1AC CDCL Version 2.

0
 Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China by
extending the China-U.S. Clean Energy Research Center-Advanced Coal
Technology Consortium for 2016-2020 to include joint coal-direct chemical looping
research, demonstration and development.
 Solvency
Next is solvency-
A. Engagement with the PRC on chemical coal is key to effective CCS and
market scalability
*Coal development takes place in China – the plan just shares CDCL licenses (A2: Regulations)
*Key to keep the US industry afloat (A2: Natural Gas tanks coal)
Litvak 3-15-16 (Anya, “U.S. coal technologies could find market in China,”
http://powersource.post-gazette.com/powersource/policy-powersource/2016/03/15/U-S-
coal-technologies-could-find-market-in-China-NETL/stories/201603150008, Stadt)
It’s possible, even likely, that some of the clean coal technologies being developed at the South Park National Energy
Technology Laboratory — a federally funded fossil fuel lab — will be tested in China. The reason is simple: China

is building new coal plants. The United States is not. When Grace Bochenek, NETL’s director, and Geo Richards, a senior research
fellow with the lab, visited China in November, they understood this dynamic well. “ As you develop or innovate new technology,

sometimes you have to reach out internationally,” Ms. Bochenek said in an interview last week. “ It’s a very important

part of accelerating things.” Coal companies in the U.S. are dominoing into bankruptcy while
coal loses market share to cheap natural gas. The coal equipment and technology companies that had been nurtured in places like

Appalachia are now being starved. Increasingly, they’re looking abroad, and specifically, to China to use their

current technology and pioneer new inventions. Technology developed at NETL is often licensed by
companies in the U.S. and abroad. China hasn’t just surpassed the U.S. in coal production and consumption, it has a more
diverse portfolio of coal uses than the U.S., where 90 percent of coal is used for electric generation.
During their visit, Ms. Bochenek and Mr. Richards toured a recently constructed coal power plant built in the middle of a growing city that also supplied steam to a
district heating system. “The net efficiencies are just stunning when you combine power generation with heat,” Mr. Richards said. But the concept of plopping a
sizable coal plant in the middle of a city is “pretty foreign in the U.S.” Here, large coal plants are sited in rural areas and connected to the grid through miles of
transmission lines. It’s impractical to pump steam that far to a population center. China’s rapid urbanization allows the country
to approach certain things more “holistically,” Ms. Bochenek said. “They plan the city at the same time as they plan energy requirements,” she said. The
two also visited a factory where coal was being converted into chemicals. Ms. Bochenek and Mr. Richards were told the facility

was built within a short period of time, a relative metric that underscores to contrast the
extensive timeline for such projects in the U.S. The plant is considering buying technology
developed in the U.S. to convert the coal into a synthetic gas, the first step in the process of chemical
making. NETL, too, is exploring how to incorporate chemical production into coal-powered
generation in the U.S. In a coal patch in the western part of China, Ms. Bochenek and Mr. Richards saw mining operations
across the road from oilfields — an ideal setting to hone and adopt carbon capture and
utilization technologies which would trap carbon dioxide from coal and inject it into oil wells to enhance recovery. In the U.S.,
projects to commercialize this on a large scale have stalled given the expense of capturing
the carbon and the low price of oil which dampens companies’ willingness to increase their well costs. Ms. Bochenek said there were no
discussions about intellectual property protection during their visit — a touchy area for companies doing business in China because of its reputation as a place where
Thus far, NETL hasn’t shared any intellectual property with China
IP is less than sacrosanct. , she said.
“We’ve not taken a piece of our hardware or software over there,” she said. “We’ve worked with companies that then made that decision, but we wouldn’t be involved
in that part.”
 B. CERC Extension key to CDCL cooperation – energy development and
mutual growth
Wu ’15 (Dr. Tianhua at Huazhong University of Science & Technology, “China-US
Clean Energy Research Center (CERC),” http://english.hust.edu.cn/research/lab/1612,
Stadt)
In November 2014, President Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama made the China-US Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy
Cooperation in Beijing. Both countries agreed to expand joint clean energy research and development: a renewed

and expanded commitment to the China-US Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). This will include: extending the CERC

mandate for an additional five years from 2016-2020; renewing funding for the three existing tracks:
building efficiency, clean vehicles, and advanced coal technologies with carbon capture, use and

sequestration (CCUS); and launching a new track on the interaction of energy and water (the energy/water ‘nexus’). Earlier, in November 2009, President
Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao announced the establishment of the Clean Energy Research Center (CERC). The US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Chinese
Minister of Science and Technology Wan Gang, and Chinese National Energy Administrator Zhang Guobao signed the Protocol launching the CERC. The
primary purpose of the CERC is to facilitate joint research, development, and
commercialization of clean energy technologies between the US and China. The CERC will also build a
foundation of knowledge, human capabilities, and relationships in mutually beneficial areas that will emphasize clean energy in both nations. Besides the new Energy
The Clean Coal including CCS
and Water Consortium, there are three existing consortia in CERC, Clean Coal, Clean Vehicles, and Efficient Building.

