton delivered. That generates about 25 million BTU, which converts into about 7,300 kWt-h or about 2,400 kWe-h. That puts it right around $0.01/kWe-h. If the cost of Lunar solar generated electricity dropped to that, coal would still be burned in about half the plants in America if we discount operating and maintenance costs. Since there is nothing really to do with coal if we don’t burn it, the price of coal would drop if we stop. The prices would drop to microprices.

Solar energy will displace coal imports Beeby (Science and Environment Reporter) 2008 (Rosslyn, “Solar thermal energy can 'replace coal in US'”, Canberra Times Australia, April 21, Lexis Nexis.) accessed 7/1/08 Solar thermal electricity can be the "big gorilla on the grid", replacing coal-fired power stations across the United States the world's biggest greenhouse polluter over the next 40 years, a leading Australian scientist says. California-based solar energy entrepreneur and former Sydney University physicist David Mills told a US energy conference solar power was the only technology capable of "almost eliminating" global warming caused by electricity generation by 2050. Solar thermal electricity could supply "the great majority" of the US electricity grid and " by logical extension those of China and India", as well as eliminating carbon emissions from cars by powering fast-recharging electric vehicles. Earlier this month, federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson described Australia as a fossil-fuel dependent economy, adding there was no alternative to building new coalfired power stations.Frustrated by a lack of federal funding for renewables, Dr Mills left Australia last year to base his solar energy company, Ausra, in California, after venture capitalists offered $US40million ($A43million) to bankroll his world-first technology. The company is currently building a 177-megawatt solar thermal plant to supply the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger launching the project last November. Addressing an International Energy Agency conference in California, Dr Mills said peer-reviewed research showed 90 per cent of US electric grid and car energy needs could be met by solar thermal power. "The US could nearly eliminate dependence on coal, oil and gas for electricity and transportation, drastically slashing global warming pollution without increasing costs for energy. "This new study shows that our daily and annual energy needs closely match the energy production potential from solar thermal power plants with heat energy storage, and our models show solar thermal power will cost less than continuing to import oil."

14

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Link – RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards decrease demand for coal which decreases the price Energy Information Administration, “Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard”, June 2007. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting U.S. Department of Energy

1

The increased use of renewable sources in the RPS case leads to lower coal generation. Nuclear and natural gas generation are also lowered to a lesser degree. Relative to the reference case, retail electricity prices rise by an average of 0.9 percent over the 2005 to 2030 period in the RPS case. Reduced demand for coal and natural gas in the RPS case results in slightly lower prices for these fuels by 2030 when compared to reference case projections.

Renewable Portfolio Standards decrease the price of coal Energy Information Administration, “Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard”, June 2007. Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting U.S. Department of Energy The shift away from coal to renewable fuels, together with the costs of retail electricity sellers holding RPS credits, affects electricity prices. In 2030, EIA projects the national average electricity price with the RPS to be 2 percent higher than in the reference case, i.e., 8.2 cents per kilowatthour with the RPS compared to 8.1 cents per kilowatthour in the reference case. By 2030, prices for natural gas and coal, two key fuels for the electric power sector, are lower with the RPS than in the reference case.

15

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Link – Efficiency Energy efficiency programs reduce the demand for coal David Swenson and Liesl Eathington, Swenson is the Regional Scientist/Research Scientist at the Department of Economics, Iowa State University, Eathington is the director of the Office of Social and Economic Trend Analysis at Iowa State University,”Statewide Economic Values of Alternative Energy Sources and Energy Conservation”, March 2002, http://www.nyserda.org/rps/iowaaltenergystatevaluereport.pdf accessed 7/1/08 Encourage energy efficiency programs that lead to further savings in importation of fuel, especially coal. Energy efficiency programs not only save money for energy consumers, but provide them with more disposable income to spend in the state. Conserving energy also reduces the demand for coal imports.

16

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Link- Carbon Tax Carbon tax cripples Australian coal demands Michelle Wiese Bockmann (Staff Writer of Dry Bulk News) 2008 (“Carbon Tax Threat Hangs Over Australian Coal Trade,” Lloyd’s List, June 16 2008, http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/viewArticle.htm? articleId=1213315162182&src= rss) Assessed July 2 2008 DEMAND for Australian coal could be crimped if major trading partners introduce a carbon tax, writes Michelle Wiese Bockmann. The country’s government commodity forecaster, ABARE, warned that long-term demand for coal exports remained high but told an industry conference last week to watch out for any introduction of a carbon tax overseas.

17

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA *** Internals ***

US Key to Australian Coal US coal investment key to Australian coal exportation industry Energy Information Administration (Governmental Official Energy Statistics) 1996 (“Privatization and Globalization of Energy Markets,” Energy Information Administration, October 1996, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/financial/060996.pdf) Assessed June 30 2008 Until recently, the United States was the world's primary source of coal exports. In 1970, the United States accounted for one-half of the international coal trade {see Endnote 293}. By 1994, the U.S. share of world coal trade had declined to 15 percent of the total. In 1986,

Australia supplanted the United States as the world's largest exporter of coal. As recently as 1980, U.S. coal exports had been double those of Australia. Coal is Australia's number one export {see Endnote 294}. Some of the companies most prominent in the U.S. coal industry are also prominent in Australia's coal industry, particularly that part of the industry directed towards export markets. As in the United States, foreign investment plays a key role in Australia's coal industry, further indicating how multinational in character world coal investment has become. Australia consumes less than a third of domestic production (versus 90 percent in the United States).

US commitment in Australian coal industry key to global coal demands AFP News (Global News Service) 2007 (“Anglo American buys most of Australian Coal Miner,” Agence France-Presses, Dec 21 2007, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jQu_xxrYSbdgijZgwSMCw6oSQ3Q) Assessed June 30 2008 LONDON (AFP) — Global mining giant Anglo American said Friday it had bought a 70-percent share in the Foxleigh coal mine in Queensland, northeastern Australia, for 620 million US dollars (432 million euros). The majority stake, acquired from independent group Bowen Basin Investment, will add to Anglo American's growing coal mining operations in the region, the company said in a statement. Foxleigh produces 2.5 million tonnes of coal annually for use in the production of steel. "The addition of Foxleigh is in line with Anglo American's strategic commitment to further grow our coal business in Australia in order to meet forecast increases in global demand for coal, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region," said Anglo American chief executive Cynthia Carroll.

18

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Coal Key Australian Economy Coal exportation stabilizes trade deficits in Australia Mining Exploration (Environmental Group News Service) 2008 (“Coal Mines and Mineral Export Help Australian Economic and Trade Deficit,” Mining Exploration, May 6 2008, http://paguntaka.org/2008/05/06/coal-mines-and-mineral-export-help-australian-economic-and-tradedeficit/) Assessed June 30, 2008 Bellow comment from Lehman Brothers economist Stephen Roberts in Sydney: Despite the somewhat better March trade position, the cumulative trade deficit in the three months to March widened sharply from the cumulative trade deficit for the three months ended December. Exports of goods and services climbed 4.4% from the previous month while imports grew 1.3%, the statistics bureau said.

Exports of coal rose 22.9% for the month, while mineral ores climbed 16.5%, reflecting a recovery in mine output after floods disrupted operations in Queensland last year.

Coal plays a crucial role in Australian economy through exportation and employment Australian Coal Association (Representatives of Australian Coal Producers) 2008 (“Coal Fact Australia 2008,” Australian Coal Association, Feb 2008, http://www.australiancoal.com.au/Pubs/COAL %20FACTS%20AUSTRALIA%202008%20Feb08-4.pdf) Assessed June 30 2008 Coal plays a pivotal role in the Australian economy. At $22.5 billion it is our largest single export, is used to generate 84% of Australia’s electricity and supports 130,000 employees. Use of coal in Australia contributes less than 0.5% to global greenhouse gas emissions. The coal industry is funding low emissions coal technologies, including the $1 billion plus COAL21 Fund. Coal reserves Black coal: 39.6 Gigatonnes (Gt.) economic demonstrated resources (EDR) - 5% of global. Reserves to production - more than 100 years. Brown coal: 37.3 Gt. EDR - 24% of global (largest holding globally). Reserves to production - more than 500 years (2006).

