7/29/2019 OLD CCS

1/18

INHERENCY

CCS projects are failing to start in the status quo and anational network is lackingHandwerk 12,national geographic analyst (Brian, Amid Economic Concerns, Carbon Capture Faces 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 dependent on fossil fuels,carbon capture and storage(CCS) could be a key to controlling greenhouse gas emissions.But the technology meant to scrub carbon dioxide pollution from the air is experiencing stiff headwinds that have

stalled many projects at the bottom line.t Many companies have determined that expensive CCS operations simply aren'tworth the investment without government mandates or revenue from carbon prices set far higher than those currently found at the

main operational market, the European Trading System, or other fledgling markets. According to a recent Worldwatch Institute

report, only eight large-scale, fully integrated CCS projects are actually operational, and that number

has not increased in three years. "In fact,from 2010 to 2011, the number of large-scale CCS plants

operating, under construction, or being planned declined," said Matt Lucky, the report's author. Numerousprojects in Europe and North America are being scrapped altogether, Lucky added. Last month, TransAlta, the Canadian electricity

giant, abandoned plans for a CCS facility at an Alberta coal-burning plant because financial incentives were too weak to justify costly

investment in CCS. "For a very small industry that's still in the developmental state, it's not a good sign when the number of planned

projects is declining," Lucky said. "This is a period when it should be exploding, sothis doesn't signal significant

growth of the CCS industry in the near future."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-and-storage-economic-hurdles/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-and-storage-economic-hurdles/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-and-storage-economic-hurdles/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/05/120522-carbon-capture-and-storage-economic-hurdles/

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

2/18

THUS THE PLAN:

The United States federal government should

invest in a national pipeline infrastructure systemfor the purposes of transporting captured

supercritical carbon dioxide in the CCS process. We

reserve the right to clarify intent.

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

3/18

ADVANTAGE ONE: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

Global warming is real and anthropogenic through the

emissions of greenhouse gases this is the consensus

amongst the most credentialed scientific researchersAnderegg et al 10 PhD Candidate @ Stanford in BiologyWilliam, Expert credibility in climate change, National Academy of Sciences, p. 12107-12109

Preliminary reviews of scientific literature and surveys of cli- mate scientists indicate striking agreement with the primary

conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been

responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earths average global

temperature over the second half of the 20th century (13). Nonetheless,, substantial and growing publicdoubt remains about the anthropogenic cause and scientific agreement about the role of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in

climate change (4, 5). A vocal minority of researchers and other critics contest the conclusions of the mainstream scientificassessment, frequently citing large numbers of scientists whom they believe support their claims (68). This group, often termed

climate change skeptics, contrarians, or deniers, has received large amounts of media attention and wields significant influence in

the societal debate about climate change impacts and policy (7, 914). An extensive literature examines what constitutes expertise

or credibility in technical and policy-relevant scientific research (15). Though our aim is not to expand upon that literature here, we

wish to draw upon several important observations from this literature in examining expert credibility in climate change. First, though

the degree of contextual, political, epistemological, and cultural in- fluences in determining who counts as an expert and who is

credible remains debated, many scholars acknowledge the need to identify credible experts and account for expert opinion in tech-

nical (e.g., science-based) decision-making (1519). Furthermore, delineating expertise and the relative credibility of claims is

critical, especially in areas where it may be difficult for the majority of decision-makers and the lay public to evaluate the full

complexities of a technical issue (12, 15). Ultimately, however, societal decisions regarding response to ACC must necessarily include

input from many diverse and nonexpert stakeholders. Because the timeline of decision-making is often more rapid than scientific

consensus, examining the landscape of expert opinion can greatly inform such decision-making (15, 19). Here, we examine a metric

of climate-specific expertise and a metric of overall sci- entific prominence as two dimensions of expert credibility in two groups of

researchers. We provide an broad assessment of the rel- ative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and

those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC. Our consideration of UE researchers differs from previous work on climate change

skeptics and contrarians in that we primarily focus on researchers that have published extensively in the climate field, although weconsider all skeptics/contrarians that have signed pro- minent statements concerning ACC (68). Such expert analysis can illuminate

public and policy discussions about ACC and the extent of consensus in the expert scientific community. we compiled a database of

1,372 climate researchers. based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements

about ACC (SI Materials and Methods). We tallied the number of climate-relevant publications authored or coauthored by each

researcher (defined here as expertise) and counted the number of citations for each of the researchers four highest-cited papers

(defined here as prominence) using Google Scholar. We then imposed an a priori criterion that a researcher must have authored a

minimum of 20 climate publications to be considered a climate researcher, thus reducing the database to 908 researchers. Varying

this minimum publication cutoff did not ma- terially alter results (Materials and Methods). We ranked researchers based on the total

number of climate publications authored. Though our compiled researcher list is not comprehensive nor designed to be

representative of the entire cli- mate science community, we have drawn researchers from the most high-profile reports and public

statements about ACC. Therefore, We have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed re-

searchersin CE and UE groups. Citation and publication analyses must be treated with caution in inferring scientific credibility,but we suggest that our methods and our expertise and prominence criteria provide conservative, robust, and relevant indicators of

relative credibility of CE and UE groups of climate researchers (Materials and Methods). Results and Discussion The UE

[unconvinced by evidence] group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as rankedby expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers

present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that 97% ofself-

identifiedpublishing climate scientists agree. with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements directpolling of the climate researcher community, which yields quali- tative and self-reported researcher expertise (2). Our findings

capture the added dimension of the distribution of researcher expertise, quantify agreement among the highest expertise climate

researchers, and provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning ACC. In addition to the striking

difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that

of the CE group (Fig. 1). Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 pub- lications;

