129526918 old-ccs

Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
Online Tutoring
click here for freelancing tutoring sites

INHERENCY
CCS projects are failing to start in the status quo and a
national network is lacking
Handwerk 12,nationalgeographicanalyst (Brian, “AmidEconomic Concerns, Carbon CaptureFaces a Hazy Future,”National
Geographic May 22, 2012 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-and-storage-
economic-hurdles/)
For a world dependenton fossilfuels,carboncaptureand storage(CCS) could bea key to controlling greenhousegas emissions.But
the technology meant toscrubcarbon dioxide pollutionfrom the air isexperiencingstiffheadwindsthathave
stalledmany projects at the bottomline.t Many companies have determined thatexpensiveCCS operations simply aren't
worth the investmentwithout governmentmandates or revenue fromcarbon prices set far higher thanthosecurrently found atthe
main operationalmarket,theEuropean Trading System, or other fledgling markets. According toa recentWorldwatch Institute
report, onlyeightlarge-scale,fullyintegratedCCSprojectsare actually operational, and that number
has not increasedin three years. "In fact,from2010 to 2011, the number of large-scale CCSplants
operating,under construction,or beingplanneddeclined,"saidMattLucky,thereport's author.Numerous
projects in Europeand North America arebeing scrapped altogether,Lucky added.Last month, TransAlta,theCanadian electricity
giant, abandoned plans for a CCS facility at an Alberta coal-burning plant becausefinancialincentives were too weak to justify costly
investment inCCS. "For a verysmallindustrythat's still inthedevelopmental state, it's not a good signwhen thenumber ofplanned
projects is declining,"Lucky said. "This is a period when it should beexploding,sothisdoesn'tsignal significantgrowth
of the CCSindustry in the near future."

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

ADVANTAGE ONE: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Global warming is real and anthropogenic through the
emissions of greenhouse gases – this is the consensus
amongst the most credentialedscientificresearchers
Anderegg et al 10 –PhD Candidate@ Stanfordin Biology
William, “Expert credibility inclimate change,”National Academy ofSciences,p. 12107-12109
Preliminary reviews ofscientific literature andsurveys ofcli-matescientists indicatestriking agreementwiththeprimary
conclusions ofthe Intergovernmental Panelon ClimateChange(IPCC):anthropogenicgreenhousegaseshave been
responsible for“most” of the “unequivocal” warmingofthe Earth’s average global
temperature over the second halfof the 20th century (1–3). Nonetheless,, substantial and growing public
doubt remains abouttheanthropogenic causeand scientific agreementabouttheroleofanthropogenic greenhouse gases in
climatechange (4,5). Avocal minority ofresearchers and other critics contest the conclusions ofthe mainstreamscientific
assessment, frequentlyciting large numbers ofscientists whom they believesupport their claims (6–8). This group, oftentermed
climatechange skeptics,contrarians, ordeniers, has receivedlargeamounts ofmedia attention andwields significant influencein
the societaldebateabout climatechangeimpacts and policy (7, 9–14). An extensiveliterature examines whatconstitutes expertise
or credibility intechnical andpolicy-relevant scientificresearch(15). Though our aimis not toexpand uponthat literaturehere, we
wish to draw upon severalimportantobservations fromthis literature in examining expert credibility in climatechange. First, though
the degreeofcontextual, political, epistemological, and culturalin-fluences indetermining who counts as anexpert and who is
credibleremains debated,many scholars acknowledgetheneed to identify credibleexperts andaccountfor expert opinionin tech-
nical (e.g., science-based) decision-making (15–19). Furthermore, delineating expertiseandtherelativecredibility ofclaims is
critical,especially in areas whereit may bedifficult for themajority ofdecision-makers andthelay public toevaluatethefull
complexities ofa technicalissue(12,15). Ultimately, however, societaldecisions regarding response toACC mustnecessarilyinclude
input from many diverse andnonexpert stakeholders.Because the timeline ofdecision-making is often morerapidthan scientific
consensus,examining thelandscapeofexpertopinion cangreatly informsuch decision-making (15, 19). Here, weexamine a metric
of climate-specific expertiseand a metricof overallsci-entific prominenceas twodimensions ofexpert credibilityin two groups of
researchers.We provideanbroadassessment oftherel- ativecredibility ofresearchers convincedby theevidence(CE) ofACC and
those unconvinced by the evidence(UE) ofACC. Our consideration ofUEresearchers differs fromprevious work on climatechange
skeptics andcontrarians inthat weprimarilyfocus on researchers that havepublished extensively intheclimate field, although we
consider allskeptics/contrarians thathavesigned pro-minentstatements concerning ACC (6–8).Such expertanalysis can illuminate
public and policy discussions about ACC andtheextent ofconsensus in the expertscientific community. we compileda database of
1,372 climate researchers.basedon authorshipofscientificassessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements about
ACC (SI Materials and Methods). We tallied thenumber ofclimate-relevantpublications authoredor coauthored by eachresearcher
(defined here as expertise) and countedthenumber ofcitations for each oftheresearcher’s four highest-cited papers (defined here
as prominence) using Google Scholar. Wethenimposedana priori criterionthata researcher musthaveauthored a minimum of20
climatepublications to beconsidereda climateresearcher, thus reducing thedatabaseto 908 researchers.Varying this minimum
publication cutoffdid notma-terially alterresults (Materials andMethods). We rankedresearchers based onthetotalnumber of
climatepublications authored.Thoughour compiledresearcherlistis not comprehensive nor designedto berepresentativeofthe
entire cli-matesciencecommunity, wehavedrawnresearchers from themosthigh-profilereports and publicstatements about
ACC. Therefore,We have likely compiledthe strongestandmost credentialedre- searchersin CEandUE
groups. Citation and publication analyses mustbe treatedwith caution ininferring scientificcredibility,but wesuggestthat our
methods andour expertiseand prominencecriteria provideconservative,robust, andrelevant indicators ofrelative credibility ofCE
and UEgroups ofclimate researchers (Materials and Methods).Results and Discussion The UE[unconvincedby
evidence]groupcomprisesonly 2% of the top 50 climate researchersas rankedby expertise (number of
climatepublications), 3%ofresearchers ofthetop100, and2.5% ofthetop200, excluding researchers present inbothgroups
(Materials and Methods). This resultclosely agrees with expert surveys,indicating that97%of self-identifiedpublishing
climate scientistsagree.with the tenets ofACC (2). Furthermore,this finding complements directpolling oftheclimate
researchercommunity, which yields quali-tativeandself-reported researcherexpertise(2). Our findings capturetheadded
dimensionofthe distributionofresearcher expertise, quantify agreementamong thehighest expertiseclimateresearchers, and
provide anindependentassessment oflevel ofscientific consensus concerning ACC. In additionto the striking differenceinnumber
of expert researchers betweenCEandUEgroups, the distributionofexpertiseoftheUEgroup is farbelowthat oftheCEgroup(Fig.
1). Mean expertiseofthe UEgroup was around half(60publications) thatoftheCEgroup (119pub-lications; Mann–Whitney U test:

W = 57,020; P <10−14), as was medianexpertise (UE=34 publications;CE=84 publications). Furthermore, researcherswith
fewerthan 20 climate publicationscomprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposedto lessthan 10%
of the CE group. This indicates that thebulkofUEresearchers on themostprominent multisignatory statements about
climatechange have not published extensively inthepeer-reviewed climateliterature. Weexamineda subsample ofthe50most-
published(highest- expertise) researchers fromeachgroup. Suchsubsampling facili-tates comparisonofrelative expertisebetween
groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers). This methodreveals largedifferences in relativeexpertise betwee nCE
and UEgroups (Fig. 2).Though thetop-publishedresearchers in the CEgroup haveanaverageof408climate publications (median =
344), the topUEre-searchers averageonly 89publications (median =68; Mann–Whitney U test: W =2,455; P<10−15).Thus, this
suggests thatnot allexperts areequal,andtopCEresearchers havemuch stronger expertisein climatesciencethan thosein thetop
UEgroup. Finally,Ourprominence criterionprovidesanindependentandapproximate estimate of the
relative scientificsignificance ofCEand UE publications.. Citationanalysis complements publicationanalysis
because it can,in general terms,capturethequality and impact ofa researcher’s contribution—a critical componentto overall
scientificcredibility—as opposed tomeasuring a research-er’s involvement in a field, or expertise(Materials andMethods). The
citation analysis conducted herefurther complements the publication analysis becauseit does not examinesolelyclimate-relevant
publications and thus captures highly prominent re-searchers who may not bedirectly involvedwith the climatefield.Weexamined
the top four most-citedpapers for eachCEandUEresearcher with20 ormoreclimatepublications andfoundimmense disparity in
scientificprominencebetween CEand UEcommunities (Mann–Whitney U test:W =50,710; P <10−6; Fig. 3). CEresearchers’ top
papers werecited an average of172 times, comparedwith 105 times for UEresearchers.Becausea single, highlycitedpaper does
not establish a highly crediblereputation but mightinstead reflectthecontroversialnature ofthatpaper (often called the single-
paper effect), wealso consideredtheav-erage the citation countofthe second through fourth most-highly citedpapers ofeach
researcher. Results wererobust whenonly these papers wereconsidered(CEmean: 133; UEmean:84; Mann–Whitney U test: W =
50,492; P<10−6). Results werero-bustwhen all1,372researchers, including thosewith fewer than 20climatepublications,were
considered (CEmean: 126; UEmean: 59; Mann–Whitney U test:W =3.5 ×105; P <10−15). Number ofcitations is animperfect but
useful benchmark for a group’s scientific prominence(Materials and Methods), and weshow herethateven considering all (e.g.,
climateand nonclimate) publications, theUEresearchergrouphas substantially lower prominence than the CEgroup. We
provide a large-scale quantitative assessmentof the relativelevelofagreement,expertise,and
prominence inthe climate researchercommunity. We show thattheexpertise andprominence, two integral
components ofoverallexpert credibility, ofclimate researchers convincedby theevidenceofACC vastly overshadows that ofthe
climatechange skeptics andcontrarians. This divideis even starker when considering thetop researchers ineachgroup. Despite
media tendencies topresentboth sides in ACC debates (9), which can contribute tocontinuedpublicmisunderstanding re-garding
ACC (7, 11, 12, 14), notall climateresearchers areequalin scientificcredibility and expertisein theclimate system. This extensive
analysis of themainstream versus skeptical/contrarianresearchers suggests a strong rolefor considering expertcredibility inthe
relative weight ofand attention tothese groups ofre-searchers infuturediscussions inmedia,policy, and publicforums regarding
anthropogenicclimate change.Another commonmisconceptionis that globalwarming doesn’t matter. Who cares iftheaverage
global temperaturerises by a degreeor two? Other thana fewoceanfront property owners,who cares ifsea levels riseby a foot or
two?Climatechangeimpacts our health, environment,and economy
Warming causes polar melting,creatingpositivemethane
feedback by 2015
Connor 11,professorofmodernliterature andtheory @ Birkbeck College; Scienceeditor ofThe Independent quoting PhD,
Doctor of Science, andprofessor ofOceanPhysics (Steve quoting Prof. Peter Wadhams,“Climatechange melting polar regions faster
than everbefore Oneoftheclearest signs ofclimatechangeis theloss offloating sea icein the Arctic”The IndependentNovember
9, 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-
before-6259145.html)
The frozen “cryosphere”oftheEarth, fromtheArcticsea in the northto the massive iceshelves ofAntarctica inthesouth, is
showing theunequivocalsigns ofclimate changeas global warming accelerates themelting ofthecoldest regions oftheplanet,
leading polarscientists warnedyesterday. Arapidlossof ice is clear from the records kept by militarysubmarines,
from land measurements takenovermany decades and from satelliteobservations from space.It can beseen on theice
sheets of Greenland, theglaciers of mountain ranges from the Andes to theHimalayas, and the vast iceshelves that stretch out into
the sea from theAntarctic continent, theexperts said. The effectofthe meltingcryosphere will be feltby
rapidly risingsea levelsthat threatento flood coastal citiesand low-lyingnations, changes to the
circulation ofocean currents suchas theGulfStream, andpossiblealterations to theweather patterns that influencemoresoutherly
regions of thenorthernhemisphere, they said. One ofthe greatestthreats is the meltingofthe permafrost
regionsof the northernhemisphere whichcould release vastquantitiesof methane gas from
frozendepositsstored undergroundfor many thousands of years. Scientistsare alreadyseeing
an increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere that could be the resultof melting
permafrost, they said. “Themelting ofthe cryosphere is such a clear, visibly graphicsignalofclimatechange.Almostevery