Global coal price reduction kills Australian economy Mark Simkin (Australian Broadcasting Channel Staff Writer) 2000 (“Union Calls Snap Strike to Protest Coal Price Cut,” ABC.net, February 7 2000, http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s98201.htm) Assessed July 2 2008 IAN DYMOCK: Any price reduction is disappointing, of course, but it was inevitable in view of the very difficult market we're operating in. The decline in prices reflects an over-supply of hard coal on work markets and price discounting by some suppliers in the markets outside of Japan. MARK SIMPKIN: Because BHP is such a big producer, it is one of the world's largest coal exports. The price cuts will

become a benchmark for the entire industry. Australian producers are still coming to terms with last year's 18 per cent cut in price, a decision that cost hundreds of jobs. Australian Unions estimate that 6,000 coal miners, one quarter of the national work force, have lost their jobs in the last two years and they predict today's announcement will mean further cutbacks.

19

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Coal Key Australian Economy Coal production is a major foundation of Australia’s economy. Australian Coal Association (an industry body representing black coal producers in Australia) 2008 (“The Australian Coal Industry”, June 2nd, http://www.australiancoal.com.au/publications.htm) accessed June 30, 2008. Mining of black coal is one of Australia's most important industries, creating significant employment in regional Australia, fuel for low-cost electricity generation and steel-making, and vital export income. Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter, and black coal is Australia's largest export, worth around $A24.5 billion in 2005-06. In addition to providing Australian consumers with affordable electricity, coal underpins the international competitiveness of the entire Australian economy. Black coal mining in Australia is an increasingly sophisticated, hi-tech activity. Continuous improvements in mining technology, occupational health and safety and environmental performance have ensured that Australia is the world's most efficient and reliable producer of high quality thermal and coking coals for the international market. The coal industry is supported by a strong equipment and services sector. Australia has world-class expertise in design, construction and operation of mines, transport systems and loading facilities. It also has expertise in training, technical support and project management. Since European settlement in Australia the coal industry has played a leading role in the development of some of the country's largest regional centres and major ports, particularly in NSW and Queensland. As those early mining centres become increasingly urbanised and the accessible deposits depleted, and as the transport infrastructure and mining methods have developed, companies have moved to develop the more remote deposits and, with them, the neighbouring rural communities. Coal mining operations in an area bring major flow-on benefits to all sectors of the community. Inevitably, the district's population increases and the medical, shopping, sporting and entertainment facilities are enhanced. Additional jobs are created in ancillary industries like engineering works and tyre and fuel suppliers. Mining companies also contribute directly to improving road, rail and air services. The Australian coal industry is also a major education sponsor, spending millions of dollars each year on training, scholarships and educational programmes and is a generous contributor to community projects.

Australia’s economy is dependent on coal exporting Head (Senior Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney School of Law) 2008 (Michael, “Dark Clouds Gather Over Australian Economy”, April 22, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/eco-a22.shtml) accessed June 30, 2008. Australia has had 17 consecutive years of economic growth, with an annualised average of 3.5 percent, largely as a result of two factors. One was rising minerals exports and high commodity prices, substantially fuelled by the rapid expansion of Chinese capitalism. The other was unprecedented rises in the levels of corporate and household debt, which generated soaring share prices and real estate values. Now, it is

precisely Australian capitalism’s reliance on debt and mining exports that has made it extremely exposed, both to the global credit squeeze and to signs of slower growth and inflationary problems in China. Last week, an economics expert drew attention to this vulnerability. Associate professor Peter Kriesler from the University of New South Wales told ABC radio: “The huge foreign debt and the huge private sector debt means that we’re much more susceptible to recession, interest rates etc., coming from abroad. “If you look at the Australian economy, the manufacturing sector, the industrial base, has been shrinking quite rapidly; we’re becoming more and more reliant on a number of key resource exports.... Right now we’re so reliant on what’s happening abroad, particularly China and India ... there’s a possibility that the growth rate there [in China] will slow down, which means that the resource boom that’s been carrying us forward will collapse.”

20

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Coal Exports Key US/Australia Australian exportation trades is key to Australian-US relations Prime Minister of Australia (Australian Governmental Website) 2008 (“Australia, The United States and the Global Economy, Address to the American Australian Association, Prime Minister of Australia, March 30 2008, http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2008/speech_0153.cfm) Assessed July 1 2008 The Australia-US relationship is also about our strong economic future. We have the Free Trade Agreement that provides a framework for ongoing development of our trade. The United States is the largest foreign investor in Australia. The United States is the largest destination for Australian outwards investment . And Australia is the eighth-largest investor in the United States. The United States is Australia’s third-largest trading partner (and what is remarkable about our trade is the prominence of the services sector – accounting for around 43 per cent of our exports ). It is a good story of a growing services trade, and one I am keen to see develop even more.

Stable coal prices are key to the world economy World Energy Council 2004 (“Sustainable Global Energy Development: The Case of Coal”, July, http://www.worldenergy.org/documents/globalcoal2004.pdf) accessed 7/1/08 During the last century, the world has witnessed an accelerating technological development in almost all aspects of the human life, resulting in rapidly improving living standards in the vast majority of countries. This development would have been impossible without energy, and the growing demand for energy services has led both to the discoveries of new energy sources and the development of new energy technologies. While the world’s attention was shifting between the “Oil Era” and the “Nuclear Age”, the “Dash for Gas” and the “Renewable Future”, coal had firmly stayed in the background playing a vital role, in particular, in conferring supply security and price stability. Price stability in fuel supplies is fundamental to world economic prosperity and political stability.

Exporting coal drives Australia’s economy Eeles (assistant director energy minerals branch department of primary industries and energy) 1998 (Lee, The Australian Coal Review, April, http://www.australiancoal.csiro.au/pdfs/Eeles.pdf) accessed 7/1/08 Let us consider coal's role as an export. As Australia's largest export industry, the Australian coal industry generates around $8 billion annually. Proportionally, that represents over 50% of Australia's energy exports, and approximately 20% to 25% of total minerals resources sector exports. Coal is also vital at a domestic level; it provides 80% of Australian electricity requirements, cheaply and reliably. This is the basis of our international comparative advantage in electricity supply, which in turn supports Australia's energy-intensive industries, which are also exportoriented.

21

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Coal Export Key to International Relations Coal exports are key to maintaining Australian international relations Alison Broinowski (Former Diplomat, Faculty of Asian Studies at ANU) 2007 (“Perspective,” ABC Radio National, May 3 2007, http://www.abc.net.au/rn/perspective/stories/2007/1909776.htm) Assessed July 2 2008

Australia under Mr Howard has paradoxically achieved unprecedented closeness to the United States as well as performing impressively in our region. If success means Australia being able to export coal, gas, and uranium to some of our neighbours, and to discuss with others how to fight terrorists and deter refugees, well that's hardly remarkable. In fact, Australian policy is seen abroad as uncritically identified with that of George W. Bush: do as we say and we'll do as we like. To be really impressive, Australia must develop independent policies in consultation with our region, with the UN, and with multilateral trading partners. If we do not, as the damaged Bush presidency ends and distaste for its policies spreads even among America's friends, Australia will be left behind, left alone, and it will be our own fault. Some commentators claim that

22

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA *** Impacts ***

Australian Economy Key to Australian-US Trades Strong Australian economy key to maintaining trades with the US Alan Oxley (Australian APEC Study Centre) 2001 (“An Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement: Chapter 5-The Economic Impact, ” Australian Government: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, August 2001, http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/aus_us_fta_mon/Chapter5.pdf) Assessed July 3 2008 The long-term success of a free trade agreement depends upon the economic context in which it operates. Questions to be answered cover obvious matters such as the relative economic size of the partners and the relative size of potential changes within the total economy in either case. Less obviously, how have the two economies performed in recent times? How robust and flexible are they likely to be in dealing with changes brought about by freer trade? How open are they and thus how likely are they to benefit from changes to trade patterns? And what sort of broader benefits can be envisaged? These questions are hard to answer precisely, partly because we do not know what form the final agreement might take, and partly because the economic future is inherently uncertain. However, with a review of the main developments and features of the two economies, we can draw broad conclusions about the likely economic response to an agreement. An FTA will also have marked effects on other aspects of Australia’s economy, particularly on its participation in the emerging global information economy and on Australian business culture. These aspects are considered in more detail in Chapter 6.