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

4/18

MannWhitney U test: W = 57,020; P < 1014), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications). Furthermore,

researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the UE group, as opposed

to less than 10% of the CE group . This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatorystatements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature. We examined a subsample

of the 50 most-published (highest- expertise) researchers from each group. Such subsampling facili- tates comparison of relative

expertise between groups (normalizing differences between absolute numbers). This method reveals large differences in relative

expertise between CE and UE groups (Fig. 2). Though the top-published researchers in the CE group have an average of 408 climate

publications (median = 344), the top UE re- searchers average only 89 publications (median = 68; Mann Whitney U test: W = 2,455;P < 1015). Thus, this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science

than those in the top UE group. Finally, Our prominence criterion provides an independent and approximate

estimate of the relative scientific significance of CE and UE publications.. Citation analysis complementspublication analysis because it can, in general terms, capture the quality and impact of a researchers contributiona critical

component to overall scientific credibilityas opposed to measuring a research- ers involvement in a field, or expertise (Materials

and Methods). The citation analysis conducted here further complements the publication analysis because it does not examine

solely climate- relevant publications and thus captures highly prominent re- searchers who may not be directly involved with the

climate field. We examined the top four most-cited papers for each CE and UE researcher with 20 or more climate publications and

found immense disparity in scientific prominence between CE and UE communities (MannWhitney U test: W = 50,710; P < 106;

Fig. 3). CE researchers top papers were cited an average of 172 times, compared with 105 times for UE researchers. Because a

single, highly cited paper does not establish a highly credible reputation but might instead reflect the controversial nature of that

paper (often called the single-paper effect), we also considered the av- erage the citation count of the second through fourth most-

highly cited papers of each researcher. Results were robust when only these papers were considered (CE mean: 133; UE mean: 84;

MannWhitney U test: W = 50,492; P < 106). Results were ro- bust when a ll 1,372 researchers, including those with fewer than 20

climate publications, were considered (CE mean: 126; UE mean: 59; MannWhitney U test: W = 3.5 105; P < 1015). Number ofcitations is an imperfect but useful benchmark for a groups scientific prominence (Materials and Methods), and we show here that

even considering all (e.g., climate and nonclimate) publications, the UE researcher group has substantially lower prominence than

the CE group. We provide a large-scale quantitative assessment ofthe relative level ofagreement,

expertise, and prominence in the climate re- searcher community. We show that the expertise andprominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly

overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians. This divide is even starker when considering the top researchers in

each group. Despite media tendencies to present both sides in ACC debates (9), which can contribute to continued public

misunderstanding re- garding ACC (7, 11, 12, 14), not all climate researchers are equal in scientific credibility and expertise in the

climate system. This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for

considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of re- searchers in future discussions in media,

policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.Another common misconception is that global warming doesnt

matter. Who cares if the average global temperature rises by a degree or two? Other than a few oceanfront property owners, who

cares if sea levels rise by a foot or two?Climate change impacts our health, environment, and economy

Warming causes polar melting, creating positive methane

feedback by 2015Connor 11, professor of modern literature and theory @ Birkbeck College; Science editor of The Independent quoting PhD,Doctor of Science, and professor of Ocean Physics (Steve quoting Prof. Peter Wadhams, Climate change melting polar regions faster

than ever before One of the clearest signs of climate change is the loss of floating sea ice in the Arctic The Independent November

9, 2011http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-

before-6259145.html)

The frozen cryosphere of the Earth, from the Arctic sea in the north to the massive ice shelves of Antarctica in the south, is

showing the unequivocal signs of climate change as global warming accelerates the melting of the coldest regions of the planet,

leading polar scientists warned yesterday. A rapid loss of ice is clear from the records kept by military submarines,

from land measurements taken over many decades and from satellite observations from space. It can be seen on the icesheets of Greenland, the glaciers of mountain ranges from the Andes to the Himalayas, and the vast ice shelves that stretch out into

the sea from the Antarctic continent, the experts said. The effect of the melting cryosphere will be felt byrapidly rising sea levels that threaten to flood coastal cities and low-lying nations, changes to thecirculation of ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, and possible alterations to the weather patterns that influence more southerly

regions of the northern hemisphere, they said. One of the greatest threats is the melting of the permafrost

regions of the northern hemisphere which could release vast quantities of methane gas from

frozen deposits stored underground for many thousands of years. Scientists are already seeing

an increase in methane concentrations in the atmosphere that could be the result of melting

permafrost, they said. The melting of the cryosphere is such a clear, visibly graphic signal of climate change. Almost every

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.htmlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-melting-polar-regions-faster-than-ever-before-6259145.html

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

5/18

aspect is changing and, if you take the global average, it is all in one direction, said Professor David Vaughan, a geologist at the

British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge. One of the clearest signals of climate change is the rapid loss of

floating sea ice in the Arctic,which has been monitored by satellites since the late 1970s and by nuclear submarines sincethe beginning of the cold war, said Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University, one of the first civilians to travel under the

Arctic sea ice on a nuclear submarine. The sea ice is retreating faster and further than at any time on

record and this year it probably reached an all-time record minimum in terms of volume and a close second in terms of surface

area. On current projections, if the current rate of loss continues, there could be virtually no September sea ice asearly as 2015, Professor Wadhams said at a briefing held at the Science Media Centre in London. The changes are more drastic

that we thought.The effect is more dramatic than if you just look at the surface area of the ocean

covered by sea ice. Submarine records show a big area north of Greenland is reduced in sea ice thickness, ProfessorWadhams said. The loss of sea ice and the warming of the Arctic region is having an impact on the permafrost regions of the north,

both on land and in the shallow sea above the continental shelf of northern Russia, he said.Scientists have documented

vast methane releases both on land and above the sea. Methane is 23 times more potent as

a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We can expect the possibility of a methane boost to

global warming. We have to warn about the loss of sea ice, and the retreat is accelerating,Professor Wadhams said. One of the greatest threats in the coming century will be the possible rapid rise in sea levels as a result of

melting mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets. Scientists believe that about two thirds of the current rate of average sea level rise,

about 3 millimetres a year, is the result of melting ice, both from mountain glaciers and polar ice sheets. In a warmer world, one

thing you can guarantee is that ice will melt. Sea levels are now rising at a third of the rate they were when we had truly massive ice

sheets at the end of the last ice age, said Chris Rapley, professor of climate science at University College London, and a former headof the British Antarctic Survey.