aspectis changing and, ifyou taketheglobal average, itis all inonedirection,” saidProfessor David Vaughan,a geologistatthe
British AntarcticSurvey in Cambridge. One ofthe clearestsignalsofclimate change isthe rapid loss of
floatingsea ice in the Arctic,which has been monitoredby satellites since the late 1970s and bynuclear submarines since
the beginning ofthe coldwar, said ProfessorPeter Wadhams ofCambridgeUniversity, one ofthefirstcivilians to travel under the
Arctic sea ice ona nuclear submarine. The seaice isretreatingfaster and further than at any time on
record and this year itprobablyreached an all-time record minimum interms ofvolumeand a close second in terms ofsurface
area. On currentprojections,ifthecurrent rateofloss continues, there couldbe virtuallyno September sea ice as
early as 2015, Professor Wadhams said at a briefing held at the Science Media Centrein London. “The changes aremoredrastic
that we thought.The effectismore dramatic than if you justlook at the surface area ofthe ocean
coveredby sea ice. Submarinerecords show a big area north ofGreenlandis reducedin sea icethickness,”Professor
Wadhams said. The loss ofsea iceandthewarming ofthe Arcticregionis having animpact onthepermafrostregions ofthe north,
both on landand intheshallow sea above the continentalshelfofnorthernRussia, hesaid.Scientistshave documented
vast methane releasesbothon land and above the sea. “Methane is23 timesmore potent as
a greenhouse gasthan carbon dioxide.We can expectthe possibilityofa methane boost to
global warming. We have to warn about the loss ofsea ice,and the retreat is accelerating,”
Professor Wadhams said. Oneofthegreatestthreats inthecoming century willbe the possiblerapidrisein sea levels as a resultof
melting mountainglaciers andpolaricesheets.Scientists believethatabouttwo thirds ofthecurrent rateofaveragesea level rise,
about 3 millimetres a year,is theresultofmelting ice,bothfrom mountainglaciers andpolar icesheets. “Ina warmerworld,one
thing you canguaranteeis thaticewill melt. Sea levels are now rising at a third oftheratethey werewhen wehad truly massive ice
sheets attheend ofthelast ice age,” saidChris Rapley, professorofclimatescienceatUniversity College London,anda formerhead
of the British Antarctic Survey.
This poisons all ecosystemsbeyond repair. Dealingw/
warming must take top priority.
Morgan 9,Professor ofCurrentAffairs @ Hankuk University ofForeign Studies,South Korea,(Dennis Ray, “Worldon fire: two
scenarios ofthedestruction ofhumancivilizationand possibleextinction ofthehuman race”, Futures, Volume41, Issue10,
December 2009, Pages 683-693, ScienceDirect]
As horrifyingas the scenario of human extinctionby sudden,fast-burning nuclearfire mayseem, the
one consolationis that thisfuture canbe avoidedwithin a relativelyshort periodof time ifresponsible
world leaders change ColdWarthinking tomoveaway from aggressivewars overnatural resources andtowards theeventual
dismantlement ofmostifnot allnuclear weapons. On theotherhand, anotherscenarioofhuman extinctionby
fire is one that may not so easilybe reversedwithin a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather,a slow burning fire is
gradually heating up the planet as industrial civilization progresses and develops globally. This gradual process and course is long-lasting; thus it cannot easily be changed, even if
responsible world leaders change their thinking about ‘‘progress’’ and industrial development based on the burning of fossil fuels. The way that global warming will impact
humanity in the future has often been depicted through the analogy of the proverbial frog in a pot of water who does not realize that the temperature of the water is gradually
rising. Instead of trying to escape, the frog tries to adjust to the gradual temperature change; finally, the heat of the water sneaks up on it until it is debilitated. Though it finally
realizes its predicament and attempts to escape, it is too late; its feeble attempt is to no avail— and the frog dies. Whether this fable can actually be applied to frogs in heated
water or not is irrelevant; it stillserves as acomparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may event ually lead to arunaway condition and take humanity
by surprise. Unfortunately, by the time the politicians finally all agree with the scientific consensus that global warming is indeed human caused, its development could be too
advanced to arrest; the poor frog has become too weak and enfeebled to get himself out of hot water. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) was established in
1988 by the WorldMeteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme to ‘‘assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis
the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of humaninduced climate change, its potential impacts and options
for adaptation and mitigation.’’[16]. Since then, it has given assessments and reports every six or seven years. Thus far, it has given four assessments.13 With all prior
assessments came attacks fromsome parts of the scientific community, especially by industry scientists, to attempt to prove t hat the theory had no basis in planetary history and
present-day reality; nevertheless, as more andmore research continually provided concrete and empirical evidence to confirm the global warming hypothesis, that it is indeed
human-caused, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels, the scientific consensus grew stronger that human inducedglobal warming is verifiable.As a
matter of fact, according to BillMcKibben [17], 12years of‘‘impressive scientificresearch’’strongly
confirmsthe 1995report‘‘thathumanshad grown so largein numbers andespecially inappetitefor energy that they
were now damaging the most basic of the earth’ssystems—the balance betweenincoming andoutgoing
solar energy’’;‘‘. . . their findings haveessentially beencomplementary to the 1995 report –a constantstrengthening ofthesimple
basic truththat humans wereburning toomuch fossil fuel.’’ [17]. Indeed,12years later,the2007reportnotonlyconfirms global
warming, withastrongerscientificconsensusthat the slowburn is ‘‘very likely’’ humancaused, but italso
finds thatthe‘‘amount of carboninthe atmosphere isnow increasingat a faster rate even than before’’and
the temperatureincreases wouldbe ‘‘considerablyhigher than they havebeensofar wereit not for theblanket ofsootandother
pollution thatis temporarily helping to cooltheplanet.’’[17]. Furthermore, almost‘‘everything frozen onearth is melting. Heavy
rainfalls arebecoming more commonsincethe airis warmer and therefore holds morewater than cold air, and ‘cold days, cold
nights andfrost havebecome less frequent, whilehotdays, hot nights, andheatwaves havebecomemorefrequent.’’[17].