23

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US/Australia Good – Democracy US-Australian relations promotes democracy Paul Dibb (Staff Writer of Strategic Forum: Publication of the Institute for National Strategic Studies) 2005 (“U.S.-Australia Alliance Relations: an Australian View,” CNET Network, Aug 2005, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0QZY/is_216/ai_n15947846) Assessed July 1 30 Alliances are not merely the product of rational calculations of national interest. (1) They involve shared values, belief systems, and a history of cooperation. Australia and America have long-shared common democratic values and beliefs. The two nations are among the oldest continuous democracies in the world. For a long time, the United States and Australia (along with New Zealand) were the only democratic countries in the entire Asia-Pacific region. Alliances also demand strong domestic political support: public support for the alliance in Australia has been remarkably resilient, even though there has been enormous strategic change over the half-century of its existence. Together, the United States and Australia fought against fascism and communism in the 20th century. Australians and Americans share the use of the English language and inhabit continent-sized New World countries that are ill at ease with many of the traditions and attitudes of old Europe.

Democracy prevents wars with other nations Burce Jentleson (Professor of Public Policy and Political Science at Duke University; Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to Vice President Al Gore) 2000 (Bruce, “American foreign policy: the dynamics of choice in the 21st century,” p. 376-379) According to the theory of the democratic peace, the United States should support the spread of democracy not just because it is the right thing to do, but also because history demonstrates that democracies do not fight wars against fellow democracies; thus it

is in the U.S. interest to support democratization in order to reduce the risks of war. The theory does not claim that democracies don't go to war at all. They have, and they do—against non-democracies. But they don't, and they won't, it is argued, against other democracies. This is the tenet of the democratic peace paradigm that right makes for might, that the world is a safer and a better place to the extent that democracy spreads

Democracy is key to preventing all impact-including nuclear war, extinction, and the lost of rights Larry Diamond (Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute) 1995 (Promoting Democracy in the 1990s. p6-7) The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically “cleanse” their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run, they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their opponents makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

24

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – China U.S.-Australian relations deter Chinese expansionism Michael Horowitz, Ph.D. Candidate – Harvard and 2000 NDT Champion, “Don’t Take Canberra for Granted: The Future of the U.S.-Australian Alliance”, Orbis, 48(3), Summer 2004 A continued alliance with the United States is most likely to achieve Australia’s security goals. Strong ties will deter a revisionist China or a revisionist Indonesia (once that country emerges from its current economic and political troubles) from threatening Southeast Asia in general and Australia in particular better than Australia can on its own. Opponents of closer U.S.-Australian ties could argue that good relations would become a self-fulfilling prophecy by heightening China’s sense of encirclement and creating a more hostile government in Beijing. However, such fears seem overblown, given that Sino-Australian cooperation has increased since Australia openly sided with America during the Taiwan straits crisis and that China did not overreact to the 1996 Australia-U.S. Ministerial talks., 34

25

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – Terrorism U.S.-Australian cooperation is critical to an effective war on terrorism Rod Lyon, IR – U Queensland and William Tow, Prof IR – U Queensland, The future of the Australian-U.S. Security Relationship, 2003, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB50.pdf Further, they show that U.S.-Australian military cooperation has developed a cadence and predictability that bodes well for.11 future joint operations. In the short space of 4 years, Australia has transformed its ANZUS relationship from one where Washington viewed Canberra primarily as a “Pacific-centric ”ally to a security relationship that is now regarded by the Bush administration as one of the significant components of U.S. global strategy. During a recent visit to Australia, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage observed that Australia is “increasingly ...a critical player on the world stage. This is true even if some Australians perhaps are uncomfortable seeing themselves in that particular light.”23 The recent evolution of what many observers term an “Anglosphere ”global coalition reflects this sentiment. The Bush administration has made clear that it puts greater emphasis upon coalitions than upon alliances. Western Cold War alliances are, of course, not otiose. One of their principal benefits is that they usually contain the world ’s most forces, and those forces will be central to achieving victory in a prolonged campaign against transnational terrorism. But the debate about intervention in Iraq between members of the Western alliances in early 2003 underlined just how uncertain those alliances have become as a long-term guarantee of Western security. It is sufficient to note here that at a time when many Americans perceive the very survival of their way of life at stake in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT)and by the challenge of rogue states, Australia has projected the image of timely, if selective, leadership and reliable partnership with the United States in waging that conflict. Cultural and historical affinity has facilitated this image but the substance and style of the Howard government ’s decisionmaking has been the critical variable in sealing this intensified bond. By contrast, New Zealand ’s more qualified and uncertain postures have reinforced Washington ’s already strong disillusionment with New Zealand ¯the other ANZUS member, but one that remains ostracized from American strategic cooperation due to its tendency to project criticism rather than loyalty and support at critical junctures in contemporary U.S.geopolitics..12

US-Australian alliance key to solving terrorism and Asian stability Michael Horowitz (Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, Graduate at Weatherhead Center for International Affairs) 2004 (“Don’t Take Canberra for Granted: The Future of the U.S.-Australian Alliance,” Elsevier Inc, 48(3), May 26 2004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V4CG6RN5-D&_user=2518055&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C00005773 8&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2518055&md5=8723d113d207251e7c8e4df8365daf29) Assessed June 30 2008 Important ally and undervalued guarantor of Asian stability, or victim of American manipulation? All of these terms and more could be used to describe Australia’s role in the U.S.-Australian alliance. In recent years Prime Minister John Howard has reversed the strategic drift between the two countries that had begun in the 1980s, and after 9/11, Australia became one of the United States’ closest allies. As it tilts its foreign policy toward the United States, Canberra has also been conducting a soul-searching review of the country’s defense policy, aimed at better aligning Australia’s strategy with the American military’s as both respond to new terrorism threats. However, despite these developments, there may be storm clouds on the horizon of U.S.-Australian relations. The problem lies at the very core of Howard’s security policy, which rejects the traditional consensus within Australian politics on the goals and means of Australian foreign and defense policies. The first assumption was that Australia’s best interests would be served by supporting multilateralism and closer relations with Asian

countries; the second was that Australian security is best guaranteed by eschewing expeditionary conflicts, instead focusing on its air and sea power in order to protect Australia from invasion. Howard has rejected both these assumptions. He has reinvigorated Australia’s ties with the United States, pushed for defense transformation, and reallocated resources from continental defense to mobile and technologically advanced troops designed for rapid foreign deployments.

