Da Coal

Download the original attachment

Coal Counterplan and Disads -- Aff and Neg—Index 1/2

***COAL GOOD*** COAL KEY TO THE US ECONOMY The U.S. economy is heavily dependent on coal. NCC, 1993, The Role Of U.S. Coal In Energy, Economy And The Environment – Special Report, http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:uu96hfv3JAJ:nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE%2520ROLE%2520OF%2520U.S.%2 520COAL%2520IN%2520ENERGY,%2520ECONOMY.PDF+economy+coal+industry &hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us The economic well-being of the United States depends substantially on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Coal has been the nation’s largest domestic source of energy for nearly a decade. Electric power, the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy, is the primary market for coal. Accounting for 56% of total generation, low-cost coal contributed to the electrification of the economy over the past twenty years. If coal had not been available to meet the growth in electric demand, consumers would have incurred over $190 billion in additional fuel costs since 1971. Coal contributes over $80 billion annually to the economy and stimulates over one million jobs. Coal also contributes to the economy in terms of tax revenue, exports, and infrastructure and technology development. Further development of coal production, combustion, and emissions technologies can ensure that coal continues to contribute to energy security, economic growth, and environmental protection. Limiting coal would destroy the American economy. Marc Morano, Communications Director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 2008, The American Spectator: Cap and Destroy, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id =5057cc9e-802a-23ad-4239-7a4356d85068&Issue_id= Restricting the use of fossil fuels for energy would drive the price of everything -- not just gasoline or power to light homes, everything -- up dramatically. We've already seen increases in the price of food thanks to our insane policy of trying to grow our fuel through ethanol and other bio-fuels. If we're daft enough to cap our use of fossil fuels, as environmentalists and their political enablers want us to, we'll first see increased prices, then severe shortages, and finally unavailability of everything else as well. Choking off the use of carbon-based fuels could and would make an utter dog's breakfast of the American economy, which has been the most powerful engine of wealth the world has ever seen.

COAL COLLAPSE DESTROYS US ECONOMY Limiting coal use will hurt the economy. William W. Beach, Director of the center for Data Analysis, 2008, The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm Our analysis makes clear that S. 2191 promises extraordinary perils for the American economy. Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple, untested, and undeveloped technologies will lead to severe restrictions on energy use and large increases in energy costs. In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets, these higher energy costs will spread through the economy and inject unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production and consumption--all of which will add yet more financial burdens that must be borne by American taxpayers. S. 2191 extracts trillions of dollars from the millions of American energy consumers and delivers this wealth to permanently identified classes of recipients, such as tribal groups and preferred technology sectors, while largely circumventing the normal congressional appropriations process. Unbound by the periodic review of the normal budgetary process, this de facto tax-and-spend program threatens to become permanent--independent of the goals of the legislation. The loss of coal will cripple the economy. William W. Beach, Director of the center for Data Analysis, 2008, The Economic Costs of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Legislation, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). Single-year GDP losses hit at least $155 billion and realistically could exceed $500 billion (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). Annual job losses exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000. The annual cost of emission permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2020 and could exceed $300 billion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).[3] The average household will pay $467 more each year for its natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars). That means that the average household will spend an additional $8,870 to purchase household energy over the period 2012 through 2030.

COAL INDUSTRY KEY TO RAILROAD The coal industry is key to the railroad industry. Ed Quillen, 1996, Disappearing railroad blues, High Country News, http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=2678 From a railroad point of view, a route from the Powder River to a distant coal customer is like owning a license to print money because the route doesn’t go over mountain passes

or gorges, and because the stripmined coal is very cheap, leaving lots of "room" for high transport costs. Coal that costs $3.50 a ton at the mine near Gillette, Wyo., will go for $30 a ton at a power plant in Illinois, Georgia or Texas. The difference is the cost of transport - railroad income. Powder River coal accounted for 30 percent of the BN’s income in 1994, and in 1995, the UP hauled nearly 100 million tons out of the Powder River Basin.

CASE TURN – RAILROAD COLLAPSE INCREASES ENERGY CONSUMPTION ____ PLAN DESTROYS RAILROAD INVESTOR CONFIDENCE. They are growing now, but the plan hurts railroad profitability by cutting coal hauling Meyer, Production Assistant, Gannett Healthcare Group, Hoffman Estates, IL, 2008 Randy, http://www.topix.com/tech/2008/06/our-energy-inefficiency-67-loss/p6, June 30 Railroads don't stop the production of coal, RAILROADS LOVE COAL (railroads make a lot of money hauling coal). Railroads HATE COAL SLURRY PIPELINES, as it by-passes the railroad, and the railroad makes no money. Thus the railroads do all they can to stop it. The right of way/public domain laws vary somewhat state to state. If a mine is not right along a railroad track, a truck will carry it to an area that is set up to load up coal trains. A train is much cheaper, unless the power plant is nearby to the mine. Recently, the price of oil has gone up higher then diesel produced from coal. You are right that the oil companies are going to try to stop it. Estimate I saw was they can make clean diesel from coal for about 3 dollars a gallon. Not cheap, but better then 5 dollars a gallon it costs now. More Ev. Goode, Norfolk Southern Railroad Chairman and CEO, 2005 David R., Railway Age, April, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_4_206/ai_n13665636/print?tag=artBody;c ol1 Financing additional capacity to handle continuing growth will require megabucks in investment capital. Nothing will frighten investors faster than legislation or regulation calling into question the industry's ability to improve its margins and cash flow. Even with the best backing from Wall Street, we are gong to require the most innovative public/private partnerships and help from federal, state, and local governments to make any progress toward improving capacity. Lest we get discouraged, however, take a look back to the '70s. Railroads were on the brink of ruin.... With their rate of return on net investment well below what a child could earn on a passbook savings account, railroads lacked the capital to properly maintain their tracks. Not surprisingly, rail's share of intercity freight plummeted. That's what we've been building back from--and the really good news is this tough, resilient group of railroads has done just that. We have begun a strong upward trend. After the Staggers

Act, the quintessential regulated industry turned into an aggressively managed growth industry. It's been a long, difficult track. The freight system in the United States is a treasure. Without strong railroads, where would we be, given highway conditions? Railroads have been enormous forces for improving the transportation business--and we can do even more now, because our time really has come.

RAILROAD KEY TO THE ECON _____ RAILROADS KEY TO ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY Peterson, director of government affairs for Union Pacific Railroad, 2007 Chris, http://www.freightrailworks.org/earned_media/AZ_tuc_citz_growth_050107.pdf, May 1 Most products essential to economic growth - lumber, steel and other construction materials, and consumer goods such as electronics, clothing and toys - move by freight, and no one movesmore raw materials and finished products than Union Pacific. No industry moves freight in a more environmentally friendly manner than railroads. Trains are three times more fuel efficient than over-the-road trucks. For example, one train moving intermodal containers can remove up to 280 trucks from our roads. Trains carrying other types of freight can take up to 500 trucks off our highways. Investment in new technology is making railroads environmentally “cleaner and greener” than ever. Union Pacific has invested billions to purchase environmentally friendly locomotives, and we operate the cleanest locomotive fleet in North America. In recent years, unprecedented shipping – driven by increasing consumer demand for products from Asia and Mexico and domestic production - has had a ripple effect across the nation’s transportation infrastructure, especially in fast-growing areas such as the Southwest. What the nation, particularly the Southwest, is experiencing for the first time is a demand for transportation that is approaching - and in some cases is exceeding supply.

COAL REGULATION è SHIFT TO CHINA Turn: Environmental restrictions cause industries to move to China, where they produce more CO2 *,2007, Steelmakers call for global sector-specific climate regime, http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/steelmakers-call-global-sector-specificclimate-regime/article-167569 Cap-and-trade regional policies such as those currently used in the EU are not effective in reducing carbon dioxide emissions", said Philippe Varin, CEO of Corus and Executive Committee Member of the International Iron and Steel Insitute (IISI).