Unlessdrastic action is taken soon,the average global temperature is predictedto rise about 5
degreesthiscentury, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already beenevidencedin recent years,
the rise in global temperature is meltingthe Arctic sheets.This runaway polar meltingwill
inflictgreat damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what has been
previouslyforecasted. However, what ismissing in the IPCC report, as direas it may seem, is sufficient emphasis on the less likely but stillplausible worst case
scenarios, which could prove to have the most devastating, catastrophic consequences for the long-term future of human civilization. In other words, the IPCC report places too
much emphasis on a linear progression that does not take sufficient account of the dynamics of systems theory, which leads to a fundamentally different premise regarding the
relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As amatter of fact, as early as the 1950s, Hannah Arendt [18] observed this radical shift of emphasis in the human-nature
relationship, which starkly contrasts with previous times because the very distinction between nature and man as ‘‘Homo faber ’’ has become blurred, as man no longer merely
takes from nature what is needed for fabrication; instead, he now acts into nature to augment and transform natural processes, which are then directed into the evolution of
human civilization itself such that we become a part of the very processes that wemake. The more human civilization becomes an integral part of this dynamic system, the more
difficult it becomes to extricate ourselves from it. As Arendt pointed out, this dynamism is dangerous because of its unpredictability. Acting into nature to transform natural
processes brings about an . . . endless new change of happenings whose eventual outcome the actor is entirely incapable of knowing or controlling beforehand. The moment we
started natural processes of our own - and the splitting of the atom is precisely such a man-made natural process -we not only increased our power over nature, or became
more aggressive in our dealings with the given forces of the earth, but for the first time havetaken nature into the human w orld as such and obliterated the defensive
boundaries between natural elements and the human artifice by which all previous civilizations were hedged in’’ [18]. So, in as much as we act into nature, we carry our own
unpredictability into our world; thus, Nature can no longer be thought of as having absolute or iron-clad laws. We no longer know what the laws of nature are because the
unpredictability of Nature increases in proportion to the degree by which industrial civilization injects its own processes into it; through selfcreated, dynamic, transformative
processes, we carry human unpredictability into the future with a precarious recklessness that may indeed end in human catast rophe or extinction, for elemental forces that we
have yet to understand may be unleashed upon us by the very environment that we experiment with. Nature may yet haveher revengeand the last word, as the Earth
and its delicate ecosystems,environment,andatmosphere reach a tippingpoint,which could
turn out to be a point ofno return. This is exactly the conclusion reached by the scientist, inventor, and author, James Lovelock. The creator of the
wellknown yet controversial Gaia Theory, Lovelock has recently written that it may be already too late for humanity to change course since climate centers around the world, . . .
which are the equivalent of the pathology lab of a hospital, have reported the Earth’s physical condition, and the climate specialistssee it asseriously ill,and soon to pass into a
morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years. I have to tell you, as members of the Earth’s family and an intimate part of it, that you and especially civilisation are in grave
danger. It was ill luck that we started polluting at atime when the sun is too hot for comfort. We hav e given Gaia afever and soon her condition will worsen to astatelikea
coma. She has been there before and recovered, but it took more than 100,000 years. We are responsible and will suffer the consequences: as the century progresses, the
temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics. Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer
serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth’s surface we have depleted to feed ourselves. . .. Curiously, aerosol pollution of the northern hemisphere reduces
global warming by reflecting sunlight back to space. This ‘global dimming’ is transient and could disappear in a few days lik ethe smoke that it is,leaving us fully exposed to the
heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fool’s climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of
people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climateremains tolerable. [19] Moreover, Lovelock states that the task of trying to correct our course is hopelessly impossible,
for we are not in charge. It is foolish and arrogant to think that we can regulate the atmosphere, oceans and land surface in order to maintain the conditions right for life. It is as
impossible as trying to regulate your own temperature and the composition of your blood, for those with ‘‘failing kidneys know the never-ending daily difficulty of adjusting
water, salt and protein intake. The technological fix of dialysis helps, but is no replacement for living healthy kidneys’’ [19]. Lovelock concludes his analysis on t he fate of human
civilization and Gaia by saying that we will do ‘‘our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time,
and they are the main source of emissions. The worst will happen and survivors will have to adapt to ahell of a climate’’ [19]. Lovelock’s forecast for climate change is based on
a systems dynamics analysis of the interaction between humancreated processes and natural processes. It is a multidimensional model that appropriately reflects the dynamism
of industrial civilization responsible for climate change. For one thing, it takes into account positive feedback loops that lead to ‘‘runaway’’conditions. This mode of analysis is
consistent with recent research on how ecosystems suddenly disappear. A 2001 article in Nature, based on a scientific study by an internationalconsortium, reported that
changes in ecosystems are not just gradual but are often sudden and catastrophic [20]. Thus, a scientific consensus is emerging (after repeated studies of ecological change) that
‘‘stressed ecosystems, given the right nudge, are capable of slipping rapidly from a seemingly steady state to something entirely different,’’ according to Stephen Carpenter, a
limnologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (who is also a co-author of the report). Carpenter continues, ‘‘We realize that there is a common pattern we’re seeing in
ecosystems around the world, . . . Gradual changes in vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get ashock to the system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, you’re over into
another regime. It becomes a self-sustaining collapse.’’ [20]. If ecosystems are in fact mini-models of the system of the Earth, as Lovelock maintains, then we can expect the
same kind of behavior. As Jonathon Foley, a UW-Madison climatologist and another co-author of the Nature report, puts it, ‘‘Nature isn’t linear. Sometimes you can push on a
system and push on a system and, finally, you have the straw that breaks the camel’s back.’’ Also, once the ‘‘flip’’ occurs, as Foley maintains, then the catastrophic change is
‘‘irreversible.’’ [20]. When we expand this analysis of ecosystems to the Earth itself, it’s frightening. What could be the final push on a stressed system that could ‘‘break the
camel’s back?’’ Recently, another factor has been discovered in some areas of the arctic regions, which will surely compound the problem of global ‘‘heating’’ (as Lovelock calls
it) in unpredictable and perhaps catastrophic ways. This disturbing development, also reported in Nature, concerns the permafrost that has locked up who knows how many
tons of the greenhouse gasses, methane and carbon dioxide. Scientists are particularly worried about permafrost because, as it thaws,it releases these gases into the
atmosphere, thus, contributing and accelerating global heating. It is a vicious positive feedback loop that compounds the prognosis of global warming in ways that could very
well prove to be the tipping point of no return. Seth Borenstein of the Associated Pressdescribesthisdisturbingpositive feedbackloop
of permafrost greenhouse gasses,aswhen warming ‘‘alreadyunder way thaws permafrost,
soil that has beencontinuouslyfrozenfor thousands of years. Thawedpermafrost releases
methane and carbon dioxide.Those gasesreach the atmosphere and helptrap heat on Earth
in the greenhouse effect.The trapped heat thaws more permafrostand so on.’’ [21]. The significance and
severity of this problem cannot be understated since scientists have discovered that ‘‘the amount of carbon trapped in this t ype of permafrost called ‘‘yedoma’’ is much more
prevalent than originally thought and may be 100 times [my emphasis] the amount of carbon released into the air each year by the burning of fossil fuels’’ [21]. Of course, it
won’t come out all at once, at least by time as we commonly reckon it, but in terms of geological time, the ‘‘several decades’’ that scientists say it willprobably take to come out
can just as well be considered ‘‘all at once.’’ Surely, within the next 100 years, much of the world we livein willbe quite hot and may be unlivable, as Lovelock has predicted.
Professor Ted Schuur, a professor of ecosystem ecology at the University of Florida and co-author of the study that appeared in Science, describes it as a ‘‘slow motion time
bomb.’’ [21]. Permafrost under lakes will be released as methane while that which is under dry ground willbe released as carbon dioxide. Scientists aren’t sure which is worse.
Whereas methane is a much more powerful agent to trap heat, it only lasts for about 10 years before it dissipates into carbon dioxide or other chemicals. The less powerful heat-
trapping agent, carbon dioxide, lasts for 100 years [21]. Both of the greenhouse gassespresentin permafrost representa global
dilemmaand challenge that compounds the effectsof global warming and runaway climate
change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it,is that there are‘‘lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off’’
[21].14 In an accompanying AP article, Katey Walters of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks describes the effects as ‘‘huge’’ and, unless we have a‘‘major cooling,’’ -
unstoppable [22]. Also, there’s so much more that has not even been discovered yet, she writes: ‘‘It’s coming out a lot and there’s a lot more to come out.’’ [22]. 4. Is it the end
of human civilization and possible extinction of humankind? What Jonathon Schell wrote concerning death by the fire of nuclear holocaust also applies to the slow burning death
of global warming: Once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction, we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game willbe over, and neither we nor anyone
else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is allthe difference in the world bet ween the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring
about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that
their use would put an end to our species [23].15 When we consider that beyond the horror of nuclear war, another horror is set into motion to interact with the subsequent
nuclear winter to produce a poisonous and super heated planet, the chances of human survival seem even smaller. Who knows, ev en if some small remnant does manage to