This poisons all ecosystems beyond repair. Dealing w/

warming must take top priority.Morgan 9, Professor of Current Affairs @ Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, South Korea, (Dennis Ray, World on fire: twoscenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race, Futures, Volume 41, Issue 10,

December 2009, Pages 683-693, ScienceDirect]As horrifying as the scenario of human extinction by sudden, fast-burning nuclear fire may seem, the

one consolation is that this future can be avoided within a relatively short period of time if responsibleworld leaders change Cold War thinking to move away from aggressive wars over natural resources and towards the eventual

dismantlement of most if not all nuclear weapons. On the other hand, another scenario of human extinction byfire is one that may not so easily be reversedwithin a short period of time because it is not a fast-burning fire; rather, a slow burning fireis 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 a bout 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 still serves as a comparable scenario of how the slow burning fire of global warming may eventually lead to a runaway 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 s evenyears. 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 that 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 Bill McKibben [17], 12 years of impressive scientific research

strongly confirms the 1995 report that humans had grown so large in numbers and especially in appetite for energythat they were now damaging the most basic of the earths systemsthe balance between incoming andoutgoing solar energy; . . . their findings have essentially been complementary to the 1995 report a constant strengthening of

the simple basic truth that humans were burning too much fossil fuel. *17+. Indeed, 12 years later, the 2007 report not only

confirms global warming, with a stronger scientific consensus that the slow burn is very likely human

caused, but it also finds that the amount ofcarbon in the atmosphere is now increasing at a faster rateeven than before and the temperature increases would be considerably higher than they have been so far were it not for the

blanket of soot and other pollution that is temporarily helping to cool the planet. *17+. Furthermore, almost everything frozen on

earth is melting. Heavy rainfalls are becoming more common since the air is warmer and therefore holds more water than cold air,

and cold days, cold nights and frost have become less frequent, while hot days, hot nights, and heat waves have become more

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

6/18

frequent. *17+. Unless drastic action is taken soon, the average global temperature is predicted to

rise about 5 degrees this century, but it could rise as much as 8 degrees. As has already been evidenced

in recent years, the rise in global temperature is melting the Arctic sheets. This runaway polar

melting will inflict great damage upon coastal areas, which could be much greater than what

has been previously forecasted. However, what is missing in the IPCC report, as dire as 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 differentpremise regarding the relationship between industrial civilization and nature. As a matter 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 we make. 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 have taken nature into the human world 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 catastrophe 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 have her revenge

and the last word, as the Earth and its delicate ecosystems, environment, and atmosphere reach a

tipping point, which could turn out to be a point of no 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 Earths physical condition, and the

climate specialists see it as seriously 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 Earths 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 a time when the sun is too hot for comfort. We have given

Gaia a fever and soon her condition will worsen to a state like a 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 des ert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earthssurface 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 ina

few days like the smoke that it is , leaving us fully exposed to the heat of the global greenhouse. We are in a fools 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 climate remains 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 the 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 a hell of a

climate *19+. Lovelocks forecast for climate change is based on a systems dynamics analys is 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 international consortium, 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 were seeing in ecosys tems around the world, . . . Gradual changesin vulnerability accumulate and eventually you get a shock to the

system - a flood or a drought - and, boom, youre 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 isnt linear. Sometimes you can pus h on a system and push on a system and, fina lly, you have the straw that breaks the camels back. Also, once the flipoccurs, as Foley maintains, then the catastrophic change is irreversible. *20+. When we expand this analys is of ecosystems to the Earth itself, its frightening. What couldbe

the final push on a stressed system that could break the camels 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 Press describes this

disturbing positive feedback loop of permafrost greenhouse gasses, as when warming

already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of

years. Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the

atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws

more permafrost and so on.*21+. The significance and severity of this problem cannot be unde rstated since scientists have discovered that theamount of carbon trapped in this type of permafrost called yedoma is much more prevalent than originally thought and maybe 100 times [my emphasis] the amount of

carbon released into the air each year by the burning of fossil fuels *21+. Of course, it wont 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 will probably take to come out can just as well be considered all at once. Surely, within the next 100 years, much of

the world we live in will be 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, des cribes it as a slow motion time bomb. *21+. Permafrost under lakes willbe released as methane while that which is under dryground will be released as carbon dioxide. Scientists arent 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 ofthe greenhouse

gasses presentin permafrost represent a global dilemma and challenge that compounds the effects

of global warming and runaway climate change. The scary thing about it, as one researcher put it, is that there are lots of mechanismsthat 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, theres so much more that has not even been discovered yet, she writes: Its

coming out a lot and theres a lot more to come out. *22+. 4. Is it the end of human civilization and possibleextinction 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 will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the

difference in the world between 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

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

7/18

seem even smaller. Who knows, even 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 fin ality of it all, as Schell does: Death l ies at the core of each pe rsons private

existence, but part of deaths 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 were t o perish,

Schell asks. Would not it bring about a s ort 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 Schells book that it is not only the death of the species, not just of the earths population on doomsday,but of

countless unborn generations. They would be spared literal ddeath but would nonetheless be victims . . . *23+. That is th e second death ofhumanity the horrifying, unthinkable prospect that there are no prospectsthat there will be no future. In the second chapter of Schells book, he writes that since we have

not made a positive decision to exterminate ourselves but instead have chosen to live on the edge of extinction, periodically lunging toward the abyss only to draw back at the

last second, our situation is one of uncertainty and nervous insecurity rather than of absolute hopelessness . *23+.17 Inother words, the fate of the Earth and its inhabitants hasnot 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 extinctionDeibel 7(Terry L. Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007. Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft,Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)

Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which,

though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of

the climate upon which all earthly life depends.Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of thisthreat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed

not one of more than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journalsfrom 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific circles,

writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the

fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almostweekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms

across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine

Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than

expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been

accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct

temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming

climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each

year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise insea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic

Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until

the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts

per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-

industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow

their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As the

newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms,

spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened

inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or

less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of

rise of 20 feetthat would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up

to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic

thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude

would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate

levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frighteningscenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of

water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures.Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even

though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can

conclude is that humankindscontinuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to

playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst,says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to heat the

atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

8/18

collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war

between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global

warming is the post-Cold War erasequivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably

better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military

challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the

continued existence of life on this planet.