Such policies, he added, "merely result in a switch of production" to China and India and are "likely to increase, rather than reduce, global greenhouse gas concentrations." Turn: Industries move to China to avoid environmental standards. Repps Hudson, 2008, Arch Coal chief keeps his focus on carbon, http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/columnists.nsf/reppshudson/story/1D77B7D4 818140BA86257427007AB9EE?OpenDocument The energy efficiency of the U.S. and Europe is actually pretty high. China has about 80 percent of the energy efficiency that we have. If we do something draconian here (to combat carbon dioxide emissions), steel mills will move to China and elsewhere in Asia where standards will not be as high. We have to be very careful how we approach this.

GROWTH INCREASES COAL CONSUMPTION Turn: Economic growth increases fossil fuel consumption and it makes global warming inevitable. Dr. Glen Barry et al, 2008, President and Founder of Ecological Internet , Economic Collapse And Global Ecology, http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure.

A2- COAL MINING UNSAFE

The U.S. is increasing safety in coal mines. CBS, 2008, Government Steps Up Coal Mine Safety Plan, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/17/national/main4186398.shtml?source=RSSat tr=U.S._4186398 MSHA chief Richard Stickler said Monday the agency has 750 inspectors with the 322 new hires. But, because of resignations and retirements, the new hires represent a net increase of 163 inspectors. Stickler said he also has embarked on a plan to ensure inspectors complete required visits to every coal mine in the nation, aided by $10 million earmarked for overtime pay this year. "We're doing everything we can to see that we make all the mandated inspections," he said. Mine safety advocate Tony Oppegard, a Lexington lawyer, said that without additional inspectors, MSHA had been unable to meet a federal requirement to visit each mine four times annually. Coal mining has made large improvements in safety. Blackwell Thomas, April 14, 2008, State marks five years of safe coal mines, The Southern, http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2008/04/14/front_page/24119976.txt Today officially marks five years coal miners in the state of Illinois have gone without a fatality on the job, officials said. Gov. Rod Blagojevich has declared today "Mine Safety Day" to commemorate the state's fifth consecutive year without a mining fatality, a feat officials said is a first since the state began mining. In a release, Blagojevich praised the work of Illinois miners. "Today is a great day for the Illinois coal industry and the men and women who take on tremendous risk each day when they go to work," he said. "To go five consecutive years without losing a life in an industry worldwide that has seen its share of recent tragedies is an accomplishment that should not be overlooked." The governor's release touts safety measures such as frequent mine inspections, which include checks for "proper ventilation, hazardous conditions and ensuring roof and rib control procedures are being followed" with helping the state to achieve the five-year feat.

STEEL INDUSTRY TURN A. Steel Industry growing now. Dipankar Bose, 2008, Whither the steel industry?, Business Line, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/03/21/stories/2008032150670800.htm The second question pertains to demand. Our steel consumption has been rising over the

last six years. From 29.19 mt in 2001-02 it rose to 36.37 mt in 2004-05. Afterwards it rose faster and reached 41.43 mt in 2005-06 and 43.74 mt in 2006-07. In fact, between 2000-01 and 2006-07 the total quantum of steel sold in India was 213.5 mt, some 68.8 mt more than what was sold in the previous six years. This huge induction of new steel goods in the economy has sharply raised the size of the total steel stock and also the proportion of new products to the total stock, thereby significantly increasing the productive capacity in the economy. To utilise this vast stock and the net yearly additions to it at a given level, the domestic steel demand has to rise sufficiently high every year.

B. Lack of coal destroys the steel supply. Time, 1974,

A Costly Coal Showdown, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,911498-2,00.html Crucial Test. Soft coal now provides 20% of U.S. energy; a U.M.W. strike would slash production of it by 75%. Coal is used to generate 50% of the nation's electric power, and utilities would have to begin cutting power generation anywhere from two to twelve weeks after a coal strike began, depending on the size of their stockpiles. Yet long before most utilities began running short of coal, the nation's steel mills would be crippled. The mills have about a 30-day stockpile of coking coal on hand, but in the event of a strike they would have to cut production immediately in order to stretch out these stocks. After two weeks, output would be down 50%. With steel already in short supply, the effects would show up rapidly in layoffs by companies that turn out autos, machinery, appliances and ships. After four to six weeks, havoc in production and employment would begin to snowball throughout the economy. C. Turns case -- Steel is key to energy infrastructure. American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_releases/steel_and_national_defense_0107.pdf A typical refinery contains miles of specialty pipe, large sophisticated boilers and process pressure vessels, thousands of custom made valves and fittings -- all made from steel designed expressly for critical applications. Pipelines, the vehicles by which petroleum and natural gas are delivered to refineries and then on to consumers, are made from technically demanding plate steel in wide and very heavy gauges. Prompt and effective maintenance and restoration of pipelines are vital to our national energy security infrastructure and to our national economy Electric power generation is an engine for our economy. Steel is not only present in the structures, but in the huge generators, which use large quantities of sophisticated electrical lamination steel sheet, and in the boilers, pressure vessels and pipe that is needed to produce and deliver the steam or water to the generators. Transmission towers, made entirely of steel, carry high voltage electric wires and provide support for our nation’s microwave, cellular and other communications equipment. Steel utility distribution poles provide the structures by which electricity is routed to commercial and domestic customers.

STEEL INDUSTRY IMPACT EXTENSIONS

Steel is key to Transportation. American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_releases/steel_and_national_defense_0107.pdf An efficient national highway system is crucial to the defense and security of our country. The Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was created and implemented with this important objective. Maintaining and improving this vital transportation link is a top national priority, and steel plays a vital role though reinforcing steels (rebar), guardrails, signage, light poles and other supporting structures. In addition, building our transportation security infrastructure with steel saves energy. Continuously reinforced concrete roadways have been shown to improve fuel efficiency in heavy vehicles by as much as 20 percent, and steel-intensive transportation infrastructure improvements are also helping to reduce commuter delays – a tangible way to decrease the billion of dollars wasted in burning excessive fuel. Steel is key to health and public safety. American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_releases/steel_and_national_defense_0107.pdf Public health and safety dictate reliable and efficient sewage, wastewater treatment and management facilities. Steel components, such as tubular goods, tanks, culverts, storm water management and storm sewers are integral to the construction and operation of these facilities. Safe, potable water is essential for all Americans. Steel is unsurpassed as a conduit for water. Relatively thick plate steel for pipe dominates, but thinner steel plate is also in great demand. Steel tanks meet zero tolerance leakage standards, and they are safer than other materials in tornadoes, earthquakes, mudslides and extreme temperatures. Whether for flood control, irrigation, recreation, industrial or drinking water reservoir use, dams must be protected and maintained. Steel plays a vital role in certain types of dam structures.

STEEL INDUSTRY IMPACT EXTENSIONS

Steel is key to military power and national security. American Iron And Steel Institute, 2007, Steel And The National Defense, www.ssina.com/news/releases/pdf_releases/steel_and_national_defense_0107.pdf The U.S. carbon/alloy and specialty steel industries are vital partners to American defense contractors and to the DOD. Domestic and specialty metals are found in virtually every military platform. Whether it is missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, helicopters, Humvees® or munitions, American-made steels and specialty metals are crucial components of U.S. military strength. A few examples follow: 1. The Joint Strike fighter F135 engine, the gears, bearings, and the body itself, will use high performance specialty steels and superalloys produced by U.S. specialty steel companies. 2. Land based vehicles such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank, and the family of Light Armored Vehicles use significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle. 3. Steel plate is used in the bodies and propulsion systems of the naval fleet. 4. The control cables on virtually all military aircraft, including fighter jets and military transport planes, are produced from steel wire rope. Numerous additional examples illustrating how steel and specialty metals directly support the U.S. defense industrial base are provided in Appendices 1 and 2. These materials are an integral part of many diversified military applications and, as such, are in a continuing state of technological development. Steel’s importance to the military must also be looked at in a broader context to include both direct and indirect steel shipments to the military infrastructure that are needed to support our defense efforts, both at home and overseas -- e.g., all of the steel that goes into the rails, rail cars, ground vehicles, tanks, ships, military barracks, fences and bases, which are not classified as shipments to ordinance, aircraft, shipbuilding or other military uses.