survive, what the poisonous environmental conditions would have on human evolution in the future. A remnant of mutated, sub-human creatures might survive such harsh
conditions, but for all purposes, human civilization has been destroyed, and the question concerning human extinction becomes moot. Thus, we have no other choice but to
consider the finality of it all, as Schell does: ‘‘Death liesat the core of each person’s private existence, but part of death’s meaning is to be found in the fact that it occurs in a
biological and social world that survives.’’ [23].16 But what if the world itself wereto perish, Schell asks. Would not it bring about a sort of ‘‘second death’’ – the death of the
species – a possibility that the vast majority of the human race is in denial about? Talbot writes in the review of Schell’s book that itisnotonly the ‘‘death
of the species, not just of the earth’s population on doomsday,butofcountlessunborn generations. They would be spared literal
ddeath but would nonetheless be victims . . .’’ [23]. That is the ‘‘second death’’ of humanity – the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospects – that therewill
be no future. In the second chapter of Schell’s book, he writes that since we have not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have ‘‘chosen to liveon the
edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the last second, our situation is one of uncer tainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute
hopelessness.’’ [23].17 In other words, the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants has not yet been determined. Yet time is not on our side. Will we relinquish the fire and our use
of it to dominate the Earth and each other, or will we continue to gamble with our future at this game of Russian roulette while time increasingly stacks the cards against our
chances of survival?
Runaway warming causes extinction
Deibel 7(Terry L. ProfessorofIR @ National War College, 2007.“Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logicfor American Statecraft”,
Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally,there isone majorexistential threat to Americansecurity (as wellas prosperity) ofa nonviolentnature,which,
though far in thefuture,demandsurgentaction.It isthe threat of global warming to the stabilityof
the climate upon which all earthly life depends.Scientists worldwide havebeenobserving thegathering ofthis
threat for threedecades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed throughprobability tonearcertainty.Indeed
not one ofmore than 900 articles on climate change publishedinrefereedscientificjournals
from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming isoccurring. “In legitimatescientific circles,”
writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “itisvirtuallyimpossible tofindevidence ofdisagreementoverthe
fundamentalsof global warming.” Evidencefrom a vastinternationalscientific monitoring effort accumulates almost
weekly, as this sample ofnewspaperreports shows: an international panelpredicts “brutal droughts, floods andviolent storms
across theplanetover thenext century”; climatechangecould “literally alterocean currents,wipe away huge portions ofAlpine
Snowcaps and aidthespreadofcholera andmalaria”; “glaciers intheAntarctic and inGreenland are melting much faster than
expected, and…worldwide,plants are blooming severaldays earlier thana decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been
accompanied by a significant global increasein the most destructivehurricanes”; “NASAscientists haveconcluded fromdirect
temperaturemeasurements that 2005was thehottestyear onrecord, with1998a closesecond”; “Earth’swarming
climate is estimatedto contribute to more than 150,000 deathsand 5 millionillnesseseach
year” as disease spreads;“widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths ofcorals”dueto a 2-degree rise in
sea temperatures.“Theworld is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuithunter Noah Metuq, wholives 30miles from the Arctic
Circle. “They call it climatechange…butwejust call itbreaking up.”Fromthefounding ofthe firstcities some6,000 years agountil
the beginning ofthe industrialrevolution, carbondioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constantat about 280parts
per million (ppm). At present they areaccelerating toward 400 ppm,and by 2050they willreach 500ppm,aboutdouble pre-
industrial levels.Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century,so there is noway immediately toreducelevels,onlyto slow
their increase, wearethus in for significantglobalwarming; theonly debateis howmuch and how serious theeffects will be. As the
newspaper stories quotedabove show,we arealready experiencing the effects of1-2 degreewarming in moreviolentstorms,
spread of disease,massdie offs of plantsand animals,speciesextinction,andthreatened
inundationof low-lyingcountrieslike thePacific nation ofKiribati andtheNetherlands ata warming of5 degrees or
lessthe GreenlandandWestAntarctic ice sheetscould disintegrate,leadingtoa sealevel of rise
of 20 feetthatwould cover North Carolina’s outerbanks, swampthesouthern third ofFlorida,and inundateManhattanup to
the middleofGreenwichVillage.Anothercatastrophiceffectwould be the collapse of the Atlantic
thermohaline circulationthat keepsthe winterweather in Europe far warmer than its latitude
wouldotherwise allow. Economist WilliamClineonceestimated thedamage to theUnited States alonefrom moderate
levels of warming at1-6 percent ofGDPannually; severe warming couldcost 13-26 percent ofGDP. Butthe mostfrightening
scenario isrunaway greenhouse warming,basedon positive feedbackfrom the buildupof
water vapor inthe atmosphere that is both causedby and causeshotter surface temperatures.
Past iceagetransitions, associatedwith only 5-10 degreechanges in averageglobaltemperatures, took placein just decades, even
though no one was thenpouring ever-increasing amounts ofcarbon into theatmosphere. Faced with this specter,thebestonecan
concludeis that “humankind’scontinuingenhancementofthe natural greenhouse effectisakinto
playingRussian roulette with the earth’sclimate and humanity’slife support system. At worst,
says physics professor MartyHoffertofNew York University,“we’rejustgoing to burn everything up; we’regoing to heat the
atmosphere tothetemperatureitwas in theCretaceous when there werecrocodiles atthepoles, andthen everything will

collapse.”During the ColdWar, astronomerCarl Sagan popularized a theory ofnuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war
betweentheUntied States and the Soviet Unionwould not only destroy both countries but possibly endlifeon this planet.Global
warming is thepost-Cold War era’sequivalentofnuclearwinterat leastas seriousandconsiderably
bettersupported scientifically. Over thelong runitputsdangersformterrorism and traditional military
challengesto shame.It is a threatnot only to thesecurityandprosperity to the United States,butpotentiallytothe
continuedexistence oflife onthis planet.
Warming has an acutelynegative disproportionate effecton
poor communitiesand minorities
Fischer 9(Douglas, Daily Climateeditor,“Climatechangehitting poor inU.S. hardest.”, May 29,
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/05/Climate-Change-hitting-poor-in-U.S.-hardest)
Climatechange isdisproportionatelyaffectingthe poor and minoritiesinthe UnitedStates–a
"climategap"that willgrow incoming decades unless policymakers intervene,according to a UniversityofCalifornia study.
Everyone, theresearchers say,is already starting to feel the effects ofa warming planet, via heatwaves, increased airpollution,
drought, or more intensestorms. Butthe impacts–on health, economics,andoverallquality oflife –are far more acute
on society'sdisadvantaged, the researchers found. " Climate change doesnot affecteveryone equally
in the UnitedStates,"said RachelMorello-Frosch,associateprofessor at the School ofPublic Health at the University of
California, Berkeley and lead authorofThe Climate Gap."Peopleofcolorand the poor will be hurt the most–
unless elected officials andotherpolicymakers intervene."Watching this unfold is akinto watching a moviewheredisparate and
seemingly unrelatedstorylines convergeto denouement thatis "decidedly tragic,” the researchers wrote. Forinstance, the report
finds thatAfricanAmericanslivinginLos Angelesare almost twice as likelyto die as other Los
Angelenosduringa heat wave. Segregatedin the innercity, they're more susceptible tothe
"heatisland" effect,where temperaturesare magnifiedbyconcrete and asphalt. Yetthey're
lesslikelyto have access to air conditioningor cars. Similarly,Latinosmake up 77 percentof
California'sagricultural workforce and willlikelyseeeconomichardshipas climate change
reworks the state'shighest-value farmproducts.The dairy industry brings in$3.8 billion ofCalifornia's $30billion
agricultureincome;grapes account for $3.2billion. Yetclimatictroubles areexpected todecrease dairy productionbetween 7
percent and22 percent by century's end,whilegrapes will havetroubleripening,substantiallyreducing their value.Other
impacts, according to the researchers:Householdsinthe lowestincome bracket spendtwice the
proportion of theirincome on electricitythan those inthe highestincome bracket. Any policy that
increases thecost ofenergy willhurtthepoorthemost.California industries considered heavy emitters ofgreenhouse gases havea
workforce that is 60 percent minority. Any climateplanthat fails to transitionthoseworkers to new "green energy"jobs threatens
to widen theracial economicdivide. Minoritiesandthe poor alreadybreathe dirtierair than other
Americansand are more likelytolack healthinsurance. As higher temperatures hasten the chemical
interactions that producesmog, they'regoing to feelthemost impact. Thefindings,theresearchers say, underscoretheneed for
policymakers to consider environmentaljusticewhenaddressing climate. Ignoring the climategap, they warn, could reinforceand
amplify current andfuturesocioeconomic and racialdisparities. "As America takes steps to prevent climatechange, closingthe
climate gap must also be a top priority,"said Manuel Pastor, a co-author and director oftheProgram for
Environmental andRegionalEquity at theUniversity ofSouthern California's Center for SustainableCities.
Racism is is the stem of all violence. Look to this as the first
impact you evaluate in the round. Acts of violenceoriginate
from the mentalityof racism. Rejectionof any form of it is a
moral imperative.
Foucault 76 [Michel, Society Must beDefended: Lectures attheCollegede France, 1975-1976, p.254-257Trans.David
Macey]

What in factis racism? Itisprimarilyawayof introducinga break into the domain of life that is
under power'scontrol: the break betweenwhat must live and what must die.But racismdoes make
the relationship ofwar-"Ifyou want to live, the other mustdie" -function in a way that is completely newandthat is quite
compatible withtheexerciseofbiopower. On theonehand,racismmakesitpossible to establisha relationship
betweenmylife and the death of the other that isnot a military or warlike relationshipof
confrontation,but a biological-type relationship:"The more inferiorspeciesdie out,the more
abnormal individualsare eliminated,the fewerdegenerates there willbein thespecies as a whole, andthemoreIas
species rather thanindividual-canlive,thestronger I willbe, themore vigorous I willbe. I willbeableto proliferate."Thereis a
direct connection between the two. Ina normalizing societyrace orracism is the preconditionthat makeskilling
acceptable.When youhavea normalizing society, youhavea powerwhichis,atleastsuperficially,in the firstinstance, orin the
first linea biopower, andracismis theindispensablepreconditionthatallows someonetobe killed, thatallows others tobe killed.
And we can alsounderstandwhy racism shouldhave developed inmodern societies thatfunction inthebiopowermode; wecan
understand whyracismbrokeout ata numberof.privileged moments, and why they wereprecisely themoments whentheright to
take life was imperative.Racismfirstdevelopswithcolonization,orin other words, withcolonizing
genocide.Ifyou are functioningin the biopowermode,how can you justifythe needto kill
people,tokill populations,and to kill civilizations?By using the themes ofevolutionism,byappealingto
a racism.War.Howcanone not only wage war on one'sadversariesbut also expose one'sown
citizensto war, and letthem be killedby the million(andthis is precisely what has beengoing on sincethe
nineteenth century,or sincethesecond halfofthe nineteenth century),exceptbyactivating the theme of racism
Through emission reductions, CCS can solve emissions by the
2015 peak deadline
Claussen12, bachelor’s @ George WashingtonUniversity;master’s @ University OfVirginia; Director ofAtmospheric
Programs @ EPA; Senior Directorfor Global Environmental Affairs @ National Security Council, AssistantSecretary ofStatefor
Oceans and InternationalEnvironmentalandScientific Affairs, Presidentofthe Centerfor Climateand Energy Solutions
(Eileen,”Speech: Utilizing CCS to ReduceEmissions”11th Annual Conferenceon Carbon Capture,Utilization and Sequestration;
Center for Climate andEnergy Solutions May 1st
, 2012http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-
sequestration)
The environmentalcase for doing this is compelling enough. According to mostscenarios, global emissionsof
greenhouse gasesneedto peak by 2015 in order to have a reasonable chance of limiting
global warming to no more than 2 degreesCelsius. This is the levelwheremany scientists say wecan manage
the risks ofclimatechange, butthereis considerabledebateeven onthis point and some think wewill alreadybe flirting with
disaster at2 degrees Celsius. Whatever the case, 2015 is justthreeyears away.Are emissions showing anysigns ofpeaking? Not
even close …After a briefdownturndueto therecession, newly releasedfigures from theEPAshow that U.S.emissions resumed
their upwardmarchin 2010,rising by 3.2percentcompared to2009. And globalemissions areprojected to grow 17percentby
2020, and 37percentby 2035. Underthat scenario,we could seeaverageglobal temperatures rise 3to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100.
But, even ifyou areanardent skeptic ofthescienceofclimate changeor ofour ability todramatically reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions,the energycase shouldbe motivationenoughfor abandoning the status quo and
followinga newand differentroadto the future.What do wecareabout? Reliability.Affordability.
Security.Reduced environmental impact. These have tobe the hallmarks of U.S. energypolicy
going forward, and carbon capture and storage can and must be an important componentof
that policy.It provides us with the means to continueusing fossilfuels in a carbon–constrainedfuture. Itis especially criticalfor
producing electricity frombothcoaland natural gas, whilesimultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Coal, ofcourse,has
the most at stakein this discussion. Coal,in fact,is at a crossroads itself. The latestfigures from theU.S.Energy Information
Administration confirm that coal’s shareofU.S. electricity generation is decreasing. In 2006,coal-firedgeneration accounted for
more thanhalf(50.4 percent to beexact) ofthe total generationmixin this country. By the end of2011, that figure hadde clined to
43.4 percent ofthemix, a dropof7 percentagepoints. The biggestfactorin coal’s relativedecline,ofcourse, is dropping natural gas
prices.According to EIA, naturalgas prices areforecast toremainbelow$5 per million BTUs for thenext 10 years. This is whywe’re
seeing so many new naturalgas power plants. EIA’s latest estimates for 2011and2012show around20 gigawatts ofadded capacity
plannedfor natural gas versus around 9gigawatts for coal.Add to this thesparecapacity ofexisting gas-fired power plants that
were built to generateelectricity during thedaytimehours onlyandyou canseethechallenges facing coal. New EPArules also pose
challenges for coal.The new Mercury Rule alone, which was issuedlast December, willaffect 1,325units at525 power plants ofall
types aroundtheUnited States. Someoftheseplants are morethan 50 years old, and companies may retire older plants rather than
paying to installnewpollution controlequipment. In addition, thereis EPA’s Cross-State AirPollution Rule (CSAPR) and, onthe
industrial side,the2011ruleimposing new emissions reductions requirements on coal-fired boilers.And mostnotably,ofcourse,