Warming has an acutely negative disproportionate effect on

poor communities and minoritiesFischer 9(Douglas, Daily Climate editor, Climate change hitting poor in U.S. hardest., May 29,http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/05/Climate-Change-hitting-poor-in-U.S.-hardest)

Climatechange is disproportionately affecting the poor and minorities in the United Statesa"climate gap" that will grow in coming decades unless policymakers intervene, according to a University of California study.

Everyone, the researchers say, is already starting to feel the effects of a warming planet, via heat waves, increased air pollution,

drought, or more intense storms. Butthe impacts on health, economics, and overall quality of lifeare far more acute

on society's disadvantaged, the researchers found . " Climate change does not affect everyone equally

in the United States,"said Rachel Morello-Frosch, associate professor at the School of Public Health at the University of

California, Berkeley and lead author of The Climate Gap. "People of color and the poor will be hurt the most unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene." Watching this unfold is akin to watching a movie where disparate and

seemingly unrelated storylines converge to denouement that is "decidedly tragic, the researchers wrote. For instance, the report

finds thatAfrican Americans living in Los Angeles are almost twice as likely to die as other Los

Angelenos during a heat wave. Segregated in the inner city, they're more susceptible to the

"heat island" effect, where temperatures are magnified by concrete and asphalt. Yet they're

less likely to have access to air conditioning or cars. Similarly, Latinos make up 77 percent of

California's agricultural workforce and willlikelysee economic hardship as climate change

reworks the state's highest-value farm products. The dairy industry brings in $3.8 billion of California's $30 billionagriculture income; grapes account for $3.2 billion. Yet climatic troubles are expected to decrease dairy production between 7

percent and 22 percent by century's end, while grapes will have trouble ripening, substantially reducing their value.Other

impacts, according to the researchers: Households in the lowest income bracket spend twice theproportion of their income on electricity than those in the highest income bracket. Any policy thatincreases the cost of energy will hurt the poor the most. California industries considered heavy emitters of greenhouse gases have a

workforce that is 60 percent minority. Any climate plan that fails to transition those workers to new "green energy" jobs threatens

to widen the racial economic divide. Minorities and the poor already breathe dirtier air than other

Americans and are more likely to lack health insurance. As higher temperatures hasten the chemicalinteractions that produce smog, they're going to feel the most impact. The findings, the researchers say, underscore the need for

policymakers to consider environmental justice when addressing climate. Ignoring the climate gap, they warn, could reinforce and

amplify current and future socioeconomic and racial disparities. "As America takes steps to prevent climate change, closing the

climate gap must also be a top priority," said Manuel Pastor, a co-author and director of the Program forEnvironmental and Regional Equity at the University of Southern California's Center for Sustainable Cities.

Racism is is the stem of all violence. Look to this as the firstimpact you evaluate in the round. Acts of violence originate

from the mentality of racism. Rejection of any form of it is a

moral imperative.Foucault 76 [Michel, Society Must be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 1975-1976, p. 254-257 Trans. DavidMacey]

http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/05/Climate-Change-hitting-poor-in-U.S.-hardesthttp://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2009/05/Climate-Change-hitting-poor-in-U.S.-hardest

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

9/18

What in fact is racism? It is primarilya way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is

under power's control: the break between what must live and what must die . But racism does makethe relationship of war-"If you want to live, the other must die" - function in a way that is completely new and that is quite

compatible with the exercise of biopower. On the one hand,racism makes it possible to establish a relationshipbetween my life and the death of the other that is not a military or warlike relationship of

confrontation, but a biological-type relationship: "The more inferior species die out, the more

abnormal individuals are eliminated, the fewer degenerates there will be in the species as a whole, and the more Iasspecies rather than individual-can live, the stronger I will be, the more vigorous I will be. I will be able to proliferate." There is a

direct connection between the two. In a normalizing societyrace or racism is the precondition that makeskilling acceptable. When you have a normalizing society, you have a power which is, at least superficially, in the first instance,or in the first line a biopower, and racism is the indispensable precondition that allows someone to be killed, that allows others to be

killed. And we can also understand why racism should have developed in modern societies that function in the biopower mode; we

can understand why racism broke out at a number of .privileged moments, and why they were precisely the moments when the

right to take life was imperative. Racism first develops with colonization, or in other words, with

colonizing genocide. If you are functioning in the biopower mode, how can you justify the

need to kill people, to kill populations, and to kill civilizations?By using the themes of evolutionism, by

appealing to a racism.War.How can one not only wage war on one's adversaries but also

expose one's own citizens to war, and let them be killed by the million(and this is precisely what has

been going on since the nineteenth century, or since the second half of the nineteenth century),except by activating thetheme of racism

Through emission reductions, CCS can solve emissions by the

2015 peak deadlineClaussen 12,bachelors @ George Washington University; masters @ University Of Virginia; Director of AtmosphericPrograms @ EPA; Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs @ National Security Council, Assistant Secretary of State for

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, President of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

(Eileen,Speech: Utilizing CCS to Reduce Emissions 11th Annual Conference on Carbon Capture, Utilization and Sequestration;

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions May 1 st, 2012http://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-

sequestration)

The environmental case for doing this is compelling enough. According to most scenarios, global emissions of

greenhouse gases need to peak by 2015 in order to have a reasonable chance of limitingglobal warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. This is the level where many scientists say we can managethe risks of climate change, but there is considerable debate even on this point and some think we will already be flirting with

disaster at 2 degrees Celsius. Whatever the case, 2015 is just three years away. Are emissions showing any signs of peaking? Not

even close After a brief downturn due to the recession, newly released figures from the EPA show that U.S. emissions resumed

their upward march in 2010, rising by 3.2 percent compared to 2009. And global emissions are projected to grow 17 percent by

2020, and 37 percent by 2035. Under that scenario, we could see average global temperatures rise 3 to 4 degrees Celsius by 2100.