26

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – Terrorism Australian military key to winning the war on terror and strengthening US military worldwide Michael Horowitz (Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, Graduate at Weatherhead Center for International Affairs) 2004 (“Don’t Take Canberra for Granted: The Future of the U.S.-Australian Alliance,” Elsevier Inc, 48(3), May 26 2004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V4CG6RN5-D&_user=2518055&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct= C000057738&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2518055&md5=8723d113d207251e7c8e4df8365daf 29) Assessed June 30 2008 Australian domestic politics and the international environment seem to guarantee the nation’s progress in reforming its military and strengthening ties to the United States. Since 9/11, Prime Minister Howard has become one of President Bush’s key confidants. In response to President Bush’s call for the world to join in the war on terror, Australia deployed forces to Afghanistan in fall 2001. Howard was also a strong proponent of the war in Iraq in 2003, following up his vocal support with a commitment of 2,000 troops. Australian special forces, in particular, made important contributions in both wars, providing targeting assistance for British and U.S. precision-guided munitions, among many Current trends in

activities.1Howard’s government also seems stable. Howard has been prime minister since March 1996, and since the 2001 elections has consistently held a double-digit lead in the polls over the opposition Labor Party (though his lead has shrunk in early 2004). President Bush hosted Howard at his Crawford ranch in May 2003, and in June 2003 U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz met with Australia’s Defense Minister Robert Hill about the possibility of enhanced defense cooperation. While talks have publicly danced around the possibility of a U.S. military base in Australia, Australia fits well into the likely U.S. military strategy of establishing multiple small bases throughout the Asia-Pacific, rather than relying entirely on a few key forward deployments., 2

Terrorism leads to nuclear war Speice-College of William and Mary-2006 [Patrick, 47 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427, [online] lexis) Organizations such as the Russian military and Minatom are now operating in circumstances of great stress. Money is within the military could easily cause a lapse or a breakdown in the Russian military's guardianship of nuclear weapons. 38 Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by in short supply, paychecks are irregular, living conditions unpleasant ... [D]isorder within Russia and the resulting strains

[*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own. Very little material is necessary to construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer number of methods that could be used to deliver a

nuclear device into the United States makes it incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43 Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44 Moreover, the end of the Cold War eliminated the rationale for maintaining a large military-industrial complex in Russia, and the nuclear cities were closed. 45 This resulted in at least 35,000 nuclear scientists becoming unemployed in an economy that was collapsing. 46 Although the economy has stabilized somewhat, there [*1439] are still at least 20,000 former scientists who are unemployed or underpaid and who are too young to retire, 47 raising the chilling prospect that

these scientists will be tempted to sell their nuclear knowledge, or steal nuclear material to sell, to states or terrorist organizations with nuclear ambitions. 48 The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. 49 Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. 50 In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. 51 This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against

27

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA the United States [*1440] or its allies by hostile states, 52 as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. 53

28

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – Power Projection in Asia ANZUS is critical to U.S. power projection in Asia Rod Lyon, IR – U Queensland and William Tow, Prof IR – U Queensland, The future of the Australian-U.S. Security Relationship, 2003, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB50.pdf Much of what Australia does will be shaped by how its senior American ally perceives and interacts with Australia in an alliance context. As part of a comprehensive shift in its global force structure and deployments, the United States is moving away from seeing Asia just as a maritime theater. It is also moving away from the structure of its Cold War presence which saw U.S. deployments focused on the Northeast Asian region because of the imminence of threats to Japan and South Korea. Experts now expect that “America ’s role in the region and its military posture there will look very different at the end of this decade than they did at the start of it.”64 So too will its basing structure change in important ways. American commanders increasingly refer to “lily pads ”or “warm bases ”:small, lightly staffed facilities for use as jumping-off points in a crisis and outfitted with the military supplies and equipment to be used by U.S. rapid deployment forces or heavier elements.65 In part those changes will arise from the dynamics of Asian evolution, within which Japan may become less important as a regional player (due to factors of demographics and economics), even as it pursues a more “normal ”strategic posture via constitutional revision. China will become more important. South Korea ’s continued economic growth is transforming the long-term strategic contest on the peninsula. And the war on terror has also refocused Washington ’s attention on the large Muslim-population countries in Southeast Asia. American security analysts are now much more impressed by.29 the sheer diversity of tasks that confront U.S. strategic planners in Asia. Those tasks include: •preventing the emergence of a dominant hostile great power in the region; •deterring or countering aggression or coercion against U.S. friends and allies; •defeating terrorist organizations hostile to the United States; •preventing state failure and internal conflict; and, •preventing the proliferation of WMD.66 Those tasks imply a wider geographical spread of U.S. military assets in the AsiaPacific region than was common during the Cold War era, when doctrines of containment kept the United States focused on the Northeast Asian sub-region. In consequence, U.S. security analysts ¯both official and academic ¯have already begun to contemplate a new “shape ”to the U.S. presence in the region, a reconfiguration that would offer greater flexibility in addressing such challenges. Central to that new configuration will be an ability to cope with the sheer vastness of the Asian region. Planners point to the “order-of-magnitude difference in geographic scale ”between Asia and Europe.67 Even allowing for the new capacities that advanced technologies provide to project power over vast distances from U.S. home bases, Asian geography constitutes a barrier to the easy application of U.S. military power. Most potential areas of conflict are far from current U.S. bases, and some are deep inland.68 Moreover, not all Asian nations could offer the Americans the facilities that might help to overcome that geographical barrier. In some places, paucity of economic infrastructure would offset any gains from increased access. In others, Muslim-dominated societies might pose particular social challenges for a heightened American presence. So as the United States settles into its new configuration of military deployments, greater cooperation between Australian and American forces will likely be one of the options that U.S. security planners will want to explore. Press speculation in the Los Angeles Times in May 2003 about a reallocation of the U.S. marines in Okinawa to northern Australia seemed premature.69 But Paul Wolfowitz made clear during travels within the region in June that key decisions still.30 needed to be taken on such matters.70 More recently, the Howard government has begun to signal to the Australian public that it expects Washington ’s reconsideration of its basing requirements might result in a proposal for some kind of U.S. basing activity in northern Australia.

29

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – Power Projection in Asia US-Australian relations prevents US isolation in Asia while US backs up Australian economy Michael Horowitz (Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, Graduate at Weatherhead Center for International Affairs) 2004 (“Don’t Take Canberra for Granted: The Future of the U.S.-Australian Alliance,” Elsevier Inc, 48(3), May 26 2004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V-4CG6RN5-D&_user=2518055 &_ rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct= C000057738&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid= 2518055&md5=8723d113d207251e7c8e4df8365daf29) Assessed June 30 2008 China. Dealing with the rise of China similarly could be either the undoing of the U.S.-Australia alliance or its greatest achievement. An obvious

downside to independence from America is that if the PRC becomes more powerful, Australia may be forced to become its vassal. Would Australia be better off beholden to Beijing or as a cooperative partner with Washington? Given Australia’s material weaknesses in comparison to both the United States and China, effective balancing is not a sustainable strategy. U.S.-Australian cooperation on China policy will make it more difficult for the Chinese to isolate America in Asia in the future, if they choose that path, and provides Australia a hedge against the possibility that China becomes more willing to challenge the territorial and geostrategic status quo in the future. Siding with the United States in a Taiwan scenario would have permanent negative consequences for Sino-Australian relations. Beijing’s decision in 1997 to cut economic ties with Australia until Howard began advocating more cooperation with China demonstrates its willingness to do this. The United States, in contrast, is seen as likely to

continue trading with Australia and maintaining alliance ties even if Canberra fails to back its ally during a major regional contingency. However, the perception that the balance of interests over Taiwan favors China, meaning there is less cost to angering America on the Taiwan issue, wrongly underestimates the importance of Taiwan as a test of U.S. credibility in Asia. Michael Richardson describes the Taiwan issue as a “time bomb” for U.S.-Australian relations., 30 The United States will want a military commitment

from all of its Asian allies, especially Australia, if tensions in the Taiwan strait rise once again., 31

US isolationism can lead to multiple scenarios of nuclear wars in Asia and Europe Hirsh-Foreign Policy Correspondent and Analyst for Newsweek-2003 (Michael, At War With Ourselves) Yes it is possible. But first we must cross a psychological threshold ourselves. We

need to grasp what many other nations already understand: the meaning of America in today’s world. Despite a century of intense global engagement, America is still something of a colossus with an infant’s brain, unaware of the havoc its tentative, giant-sized baby steps can cause. We still have some growing up to do as a nation. One of my favorite movies has always been It’s a Wonderful Life. Like everyone, I’m a sucker for the sentiment. But I also though the conceit was ingenious: What if we could all be granted, like Jimmy Stewart’s George Baily, a look at the world without us? I think it’s useful to apply the same conceit to the one-uberpower world. Suppose, with the end of the Soviet

Union, America had mysteriously disappeared as well or, more realistically, retreated within its borders, as it had wanted to do ever since the end of World War II. What would a Jeffersonian America, withdrawn behind its oceans, likely see unfolding overseas? Probably a restoration of the old power jostle that has sent mankind back to war for many millennia. One possible scenario: Japan would have reacquired a full-scale military and nuclear weapons and would have bid for regional hegemony with China. Europe would have had no counterbalance to yet another descent into intraregional competition and, lacking the annealing structure of the postwar Atlantic alliance, may never have achieved monetary union. Russia would have bid for Eurasian dominance, as it has throughout its modern history. Most important of all, the global trading system, which the United States virtually reinvents after World War II (with some help from John Maynard and Keynes and others), would almost certainly have broken down amid all these renewed rivalries, killing globalization before it ever got started. That in turn would have accelerated many of the above developments. A war of some kind would have been extremely likely. And given the evidence of the last century, which shows that America has been increasingly drawn into global conflict, the U.S. president would be pulled in again – but this time in a high-tech, nuclearized, and very lethal age of warfare.