earlier this spring theEPAproposedthefirst-ever nationalstandards for limiting greenhousegas emissions from new powerplants.
In order to comply with therules,newplants wouldhave toinstall carboncaptureand storage technologies.Thereis
essentiallynoother way for these plants to reduce their emissionstothe level requiredunder
this proposal.After detailing all ofthesechallenges for coal,I aminclined toask thequestion, “Other thanthat,Mrs.Lincoln,
how did you enjoy the play?”The proposed GHGrules makeit official: In order to keepcoal’s shareofthe U.S. energymixfrom
declining further, weneedto throw out old ways ofthinking. Weneedto think big.This is not just about trying to competewith
naturalgas on price;it is about embracing new ideas and new technologies toensurethat coal cancontinueas a fuelofchoiceina
world that, whether you likeit ornot,will becomeincreasingly focused on limiting andreducing carbonemissions. Coal alone is
responsible for28 percentof U.S. greenhouse gasemissions.Worldwide,43percent ofCO2
emissionsfromfuel combustioncome from coal.Clearly, something has togive. In order for theworldto geta
handle ontheclimate problem, andin order for coalto hold ontoits placeas a major energy sourcein the decades tocome, we
need to show –andveryquickly –thatit is possibleto achieve substantialcuts inemissions from coal-firedpower generation. In
other words,weneedtofinda low-carbon solutionfor coal.And coal is not our only challenge –we need allthe
low-carbonand carbon-freetechnologies wecan get. The good news about natural gas is that it generates halfofthe emissions of
coal whenusedas a fuel source. Butthat’s also thenot-so-goodnews aboutnaturalgas; it still generates substantial emissions,and
in order to achieve the levelofreductions thatwill reducetherisk ofclimatechange, weneedCCS for natural gas as wellas for coal.
The potential for CCS to reduce emissionsisundeniable.Studiesshowthat CCS technology
could reduce CO2 emissionsfrom a coal-fueledpowerplantby as much as 90 percent. Modeling
done by the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that CCS could provide19 percent oftotal globalGHG emission reductions
by 2050. Thatincludes reductions fromcoalandnatural gas-firedpowerplants, as wellas allothersources. But these arejust
studies, they aremerelyestimates ofwhat could happenifCCS finally emerges from the worldofdrawing boards and demonstration
projects to actualwidespreaddeploymentthroughoutthis countryandaround the world. Whatwe aredoing right nowto develop
these technologies is not enough; it’s noteven closeto enough. We have two decades atmost to deploy thesetechnologies atthe
scale needed toachievesubstantial reductions in emissions.

ADVANTAGE TWO: GREEN ENERGY
Incoming EPA regulations will harm the coal industry; CCS is
the only solution
Peskoe 12, associate inthelaw firmofMcDermottWill &EmeryLLPand is basedin the Firm’s WashingtonD.C., office; focuses
on regulatory,legislative,compliance andtransactionalissues relatedto energy and commodities markets(Ari,“EPAProposes to
Require Carbon Capture andSequestration; Creates Uncertainty for theFutureofCoal,” NationalLaw ReviewApril15, 2012
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-proposes-to-require-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-creates-uncertainty-future-)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first ever CO2 emissions limits for newly
constructed power plants last month. Under the proposal, power plants that have already acquired a preconstruction
permit from the EPA and commence construction by March 27, 2013 do not need to comply with the rule. The emissions
limit, set at 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour, would effectively require all new coal-fired
plants to cut CO2 emissions in half from current rates. The only plausible technology forenablingsuch
drastic cuts is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS).EPA’s proposed rule allows a new plant to implement
CCS ten years after beginning operations, so long as its emissions after CCS are below 600 lb/MWh. That gives the coal
industry some extra timeto work through the many legal and regulatory issues currently facing the technology. Like any
large-scale energy development, a sequestration project would trigger state and Federal environmental reviews. While there is
extensive experience around the country reviewing and approving projects that involve injecting substances into the ground, no
other project is designed to store vast quantities of gas underground for hundreds of years. It’s not clear how legislators,
environmental agencies and the public will evaluate this risk. Long-term liabilities relating to leaks are another legal hurdle.
According to a Federal interagency task force report published in 2010, some businesses are uncomfortable with the risk but also
unsure of how to quantify it. Insurers, and particularly investors, are fixed on short-term thinking, and 10 or 20 years is considered
“long-term” in business decision making. But sequestered carbon must stay underground for centuries. There is no agreement on
how to account for this time horizon. A2010 paper by a Harvard Law School professor and student researchers proposeda range of
regulatory incentives to spur development oflarge scale test projects. The suggestions included establishing a trust fund paid for by
industry to cover liabilities, developingsites on Federal land to streamline the approval process, imposing caps on liability
and preempting nuisance and trespass claims. Regardless of the specifics, instituting any new
regulatory systemtakes time. Fracing is a multi-billion dollar business in the U.S., and yet aftera decade ofwidespread useits
legal framework is not yet firmly established. As EnergyBusinessLaw.com has been documenting, legal norms are still developing,
and all three branches ofgovernment are issuing new rules and decisions that have major impacts on the industry.
Without an impetus to do so, governments will probably ignore CCS, and the lack oflegal certainty will hinder development. Perhaps
EPA’s rule, ifimplemented, will motivateaction. Until then, rather than urging governments to enact rules that create legal certainty
for CCS, the coal industry is likely to fight tooth and nail to kill yet another attempt by Washington to regulate CO2 emissions from
the power sector.
U.S. coal exports are key to keep the U.S. afloat during these
timesof economicstruggle
Hal Quinn 12(writer for theNationalMiners Association, “WHATSHOULDU.S. POLICYBEON ENERGYEXPORTS?”, April13,
2012, http://www.nma.org/pdf/041312_quinn_nj_blog.pdf)
Exporting U.S.Coal Helps Americaand DevelopingWorld –by Hal Quinn,NMAThe UnitedStateshas
an unrivalledself-interestinservinginternational markets that urgently needcoal to grow
theireconomiesand improve the livelihoodsoftheirpeople.Infact, increasing our coal
exportsis an unusuallyclear example ofhow unfetteredtrade benefitsbothexportingand
importingcountries. With theworld’s largestcoal reserves,theU.S. finds itselfintheenviableposition ofhaving more of
what the fastest-growing countries oftheworldneed.China and India arelifting hundreds ofmillions ofpeopleout ofpoverty by
building vast electricity grids that bring coal-generatedpower tohomes and workplaces. Coalis theonly fuelfor electricity
generationthat is sufficiently affordableand abundant to literallybring this power tothepeople.It is also a vitalingredientfor the
steelmaking plants in Asia and Brazilthatarelaying foundations for a 21stcentury industrialrevolution. American metallurgicalcoal