***COAL BAD*** A2- COAL COLLAPSE DA: MINING UNSAFE Inspection rates have hit their lowest in a decade, coal mining is unsafe. New York Times Editorial , 2007, Unsafe Mining, Crandall Canyon is unlikely to be the only coal mine with questionable safety standards. Congress should investigate the broader question of whether safety standards in the

nation’s mines, and their enforcement by federal regulators, are slipping as energy companies embark on a massive hunt for coal in their rush to secure new energy sources. In the past three years, energy companies have opened nearly 50 new coal mines a year. The number of coal miners has grown by almost a fifth since 2003. Yet last year M.S.H.A.’s inspection hours per mine and the inspection completion rate both hit their lowest point in at least a decade. And deadly accidents soared. Last year, 47 coal miners died, more than twice as many as in 2005 and the most since 1995. The fatality rate, which measures deaths as a percentage of all workers, was at its highest since 2001.

AT: COAL COLLAPSE- NO IMPACT TO HEG U.S. Hegemony cannot prevent wars. Nancy Lapp, 2006, Hegemonic Irrelevance? Peru and Ecuador at War, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/3/5/pages97351/p 97351-1.php U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere has been a “fact of life”; for close to two centuries the U.S. has heavily influenced the politics and economies of Latin American countries. According to some variants of hegemonic stability theory, one would expect a Pax Americana as a result. Yet interstate conflicts have persisted in a region one expects the U.S. to wield its greatest influence. U.S. Hegemony doesn’t prevent wars, it increases their likelihood. Nancy Lapp, 2006, Hegemonic Irrelevance? Peru and Ecuador at War, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/9/7/3/5/pages97351/p 97351-1.php This paper presents the possibility that U.S. hegemony not only did not prevent the conflict, but inadvertently allowed more risky behavior, particularly by Ecuador. Ecuador wanted to change the border status quo while Peru wanted to maintain it. Ecuador was clearly the weaker party to the conflict. Antagonizing Peru could be dangerous; Ecuador had already been invaded by Peru and could expect this to happen again. Ecuador could count on international intervention to prevent extreme consequences of attempting to win concessions from Peru. The four guarantors would likely intervene to prevent a largescale war, a long-term invasion of Ecuador by Peru, or further territorial loss for Ecuador

COAL INDUSTRY DECLINING NOW The coal industry has reached an all time low. Seth Dunn, 1999, King Coal’s Weakening Grip on Power, Worldwatch Institute, http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP125A.pdf Indeed, the sun may be setting on the empire of coal. Its share of world energy, which peaked at 62 percent in 1910, is now 23 percent and dropping. Although coal’s market

price has fallen 64 percent in the past 20 years to a historical low of $32 per ton, global use is at its lowest in a decade, having fallen 2.1 percent in 1998. One reason for this decline is that the price of dealing with coal’s health and environmental toll—the “hidden cost”—is rising. And now King Coal’s remaining colonies find themselves confronted with a concern of the sort that bedeviled Jevons. This time, however, it is coal dependence—not depletion—that is the potential threat to progress.

COAL REGULATION INEVITABLE The U.S. will inevitably regulate CO2. Kelly Sims Gallagher, Director, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, And Jennie Stephens, Research Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy, 2005, Untie Utilities' Hands on Coal, The Albuquerque Journal, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1400/untie_utilities_hands_on_coal.html Around the world, political pressure from the 144 countries that have signed on to the Kyoto Protocol will build as their economies start to make more sacrifices to reduce emissions. The already strong scientific consensus that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are changing the Earth's climate is growing ever stronger, and public awareness has become correspondingly stronger as well. A recent report by the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy recommended the establishment of a mandatory, economy wide system of tradable permits to limit CO2 and other greenhouse gases, with a cap on permit costs to keep potential costs constrained. Although political support for CO2 regulation may still be insufficient to pass legislation, the notion that the United States needs to take action on CO2 is gaining momentum in Congress, as demonstrated by the current holdup of the administration's Clear Skies legislation due to its failure to include CO2 limits. And key political players in both the public and private sectors now acknowledge that it is inevitable that the United States will regulate CO2 emissions eventually.

***CLEAN COAL CP*** 1NC- CLEAN COAL CP TEXT Text: The United States federal government should fund the development of clean coal and offer incentives to promote its use

NO FUNDING FOR CLEAN COAL Government promises Clan Coal support, but no funding. Wald, 08

Matthew L., Writer for The New York Times, May 30th 2008 Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of “clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Clean Coal has no Funding Ashley, 08 Steven, Writer for Scientific American, February 4th, 2008 (U.S. Cancels Clean Coal Plant, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-cancels-cleancoal-plant) So much for clean coal—at least for now. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it has canceled plans to build a prototype 275-megawatt power plant, its first so-called FutureGen facility, in Mattoon, Ill., which was designed to burn coal to produce electricity, and then sock away 90 percent of the resulting climate change– causing carbon dioxide safely underground. Amid spiraling costs due to rising prices for concrete and steel, among other factors, the DOE said it was pulling the plug to save money and to restructure the agency's clean coal effort to be less centralized and more effective.

COAL GASIFICATION SOLVES- ENVIRO AND SEQUESTRATION Coal Gasification Stops Greenhouse Gases, and makes Carbon Sequestration possible. DOE, April 08 U.S. Department of Energy, April 2008

Gasification Technology R&D, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html Coal gasification may offer a further environmental advantage in addressing concerns over the atmospheric buildup of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. If oxygen is used in a coal gasifier instead of air, carbon dioxide is emitted as a concentrated gas stream in syngas at high pressure. In this form, it can be captured and sequestered more easily and at lower costs. By contrast, when coal burns or is reacted in air, 80 percent of which is nitrogen, the resulting carbon dioxide is diluted and more costly to separate. Coal Gasification Triples Coal Resources, has little environmental impacts, and leads to Carbon sequestration Friedmann, 07 Dr. S. Julio, Director, Carbon Management Program, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, November 14 Underground Coal Gasification in the USA and Abroad, https://eed.llnl.gov/co2/pdf/UCG_CongTest.pdf UCG can be applied to coal deposits that are not amenable to conventional mining methods. It is estimated that UCG can nearly triple coal resources available to conventional mining. It has been demonstrated that UCG can be performed with extremely limited environmental impacts, much less than conventional mining and combustion. The main environmental concern is the possibility of contaminating ground water; however, it has been shown in a field program in Australia that groundwater can be effectively protected. Importantly, UCG has technical advantages that allow for low cost carbon sequestration and decarbonization of emissions, permitting substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

SEQUESTRATION GOOD- CARBON AND WARMING Carbon Sequestration can reduce CO2 and be Competitive Doyle, 07 Alister, Writer for International Business Times, November 2007 (Clean coal test traps 95 percent carbon: Norway firm, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20071116/norway-climate-coal.htm) Tests of a new technology for capturing greenhouse gases from coal-fired power plants have achieved 95 percent cuts in a step towards new ways to fight climate change, a Norwegian company said on Friday.

"It's a breakthrough for us," Henrik Fleischer, chief executive of Sargas technology group, said of tests held since October of a prototype at the Vartan power plant, run by Finnish energy group Fortum (FUM1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research) in Stockholm. "A competitive coal-fired power plant with carbon dioxide capture could be built today with this technology," he told Reuters. "It could produce energy at competitive costs." Carbon Sequestration helps stop Global Warming Ashley, 08 Steven, Writer for Scientific American, February 4th, 2008 (U.S. Cancels Clean Coal Plant, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-cancels-cleancoal-plant) Many experts believe that truly clean coal-fired power plants, coupled with such carbon capture and storage systems, offer one of the best hopes of keeping global greenhouse warming at bay in coming decades. But green energy watchers always suspected that the government was not ready to pony up the necessary billions it would take, including the ballooning $1.8-billion estimated budget for FutureGen, which many environmentalists charged was a mere payoff for the politically connected coal industry.

SOLVENCY- ENERGY SECURITY Coal Gasification Provides Energy Security Friedmann, 07 Dr. S. Julio, Director, Carbon Management Program, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, November 14 Underground Coal Gasification in the USA and Abroad, https://eed.llnl.gov/co2/pdf/UCG_CongTest.pdf Due to the ability to generate electricity, natural gas substitutes, liquid fuels, and hydrogen from coal at low cost, UCG has clear benefits regarding secure domestic fuel supplies. Naturally, UCG provides on technology pathway to secure production of domestic liquid fuels for military supplies, similar to the goals of the TED and JBUFF programs within the Dept. of Defense. In addition, the accelerated adoption of UCG in developing countries could reduce future demands on liquid fuels and extend the current international reserves of oil and natural gas. Both could substantially reduce the risks to supply disruptions faced by the US while enhancing stability and economic growth in rapidly growing nations of interest.