30

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – Power Projection in Asia Power projection in the Asian Pacific is necessary to maintain U.S. hegemony Tuazon (Director @ Center for Anti-Imperialist Studies) 2003 (Bobby, “Current US Hegemony In Asia Pacific”, http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr28-84.html) accessed 7/3/08. US military power in the region addresses the American Empire's strategic objectives to contain the rise of power competitors such as - but not limited to - China, and deter the growth of other threats to its hegemony including revolutionary movements and the rise of independent regimes. Because Asia Pacific is a vast mass of land and sea territory with huge economic and geopolitical potentials, and because it is contiguous to the American mainland and its Pacific territories, this region remains of strategic interest to the United States. Without a strong power projection in Asia Pacific, America's drive for global hegemony and domination will be threatened.

31

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – NMD U.S.-Australian relations key to the effectiveness of NMD Michael Horowitz, Ph.D. Candidate – Harvard and 2000 NDT Champion, “Don’t Take Canberra for Granted: The Future of the U.S.-Australian Alliance”, Orbis, 48(3), Summer 2004 Maintaining the current warm relations would benefit the United States as well. Upgrading Australian radar facilities built during the Cold War at Pine Gap will be important for the successful deployment of naval theater and national missile defense platforms. Facilities such as Pine Gap, a joint U.S.Australian military installation located near Alice Springs in Central Australia, became a symbol of resentment against America in the 1980s, with anti-nuclear groups mounting public protests of the U.S. presence.

Continuing close ties with Australia may be critical to sustain access to that facility. Australia’s deft diplomacy will continue to be useful, especially since many in the Asia-Pacific, even when they agree with U.S. goals, see U.S. diplomacy as bullying. Meanwhile, Australia’s defense transformation will aid successful implementation of President Bush’s vision of American foreign policy. For all these reasons, it is very much in the United States’ interests to prevent Australian strategic policy from backsliding towards greater independence. What Should be Done Before the Australian and American elections to be held in fall 2004, Washington should develop a vision of its relationship with Australia that extends beyond a single political leader or party and concentrate on getting its message out. The U.S.-Australian alliance must persist no matter who wins the Australian election. Explaining the benefits of cooperation with America, especially to the Labor party, may seem unnecessary. However, the United States could do a better job of explaining to the Australian public why it is doing what it is doing. Senior administration officials could make more frequent visits to Australia and remember to refer to Australia’s role in the international security environment in speeches. The conclusion of a U.S.-Australia FTA in February 2004 was a significant accomplishment, but the agreement is tilted towards America, excluding Australia’s sugar industry and imposing other restrictions on agricultural products. These exemptions not only undermine the free-trade quality of the agreement, but also provide a platform from which the Australian opposition can attack the agreement., 35 There are obviously election-year considerations involved in the United States’ reluctance to open its markets to all Australian goods, but Washington should nonetheless revise the agreement. Eliminating the remaining trade restrictions would help demonstrate America’s global commitment to free trade, which suffered during the steel tariff controversy of the last few years. The negotiation of new tariff reductions would also remove a point of contention that Latham and the Labor party seem likely to turn into a wedge issue in Australia’s election., 36 Since the opposition party has control of Australia’s upper parliamentary chamber, it could also block ratification, denying an important political win to Howard and depriving both countries of the benefits of the FTA. Rapid U.S. congressional ratification of the FTA is crucial. Trade with Australia may be less politically contentious than trade with countries that have low labor and environmental standards, but free-trade issues are always controversial in Congress., 37 Ratification would demonstrate that the United States considers Australia an important ally and mitigate Australia’s growing dependence on the Chinese economy. Locking in the U.S.-Australian trade relationship will also reinforce security ties. An FTA will raise the opportunity costs associated with actions that could upset the United States, especially if a future Labor government considers policy independence with regards to China. Seeing the FTA through Congress should be high on the list of President Bush’s priorities. Simultaneously, the United States should actively aid Australia’s defense transformation. This could take the form of technology sharing, arms exports, and/or training. Defense transformation could cut into Australia’s spending for major capital purchases for the military and thus entail short-term costs for the American defense industry, but a

strong U.S.-Australian alliance will bring more business to those American industries in the long run. Other positive spillover effects for the United States would include reassuring its Asian allies that the United States is still committed to the Asian-Pacific region. For Australia’s part, its foreign policy establishment must realize that the FTA strategy is no more likely to ensure Australian security than the Maginot Line secured France’s. Conventional military assault is the least likely of all the security threats Australia faces. Those in Australia who oppose stronger ties with the United States and/or defense transformation are attempting to freeze thinking about foreign and defense policy some twenty to thirty years in the past. Looking to the past instead of ahead will only impede counterterrorism efforts and leave Australia vulnerable to being swallowed by the Chinese economy. U.S. efforts to guarantee the stable future of its alliance with Australia will be much less expensive than the cost of a security crisis in Asia if the U.S.-Australian alliance is permitted to fall apart.

32

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australia Good – NMD NMD prevents nuclear and biological volleys that culminate in Armageddon NYT, New York Times, 9-26-1999, Lexis The reason for the fuss is simple: within this laboratory, Raytheon's top ballistic technicians are putting the final touches on a weapon that is supposed to protect America from Armageddon. The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle is supposed to fly through space at 4,500 miles an hour and smash into an incoming warhead. The closing velocity of missile and missile-killer would be an amazing four miles per second, and somehow, despite the velocity, despite the vacuum of space, despite the subzero temperatures, despite decoys and evasive maneuvers, the E.K.V. will, if all goes as planned, hit its target's warhead and obliterate it. This task is akin to hitting the tip of a bullet with another bullet, except that the cost of missing the target by