is a building block ofthis progress much as it is for ourown industrial progress.The benefitsofU.S.coal exportsare
reciprocal.The U.S. has a 265-yearcoal supply,more than enoughto serve itsdomesticneeds. Far
from depriving Americans ofopportunities, coal exportsprovide them–high-wage jobs incoal countryfrom
Appalachia tothePowder River Basin, inthe rail industrythat transports coal to ports and in export
terminalsthat existor are envisionedforthe Gulfand both coasts. The $16 billionworth of U.S.
coal exportedlast year also deliveredrevenue tohardpressedcommunitiesacrossthe U.S.
heartland. Some critics are blindedby theirwealthy lifestylestothe powerful evidence that
coal-basedgenerationhas greatly improvedthe livesofmillions abroad who are less
fortunate.For the 1.4 billion peopleworldwide who haveno access to electricity,efficientcoalbasedgenerationprovides a
healthier and betterlife. It oftenoffsets thedemands for heat andlight that heretofore have been met with fuels derived from
deforestation, animalwastes anduncontrolled in-homeuseofkeroseneandotherfuels.In short, coal exportsare a classic
example ofAmerica’s competitive advantage. Recenthistoryoffersgrimexamplesofwhat
happensto countriesthat only buy from the rest ofthe world and sell nothing to them. The
presidentappears to understandthis lessonwith his call todoubleexports infive years. Presumably healsounderstands how coal
exports,up almost a third lastyear,arehelping himreachthis goal.Toforegothiscompetitive advantage would
be a classic example ofshort-sightedpublicpolicythat will only deepenthe economicgloom
Americansnow face.
Economic recovery is key to prevent the collapseof U.S.
leadership -- causing global power struggles and conflicts
Khalilzad 11(ZalmayKhalilzadwas theUnitedStates ambassadorto Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during the
presidency ofGeorge W. Bush and thedirectorofpolicy planning at theDefenseDepartment from1990to 1992. "TheEconom and
National Security"Feb 8www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/259024)
Today, economicand fiscaltrendspose the most severe long-termthreatto the UnitedStates’
positionas global leader.While the UnitedStatessuffersfrom fiscal imbalances and loweconomic
growth, the economiesofrival powersare developingrapidly. The continuationofthesetwo trends
could leadto a shiftfrom American primacy toward a multi-polarglobal system,leadingin turn
toincreasedgeopolitical rivalryandeven waramong the great powers.
The current recession is theresult ofa deepfinancialcrisis, not a mere fluctuationin thebusiness cycle. Recoveryis likely to be
protracted. The crisis was precededby thebuildupover twodecades ofenormous amounts ofdebt throughout the U.S.economy —
ultimately totaling almost 350percentofGDP — and the development ofcredit-fueledassetbubbles, particularly in thehousing
sector. When thebubbles burst,hugeamounts ofwealthweredestroyed, andunemploymentrose toover 10percent. The decline
of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S.government onan unsustainablefiscal path. Publicly held national
debt rosefrom 38to over 60 percent ofGDPin threeyears.Withoutfastereconomicgrowthand actions toreduce
deficits, publicly heldnationaldebt is projected to reachdangerous proportions. If interestrateswere torisesignificantly,
annualinterest payments — which already arelarger thanthedefensebudget — wouldcrowdout other spendingor
require substantial taxincreases thatwould undercut economicgrowth. Even worse,ifunanticipated events trigger what
economists call a “sudden stop” incredit markets for U.S. debt,theUnited States wouldbe unable torollover its outstanding
obligations,precipitating a sovereign-debtcrisis thatwould almostcertainlycompel a radical retrenchment ofthe United States
internationally.Such scenarios wouldreshapetheinternationalorder. Itwasthe economicdevastationof Britain
and France during World WarII, as well as theriseofother powers, thatledbothcountries to relinquishtheir
empires. In the late1960s,British leaders concluded thatthey lackedtheeconomic capacity tomaintaina presence “east of
Suez.” Sovieteconomic weakness, whichcrystallizedunderGorbachev, contributedto their decisions to withdraw fromAfghanistan,
abandonCommunistregimes in Eastern Europe, and allow theSoviet Unionto fragment. IftheU.S. debtproblem goes critical, the
UnitedStates wouldbe compelledtoretrench, reducing its military spending and sheddinginternational
commitments.We facethis domesticchallengewhileother major powers areexperiencing rapid economic growth. Even
though countries suchas China, India, and Brazilhaveprofoundpolitical, social, demographic,and economic problems, their
economies are growing faster than ours,and this couldalter theglobal distributionofpower. These trends couldin the long term
produce a multi-polarworld.IfU.S. policymakers fail toact and other powers continueto grow, itis nota questionofwhether but
when a new internationalorder willemerge.The closingofthe gap betweentheUnited States and its rivals could

intensifygeopolitical competitionamongmajor powers, increaseincentives for local powers to playmajor
powers against oneanother, andundercutour willto precludeor respondto internationalcrises becauseofthe higherriskof
escalation.The stakes arehigh. Inmodernhistory,the longestperiodofpeace among the great powers
has beenthe era of U.S.leadership. By contrast, multi-polarsystemshave beenunstable,withtheir
competitive dynamics resulting in frequentcrises and majorwarsamong the great powers. Failures ofmulti-polar
internationalsystems producedbothworld wars.Americanretrenchmentcouldhave devastating
consequences. Without an American security blanket, regionalpowers couldrearm inan attemptto balanceagainstemerging
threats. Underthis scenario, there wouldbe aheightenedpossibilityofarms races,miscalculation,or
other crisesspiralinginto all-outconflict. Alternatively,in seeking to accommodatethestronger powers,weaker
powers may shifttheirgeopoliticalpostureaway from the UnitedStates.Either way,hostile states wouldbe emboldenedto make
aggressivemoves intheir regions.
Absent CCS these regulations willcollapse the economyand
undo the entire economicrecoveryprocess
Cover 11, seniorstaffwriter for CNS News, Washington D.C.-based newsgroup,winner oftheMedia ResearchCenter's
Outstanding JournalismAward, neutral newsgroupthat does not accept federaltax money, (Matt, “EPAGlobal Warming Regulations
Could Send Economy Back Into Recession, Report Says”,CNS News March21, 2011 http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-
warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-says)
Regulationof greenhouse gassesby the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) could reverse
the verymodest economicrecoveryand evensendit back intoa recession, a reportfrom the National
Center for Public Policy Research finds. “These regulations,”author Dana JoelGattuso wrote, “will have amore
severe impact on energycosts, U.S.jobs, householdincome,and economicgrowth than cap-
and-trade legislationwouldhave had. Furthermore,the regulationscouldreverse the
economy'sdirectiontoward recovery and push us back into an economicslump.” EPAhas
considered regulating theemission ofcarbon dioxideand other greenhouse gasses under theClean AirAct, which theSupreme
Court gave the agency the power toregulategreenhouse gasses in thenameoffighting air pollution. EPAhas not yet enactedthe
types of greenhouse gas regulations Gattuso’s paper warns of, but theagency has announced that it plans todo so in thenear
future. “EPAwill proposestandards for powerplants in July 2011 andfor refineries in December 2011 and willissuefinalstandards
in May 2012 andNovember 2012,respectively,” EPAsaid ina December 2010press release. Gattuso also reported that GHG
regulations would costtheeconomy jobs, worsening analready bad employmentsituation. Particularly hard hit would beAfrican-
Americans,who would bear a disproportionateshare ofthejob losses causedby theEPA’s anti-global warming regulations. “The
U.S. economywill also stand to lose millionsofjobsas energypricessoar and industry is
forcedto cut back or investoverseas,” the report said. “Furthermore,the ruleswill have an unjust
and disproportionatelylarge impact on minorities,increasingthe numberof African
Americansin poverty by 20 percent,” it added. The report alsoanalyzes Republican and Democraticlegislation that
would attempt tostop the EPAfromissuing GHG regulations during a period ofeconomichardship anda fragile recovery. Thefirst
bill Gattuso reviews is the joint effort fromSen.James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. FredUpton(R-Mich.) that would bar theEPAfrom
using its newfoundauthority under theCleanAir Act toregulateGHGs.“ManymembersofCongress— Democrats
as well as Republicans — are supporting legislationtopreventObama from expandingthe
CleanAir Act and imposingmore economiccosts on Americans,” Gattuso reported. “Among theDemocrat
co-sponsors ofthelegislation are Representatives DanBoren (D-OK), Collin Peterson (D-MN), NickRahall(D-WV) andSenator Joe
Manchin (D-WV).”The Inhofe-Upton billwould completely prevent the EPAfromever using its CleanAir Act authorityto regulate
greenhousegasses.Manchin said such an approachwas necessary becauseCongress declined topass a separate regulatory scheme
for greenhousegasses in2010. “It's timethattheEPArealizes it cannotregulatewhathas not been legislated. Ourgovernment was
designed sothat elected representatives are in chargeofmaking importantdecisions,not bureaucrats,”Manchin saidin a statement
March 4. “The simple factis that the EPAis trying toseizemore power thanit shouldhave, and mustbestopped,” headded.
Gattusoalsoexaminedcompeting legislationoffered by Sen. JayRockefeller(D-W.Va.) that would delay EPA’s power to regulateby
two years, calling it an exercisein kicking thecan down theroad. “The problem with this ‘kickthecan down the road’ approachis
that it impedes job creationand economic growthby furthering regulatory uncertainty. Also,it does nothing tostop the EPAfrom
imposing regulations without voterapproval. Americans emphatically saidno to cap-and-tradelegislation,”Gattuso said.“Telling the
EPAto wait two years before itoverrides thewill ofvoters is not acceptableand wouldinviteEPAover-reach andencroachment on
congressionalauthority inthefuture,” headded. Gattusoconcluded that theInhofe-Upton effort was theonly legislation thatwould
successfully preventthe EPAfrom enacting economically damaging regulations. “TheEnergy TaxPreventionAct wouldrein inthe
EPA, put Congress back incontrol, andsteer oureconomy towarda completeand healthy recovery — notfor two years but
permanently.”

Transitioning from global leaders results in multiple
scenarios for nuclear war
Posen and Ross 97 [Barry Posen, Professor ofPolitical Science, MIT, AndrewRoss, Professor ofInternational Security,US
naval War College,Winter 2007, International Security]
The United States can,moreeasily than most, go italone. Yetwedo notfind the arguments oftheneoisolationists compelling. Their
strategy serves U.S. interests only ifthey arenarrowly construed.First,though the neo-isolationists have a strong case intheir
argumentthat the UntiedStates is currently quitesecure, disengagement is unlikely to makethe United States moresecure, and
would probably makeit less secure. The disappearance oftheUnited States fromthe worldstage would
likelyprecipitate a good deal of competitionabroad for security. WithoutaU.S. presence,aspiring
regional hegemonswouldsee more opportunities.Statesformerlydefendedbythe United
States wouldhave to look to their own military power;local arms competitionsare to be
expected.Proliferationofnuclearweaponswould intensifyifthe U.S. nuclear guarantee were
withdrawn. Some states would seekweaponsof mass destructionbecause they were simply
unable to compete conventionallywith theirneighbors.Thisnewflurry of competitive
behaviorwould probably energize manyhypothesizedimmediate causesofwar, including
preemptive motives,preventive motives,economicmotives,andthe propensityfor
miscalculation.There would likelybe more war. Weaponsof mass destructionmight be used in
some of thesewars, with unpleasanteffects even for thosenotdirectlyinvolved.