SOLVENCY- DEVELOPMENT AND MINE SAFETY Coal Gasification Helps Developing Countries and Minimizes Mining Deaths, and

leads to Carbon Sequestration Friedmann, 07 Dr. S. Julio, Director, Carbon Management Program, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, November 14 Underground Coal Gasification in the USA and Abroad, https://eed.llnl.gov/co2/pdf/UCG_CongTest.pdf Due to the low cost and environmental benefits, UCG hold particular promise for developing countries with large coal reserves, including China, India, and Indonesia. In the case of India and China, UCG could provide substantial environmental benefit in the form of reduced particulate, NOX, and sulfur emissions. It would allow both nations to exploit their high-ash coals using advanced conversion technologies like IGCC generation. Finally, it would minimize the risk of mining deaths, degradation of the surface environment, and provide a low-cost option for CO2 sequestration.

SOLVENCY- PROVIDES ENOUGH ENERGY Coal Gasification can power the chemical industry and the transportation system, and has zero emissions. BBC News, November 05 BBC News, November 28th, 2005 (Clean coal technology: How it works, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4468076.stm) Coal gasification plants are favoured by some because they are flexible and have high levels of efficiency. The gas can be used to power electricity generators, or it can be used elsewhere, i.e. in transportation or the chemical industry. In Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) systems, coal is not combusted directly but reacts with oxygen and steam to form a "syngas" (primarily hydrogen). After being cleaned, it is burned in a gas turbine to generate electricity and to produce steam to power a steam turbine. Coal gasification plants are seen as a primary component of a zero-emissions system.

However, the technology remains unproven on a widespread commercial scale. Coal Gasification Is Key to Producing Hydrogen DOE, April 08 U.S. Department of Energy, April 2008 Gasification Technology R&D, http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html Gasification, in fact, may be one of the best ways to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells. Hydrogen and other coal gases can also be used to fuel power-generating turbines, or as the chemical "building blocks" for a wide range of commercial products.

***A2- CLEAN COAL***

CLEAN COAL NOW

Clean Coal is in Development Andrews, June 08 Wyatt, CBS news correspondent, June 20th (Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source= mostpop_story) Much has been made about the skyrocketing price of oil lately, with some saying that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas is a possible solution. But, as CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports, utilities are testing technology to make one of America's most abundant fuel source - coal - a cleaner alternative. Coal is, by far, the dirtiest way America makes its electric power, but a new ad campaign funded by the industry promises a future where clean coal is a viable option. And it's not just the industry. Both presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, are pushing clean coal.

CLEAN COAL FAILS Carbon Sequestration Doesn’t Work Andrews, June 08 Wyatt, CBS news correspondent, June 20th (Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source= mostpop_story) "There is no such thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas. "There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major long-term pollutant," says Hansen.

Coal Gasification has potential, but is untested CRF, 06 Combustion Research Facility, Department of Energy Office of Science, 2006 (Coal Combustion and Gasification,

http://public.ca.sandia.gov/crf/research/combustionProcesses/coalResearch.php) Coal gasification offers advantages over traditional coal combustion technology in the areas of thermal efficiency (when coupled with a gas turbine combined-cycle power plant), reduced emissions, and the ability to generate hydrogen or other high-value fuels or chemicals. Although small-scale coal gasification has been used in the petrochemical industry for decades, the proper design and operation of large-scale units for utility power production is poorly understood. Sandia is using its expertise in laser and optical diagnostics and chemical kinetic modeling to perform the first measurements of coal char gasification kinetics at high-temperature, pressurized conditions. These measurements will allow more accurate computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling to be performed for the design and operation of high-temperature gasifiers.

CLEAN COAL FAILS

Coal Gasification Plants are Expensive and Unreliable. Conniff, 08 Richard, National Magazine Award-winning writer, 2008 The Myth of Clean Coal, http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2014 Actually making coal clean would be hugely expensive. In this country, most research focuses on coal gasification, which aims to remove CO2 and other pollutants before combustion. But only two power plants using the technology have actually been built in the United States, in Indiana and Florida, and the purpose of both was to capture sulphur and other pollutants. Neither takes the next step of capturing and storing the CO2. They also manage to be online only 60 or 70 percent of the time, versus the 90-95 percent uptime required by the power industry. In Europe, researchers prefer post-combustion carbon capture. But the steam needed to recover CO2 from the smokestack kills the efficiency of a power plant.

CLEAN COAL BAD- INDUSTRY COLLAPSE Coal Gasification will make Current Plants Obsolete Carmichael, 07 Bobby, Staff writer for USA Today, December 27th, 2007 Tech could reduce coal facilities' emissions, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-26-coalmain_N.htm Duke Energy (DUK), the Charlotte-based utility, is now awaiting an air permit from Indiana for a $2 billion, 630-megawatt coal plant, large enough to power about 200,000 homes a year. Considered only average-size as traditional plants go, it would become the world's largest coal-fired power plant to use a new, cleaner technology called integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC. "It's a technology that has the ability to take air pollution out of the debate over coal," says John Thompson, director of the Coal Transition Program at the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based environmental group that supports the plant. "The day that plant opens, the 500 or so coal plants in the U.S. are obsolete."

***CHINA DA*** CHINA DA 1NC shell 1/3 A. Uniqueness No pressure is on China to curb emissions right now. The main reason is the United States’ refusal to do so. China will not be pressured over emissions as long as the US refuses to cap its

emissions Planet Ark 2007 [“China Says Will Curb Emissions if Gets Tech Help,” Nov 30, http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45637/story.htm] BEIJING - China

would "definitely do more" to cut its contribution to climate change if rich nations were willing to share clean energy technologies, its chief climate negotiator Yu Qingtai told Reuters on Thursday. The stance may smooth talks to agree a global deal on climate change, which kick off in Bali next week and are balanced on how far developing nations should join rich countries' efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. "Particularly with regard to the more energy efficient technologies available in the hands of more developed countries, if co-operation is forthcoming... we definitely will be able to do more," said Yu. China would also like to explore how to take into account that a big chunk of its carbon dioxide emissions comes from making goods that are exported to rich countries, which he called a "major concern". China would not be pressured [to cut emissions]

over its ballooning total output of carbon dioxide, poised this year to exceed top emitter the United States. Washington refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it set no caps on developing nations.

B. Links Plan increases pressure on China to cut emissions. Any US policy change increases pressure on China International Water Power 2007 [“Beyond Three Gorges in China,” Jan 10, http://www.waterpowermagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2041318] Beijing also hopes to use the expansion of the hydro sector to support its claim that it is starting to tackle its rising greenhouse gas emissions. Global warming remains a fringe concern in China but the government recognises that pressure for action on emissions from the European Union and other major trading partners is set to increase markedly over the next few years. A change of policy on the issue in the US would also increase

the pressure on China to cut emissions. During the 1990s, China’s carbon emissions increased by 111%, making it the world’s second biggest emitter after the US. Yet with Chinese per capita carbon emissions of 0.6 tonnes a year, against a global average of 1.1 tonnes, there is plenty of room for expansion, particularly in such a rapidly growing economy.