even a fraction of an inch is the loss of a U.S. city under a mushroom cloud, or a cloud of anthrax spores or the smallpox virus. An E.K.V. costs $20 million to $25 million and, at 120 pounds, is pound for pound among the most expensive weapons ever built. It is also the crown jewel of National Missile Defense, a program that is Topic A for defense hawks in Washington who worry America is unnecessarily vulnerable to missiles tipped with weapons of mass destruction. National Missile Defense is also Topic A for Pentagon critics, as an example of another out-of-control program that has soaked up more than $50 billion in nearly two decades. Most antimissile tests have failed to score intercepts. While that dismal trend is beginning to turn, it makes the E.K.V.'s tryout, scheduled for Sept. 30, when it will soar into space to attempt to destroy a test warhead flying somewhere above the Pacific Ocean, all the more urgent, for both Raytheon and the Pentagon. Because depending on whom you believe right now, the E.K.V. is either a magic bullet for national security or just another pricey misfire from the defense industry. America is preparing for nuclear war again. In 1983, the goal of defending the country from intercontinental-ballistic-missile attack rose to the top of the political agenda when President Reagan outlined his vision of building a system of space-based lasers to shoot down missiles fired by the Soviet Union. The system became known as Star Wars and was derided by critics who said -- accurately, as it turned out -- there was no way the Government could build a missile shield that would work. Star Wars drained more than $50 billion before the tap was turned off at the end of the cold war. Despite the Star Wars distraction, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) -- meaning, if you nuke us, we will nuke you -- was the backbone of America's nuclear defense throughout the cold war and remains so today. There is no defensive system that can shoot down an ICBM; there's only MAD. In the past year, America's political and military leadership has concluded that the country can no longer rely on deterrence alone. A limited version of President Reagan's shield, a Star Wars Lite relying on ground-based interceptors rather than space-based lasers, has moved to the forefront of Pentagon priorities. The National Missile Defense's budget nearly doubled earlier this year to $10.5 billion until 2005, and President Clinton has agreed to decide next year whether the system will be deployed over strenuous objections from the Russians and Chinese, who also oppose a related program, called Theater Missile Defense, which would be deployed overseas to protect United States troops in battle and, potentially, foreign allies. The Russians and Chinese view the programs as politically destabilizing; China is particularly worried about a U.S. antimissile umbrella covering Taiwan. Domestic critics, meanwhile, insist National Missile Defense will be no different from Star Wars. "The names have been changed to protect the guilty," says John Pike, a senior analyst with the liberal research group the Federation of American Scientists. The notion of a renewed nuclear menace may seem odd, with the cold war long over and America able to turn almost any hostile country into a smart-bomb target range. What's to worry about? Though the Kremlin insists it cannot happen, the chaos in Russia has raised fears of an accidental launch of nuclear missiles. Also, Pakistan and India

have enhanced their capabilities in the past year and tested nuclear weapons. But of even greater concern is the development of long-range missiles by rogue states like Stalinist North Korea, with its connections to terrorists and drug smugglers. Other rogue states that worry policy makers in Washington -- like Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya -- are improving their ballistic arsenals. But Pyongyang is the only member of the group that has, or may soon have, a missile that can reach America, a point emphasized last year when North Korea test-fired a three-stage rocket over Japan that could reach parts of Hawaii or Alaska. It was the ballistic shot heard around the world, resonating especially in Washington, where it took the C.I.A. by surprise. The C.I.A. also believes North Korea has created a more powerful rocket that could hit the western half of the American mainland with a sizable warhead, though earlier this month North Korea agreed to a testing freeze in exchange for economic assistance from the United States and Japan. Whether North Korea honors the freeze or not, the underlying technology presumably could still be offered for sale in "rogue to rogue" commerce. This is not what President Bush had in mind when he hailed, as the Soviet Union collapsed, a "new world order." "I would argue that with Russia being the basket case that it is today, we have more threats than we had when we had the cold war going on between us and the Soviet Union, and they are much more divergent threats," says Representative Curt Weldon, Republican of Pennsylvania, a longtime advocate of missile defense whose office is decorated with models of rockets and fighter planes. "They are threats that come not just from Russia but from North Korea, from Iran, Iraq, perhaps from China and from terrorist activities, and much of it is because of proliferation." His view, which used to be considered extremist, has entered the mainstream of strategic thinking. A few days before North Korea promised to freeze its missile testing, the C.I.A. warned that by the year 2015 Pyongyang and Iran could possess long-range missiles that could "kill tens of thousands or even millions, of Americans." Iraq was categorized as slightly less likely to do so in the same time span. Last year, a Congressionally appointed panel headed by former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned that the threat of attack from missiles tipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads is

"evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community." In July, another blue-ribbon panel, headed by former C.I.A. Director John Deutch, warned that the United States is "not effectively organized to combat proliferation" of weapons of mass destruction. And so on. These are what the Pentagon calls "homeland threats," a phrase echoing from the 1950's and 1960's, when fallout shelters and duck-andcover drills were the rage. The millennial makeover of homeland defense does not mean arming the citizens of Santa Monica with revolvers to repel Communist frogmen. The Pentagon, along with the F.B.I. and C.I.A. and Justice Department, among other agencies, is increasing its focus on combating terrorism, cyber attacks, germ warfare, biological warfare, suitcase nuclear bombs, ICBM's -- the works. Constructing a defensive shield against incoming missiles is the most expensive component of homeland defense and, perhaps, the ultimate reflection of fortress America; critics refer to National Missile Defense as a modern-day Maginot line. Critics say the Reagan-era vision remains far beyond our technological reach, and even if it were possible, a hostile nation or terrorist group would likely use the less-expensive methods of putting a weapon of mass destruction on a ship and exploding it in an American harbor or putting it into a van and detonating it in an American city, much as terrorists exploded a conventional bomb under the World Trade Center in 1993.The Clinton Administration, which was cool to the missile-defense program, has changed its view. "I think your obligation is to try to counter all threats," says Robert Bell,

until recently senior director for arms control and defense policy at the National Security Council. "When you leave your house each day for work, you lock your door even though you're 100 percent aware that a burglar can break a window."

33

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australian Trade Good-Global Economy US-Australian trade strengthens alliance and global economy The White House (Governmental News Release) 2004 (“President Bush Signs U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement,” The White House.gov, August 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040803-1.html) Assessed July 3 2008 The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a milestone in the history of our alliance. It expands our security and political alliance by creating a true economic partnership. It will create jobs and opportunities in both our nations. It will fuel economic growth throughout the Pacific Rim, and it will strengthen our common ties of family and friendship.I appreciate so very much those in my Cabinet who have worked hard to make this agreement come true: Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, Secretary of Commerce Don Evans, and, of course, Ambassador Bob Zoellick, who is the U.S. Trade Representative. Just as an aside, Zoellick has done heroic work, as has his staff, to see to it that the world trades more freely and America is treated fairly when it comes to trade. I appreciate Ambassador Michael Thawley, the Ambassador of Australia to the United States, for his tireless efforts in representing his country's best interests as we negotiate this trade agreement. Mr. Ambassador, you are a credit to your country. I'm also proud that Senator Orrin Hatch is with us. Senator, I appreciate you taking time to come and represent the United States Congress. This agreement received strong bipartisan support, it represents that members of both parties understand the benefits of trade to our country. Welcome, Senator, I appreciate you coming. We support free and fair trade. I support free and fair trade, because it has the power to create new wealth for whole nations and new opportunities for millions of people. Sound policy can help unleash the initiative and talent of free people. Open trade is sound policy. It has a record for creating jobs and raising living standards and lowering consumer prices. My administration is working with the Congress to extend the benefits of free trade throughout the western hemisphere, in Africa, and into the Middle East. We renewed the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which promotes economic reforms and reduces trade barriers on goods from the nations of sub-Sahara Africa. Working with Congress, we entered into a new free trade agreement with Morocco and Chile. We're encouraging the free flow of trade across the Pacific. Last year I had the honor to sign a free trade agreement with Singapore, America's first with an Asian Pacific nation. Today, I'm honored to sign legislation enacting the second.