SOLVENCY
This green-techleadership results in global modelingof CCS
– prompting international action to solve globally
MIT 7, (“MITpanel provides policy blueprintfor future ofuse ofcoal as policymakers workto reverseglobal warming”March 14,
2007, http://web.mit.edu/coal)
Washington, DC –Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts InstituteofTechnology (MIT) panelissued a report
today that examines how the worldcan continue touse coal,an abundant and inexpensivefuel, ina way thatmitigates,instead of
worsens, the globalwarming crisis. Thestudy, "The FutureofCoal –Options for a Carbon Constrained World,"advocates theU.S.
assumeglobal leadershipon this issuethrough adoptionofsignificant policy actions. Led by co-chairs Professor JohnDeutch,
Institute Professor, DepartmentofChemistry,and ErnestJ. Moniz, Cecil andIda GreenProfessor ofPhysics andEngineering Systems,
the reportstates thatcarbon capture andsequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduceCO2 emissions
significantlywhilealso allowing coalto meet the world's pressing energy needs.According to Dr. Deutch,"As theworld's leading
energy user and greenhousegas emitter,the U.S.must take the lead in showingthe worldCCS can work.
Demonstration oftechnical, economic, and institutionalfeatures ofCCSatcommercial scale coal
combustionand conversionplantswill give policymakers and the publicconfidencethata practical carbon
mitigationcontrol option exists,will reduce cost of CCSshouldcarbon emission controls be adopted,and
will maintain the low-costcoal optionin an environmentallyacceptable manner."Dr. Moniz added,
"There are manyopportunities for enhancing theperformance ofcoalplants in a carbon-constrainedworld –higher efficiency
generation, perhaps through new materials;novel approaches to gasification,CO2 capture,andoxygen separation; and advanced
system concepts, perhaps guidedby a newgenerationofsimulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort inthenear termwillyield
significantdividends downtheroad,and shouldbe undertakenimmediately to help meetthis urgent scientific challenge."Key
findings in this study: Coalis a low-cost, per BTU, mainstayofboth the developed anddeveloping world, andits useis projected to
increase. Becauseofcoal's highcarbon content, increasing use will exacerbate theproblem ofclimatechangeunless coal plants are
deployedwith very highefficiency and largescaleCCS is implemented.CCSisthe critical enablingtechnology
because it allows significantreductioninCO2 emissionswhile allowingcoal to meetfuture
energyneeds.Asignificantchargeon carbonemissions is neededin the relatively nearterm toincreasetheeconomic
attractiveness ofnewtechnologies thatavoidcarbon emissions and specifically to lead tolarge-scaleCCS inthecoming
decades.Weneedlarge-scale demonstrationprojectsofthetechnical,economic and
environmentalperformance ofanintegratedCCS system.We shouldproceedwithcarbon sequestration projects as
soon as possible.Severalintegrated large-scaledemonstrations with appropriatemeasurement,monitoring and verification are
needed intheUnited States over the nextdecadewith governmentsupport.This is important for establishing publicconfidencefor
the very large-scalesequestration programanticipated inthefuture.The regulatory regimefor large-scalecommercialsequestration
should bedevelopedwitha greater senseofurgency, withtheExecutiveOfficeofthe Presidentleading aninteragency process. The
U.S. government shouldprovide assistanceonly to coalprojects withCO2 capture in orderto demonstrate technical, economicand
environmental performance.Today,IGCCappears to betheeconomic choicefor newcoalplants with CCS.However, this could
change with further RD&D,so it is notappropriateto pick a singletechnology winner at this time, especially inlight ofthevariability
in coal type, access tosequestration sites,andotherfactors.The government should provide assistanceto several"first of a kind"
coal utilizationdemonstrationplants, but only with carboncapture. Congress should remove any expectationthat construction of
new coal plants withoutCO2 capture will be"grandfathered"and granted emission allowances intheeventoffutureregulation. This
is a perverse incentive tobuildcoalplants without CO2capturetoday. Emissionswill be stabilizedonlythrough
global adherence to CO2 emissionconstraints.China and India are unlikelyto adopt carbon
constraints unlessthe U.S. doesso and leadsthe way in the developmentofCCStechnology.
Key changes must bemadeto the current DepartmentofEnergy RD&Dprogramto successfully promote CCS technologies. The
program must providefor demonstrationofCCS atscale; a wider rangeoftechnologies shouldbe explored; and modeling and
simulation ofthe comparative performanceofintegratedtechnology systems should begreatly enhanced.

Non-federal actors fail – lack eminentdomain, fail to spur
investmentand lack uniformity on pipelines. This drives up
prices, causes delays, and lacks nationwide solvency
Horne 10, JD @ U ofUtah (Jennifer, “Getting from Hereto There: Devising anOptimalRegulatory Modelfor CO2 Transport ina
New Carbon Capture andSequestrationIndustry,” Journal OfLand,Resources & Environmental LawVolume30 Number 2
http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/viewPDFInterstitial/337/277)
SitingRegulationsaffectcompanies' abilitytobuildwhere pipelinesare needed,or wanted.Unless CCS
develops on a localizedscale, somepipelineswill necessarilycrossstate lines.Federal eminentdomain
authority thus will be keyfor CCSpipelines.This is becausesiting under the auspices ofmultiplelayers of
governmentwill almostinevitably hinder rapid development ofa pipelinenetwork needed for commercial-scale CCS. Sucha system
would be moretime-and resource-intensive,and wouldmeanmoreuncertainty for pipeline developers. Federaleminentdomain
authority for interstatepipelines would give pipelines, withappropriatefederalapprovals, authority to cut through thered tapeof
multiplestateand localland userequirements whilestill compensating landowners andprotecting localecosystems. Acomplex
siting process thatrequires approval under multiple state andlocalregimes may slow theprogress oftheentireCCS industry. 108
The CongressionalResearch Servicerecently described theproblem: As CO<2>pipelines get longer,the state-by-state
sitingapprovalprocess maybecome complexandprotracted, and may facepublicopposition. BecauseCO<2>
pipeline requirements in a CCS scheme aredrivenby therelativelocations ofCO<2>sources andsequestration sites,identification
and validation ofsuchsites must explicitly accountfor CO<2>pipeline costs iftheeconomics ofthosesites are to befully
understood. 109 Considerthesiting ofa hypotheticalinterstatepipeline that traverses three separatestates.Absentpreemptive
federal siting regulation, thepipelinedeveloperwould havetostruggle through threeseparatesets ofregulatory requirements,
apply for approvalto build along thechosencorridor ineachstate, and potentially face legal challengesinthree
separate jurisdictions. One reason thatpipelinesiting undera state-based modelwouldbe resource-intensive is the
regulatory redundancy -andrisk ofconflicting decisions - that can occur when a pipelinecorridor runs throughmultiple jurisdictions.
This has proven tobe a hindrancein other industries. Forexample,a state-basedsiting process continues to posedaunting
challenges tointerstateelectrictransmission siting.110 It has contributedto the"veryslow pace oftransmissionenhancements,"
111 in the [*374]face ofincreasing energy demands and an electricgridin need ofexpansion. 112In general,pipeline projects
adhere torigid timelines. 113 Delaysin securing necessary easements drive upcostsand holdup projects. 114 The
problem is only compounded whendelays occur inmultiple jurisdictions at once, orwhen onestateerects a unilateralroadblock to
a projecteven thoughother states havesigned on. Evendisapprovalby a singlelocalitycan bea significant hindranceto project
development.115Second, an approvalprocess thatinvolves multiple, potentially conflicting requirements is not justmoreresource-
intensive, butalso creates uncertainty. To begin with, the"lack oftiming coordination"116 among various entities may force
pipelines to siteonepart ofa pipelinecorridorbefore thepipeline has siting approvalfor therestofthecorridor. 117In addition,
the generalized natureofthe benefitbroughtby climatechangemitigation makes localizedsiting decisions particularly vulnerableto
not in my backyard (NIMBY) opposition. 118CCS will servegeneralized interests, but imposelocalizedcosts.It will provide a
worldwidebenefit -thereduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions -but do so at theimmediateexpense (interms oflandscape
disruptionandrelated environmental effects) tothelocal landowners whereCCS pipelines are sited. Take, for example, the
immediaterisks froma sudden CO<2>pipelineleakageina highlypopulatedarea. 119Damagefrom sucha release tohuman health
and the environment wouldbeborne by the immediate locality. 120 Inaddition tosafety risks,theenvironmentalandaestheti c
impacts of pipelineconstructionarealso felt mostacutely on a localizedlevel. Theproblemofpublicoppositionto new pipelines is
likely to begreaterin CCS than ithas been inEOR. EOR pipelines arelocated primarily inremoteareas,and in states "accustomedto
the presenceoflarge energy infrastructure."121In CCS, many ofthe sources ofCO<2> - power plants -arelocated in more
populated [*375]areas, "many with a history ofpublic resistanceto the siting ofenergy infrastructure."122 Ofcourse, this willnot
bear out everywhere. Somestates arebound tobe pro-CCS,even whenthein-state proportionoftheclimatechangebenefit would
seem too slightto justify action. 123For example, importantcoalinterests inWyoming prompted thestateto moveearly to
establisha CCS regulatory model. 124For suchstates heavily dependent oncoalfor revenue, a "pushfor newclean coal
technologies"is understandable. 125 Given this, a climatelikeWyoming's may beparticularly friendly territory for siting ofCCS
pipelines. However, theseparticularstates may not match where potentialstoragerepositories are located.Other states and
localities lackthesort ofincentivethatexists in states likeWyoming. Political pressure topave the wayfor CCS pipeline siting will
vary dramaticallyfrom onestateto the next, as evidencedby theinconsistency instate action on CCS generallyso far. 126This lack
of political uniformity points to a single conclusion: somestates andlocalities willhavestronger incentives topromote CCSthan
others. ProfessorVictor Flatt has aptly summarized thepotentialhindrancethat may arisefrom this kindofmultijurisdictional
control of CCS pipelinesiting: "Each entity that has jurisdiction over CCS may have a way to veto a CCS projectfor reasons unrelated
to the originalpurposeofthelegalregime being used."127 Comprehensive federal regulation,however, could
minimizesuchuncertaintybyprovidingone set of requirementsinlieuofmultiple,varying,and
evenpotentially conflictingsets ofmandates. B. The Casefor a ComprehensiveFederal ApproachThe challenge of
transitioning to a commercial-scaleCCS industry calls for a well-coordinated,comprehensiveapproach toregulation. Anational
market willrequire a highdegreeofuniformityand certainty.The surest and most expedient [*376]path toa marketwith those
features is comprehensivefederalregulation-for CCS generally,andtransportspecifically. Likenatural gas and oilpipelines -both