CHINA DA 1NC shell 2/3 C. Impact Chinese economic interests lie in continued use of coal Coal key to Chinese economy, but coal means huge emissions National Public Radio 2007 [“China's Coal-Fueled Boom Has Costs,” May 2] Seventy percent of China's energy comes from coal, the dirtiest of all fuels to produce energy. Coal is literally powering China's seemingly unstoppable rise to superpower status, but not without costs to people and the environment. Coal miner Wu Gui, who has been working the mines for 34 years, describes his role in China's economy as "a glorious job." "I am making a contribution to the country," he says. "If we couldn't find coal, China couldn't get richer and more powerful, and we wouldn't be able to improve people's living standards." Beijing is relying on men like Wu to power its future, says Yang Fuqiang of the global Energy Foundation. He notes that China is the world's leading consumer of coal. China will build 500 coal-

fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week. This massive appetite for coal means equally huge greenhouse gas emissions. Wu Gui has been a coal miner for 34 years. He says coal is a key to China's economic success. International pressure to reduce emissions hurts these interests. China will not act on Sudan if its interests are hurt. China will resist pressure on Sudan if its interests are not respected International Herald Tribune 2004 [“Darfur complications : Disaccord on Sudan could poison China-U.S. ties,” Nov 18] WASHINGTON: Whatever its outcome, the United Nations Security Council's extraordinary meeting on Sudan, to be held in Nigeria on Thursday and Friday, could presage a potentially difficult period for U.S.-Chinese relations. Its discussion of the north-south peace process in Sudan, and the possible motion to pass new sanctions

against Sudan over Darfur, may well see the interests of the [US and China] diverge. After the re-election of George W. Bush and the enlargement of the Republican majority in both houses of the U.S. Congress, many in China are concerned about Bush's self-perceived mandate and its implications for U.S. foreign policy. They foresee an aggressive United States increasingly focused on ostensible security threats in Sudan, Iran, Syria and North Korea. China maintains friendly relationships with each of these countries, a reflection of its historic and evolving national interests. This does not necessarily represent part of a grand strategy to aid and support "rogue nations," but rather China's rapidly growing demand for oil and the channeling of Chinese investment to markets with little competition from multinational corporations. China's increasing dependence on imported oil and its efforts to invest in production capabilities overseas has resulted in its importing 6 percent of its oil from Sudan, almost 60 percent of Sudan's oil output. China is very concerned about U.S. efforts to impose sanctions on Sudan, potentially disrupting this supply, which would drive the cost of oil higher, aggravate inflation in China and threaten its investments in Sudan's energy sector. While China is not eager to seem "irresponsible power" by blocking international efforts to prevent genocide in Darfur, a steady supply of oil is necessary to ensure its continued economic growth and domestic stability. Because of this, China and the international community share a common interest in defusing the crisis in Sudan, a fact that has prompted China to lift its initial silence and raise the matter with Khartoum, encouraging Sudan to comply with the international community and two UN resolutions on the issue. The Darfur crisis represents an opportunity for the Bush administration to exploit China's relationship with Sudan, assuming that it sees China as part of the solution and not part of the problem. Cooperating with the United States to pressure Sudan, however, could be a slippery slope for China, particularly with a newly energized U.S. president who might be eager to tackle unrepentant rogue states. China has been instrumental in using its leverage to bring North Korea to the negotiating table and has won U.S. praise for doing so. But China particularly wants no part of the U.S.-Iranian standoff, largely because 14 percent of its imported oil comes from Iran, making any U.S. effort to disrupt Iranian oil shipments disastrous for its economy. U.S. pressure on Iran could potentially be perceived by China as an act of "containment," or worse, as an act of war. The second Bush administration will increasingly realize that China's presence in the energy and infrastructure sectors of Sudan, Iran and Syria is largely a result of longstanding sanctions that have largely marginalized multinationals and the "supermajor" oil companies in these markets, providing a niche where Chinese companies can compete more effectively to "lock up barrels" and win contracts. With less access to capital and little concern about lawsuits at home, Chinese companies are naturally more likely to invest in projects and engage in trade with countries where companies based in the United States and Europe are reluctant to do business. If approached carefully, China could be a productive international partner in Sudan. But without assurances that its interests will be

respected, both there and elsewhere, China is likely to resist international pressure and potentially be seen as a roadblock to global security and possibly come into conflict with the United States. The vital question is whether the [US] and the international community will see China as a partner in their effort to bring about behavior change not only in North Korea, but in Sudan, Iran and Syria as well.

CHINA DA 1NC shell 3/3 Without Chinese action, the impact is that the Darfur genocide will only get worse. Chinese action is crucial to stop the genocide in Darfur

Reeves, Sudan Research Analysis, 2007 [Eric, “Darfur Peace Talks in Libya Produce Only an Emboldened Khartoum,” Nov 11, http://www.sudanreeves.org/Article192.html] A fundamental truth governs the vast human catastrophe in Darfur and in many ways the growing crisis in Eastern Chad. For China’s increasingly callous and unqualified support for Khartoum reproduces yet again a grim logic: so long as the National Islamic Front (National Congress Party) regime feels that it will not be subject to serious pressure for sustaining a terrible genocide by attrition, it will act as it has in recent days and weeks---and months. Absent any threat of sanctions, or pressure

from China, the chaotic status quo will settle more deeply

over Darfur. That this is, as Human Rights Watch has recently reported, “chaos by design” (http://hrw.org/reports/2007/sudan0907/) must remain the most salient feature in any account of human suffering and destruction in Darfur. Khartoum’s strategy of inciting ethnic violence, even among Arab tribal groups; of harassing and obstructing humanitarian relief; of transferring lands from non-Arab or African tribal groups to Arab groups; of violating the UN arms embargo and arming militia groups to fight civilians and one another; and of undertaking a longer-term policy of forcing the collapse of camps for displaced persons--these are the current tools of the National Islamic Front génocidaires. Any account of this broader effort is inevitably inflected by the role of China, and the cynical calculation by Bejing that it has done enough in its public relations effort to defend itself from the charge that it will be hosting the “Genocide Olympics” in August 2008. The signs of impunity on the part of Khartoum are everywhere, and this sense of impunity governs the regime’s actions towards humanitarian operations, toward the badly belated UNAMID force, toward international mediation, and---most consequentially---toward the people of Darfur. If China is not moved to engage much

more constructively on Darfur, “chaos by design” will continue to be Khartoum’s larger genocidal strategy in the region.

China DA: 2NC- TAIWAN/US IMPACT Isolation of and pressure on China lead to war with Taiwan Ballard, USMC, 1997 [Gregory, "A Search for Respect: An Examination of China's Actions after World War II," http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Ballard.htm] To protect its interests, the United States must maintain its military forces in Japan and South Korea, which contributes to the political and economic stability of the region. It should also encourage western nations to establish treaties and other arrangements with Asian nations, in order to send a signal to China that many countries other than the United States have interests in Asia. Further, the United States must continue to speak out against aggressive Chinese

policies, such as China's aggression in the Spratly Islands and against Taiwan, actions that threaten to disrupt the security and stability of the region. The United States should understand the historical and cultural sensitivities in China, and avoid policies and statements that hearken back to the hundred years of embarrassment. Deng Xiaoping's economic and military reforms have made China such a power that China

can not be isolated by the US, no matter the US stance on human rights. China's influence, through its burgeoning economy and much stronger military posture, accords it much more respect than a smaller nation who may, in the United States' view, be guilty of similar human rights' abuses. Isolating China, with its continuously advancing level of economic activity, would

be a disastrous policy, and would only result in increased world tensions. Patience, and a gradual, continued emphasis on United States' interests, along with respect for China's international position, will lead to a much more effective foreign policy. Conversely, "a policy of confrontation with China risks America's isolation in Asia,"[93] and could possibly lead to war [with Taiwan], something clearly not in America's interests. China-Taiwan war brings in United States

Rubin, Bitterlemons International, 2006 [Michael, "The US defends its allies, Jul 6, http://www.meforum.org/article/972]

As costly as a war with China would be, US administrations have made clear that Washington would consider military action to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. In 1979, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act that declared it necessary to provide arms to Taiwan and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan." Early in his first term, against the backdrop of a crisis with Beijing, George W. Bush declared that if the Peoples' Republic of China attacked Taiwan, the US

would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself". US defense of Taiwan leads to nuclear war with China and Chinese cyberwar against US allies Los Angeles Times 2007 ["A U.S.-China war?", Oct 10, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-opdustup10oct10,0,1215555,full.story] China is the Evil Empire of the future. You don't have to be a prophet to see it. You only need to be a student of history. It was just two years ago that a top Chinese military official said Beijing would use nuclear

weapons against the U.S. if Americans defended Taiwan against an invasion from the mainland. "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons," Zhu Chenghu, a major [Chinese] general in the People's Liberation Army, said at an official briefing. Chas Freeman, a former U.S. assistant secretary of Defense, said in 1999 that a PLA official had told him China would respond with a nuclear strike on the U.S. in the event of a conflict with Taiwan. "In the end, you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei," Freeman quoted this official as saying. More recently, we [also] learned of China's plans for a cyberwar attack on the U.S. to be launched in conjunction with a conventional assault on U.S. carriers in the Pacific. Code-named "Pearl Harbor II" by the Pentagon, the plan was designed to leave America's key allies in the Pacific - Japan and Taiwan virtually defenseless.