Economic tensions result in global war Richard Cook (NASA analyst and Washington D.C. writer and consultant) 2007 (“It’s Official: The Crash of the U.S. Economy has begun,” Globalresearch.ca, June 14, 2007 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5964)
up, including food and gasoline, but that’s no reason to allow the entire national economy to be submerged. So what is really happening? Actually, it’s simple. The difference today is that China and other large investors from abroad, including Middle Eastern oil magnates, are telling the U.S. that if interest rates come down, thereby devaluing their alreadysliding dollar portfolios further, they will no longer support with their investments the bloated U.S. trade and fiscal deficits. Of course we got ourselves into this quandary by shipping our manufacturing to China and other cheap-labor markets over the last generation. “Dollar hegemony” is backfiring. In fact China is using its American dollars to replace the International Monetary Fund as a lender to developing nations in Africa and elsewhere. As an additional insult, China now may be dictating a new generation of economic decline for the American people who are forced to buy their products at Wal-Mart by maxing out what is left of our available credit card debt. About a year ago, a former Reagan Treasury official, now a well-known cable TV commentator, said that China had become “America’s bank” and commented approvingly that “it’s cheaper to print money than make cars anymore.” Ha ha. It is truly staggering that none of the “mainstream” political candidates from either party has attacked this subject on the campaign trail. All are heavily funded by the financier elite who will profit no matter how bad the U.S. economy suffers. Every candidate except Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich treats the Federal Reserve like the fifth graven image on Mount Rushmore. And even the so-called progressives are silent. The weekend before the Perlstein/ Samuelson articles came out, there was a huge progressive conference in Washington, D.C., called “Taming the Corporate Giant.” Not a single session was devoted to financial issues. What is likely to happen? I’d suggest four possible scenarios: Acceptance by the U.S. population of diminished prosperity and a declining role in the world. Grin and bear it. Live with your parents into your 40s instead of your 30s. Work two or three part-time jobs on the side, if you can find them. Die young if you lose your health care. Declare bankruptcy if you can, or just walk away from your debts until they bring back debtor’s prison like they’ve done in Dubai. Meanwhile, China buys more and more U.S. properties, homes, and businesses, as economists close to the Federal Reserve have suggested. If you’re an enterprising illegal immigrant, have fun continuing to jack up the underground economy, avoid business licenses and taxes, and rent out group houses to your friends. Times of economic crisis produce international tension and

politicians tend to go to war rather than face the economic music.

34

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australian Trade Good-US Economy US-Australian trade strengthens US economy The White House (Governmental News Release) 2004 (“President Bush Signs U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement,” The White House.gov, August 2004, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040803-1.html) Assessed July 3 2008 The total annual two-way trade in American and Australian goods and services stands at $28 billion. Australia is America's 10th largest export market. Our trade with Australia is important to every American. It is vital to our economy. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement is a recognition of that importance and a commitment by both our nations to work in partnership for common prosperity. This

agreement will immediately eliminate duties on 99 percent of all U.S.-manufactured exports to Australia. That is the largest immediate reduction of tariffs on manufactured goods ever achieved in an American free trade agreement. America's manufacturers estimate that eliminating these tariffs will increase the export of manufactured goods by nearly $2 billion per year. That will mean new jobs for American workers. This agreement will also be good for America's farmers. It will eliminate all duties on American agricultural products entering Australia. Today, American farmers export almost $700 million worth of goods to Australia. And because of this agreement, that total will rise. Free and fair trade means more than eliminating tariffs on existing trade. We must also work to open up new sectors of our economy to competition and trade. This agreement opens important sectors of Australia's economy, such as telecommunications, government procurement, express delivery, computers, tourism, energy, construction, financial services and entertainment. And the agreement strengthens protections for intellectual property and promotes electronic commerce.

Economic collapse leads to nuclear war Walter Russel Mead (Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy @ Council of Foreign Relations) 1992 (World Policy Institute) Hundreds of millions – billions – of people have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles – and drawn closer to the west – because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can’t? What if

the global economy stagnates – or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India – these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 30s.

35

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

A2: ANZUS Bad – Regional Trade-Off Strong ties with the U.S. don’t trade off with Australian regional influence Alexander Downer – MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs. “The Australia-United States Alliance and East Asian Security,” Speech at the University of Sydney conference, 6-29-2001 I want to put to rest this evening a view we hear from time-to-time in the media and elsewhere which argues that the ANZUS Treaty and the alliance is no longer relevant to Australia's interests with the end of the Cold War, or that it somehow imposes unacceptable trade-offs in Australia's relations with the Asia Pacific region. Nothing could be further from the truth. Forging and maintaining strong relations with one country or region does not mean neglecting any other country or region. To suggest that the depth and strength of our alliance with the US somehow weakens or compromises our ties with the Asia Pacific is nonsense.

36

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

DA Turns the Case-Increase in Emission Declines in Australian coal exports increase carbon emission Chris Evans (Senator of West Australia) 2007 (“Howard, Greens on Wrong Track,” The Australian, March 14 2007, Lexis Nexis) Assessed July 1 2008 Sadly, the recent focus on climate change has given rise to a political debate that suggests support for coal and support for tackling climate change are mutually exclusive. Nothing is further from the truth. Some have suggested shutting down our coal-fired electricity production, plunging Australia into darkness. Bob Brown and the Australian Greens want to end coal exports, which would cost Australia thousands of jobs and nearly $25billion. As a consequence, our ravaged economy would be less able to develop long-term climate change solutions. Brown's plan would not even reduce carbon emissions. Australia's export coal is among the highest quality in the world. Ending supplies would force buyers to other markets and possibly to lower-quality coal, which would lead to an increase in carbon emissions.

37

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA *** Aff Answers ***

N/U – Coal Prices Low Coal prices are decreasing by 20% Kennedy (Economic Reporter for IHT) 2006 (Will, “Commodities: Coal prices expected to drop in 2006, except in U.S.”, The International Herald Tribune, January 9, http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/08/news/bxcom.php) accessed June 30, 2008. The price of coal is expected to decline in much of the world this year from a record level because of increased exports from Indonesia, South Africa and Australia. Analysts at National Australia Bank forecast a price decline of almost 20 percent, to less than $45 a metric ton. Prices in Rotterdam, the European port used by utilities like E.ON of Germany, will drop to $55 a ton from $60.70 in 2005, according to Société Générale.

While coal prices might be temporarily increasing, the overall trend is towards a decrease. Bouw (Reporter and Editor of The Canadian Press) 2008 (Brenda, “Westshore Terminals not taking record coal prices for granted”, The Canadian Press, June 17, http://www.cfrb.com/news/13/738748/westshore+terminals+not+taking+record+coal+prices+for+granted) accessed June 30, 2008. Paul Holden, an analyst at CIBC World Markets, said in a recent note to clients that he is cautious in the long-term on Westshore because coal prices are expected to drop, and due to the expiry of key loading rate contracts in 2010 and 2012.

China is insisting on lower coal prices from Australia Head (Senior Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney School of Law) 2008 (Michael, “Dark Clouds Gather Over Australian Economy”, April 22, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/eco-a22.shtml) accessed June 30, 2008. On his recent trip to Beijing, Rudd called for the opening of China’s financial markets to Australian and other foreign banks and finance houses. Beijing may insist on the quid pro quo that state-owned Chinese conglomerates be permitted to buy up Australian resources, undercutting the ability of Australian-based companies to continuously ratchet up prices, the main source of a 15-year mining export bonanza.

38

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

N/U – Australian Economy Low Australia’s economy is failing now Head (Senior Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney School of Law) 2008 (Michael, “Dark Clouds Gather Over Australian Economy”, April 22, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/eco-a22.shtml) accessed June 30, 2008. Business confidence, sales, profits, employment and forward orders are also falling, according to the February National Australia Bank (NAB) survey. Business confidence was the lowest since the September 2001 attacks in the US, and the business conditions index suffered one of the biggest falls in the survey’s history. NAB chief economist Alan Oster admitted that the size and breadth of the slowing in domestic demand and business conditions “has caught both business and us by surprise”. There are signs that the fallout from the financial meltdown is far from over. In its current “World Economic Outlook”, released this month, the IMF named Australia as having one of the four most overvalued housing markets in the Western world, and one of four highest levels of housing debt. Borrowings by households had grown from 75 percent of disposable incomes a decade ago to 175 percent, and this included credit card debt of $42 billion, or $2,000 for every man, woman and child. The IMF estimated that Australian housing prices last year were 25 percent higher than could be explained by “economic fundamentals”, producing the risk of a sharp “correction”.

Business growth collapse puts Australian economic inflation ABC News (News Source) 2008 (“Uncertain New Year for Australia Economy,” ABC News, July 1 2008, Australian Broadcasting Cooperation, http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080701/31/1t9q8.html) Assessed July 2 2008 Australia's Reserve Bank has been fighting the 'inflation demon' since May 2002 and the result has been 12 straight rate rises, taking the official rate to 7.25 per cent. The result has been a major reining in of consumer spending, with borrowing for housing at its lowest since 1991. Business lending growth has also fallen. But it seems the Australian economy will remain resilient despite the global outlook and will remain so as long as the resources boom is still with us. The Reserve Bank board met this afternoon and left rates on hold. ABC business editor Peter Ryan says rates are unlikely to go up in the near future. "The expectation is that if the economy continues to cool, and if households and businesses continue to rein in their spending, rates should be unchanged for some months and even be eased this time next year," he said. But he says the big share market falls in the United States in recent days remind Australia that there is no room for complacency.