But, even if you are an ardent skeptic of the science of climate change or of our ability to dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas

emissions,the energy case should be motivation enough for abandoning the status quo and

following a new and different road to the future. What do we care about? Reliability. Affordability.

Security. Reduced environmental impact. These have to be the hallmarks of U.S. energy policy

going forward, and carbon capture and storage can and must be an important component of

that policy. It provides us with the means to continue using fossil fuels in a carbonconstrained future. It is especially critical forproducing electricity from both coal and natural gas, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Coal, of course, has

the most at stake in this discussion. Coal, in fact, is at a crossroads itself. The latest figures from the U.S. Energy Information

Administration confirm that coals share of U.S. electricity generation is decreasing. In 2006, coal-fired generation accounted for

more than half (50.4 percent to be exact) of the total generation mix in this country. By the end of 2011, that figure had declined to

43.4 percent of the mix, a drop of 7 percentage points. The biggest factor in coals relative decline, of course, is dropping natural gas

prices. According to EIA, natural gas prices are forecast to remain below $5 per million BTUs for the next 10 years. This is why were

seeing so many new natural gas power plants. EIAs latest estimates for 2011 and 2012 show around 20 gigawatts of added capacity

planned for natural gas versus around 9 gigawatts for coal. Add to this the spare capacity of existing gas-fired power plants that

were built to generate electricity during the daytime hours only and you can see the challenges facing coal. New EPA rules also pose

challenges for coal. The new Mercury Rule alone, which was issued last December, will affect 1,325 units at 525 power plants of all

types around the United States. Some of these plants are more than 50 years old, and companies may retire older plants rather than

paying to install new pollution control equipment. In addition, there is EPAsCross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) and, on the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Councilhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_Oceans_and_International_Environmental_and_Scientific_Affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_Oceans_and_International_Environmental_and_Scientific_Affairshttp://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-sequestrationhttp://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-sequestrationhttp://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-sequestrationhttp://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-sequestrationhttp://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/mercury-rulehttp://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/cross-state-air-pollution-rulehttp://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/cross-state-air-pollution-rulehttp://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/cross-state-air-pollution-rulehttp://www.c2es.org/federal/executive/epa/mercury-rulehttp://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-sequestrationhttp://www.c2es.org/newsroom/speeches/claussen-carbon-capture-sequestrationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_Oceans_and_International_Environmental_and_Scientific_Affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_State_for_Oceans_and_International_Environmental_and_Scientific_Affairshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Council

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

10/18

industrial side, the 2011 rule imposing new emissions reductions requirements on coal-fired boilers. And most notably, of course,

earlier this spring the EPA proposed the first-ever national standards for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants.

In order to comply with the rules, new plants would have to install carbon capture and storage technologies.There is

essentially no other way for these plants to reduce their emissions to the level required under

this proposal. After detailing all of these challenges for coal, I am inclined to ask the question, Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln,how did you enjoy the play? The proposed GHG rules make it official: In order to keep coals share of the U.S. energy mix from

declining further, we need to throw out old ways of thinking. We need to think big. This is not just about trying to compete with

natural gas on price; it is about embracing new ideas and new technologies to ensure that coal can continue as a fuel of choice in a

world that, whether you like it or not, will become increasingly focused on limiting and reducing carbon emissions. Coal alone is

responsible for 28 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Worldwide, 43 percent of CO2

emissions from fuel combustion come from coal. Clearly, something has to give. In order for the world to get ahandle on the climate problem, and in order for coal to hold onto its place as a major energy source in the decades to come, we

need to show and very quickly that it is possible to achieve substantial cuts in emissions from coal-fired power generation. In

other words,we need to find a low-carbon solution for coal. And coal is not our only challenge we need all thelow-carbon and carbon-free technologies we can get. The good news about natural gas is that it generates half of the emissions of

coal when used as a fuel source. But thats also the not-so-good news about natural gas; it still generates substantial emissions, and

in order to achieve the level of reductions that will reduce the risk of climate change, we need CCS for natural gas as well as for coal.

The potential for CCS to reduce emissions is undeniable. Studies show that CCS technology

could reduce CO2 emissions from a coal-fueled power plant by as much as 90 percent. Modelingdone by the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts that CCS could provide 19 percent of total global GHG emission reductions

by 2050. That includes reductions from coal and natural gas-fired power plants, as well as all other sources. But these are juststudies, they are merely estimates of what could happen if CCS finally emerges from the world of drawing boards and demonstration

projects to actual widespread deployment throughout this country and around the world. What we are doing right now to develop

these technologies is not enough; its not even close to enough. We have two decades at most to deploy these technologies at the

scale needed to achieve substantial reductions in emissions.