China DA: 2NC- US CHINA WAR PROBABLE China is highly suspicious of US motives, even a small action could provoke nuclear war Dyer, Lecturer on International Affairs, 2005 [Gwynne, “Containing China,” Oct, http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2005.10-international-affairs-coming-war-with-china/] If there’s anyone left to write the history of how the Third World War happened, they might well focus on June 28, 2005, as the date when the slide into global disaster became irreversible. That was the day when India’s defence minister, Pranab Mukherjee, and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signed a ten-year agreement in Washington on military co-operation, joint weapons production, and missile defence—not quite a formal US-Indian military alliance, but close enough to one that China finally realized it was the target of a deliberate

American strategy to encircle and “contain” it. It’s not clear yet what China plans to do about it, but since June the rhetoric out of Beijing has been unprecedentedly harsh. In mid-July, for example, Major General Zhu Chenghu warned in an official briefing that China is under pressure to drop its policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons in the event of a military conflict with the US over Taiwan. “We have no capability to fight a conventional war against the United States,” he said. “We can’t win this kind of war.” And so China would

“We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared that deliberately escalate to nuclear weapons:

hundreds of [their] cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.” General Zhu stressed that he was offering his personal views and not stating official policy, but no senior Chinese officer talks like that in public without official sanction. He’s also talking complete nonsense for the moment, because China has no ability whatsoever to destroy “hundreds of cities” in the United States—it might manage one or two, with luck —whereas the US, with more than 5,000 long-range warheads at its disposal, could easily destroy every Chinese city east of Xian, and all the ones west of it, too. But no Chinese general has talked like this since Mao’s time, and it isn’t happening now because the crazies have taken over in Beijing. It’s happening because the decision-makers in

Beijing think that the crazies have taken over in Washington, and are trying to draw most of Asia into an anti-Chinese alliance. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that they are right. “It’s not yet an official kind of alliance like nato, it’s not mature yet,” explained Dr. Francis Kan, a strategic expert at the National Chengchi University in Taiwan. “But we will see more informal cooperation like weapons harmonization and assigning tasks [to various members].” Beijing fears the same

ring of US allies and bases surrounding China that encircled the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

China DA: A2– NO THREAT OF WAR China is becoming militarily aggressive towards Taiwan Lam, China Analyst, 2004 [Willy, “Taiwan, China gear up for arms race,” Jun 19, http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/18/china.taiwan.us/index.html] It is significant that while PLA officers largely remained quiet ahead of the re-election of President Chen in March, they have lately given a lot of angry interviews to the official media. For example, General Liu Yuan, the son of the late state chairman Liu Shaoqi, responded to Taipei's alleged plans to hit the Three Gorges Dam by telling the China Youth Daily that an air strike by Taiwan "will provoke a retaliation that will 'blot out the

sky and cover up the earth'." Other military hardliners have asked the leadership to abandon the omnibus pledge made by Beijing that during military conflicts, China will never be the country that uses nuclear weapons first. These hawks are saying China is justified in using its nuclear arsenal against Taiwan if there is evidence to substantiate rumors Taipei is secretly developing nuclear devices. Diplomatic analysts in Beijing said the party and army leadership was most worried about so-called "collusion" between Taiwan and Washington.

A2– NO THREAT OF WAR BETWEEN CHINA AND US The gravity of the consequences of failure to defend Taiwan compels the US to intervene in a China-Taiwan war. Failure to defend Taiwan leads to devastating consequences Real Clear Politics 2007 [“U.S. Must Defend Taiwan Against China,” Jul 15] The consequences of U.S. failure to defend Taiwan would be profound. Said an experienced China watcher: "There is no upside to this." Acquiescing in China's takeover of Taiwan would: Damage, and possibly destroy, the U.S. reputation as a reliable ally in the eyes of treaty partners in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. The same would be true of friends in Singapore, Indonesia and India. Jeopardize U.S. naval supremacy in the western Pacific and give China control of the northern entrance of the South China Sea, through which passes more shipping than through the Suez and Panama canals combined. [and] Undercut the ability of any administration in Washington, Republican or

Democratic, to

persuade other nations to become democratic.

Isolating China increases chances of Sino-US conflict Carpenter and Dorn, CATO Institute, 2000 [Ted and James, "Free Trade Promotes Chinese Liberalism," May 23]

Cutting off - or even limiting - trade with China in the hope of improving human rights would be self-defeating. Isolating China would strengthen the party and the state while harming the nascent market sector and reducing economic freedom. If free trade is restricted, the probability of conflict between the China and the United States will also increase. That is why it is essential for peace and prosperity that the U.S. Congress vote in favor of permanent normal trade relations with China and support its accession to the WTO.

Beijing’s extreme suspicion of Washington leads to exacerbated tensions between China and US Lam, China Analyst, 2004 [Willy, “Taiwan, China gear up for arms race,” Jun 19, http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/06/18/china.taiwan.us/index.html] However, Beijing

has insisted, in the words of a Xinhua commentary last week, that Washington has "exaggerated China's military capacity so as to provide [itself] with a pretext for selling weapons to Taiwan." Party cadres and academics have pointed to other signs of Washington's improved ties with Taipei -- and of the Bush administration using Taiwan and other U.S. allies in Asia to "contain and encircle" China. The official media has condemned as "provocative" a recent series of naval and air force war games jointly held by the U.S., Japan and other American allies not far from the Taiwan Strait. On the diplomatic front, U.S. President George W. Bush last week won Taipei's praise by signing a bill authorizing Secretary of State Colin Powell to help Taiwan earn observer status in the World Health Assembly. While the CCP leadership is still discussing with the generals the next stage of military preparation, the party's Leading Group on Taiwan Affairs -- China's highest decision-making organ on Taiwan -- has decided on tougher economic and diplomatic measures against the Chen administration. On the commercial front, more pressure will be put on so-called "green businessmen," or supporters of the pro-independence movement in Taiwan, to either change their political stance or leave the mainland's lucrative market. Beijing is also mounting a series of aggressive steps to court the 26 countries that still recognize Taipei. For example, Vice Foreign Minister Zhou Wenzhong is visiting a number of Taiwan allies in the Caribbean, including Panama, with a view to boosting economic ties with these countries.

China DA: DA TURNS THE CASE [ONLY IF THEY HAVE AN ENVIRONMENT/WARMING ADVANTAGE] A nuclear war would hurt the environment much more than global warming LighterFootstep 2007 [“Five Things that Are Worse than Global Warming,” Jul 6] Out of sight, out of mind: we like to think the end of the Cold War stuffed the nuclear genie back into the bottle. But as Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent threat to re-target European cities demonstrates, the idea that the

risk of a nuclear war has abated is largely an illusion. It's not really necessary to recount the horrors of a potential nuclear exchange, other than to remind ourselves that a nuclear winter would be the ultimate environmental disaster, and humanity's last insult to the planet. There remain approximately 20,000 active nuclear weapons, slumbering away in the missile silos, bunkers, and submarines we hide around the world. They're a miscalculation or a sharp political crisis away from being called to duty -- a sword that's

been hanging above us so long that we've come to mistake it for the sky. If

the political resolve being marshaled to combat global warming could be channeled into achieving the complete destruction of [nuclear] weapons, it would go a long way [further] toward the safeguarding of our survival as a species.