complex,enormous systems with national reach128 -CCS will benefitfrom the sortofconsistent regulationfrom onestateto the
next thata federalapproachcan provide,and thata piecemeal state-based approachcannot. 129This is especially trueifCCS is to
become a nationalindustrythat helps to solve the climatechangedilemma. As DelissaHayano has argued: Thecosts and logistics of
compressing,transporting,and sequestering CO<2>on thescalenecessary to address [climate change]concerns requires a national
interest parallelto thatmotivating theconstructionofequivalent-scale national infrastructureprojects such as theinterstateroad
system.130While state-based regulation canbe effectivefor certain types ofmarkets,it would bea less-than-ideal fitfor CCS
transport.State-basedregulationwould create too muchinconsistency and complexity. 131In another context, ProfessorLincoln
Davies has describeda state-basedapproach topromoting renewable energy developmentas risking "crazy-quilt"regulation.132
Specifically, thesheer variety ofstate-based RenewalPortfolio Standard(RPS) models that havesprung up inrecent years have
yielded widely varying standards from onestateto the next. 133The resultis a fragmenting ofrenewableenergy into multiple
markets, notthecreationofa single uniform national one.Whilethedifferentiationpossiblefrom stateregulation long has been
lauded as promoting innovations through laboratories ofdemocracy, 134to promotean industry that necessarily willbe interstate
in nature, suchas CCS transport, federal models often areinvoked. 135The rationales typically offered for federalregulation
include:(1) that uniformregulation is neededto ensurea well-functioning [*377]market; 136 (2) thatfederal regulation is necessary
to avoid state"races to thebottom;"137and (3) thatsuch regulation is essentialto avoid fragmentation across borders increating a
network systemnationalor regional inscope. 138As theSupremeCourt has observed inthedormantCommerceClause context,
"This principlethatoureconomicunit is the Nation... has as its corollary thatthestates are notseparableeconomic units."139For
each of the differentCCS transport regulatorydesign elements,these rationales apply, albeit to somewhatvarying extents. Pipeline
safety is regulatedat thefederal level, ratherthan state-by-state,for good reason.The PHMSAregulates design, construction,and
on-going operations andtesting for interstatepipelines in various industries. 140Aconsistent setofstandards provides consistent
protection for the publicand theenvironmentno matterwherethepipeline's location. Effects fromanaccidentmay be localized,
141 but thepossibleeffects on globalwarming fromCO<2>leakagereach farand wide. 142 Indeed, the needforuniform
regulationoften isinvokedforindustrieswhere standards of performance or operation are
more efficientifstandardized. 143They clearlyapplyfor safety regulation in a network industry likeCCS transport,
where theneed for safe operation does notchangefrom onejurisdictionto the nextand therisk ofdifferentsafety requirements
could unnecessarily increase construction costs, or worse, resultin incompatiblesubsystems.For rateand access regulation, federal
regulationmaybe somewhat less importantthan itis for safety or siting, butit willstill facilitate consistency andavoidconfusionin
the transport market, particularlywhen itcomes to access.Nondiscriminatory access requirements cancomeindifferent forms .For
example, in natural gas, pipelines must offernondiscriminatory access butoperateas contractcarriers. 144 That means thatthe
pipeline owner contracts inadvancewith a customer toprovide access to a set amount ofits capacity. 145In oil, pipelines operate
under a systemofprorationing. In this system,even when thepipeline capacity is fully utilized, ifanother customer requires
transport service, thepipelineis obliged toaccommodate the new customer and adjust the capacity available toother customers
accordingly. 146 InCCS, ifa pipeline runs throughmultiple states, and eachstate uses a differentnondiscriminatory access model,
[*378] confusionandinefficiency wouldresult. In such circumstances, a uniform set ofrequirements for access willbe far more
workable.
Pipelinesare the necessary catalyst for CCS deployment
IRGC 8 (International Risk GovernanceCouncil,Geneva 2008,“Regulation ofCarbon Captureand Storage,”
http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/Policy_Brief_CCS.pdf)
Large-scale CCS deploymentcannotproceed until extensive pipeline infrastructure isinplace.
Large volumesof CO2 –a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant produces 5 to 8 million tonnes ofCO2 annually –will need
to be transportedfromsource to sink. Linkages arecomplex,and thebusiness modelfor pipeline operators includes
significantrisk,as their operations aresubject touncertainties beyond their controlatbothends ofthe pipe. This risk puts upward
pressure onpipelinecosts, as do recentsteel price increases. Transport infrastructureinvestment requires regional andsitespecific
knowledgeofgeological storage prospects, as wellas knowledge ofcurrentand future CO2sourcelocations, volumes,and
characteristics.Pipeline transportof CO2 is successfullyregulatedforenhancedoil recovery in the
US, but with a framework that does notnecessarilytranslateto theindustrialorganisation ofCCS.Regulationofrisks related to
pipeline transport is straightforward, butmore complicatedregulatory decisions will relateto funding,siting and construction of
pipeline networks off-shore, onshore,and throughurbanzones,naturalmonopoly concerns,andissues ofeminent domain.
Different regulatorymodels for CO2pipelineownership, a privately owned, common carrier approach or a public utility approach
could stimulatedifferentlevels ofinvestment, potentially influencing theultimateorganisationalstructureoftheCCS industry.
CCS storage is technologicallyavailableand empirically
proven
Dooley and Davidson 10 – leaderoftheJoint Global Change Research Institute's and the GlobalEnergy Technology
Strategy Project's research relatedto carbondioxidecaptureand storageand senior memberofthe Joint GlobalChangeResearch
Institute's Integrated Assessment modeling team;SeniorResearchScientist. PacificNorthwest NationalLaboratory, Richland,

Washington(JJ andCL, “ABriefTechnical Critique ofEhlig-Economides and Economides 2010: ‘Sequestering CarbonDioxidein a
Closed Underground Volume’” US DepartmentofEnergy April
2010 http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-19249.pdf) MLRThetechnical feasibility ofstoring
CO2 in deep geologicformations is entirely provenby TheexistenceoftheStatoil Sleipnerproject,has been
injectingapproximately1 MtCO2/yearinto a deepgeologic formationbelowthe NorthSeafor nearly15
years. The fate ofthe CO2 injected atSleipner has beenmonitored via an extensiveandscientifically rigorous measurement,
monitoring and verification(MMV) program. This MMV process continues toverify that CO2injectedintothestorageformation
remains isolated in thesubsurfacewhereitcannot contribute to anthropogenicclimate change. The more
than 25 years ofcumulative experience andthe significantscientificandtechnological
knowledge gainedfrom Sleipnerandthe otherthree largecommercial end-to-endcommercial CCS
projects–Snøhvit, In SalahandWeyburn –arefurtherprove that “undergroundCO2 sequestrationvia bulk
CO2 injection”is feasible andthat the cost ofdoing so must not be infiniteas assertedby EhligEconomides and
Economides.Theassertionthat subsurfacestorageoflarge volumes offluids is impossible is alsoinconsistentwith theexperience
gained from CO2injectionpilotprojects around the world and countless otherfluidinjectionprojects over the lastseveral decades
such as the injection ofhundreds billions ofgallons ofwastefluidinto the subsurfaceunder theauspices oftheU.S. EPA
UndergroundInjection ControlProgram (EPA, 2002). Notonlyare these projects technicallyand economically
viable,theyareeffectivelymanaged,andsafelyregulated.The CCS policy andregulatory communities are inneed
of robust, well-foundedscience andengineering uponwhichto base their decisions regarding howto governgeologic CO2storage.
Innovative ideas that challenge the conventionalwisdom onissues critical to thesuccess ofcommercial-scale CO2storageare and
will continue tobe welcomed by the technical.Dooleyet al.(2009) providean overview oftheCO2capture, storageand
measurement,monitoring and verification technologies that havebeen successfully employed at Sleipner,Snøhvit, In Salahand
Weyburn.PNNL-19249community. While the Ehlig-Economides andEconomides paper does highlight theneed for continued
researchandfield work to better understandhow CCS will deploy in therealworld, unfoundedconclusions suchas “underground
carbon dioxide sequestration via bulk CO2 injection is notfeasibleatanycost”and “geologic sequestration ofCO2 [is]a profoundly
nonfeasible optionfor themanagementofCO2 emissions” donot withstandscientificscrutiny. Unsupported opinions and
hyperboledo not represent a constructivecontributionto theongoing technical, policy, or regulatory dialogues related tothe
potentialbenefits and challenges associated withCCS
Homework Help
Math homework help
Research Paper help
Algebra Help
Calculus Help
Accounting help
Paper Help
Writing Help
Online Tutor

Online Tutoring

129526918 old-ccs

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to 129526918 old-ccs

Similar to 129526918 old-ccs (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

129526918 old-ccs