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

11/18

ADVANTAGE TWO: GREEN ENERGY

Incoming EPA regulations will harm the coal industry; CCS is

the only solutionPeskoe 12,associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firms Washington D.C., office; focuseson regulatory, legislative, compliance and transactional issues related to energy and commodities markets(Ari, EPA Proposes toRequire Carbon Capture and Sequestration; Creates Uncertainty for the Future of Coal, National Law Review April 15, 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) .EPAs 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 coalindustry some extra time to work through the many legal and regulatory issues currently facing the technology. Like anylarge-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. Its 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. A 2010 paper by a Harvard Law School professor and student researchers proposed a range of

regulatory incentives to spur development of large scale test projects. The suggestions included establishing a trust fund paid for by

industry to cover liabilities, developing sites 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 system takes time. Fracing is a multi-billion dollar business in the U.S., and yet after a decade of widespread use its

legal framework is not yet firmly established. As EnergyBusinessLaw.com has been documenting, legal norms are still developing,and all three branches of government 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 of legal certainty will hinder development. Perhaps

EPAs rule, if implemented, will motivate action. 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

times of economic struggleHal Quinn 12(writer for the National Miners Association, WHAT SHOULD U.S. POLICY BE ON ENERGY EXPORTS?, April 13,2012, http://www.nma.org/pdf/041312_quinn_nj_blog.pdf)

Exporting U.S. Coal Helps America and Developing World by Hal Quinn, NMA The United States has

an unrivalled self-interest in serving international markets that urgently need coal to grow

their economies and improve the livelihoods of their people. In fact, increasing our coal

exports is an unusually clear example of how unfettered trade benefits both exporting and

importing countries. With the worlds largest coal reserves, the U.S. finds itself in the enviable position of having more ofwhat the fastest-growing countries of the world need. China and India are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty by

building vast electricity grids that bring coal-generated power to homes and workplaces. Coal is the only fuel for electricity

generation that is sufficiently affordable and abundant to literally bring this power to the people. It is also a vital ingredient for the

steelmaking plants in Asia and Brazil that are laying foundations for a 21 st century industrial revolution. American metallurgical coal

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-proposes-to-require-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-creates-uncertainty-future-http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-proposes-to-require-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-creates-uncertainty-future-

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

12/18

is a building block of this progress much as it is for our own industrial progress. The benefits of U.S. coal exports are

reciprocal. The U.S. has a 265-year coal supply, more than enough to serve its domestic needs. Far

from depriving Americans of opportunities, coal exports provide themhigh-wage jobs in coal country from

Appalachia to the Powder River Basin, in the rail industry that transports coal to ports and in export

terminals that exist or are envisioned for the Gulf and both coasts . The $16 billion worth of U.S.

coal exported last year also delivered revenue to hardpressed communities across the U.S.

heartland. Some critics are blinded by their wealthy lifestyles to the powerful evidence that

coal-based generation has greatly improved the lives of millions abroad who are less

fortunate. For the 1.4 billion people worldwide who have no access to electricity, efficient coalbased generation provides ahealthier and better life. It often offsets the demands for heat and light that heretofore have been met with fuels derived from

deforestation, animal wastes and uncontrolled in-home use of kerosene and other fuels. In short, coal exports are a classic

example of Americas competitive advantage.Recent history offers grim examples of what

happens to countries that only buy from the rest of the world and sell nothing to them . Thepresident appears to understand this lesson with his call to double exports in five years. Presumably he also understands how coal

exports, up almost a third last year, are helping him reach this goal.To forego this competitive advantage would

be a classic example of short-sighted public policy that will only deepen the economic gloom

Americans now face.

Economic recovery is key to prevent the collapse of U.S.

leadership -- causing global power struggles and conflictsKhalilzad 11 (Zalmay Khalilzad was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations during thepresidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the Defense Department from 1990 to 1992. "The Econom and

National Security" Feb 8 www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/259024)

Today, economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States

position as global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic

growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The continuationof these two trends

could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar global system, leading in turn

to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers.The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to beprotracted. The crisis was preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy

ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing

sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline

of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national

debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce

deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. Ifinterest rates were to rise significantly,

annual interest payments which already are larger than the defense budget would crowd out other spending orrequire substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what

economists call a sudden stop in credit markets for U.S. debt, the United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding

obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States

internationally.Such scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain

and France during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their

empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence east ofSuez. Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev, contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan,

abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the

United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding international

commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Eventhough countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their

economies are growing faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term

produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but

when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

13/18

intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local powers to play major

powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of

escalation.The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers

has been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their

competitive dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar

international systems produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating

consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging

threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or

other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weakerpowers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened to make

aggressive moves in their regions.

Absent CCS these regulations will collapse the economy and

undo the entire economic recovery processCover 11, senior staff writer for CNS News, Washington D.C.-based newsgroup, winner of the Media Research Center'sOutstanding Journalism Award, neutral newsgroup that does not accept federal tax money, (Matt, EPA Global Warming Regulations

Could Send Economy Back Into Recession, Report Says, CNS News March 21, 2011http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-

warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-says)Regulation of greenhouse gasses by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could reverse

the very modest economic recovery and even send it back into a recession, a report from the National

Center for Public Policy Research finds. These regulations, author Dana Joel Gattuso wrote, will have a more

severe impact on energy costs, U.S. jobs, household income, and economic growth than cap-

and-trade legislation would have had. Furthermore, the regulations could reverse the

economy's direction toward recovery and push us back into an economic slump. EPA hasconsidered regulating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act, which the Supreme

Court gave the agency the power to regulate greenhouse gasses in the name of fighting air pollution. EPA has not yet enacted the

types of greenhouse gas regulations Gattusos paper warns of, but the agency has announced that it plans to do so in the near

future. EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and for refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards

in May 2012 and November 2012, respectively, EPA said in a December 2010 press release. Gattuso also reported that GHG

regulations would cost the economy jobs, worsening an already bad employment situation. Particularly hard hit would be African-

Americans, who would bear a disproportionate share of the job losses caused by the EPAs anti-global warming regulations. The

U.S. economy will also stand to lose millions of jobs as energy prices soar and industry is

forced to cut back or invest overseas, the report said. Furthermore, the rules will have an unjust

and disproportionately large impact on minorities, increasing the number of African