China DA: X- UNIQUENESS China does not need to take action to cut emissions unless the US does Heggelund, FNI Senior Research Fellow, 2007 [Gørild, "CHINA’S CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS," p.177] China’s relations with the United States also seem to influence its positions. The

U.S. withdrawal from the

Kyoto Protocol was not taken lightly: The spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs branded it “irresponsible behavior.” The government official stated that Washington was using the argument about developing countries not having taken on commitments as an excuse for withdrawing from the Protocol. Furthermore,

the U.S. withdrawal is regarded as an equity concern. As long as the USA is not willing to take on commitments, and its energy use continues to increase, this is not politically acceptable to China. Nevertheless, at COP-8 in New Delhi, the United States suddenly shifted both rhetoric and alliances and supported the G-77 in its rejection of discussing future (post-2012) commitments. At the time, this seemed an unexpected policy shift, but this trend has been strengthened since then. Moreover, the AsiaPacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, of which both the United States and China are members, may be another sign of a new “alliance.”

China DA: A2- NON U: PRESSURE NOW Even with Kyoto, there is no pressure on China to clean emissions in the SQuo Snafu 2008 [“Global Warming-Round Three,” Mar 10] Take Kyoto, for example. It basically said

that, while China had signed it, that they would be “exempt” from having to abide by [regulations]. In other words, they could sign and keep right on doing what they were doing. America, on the other hand, would. Which means more environmental laws here. Aside from lower wages, another major draw for American companies to move out of the country is few to no environmental laws. In other words, signing Kyoto would have meant basically giving more jobs to China. With things like NAFTA in effect and no pressure on China to clean up its industry [emissions], signing Kyoto would not only have been financially disastrous for the US, it would have failed in its primary purpose. The factories moving to China would have ended up producing MORE pollution than they did here.

China sees no need to cut emissions as long as the US does not bear the burden USAToday 2007 ["China rejects climate mandates, blames lavish U.S. for crisis," Dec 7, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-12-07-bali-climate-conference_N.htm] BALI, Indonesia (AP) — China

insisted Friday the U.S. and other wealthy nations should bear the burden of curbing global warming, saying the problem was created by their lavish way of life. It rejected mandatory emission cuts for its own developing industries. Environmental activists, meanwhile, labeled the United States and Saudi Arabia the worst "climate sinners," accusing them of having

inadequate polices for climate problems while letting greenhouse gas emissions rise. But the activists also said no country is doing enough. Su Wei, a top climate expert for China's government attending the U.N. Climate Change Conference, said the job belongs to the wealthy. He said it was unfair to ask developing nations to accept binding emissions cuts and other restrictions being pushed for already industrialized states. He said the

United States and its fellow industrial nations have long spewed greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while newly emerging economies have done so for only a few decades. "China is in the process of industrialization and there is a need for economic growth to meet the basic needs of the people and fight against poverty," Su said. While many experts believe China has surpassed the United States as the world's top emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, Su noted the Chinese population is far bigger and said America's emissions per person are six times higher than in China. "I think there is much room for the United

States to think whether it's possible to change (its) lifestyle and consumption patterns in order to contribute to the protection of the global climate," he said.

China DA: X- LINKS: PRESSURE If the US shifts its stance on emissions, then China will be under increasing international pressure to tackle climate change Economist 2008 ["Melting Asia," Jun 5, http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11488548] Now that the American presidential race is down to two candidates who are both committed to cutting emissions, China and India, the world's most populous nations, are seen by many as the world's biggest climate-change problems. Russia's economy is more profligate with energy, but China is widely believed to be the world's biggest emitter of carbon dioxide, and India is rapidly moving up. Their exploding emissions are America's main excuse for failing to take action itself; and their

intransigence exasperates those trying to negotiate a global agreement on climatechange mitigation to replace the Kyoto protocol. Meanwhile, both countries are awakening to the problems that climate change will cause them.

US carbon control legislation puts pressure on China to curb fossil fuel use Podesta and Ogden, Visiting Professor of Law, Georgetown University & Chief of Staff specializing in energy security, Center for American Progress, in 2008 John & Peter, http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/OgdenPeter.html, June 30 China, too, will increasingly find that climate change is accelerating and exacerbating many of its most urgent environmental crises, from desertification to the deterioration of air quality in urban areas. In addition to the domestic pressure to address these environmental challenges—pressure which has taken the form of large public protests on several occasions—there will also be enormous international pressure for China to curb

its carbon emissions if the United States takes the critical step of passing its own carbon control legislation. How China responds to these challenges will have a large effect on its political trajectory and whether it can become a “responsible stakeholder” in the international community.

China DA: A2- NO LINK: PLAN DOESN’T END PRESSURE Even a weak US commitment to Kyoto turns the pressure to China – Something substantial would apply much more pressure Zhang, University of Groningen, 1999 [Zhongxiang, "Decoupling China’s Carbon Emissions Increase from

Economic Growth: An Economic Analysis and Policy Implications ," Aug 6]

Prior to Kyoto, developing count[r]ies’ demand for US leadership in emissions reduction and the EU proposal for a 15% cut in emissions of a basket of three greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2010 put collective pressure on the United States, which leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions. Now the United States has made legally binding commitments at Kyoto. The Kyoto target is seen as insufficient but yet not unreasonable given that the US economy would not be unduly disrupted. 8 Now the ball has kicked into China’s court. The United States has made it clear that bringing key developing countries, including China, on board has been and will continue to be its focus of international climate change negotiations. According to some US senators, it will be countries like China, India and Mexico that will decide whether the United States will ratify the Kyoto Protocol. It is therefore conceivable that the pressure will mount for China to make some kind of commitment at the negotiations subsequent to Buenos Aires. The world’s media will undoubtedly bring attention to China’s nonparticipation, which will be seen as holding up the ratification of the Protocol by the US Senate and possibly even be blamed for “blowing up” subsequent negotiations aimed at dealing with developing countries’ commitments.

China DA: A2- NO LINK: BALI Bali was not a significant change in US policy – it was an empty promise at the 11th hour. Bali accomplished nothing Deutsche Welle 2007 ["Opinion: Mandate for Kyoto Successor Redeems Bali Failure," Dec 17] Four reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a G8 summit in Heiligendamm, a Nobel Peace Prize for Al Gore and a world climate council -- never before has there been so much talk about reducing greenhouse gases as in 2007. Then the environment ministers meet in blistering hot Bali with more journalists than have ever attended a climate conference and

the result is a minimal consensus. Not a single reduction goal for after 2010 is included in the final text, although such goals have been the topic of discussion for weeks -- even months -- and warnings from scientists who have been recognized with the very highest prizes can be found in a one-and-a-half-line footnote. It's the same old situation that's to blame: The sacred

oath that the wealthy states made at the environment summit in Rio in 1992 to set a good example in cutting emissions hasn't been kept. The industrialized countries have lost valuable time -- or, like the US and Russia, simply approach the climate challenge with demonstrative apathy.

China DA: X- SUDAN INTERNAL China will not respond positively on Sudan if dealt more isolation and pressure Time 2007 [“The Human-Rights Vacuum,” Oct 11] Given China's human-rights deficiencies and its reluctance to be seen to cave in to outside pressure, it will not budge easily [on Sudan]. But China's wealthy trading partners must show Beijing that the long-term costs of uncritically backing murderous regimes exceed the benefits of doing so. We must elevate human safety alongside consumer safety, expressing the same outrage over massacred civilians that we do about faulty toys. And governments sending athletes to China's Olympic "coming out" must shine the torch on its support for brutal regimes. It may take China decades to see that governments that kill at home make unreliable neighbors and threaten global stability. In the meantime a coalition of the concerned must insist that what is manifestly true of the economy is also true of human rights: in this age, there is no such thing as a purely "internal matter.”

China DA: A2– PRESSURE GOOD: SUDAN Criticism of Beijing will worsen the policy on Sudan Bhattacharji and Zissis, Council on Foreign Relations, 2008 [Preeti and Carin, "Olympic Pressure on China," Jun 17, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13270/olympic_pressure_on_china.html] Experts disagree on the efficacy of such outside criticism. Pei suggests Beijing

may moderate its Sudan policy to a slight degree, but adds that "if the level of [criticism] is too high, then nothing will be accomplished." He believes increased criticism from abroad will only serve to unite the Chinese government and its people. In an interview with CFR.org, former Olympic CEO Mitt Romney notes that Olympic sponsors are financially "locked in" for the Beijing games, regardless of any attempts to shame them. He adds that "taking action which in any way disrespects China—or is seen as being disrespectful or 'taking away face,' if you will, from China—would have the exact opposite effect than had been intended."