Inflation remains high in Australia till 2009 Australasian Investment Review (Australian News Source) 2008 (“Inflation to Be Higher for Longer,” Yahoo Finance News, July 2 2008, http://au.biz.yahoo.com/080701/27/1tbsm.html) Assessed July 2 2008 "Inflation is likely to remain relatively high in the short term, and the consumer price index will be further boosted in coming quarters by the recent rises in global oil prices." With that statement, the Reserve Bank has signalled that we are in for a period of high inflation, much longer than previously thought, and as a result interest rates will remain at current levels for much longer than previously thought as oil price driven inflation works its way through the system. The warning was issued in the statement after the RBA yesterday left its cash rate unchanged at 7.25%. The warning that inflation will rise in coming quarters and won't ease until oil prices (and other cost inputs, such as food) drop, was very different to what it had been saying after previous meetings. Then the bank said inflation was expected to remain high before moderating. That moderation is still expected, if the slowdown continues, but it will take much longer to happen. Just how long a period is uncertain, but it could be well into 2009 before there's any hint of a rate cut. Anyone thinking of the first half is being optimistic, unless there is a sharp contraction in the economy.

39

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

N/U – Coal Disruptions Now Non-unique- Australia has faced loss in coal supply, could last several more years Mukumbira (Namibian journalist and economist, Diploma in Journalism and Democracy , United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Certificate in Environmental Reporting ) 2008 (Rodrick, “Cheap coal fast becoming history”, May 20, http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=53328&sn=Detail) accessed June 30, 2008. SteelGuru.com quotes the bank as saying that that the floods that disrupted mining this year in Australia, the world's largest exporter of coking coal, forced at least six producers to forecast delays in shipments resulting in steelmakers cutting output because of shortage of the fuel. "The loss of Australian tonnage to the market in 2008 has created sheer panic. Delays in new capacity combined with the disastrous floods in Queensland earlier this year appear to have created a structural shortage of met coal, which could now last for several years," the bank reported. It says the floods may cut supplies by 12 million tons to 15 million tons and warns that Chinese steelmakers may face desperate shortages in the coming years and may be forced to increase imports.

40

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Link Answers Taxes on CO2 emissions cause coal prices to rise Siegel (managing editor of Green Chip Stocks, an investment advisory service that focuses on stocks in the renewable energies market) 2007(Jeff, “Saving and Making Money with Renewable Energy”, November 30, http://www.greenchipstocks.com/articles/renewable-energy-prices/182) accessed 7/1/2008. Big Coal was dealt a reality check this week after a new independent study found that Nevada will likely save money and definitely cut pollution it if goes for renewable power instead of building three coal-fired power plants. According to the study, uncertainty over higher construction costs and the value of what could be an inevitable tax on CO2 emissions will cause the cost of coal power to skyrocket as wind, solar and geothermal power costs decrease.

41

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

No Link – RPS Renewable portfolio standards have no overall change in coal prices Hall and Kirkham (natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP) 2007 (Richard R. and John. S., “Coal:Like It or Not, It’s Here to Stay, June 4th, http://www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484) accessed 7/1/08 Some point to the introduction of renewable portfolio standards as a means to reduce coal reliance and the environmental impacts associated with coal-fired generation. Renewable portfolio standards typically require a certain level or percentage of electricity purchased or consumed by a utility or governmental entity to be produced from renewable sources. While renewable portfolio standards have had measured success in promoting the development of renewable energy sources, they do not appear to have a significant effect on coal consumption. Due to price differentials, renewable portfolio standards tend to decrease the consumption of natural gas, rather than coal. In the long run, the development of renewable energy sources may certainly prove key to reducing global reliance on coal. However, in the short term, encouraging the development of renewable energy sources alone does not appear to have a substantial effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures.

RPS will not harm coal consumption J.W. Anderson (Former Staff Writer of The Washington Post, RFF Journalist) 2005 (“Coal: Dirty Cheap Energy,” RFF’s Journal, Winter 2005, http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF_Resources_156_coal.pdf) Assessed July 3 2008 One popular response to rising carbon dioxide emissions is the renewable portfolio standard, which typically requires a certain level or percentage of electricity to be produced from renewable sources. In the United States, since the mid-1990s, about 20 states have imposed such standards on electricity producers or retailers. But policies to promote clean technologies such as renewables may not

have a large effect on coal consumption. A renewable portfolio standard will decrease usage of natural gas more than coal, in part because of the price differential. For that reason, encouraging renewables will not have a large effect on coal use or carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in the absence of other policy measures, such as a tax on carbon.

42

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

Global Economy Turns Australia Australia’s economy is dependent on the international economy Head (Senior Lecturer at the University of Western Sydney School of Law) 2008 (Michael, “Dark Clouds Gather Over Australian Economy”, April 22, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/eco-a22.shtml) accessed June 30, 2008. Last week, speaking after attending meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Washington, Treasurer Wayne Swan said he was now certain that Australia would not escape the deepening international financial crisis. In an interview with Fairfax newspapers, he said no one at the IMF meetings believed that Asia was de-coupled from the turmoil that began last year with the sub-prime mortgage collapse in the US. The IMF’s “World Economic Outlook” report, presented to the Washington meetings, described the financial crisis as the biggest since the Great Depression, forecast a US recession this year and warned of a 25 percent chance of a worldwide downturn “equivalent to a global recession”. Swan stated: “Australia has never been immune from these sorts of financial crises. The fallout will have substantial knock-on effects to developing and emerging economies, and from our point of view that means flow on effects to Australia.” He also warned of an end to the 15 years in which cheap imports from countries such as China had a deflationary impact. A new period had commenced of high inflation and interest rates, combined with slowing growth.

43

Miami Debate Institute 2008 Coal Prices DA

US-Australian Relations Increase Terrorism US-Australian relations increase Asian terrorism in Australia Michael Horowitz (Ph.D. candidate at Harvard, Graduate at Weatherhead Center for International Affairs) 2004 (“Don’t Take Canberra for Granted: The Future of the U.S.-Australian Alliance,” Elsevier Inc, 48(3), May 26 2004, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W5V4CG6RN5D&_user=2518055&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000057738&_version= 1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2518055&md5=8723d113d207251e7c8e4df8365daf29) Assessed June 30 2008 War on Terror. The Asia-first school would subordinate cooperation with the United States in the war on terror to the quest for better relations in Southeast Asia. Criticism that the U.S.-Australian alliance was undermining Australia’s political and economic objectives in Asia had been heard before 9/11, and Australia’s subsequent military cooperation with the United States has intensified this debate., 18Some scholars, such as Scott Burchill, argue that with regional anti-Americanism and growing U.S. unilateralism being what they are, close ties with America will expose Australia to regional blowback, undermine its ability to cooperate with in countering Islamist terrorism within the region, and invite more terrorist threats to Australia., 19 For example, given former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir’s staunch opposition to the war in Iraq, if Australia signals that it is growing closer to the United States, the new prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, a close Mahathir associate, may punish Australia by excluding it from important regional forums. Being associated with an unpopular American strategy would also undercut Australia’s ability to cooperate with Indonesia in combating groups such as Jemaad Islamiah., 20The same argument could be made against defense transformation. If increasing levels of U.S.-Australian defense cooperation alienates potential adversaries and creates terrorist threats to Australia that might necessitate expeditionary deployments, then reorienting to Asia should reduce the threats that currently justify defense transformation. Also, were Australia not to support U.S. military action, the interoperability warrant for transformation loses force.

44