Americans in poverty by 20 percent, it added. The report also analyzes Republican and Democratic legislation thatwould attempt to stop the EPA from issuing GHG regulations during a period of economic hardship and a fragile recovery. The first

bill Gattuso reviews is the joint effort from Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) that would bar the EPA from

using its newfound authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate GHGs. Many members of Congress Democrats

as well as Republicans are supporting legislation to prevent Obama from expanding the

Clean Air Act and imposing more economic costs on Americans, Gattusoreported. Among the Democratco-sponsors of the legislation are Representatives Dan Boren (D-OK), Collin Peterson (D-MN), Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Senator Joe

Manchin (D-WV). The Inhofe-Upton bill would completely prevent the EPA from ever using its Clean Air Act authority to regulate

greenhouse gasses. Manchin said such an approach was necessary because Congress declined to pass a separate regulatory scheme

for greenhouse gasses in 2010. It's time that the EPA realizes it cannot regulate what has not been legislated. Our government was

designed so that elected representatives are in charge of making important decisions, not bureaucrats, Manchin said in a statement

March 4. The simple fact is that the EPA is trying to seize more power than it should have, and must be stopped, he added.

Gattuso also examined competing legislation offered by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) that would delay EPAs power to regulate by

two years, calling it an exercise in kicking the can down the road. The problem with this kick the can down the road approach is

that it impedes job creation and economic growth by furthering regulatory uncertainty. Also, it does nothing to stop the EPA from

imposing regulations without voter approval. Americans emphatically said no to cap-and-trade legislation, Gattuso said. Telling the

EPA to wait two years before it overrides the will of voters is not acceptable and would invite EPA over-reach and encroachment on

congressional authority in the future, he added. Gattuso concluded that the Inhofe-Upton effort was the only legislation that would

successfully prevent the EPA from enacting economically damaging regulations. The Energy Tax Prevention Act would rein in the

EPA, put Congress back in control, and steer our economy toward a complete and healthy recovery not for two years but

permanently.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-sayshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-sayshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-sayshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-sayshttp://cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-global-warming-regulations-could-send-economy-back-recession-report-says

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

14/18

Transitioning from global leaders results in multiple

scenarios for nuclear warPosen and Ross 97 [Barry Posen, Professor of Political Science, MIT, Andrew Ross, Professor of International Security, USnaval War College, Winter 2007, International Security]The United States can, more easily than most, go it alone. Yet we do not find the arguments of the neoisolationists compelling. Their

strategy serves U.S. interests only if they are narrowly construed. First, though the neo-isolationists have a strong case in their

argument that the Untied States is currently quite secure, disengagement is unlikely to make the United States more secure, and

would probably make it less secure. The disappearance of theUnited States from the world stage would

likely precipitate a good deal of competition abroad for security. Without a U.S. presence, aspiring

regional hegemons would see more opportunities. States formerly defended by the United

States would have to look to their own military power; local arms competitions are to be

expected. Proliferation of nuclear weapons would intensify if the U.S. nuclear guarantee were

withdrawn. Some states would seek weapons of mass destruction because they were simply

unable to compete conventionally with their neighbors.This new flurry of competitive

behavior would probably energize many hypothesized immediate causes of war, including

preemptive motives, preventive motives, economic motives, and the propensity formiscalculation. There would likely be more war. Weapons of mass destruction might be used insome of these wars, with unpleasant effects even for those not directly involved.

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

15/18

SOLVENCY

This green-tech leadership results in global modeling of CCS prompting international action to solve globallyMIT 7, (MIT panel provides policy blueprint for future of use of coalas policymakers work to reverse global warming March 14,2007, http://web.mit.edu/coal)Washington, DC Leading academics from an interdisciplinary Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) panel issued a report

today that examines how the world can continue to use coal, an abundant and inexpensive fuel, in a way that mitigates, instead of

worsens, the global warming crisis. The study, "The Future of Coal Options for a Carbon Constrained World," advocates the U.S.

assume global leadership on this issue through adoption of significant policy actions. Led by co-chairs Professor John Deutch,

Institute Professor, Department of Chemistry, and Ernest J. Moniz, Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems,

the report states that carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is the critical enabling technology to help reduce CO2 emissions

significantly while also allowing coal to meet the world's pressing energy needs. According to Dr. Deutch, "As the world's leading

energy user and greenhouse gas emitter, the U.S. must take the lead in showing the world CCS can work.

Demonstration oftechnical, economic, and institutional features ofCCS at commercial scale coalcombustionand conversion plantswill give policymakers and the publicconfidence that a practical

carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCSshould carbon emission controls be

adopted, and will maintain the low-cost coal option in an environmentally acceptable manner."Dr. Moniz added, "There are many opportunities for enhancing the performance of coal plants in a carbon-constrained world

higher efficiency generation, perhaps through new materials; novel approaches to gasification, CO2 capture, and oxygen separation;and advanced system concepts, perhaps guided by a new generation of simulation tools. An aggressive R&D effort in the near term

will yield significant dividends down the road, and should be undertaken immediately to help meet this urgent scientific challenge."

Key findings in this study: Coal is a low-cost, per BTU, mainstay of both the developed and developing world, and its use is projected

to increase. Because of coal's high carbon content, increasing use will exacerbate the problem of climate change unless coal plants

are deployed with very high efficiency and large scale CCS is implemented.CCS is the critical enabling technologybecause it allows significant reduction in CO2 emissions while allowing coal to meet future

energy needs. A significant charge on carbon emissions is needed in the relatively near term to increase the economic

attractiveness of new technologies that avoid carbon emissions and specifically to lead to large-scale CCS in the coming decades.We need large-scale demonstration projects of thetechnical, economic and environmentalperformance

of an integrated CCS system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Severalintegrated large-scale demonstrations with appropriate measurement, monitoring and verification are needed in the United States

over the next decade with government support. This is important for establishing public confidence for the very large-scale

sequestration program anticipated in the future. The regulatory regime for large-scale commercial sequestration should be

developed with a greater sense of urgency, with the Executive Office of the President leading an interagency process. The U.S.