***A2- CHINA DA*** China DA Answer: NON UNIQUE Nonunique – Pressure on China in the SQuo There is increasing pressure for China to act on climate change Terra Daily 2004 [“China facing increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” Nov 11] China's share of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to exceed the world's biggest polluter, the United States, by around 2020 and pressure is mounting for Beijing to do more to limit global warming, analysts say. With Russia's ratification this month of the Kyoto Protocol, the UN pact on climate change will finally come into force and attention will turn towards China, the second biggest emitter in the world, they said. The United States has refused to ratify the protocol but China, having made a commitment, will

be held

accountable, environmentalists said. "They have to do their best and step up development of renewable energy," said Lo Sze Ping, campaign director for Greenpeace in China. "The Chinese government is not ambitious enough. It can do better." China is a Kyoto member but as a developing country does not have to meet specific targets for cutting emissions. In negotiations to begin in 2005 on the next phase of commitments for Kyoto Protocol signatories, developing countries will likely be asked to commit to clear anti-pollution targets, even if the requirement will not be as high as that of industrialized countries, experts said. "China is the second biggest energy consumer in the world, accounting for 10 percent of global consumption ... China's active participation

in combating climate change is of crucial importance," said Khalid Malik, the United Nations resident coordinator in Beijing.

Pressure is mounting on China to cut emissions NPR 2005 ["China Resists Mounting Pressure to Cut Emissions," Dec 8] As the Montreal conference on

climate change winds down, the [countries] are focusing increasingly on China, where emissions of greenhouse gases are surging. Chinese officials and industrialists are resisting pressure to limit emissions, saying China has a right to catch up with wealthy countries.

At the same time, the country is happy to accept funding for projects aimed at promoting energy efficiency.

China DA Answer: A2 – LINK 1. Our plan doesn’t cause the significant shift of pressure to China. Even though our plan solves functionally, the international perception is that the US role in emissions is much more phenomenal. It will take much more than our plan to counter this perception and turn the pressure on China. 2. The US has already shifted stance on emissions policy at Bali. The US shifted stance on cutting emissions at Bali CNN 2007 [“In U-turn, U.S. agrees to global warming deal,” Dec 15] BALI, Indonesia (CNN) -- In a dramatic reversal Saturday, the United States rejected and then accepted a compromise to set the stage for intense negotiations in the next two years aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. The change at Bali was a significant concession and shift in US policy Guardian 2007 ["Deal agreed in Bali climate talks," Dec 15] [The] compromise deal for a new international climate change agenda was agreed at the UN summit in Bali today. The move was hailed by environment secretary, Hilary Benn, as "an historic breakthrough". Ministers from around 180 countries were united in accepting the agenda for a global emissions cuts agreement to launch negotiations for a post-2012 agreement to tackle climate change. Consensus for the road map followed a dramatic U-turn by the US, which had threatened to block the deal at the 11th hour and been booed by other countries. It dropped its opposition to poorer countries' calls for technological and financial help to combat the issue. 3. This should have triggered the link and impacts. However, none of your impacts have occurred. A. The situation in Sudan remains the same. B. There has been no war between Taiwan, China, and the US.

China DA Answer: A2 – SUDAN IMPACT Turn – Pressure is good because it forces China to act on Sudan China’s concern about international reputation leads to improvements in Sudan Stratfor 2007 [“Sudan: Al Bashir and Continuity in Darfur,” Aug 6, http://www.stratfor.com/sudan_al_bashir_and_continuity_darfur] Khartoum has offered China a similar trade-off: China trades money and weapons for oil. This arrangement would be a pleasant enough exchange from Beijing's perspective were it not for the 2008 Beijing Olympics. China has worked hard to create the international perception that it is interested in multilateral cooperation through institutions such as the United Nations. It has cast this approach as more appealing and responsible than U.S.-style unilateralism. To this end, China has leaned on Sudan to show progress in resolving the conflict in Darfur. The Sudanese concession

allowing the use of attack helicopters to support U.N. operations represents the first result of that pressure [on China]. The big winner from Sudan's decision to allow the world's largest peacekeeping force inside its borders is not the United States or Darfur's rebel groups but China. The Sudanese concession allows China to point to what seems like reasonable progress on a humanitarian issue without Beijing's having to sacrifice anything that would be needed to bring about actual progress. Of further benefit to Beijing's international reputation, China's position with the United States as a member of the U.N. Security Council is consistent with the multilateralist image China is working to cultivate internationally. Meanwhile, al Bashir has his own concerns. He had been reluctant to allow a U.N. force inside Sudanese borders since this threatens to make existing divisions in Sudan permanent in two ways.

Beijing will act on Sudan if under pressure Bhattacharji and Zissis, Council on Foreign Relations, 2008 [Preeti and Carin, "Olympic Pressure on China," Foreign Affairs, Jun 17, http://www.cfr.org/publication/13270/olympic_pressure_on_china.html] But other experts say Beijing is watching U.S. public opinion on how it handles Khartoum. In a January/February 2008 article for Foreign Affairs, Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt and Andrew Small write that

Beijing has already changed its Sudan policy because of the public outcry on Darfur. In 2006, China abandoned its policy of noninterference and began pressuring Sudan into accepting the deployment of more than twenty thousand UN and African Union troops in Darfur. China has also sent close to three hundred of its own military engineers to Sudan. "China's shifting diplomacy reflects not a fundamental change in its values but a new perception of its national interests," they say.

China DA Answer: A2 – TAIWAN/US IMPACT Turn – No Chance of War China will not go to war with Taiwan or the US Ross, Boston College, 2006 [Robert, “Taiwan's Fading Independence Movement”, Foreign Affairs, Apr, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85211/robert-s-ross/taiwan-s-fading-independence-movement.html] Never popular at home, Taiwan's

independence movement has suffered successive electoral defeats and is increasingly irrelevant. The movement's demise and the rise of politicians promising greater cooperation with Beijing have removed the only plausible cause of war between China and the United States. Political developments in Taiwan over the past year have effectively ended the independence movement there. What had been a major source of regional instability -- and the most likely source of a great-power war anywhere in the world -- has become increasingly irrelevant. The peaceful

transformation of relations between China and Taiwan will help stabilize eastern Asia, reduce the likelihood of conflict between China and the United States, and present an opportunity for Beijing, Taipei, and Washington to adjust their defense postures -- all without hurting Taiwan's security or threatening U.S. interests.

The US would not fight China over Taiwan Real Clear Politics 2007 [“U.S. Must Defend Taiwan Against China,” Jul 15] "No reasonable American would be happy about the possibility of a democratic Taiwan being forcibly absorbed by an authoritarian China, but preserving Taiwan's de-facto independence is not worth risking war

with a [China] capable of striking the United States." Those who doubt the willingness of the U.S.

to defend Taiwan point to blood and treasure spent in the unpopular war in Iraq. Even though the U.S. could confront China with naval and air power, they argue, polls indicate that political support would be lacking. Further, they point to China's

rise as a political and military power that must be reckoned with, and the fear of China in other Asian nations. And they point to the economic intertwining of the U.S. and China. In 2006, China was the second-largest source of imports into the U.S. (after Canada,) and the fourth-largest market for U.S. exports, (after Canada, Mexico, and Japan). Political leaders in Taiwan, notably President Chen Shui-bian, have not helped their own cause. Chen stirred the wrath of both Beijing and Washington recently by announcing he would hold a referendum to build domestic support for a proposal that his government apply for United Nations membership using the name Taiwan. While the application would be blocked by China, an affirmative vote in the referendum would underscore Taiwan's drive for independence -- and erode China's claim to the island. The State Department immediately reflected Bush's displeasure: "The U.S. opposes any initiative that appears designed to change Taiwan's status unilaterally." The department added: "Such a move would appear to run counter to President Chen's repeated commitments to President Bush" not to press for independence. Taiwan has also lost U.S. support by appearing to be unwilling to defend

itself. Taipei has dithered over the purchase of a large arms package that Bush offered, and U.S. military officers have said that Taiwan's forces, while improved, have been slow to modernize.