government should provide assistance only to coal projects with CO2 capture in order to demonstrate technical, economic and

environmental performance.Today, IGCC appears to be the economic choice for new coal plants with CCS. However, this couldchange with further RD&D, so it is not appropriate to pick a single technology winner at this time, especially in light of the variability

in coal type, access to sequestration sites, and other factors. The government should provide assistance to several "first of a kind"

coal utilization demonstration plants, but only with carbon capture. Congress should remove any expectation that construction of

new coal plants without CO2 capture will be "grandfathered" and granted emission allowances in the event of future regulation. This

is a perverse incentive to build coal p lants without CO2 capture today. Emissions will be stabilized only through

global adherence to CO2 emission constraints. China and India are unlikely to adopt carbon

constraints unless the U.S. does so and leads the way in the development of CCS technology .Key changes must be made to the current Department of Energy RD&D program to successfully promote CCS technologies. The

program must provide for demonstration of CCS at scale; a wider range of technologies should be explored; and modeling and

simulation of the comparative performance of integrated technology systems should be greatly enhanced.

http://web.mit.edu/coalhttp://web.mit.edu/coalhttp://web.mit.edu/coalhttp://web.mit.edu/coal

7/29/2019 OLD CCS

16/18

Non-federal actors fail lack eminent domain, fail to spur

investment and lack uniformity on pipelines. This drives up

prices, causes delays, and lacks nationwide solvencyHorne 10, JD @ U of Utah (Jennifer, Getting from Here to There: Devising an Optimal Regulatory Model for CO2 Transport in aNew Carbon Capture and Sequestration Industry, Journal Of Land, Resources & Environmental Law Volume 30 Number 2http://www.epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlrel/article/viewPDFInterstitial/337/277)

SitingRegulations affect companies' ability to build where pipelines are needed, or wanted. Unless

CCS develops on a localized scale, some pipelines will necessarily cross state lines. Federal eminent

domain authority thus will be key for CCS pipelines. This is because siting under the auspices of multiple layersof government will almost inevitably hinder rapid development of a pipeline network needed for commercial-scale CCS. Such a

system would be more time-and resource-intensive, and would mean more uncertainty for pipeline developers. Federal eminent

domain authority for interstate pipelines would give pipelines, with appropriate federal approvals, authority to cut through the red

tape of multiple state and local land use requirements while still compensating landowners and protecting local ecosystems. A

complex siting process that requires approval under multiple state and local regimes may slow the progress of the entire CCS

industry. 108 The Congressional Research Service recently described the problem: As CO pipelines get longer, the state-by-

state sitingapproval process may become complex and protracted, and may face public opposition. BecauseCO pipeline requirements in a CCS scheme are driven by the relative locations of CO sources and sequestration sites,

identification and validation of such sites must explicitly account for CO pipeline costs if the economics of those sites are to be

fully understood. 109 Consider the siting of a hypothetical interstate pipeline that traverses three separate states. Absent

preemptive federal siting regulation, the pipeline developer would have to struggle through three separate sets of regulatory

requirements, apply for approval to build along the chosen corridor ineach state, and potentially face legal challenges

in three separate jurisdictions. One reason that pipeline siting under a state-based model would be resource-intensive isthe regulatory redundancy - and risk of conflicting decisions - that can occur when a pipeline corridor runs through multiple

jurisdictions. This has proven to be a hindrance in other industries. For example, a state-based siting process continues to pose

daunting challenges to interstate electric transmission siting. 110 It has contributed to the "very slow pace of transmission

enhancements," 111 in the [*374] face of increasing energy demands and an electric grid in need of expansion. 112 In general,

pipeline projects adhere to rigid timelines. 113 Delays in securing necessary easements drive up costs and holdup

projects. 114 The problem is only compounded when delays occur in multiple jurisdictions at once, or when one state erects aunilateral roadblock to a project even though other states have signed on. Even disapproval by a single locality can be a significant

hindrance to project development. 115 Second, an approval process that involves multiple, potentially conflicting requirements is

not just more resource-intensive, but also creates uncertainty. To begin with, the "lack of timing coordination" 116 among various

entities may force pipelines to site one part of a pipeline corridor before the pipeline has siting approval for the rest of the corridor.

117 In addition, the generalized nature of the benefit brought by climate change mitigation makes localized siting decisions

particularly vulnerable to not in my backyard (NIMBY) opposition. 118 CCS will serve generalized interests, but impose localized

costs. It will provide a worldwide benefit - the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions - but do so at the immediate expense (in terms

of landscape disruption and related environmental effects) to the local landowners where CCS pipelines are sited. Take, for example,

the immediate risks from a sudden CO pipeline leakage in a highly populated area. 119 Damage from such a release to human

health and the environment would be borne by the immediate locality. 120 In addition to safety risks, the environmental and

aesthetic impacts of pipeline construction are also felt most acutely on a localized level. The problem of public opposition to new

pipelines is likely to be greater in CCS than it has been in EOR. EOR pipelines are located primarily in remote areas, and in states

"accustomed to the presence of large energy infrastructure." 121 In CCS, many of the sources of CO - power plants - are located

in more populated [*375] areas, "many with a history of public resistance to the s iting of energy infrastructure." 122 Of course, this

will not bear out everywhere. Some states are bound to be pro-CCS, even when the in-state proportion of the climate change

benefit would seem too slight to justify action. 123 For example, important coal interests in Wyoming prompted the state to move

early to establish a CCS regulatory model. 124 For such states heavily dependent on coal for revenue, a "push for new clean coal

technologies" is understandable. 125 Given this, a climate like Wyoming's may be particularly friendly territory for siting of CCS

pipelines. However, these particular states may not match where potential storage repositories are located. Other states and

localities lack the sort of incentive that exists in states like Wyoming. Political pressure to pave the way for CCS pipeline siting willvary dramatically from one state to the next, as evidenced by the inconsistency in state action on CCS generally so far. 126 This lack

of political uniformity points to a s ingle conclu