(Carbon Capture and Storage) program addresses technology and practices for clean coal utilization and

carbon capture, utilization, and storage. Abundant coal resources and widespread use are
central to the energy systems and growth aspirations of both countries and present both
challenges and opportunities for the two countries in environmental performance and
commercial development. The US and China have chosen West Virginia University (WVU, Director James F. Wood) and Huazhong University
of Science and Technology (HUST, Director Professor Zheng Chuguang) to lead teams of experts from public and private institutions. These teams are designated as
the China Advanced Coal Technology Consortium and the US Advanced Coal Technology Consortium (the China ACTC and US ACTC, respectively). These two
Advanced Coal Technology Consortia (collectively the CERC-ACTC) have implemented a five-year (2011~2015) work plan to help significantly advance technology
in the area of clean coal including carbon capture, utilization, and storage in both China and the US. [COMMENT: Now is 2015, is this information still current? What
The vision of US-China CERC-ACTC is to advance the coal
about 2016-2020, the period under discussion here?

technology needed to safely, effectively, and efficiently utilize coal resources including the
ability to capture, store, and utilize emissions from coal use in both nations. In the first five years, both
teams identified 9 key research tasks, including Advanced Power Generation, Clean Coal Conversion Technology, Pre-combustion Capture, Post-

combustion Capture, Oxy-Combustion Capture, CO2 Sequestration, CO2 Utilization, Simulation and Assessment,
and Communication and Integration. The main activities of the first five-year plan have been completed. In August 2014, the chief team leaders of both sides met in
Beijing to discuss the collaboration plan of the second five years (2016~2020) and an MOU was signed by the two consortia leaders. The representatives agreed that
theresearch sponsored by the current CERC was important to the development of cost-
effective technologies to capture, store and utilize the carbon dioxide that is produced when
fossil fuel is combusted. That research should continue as part of any renewal or extension
of the CERC Protocol. Five Themes were selected as appropriate to a CERC renewal or extension:
Theme 1 relates to science and research in Advanced Power Generation, particularly Pressurized Oxy-

Combustion and Chemical Looping Combustion; Theme 2 relates to collaborations and knowledge sharing on large demonstration projects;
Theme 3 relates to CO2 utilization and storage, particularly enhanced oil recovery (EOR), enhanced water recovery (EWR), and micro-algae growth; Theme 4 relates
to Advanced Coal Conversion, particularly gasification, poly-generation, and pyrolysis; Theme 5 relates to System Analysis and Sharing, particularly modeling,
The US and China have pulled together both the
simulation and cyclic operation of large base-load power plants.

research agenda and the tasks with lead institutions nation-wide to help guarantee the
success and value of this collaborative effort. These include research institutions, universities, national labs, NGO, and companies
with long and successful partnerships working with both sides. The US and China teams have collaborated deeply with each other on many projects and look forward
to working together even more closely within the framework provided by the CERC.
 C. China will agree to joint frameworks for development but diplomatic
engagement is key
Kirkland ’11 (Joel, August 22, US-China Deal Intended to Speed Clean Coal Research,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-china-deal-intended-to/)
U.S. and Chinese officials heading up a series of joint advanced coal projects Friday signed an
intellectual property agreement meant to ease the sharing of innovative technology while protecting patents and licensing agreements. Companies
collaborating on research and development projects tied to the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), a program started in
2009, can enter into regular commercial contracts. But energy technology companies participating in the U.S.-
China program must negotiate licenses "in good faith" to ensure both nations benefit. Inventors of technology
can set the terms, according to a description of the agreement, including royalties and limits on the use of an invention. But the terms
cannot be so restrictive that they in essence bar the sharing of advanced coal technology by the United
States and China. Major energy companies have a stake in the plan for protecting intellectual property, including U.S. energy giants General
Electric and Duke Energy and the French conglomerate Alstom. U.S.
and Chinese officials visiting the West Virginia University
campus in Morgantown to sign the agreement Friday said the governments also have
a lot to gain by greasing the wheels
for further cooperation on clean energy. Robert Marlay, director of the CERC program out of the U.S.
Department of Energy, said the intellectual property agreement flows from direct talks among U.S. and
Chinese leaders, "suggesting diplomatic and binding support of the agreement." Ending a culture of
distrust? With both governments putting their stamps of approval on an enforceable approach to intellectual
property, Marlay said, U.S. and Chinese companies could be more willing to work together. U.S.
developers of energy technology have been wary about making innovations available to Chinese energy producers for fear their inventions will be
copied. Chinese companies are also doing more inventing, and the nation's patent laws are becoming more sophisticated. That has spurred both
sides to negotiate a solution. The agreement, officials said, is meant to cut through a culture of distrust that
has kept American and Chinese scientists and companies from collaborating on potential
solutions to the knottiest energy issues. China and the United States are the world's biggest users of energy and producers of
greenhouse gas emissions tied to global warming. They both rely on coal, and cutting emissions at coal-burning power
plants and other industrial plants is the goal of one of three programs tied to U.S.-China CERC. Joint research is
attempting to advance technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions, turning coal into natural gas
and stripping coal of its pollutants while it is used at a power plant. It is also working on capturing carbon
produced at plants designed to turn coal into diesel fuel.
Advantage 1
 Carbon Recycling
Advantage 1 is Carbon Recycling-
1. High demand – DOE supports commercialization
RecycleCarbon 4-4-16 (“DOE Requests Information on Carbon Use and Reuse
Technology Opportunities for Power Sector,” http://www.recyclecarbon.org/news/doe-
requests-information-on-carbon-use-and-reuse-technology-opportunities-for-power-
sector/, Stadt)
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Fossil Energy is seeking information from industry, academia, research
laboratories, and others to learn about specific beneficial carbon use and reuse technology opportunities

for the U.S. power generation sector. The Bioenergy Technologies Office is also interested in employing bioenergy feedstocks as carbon
utilization technologies. To complement existing efforts to develop, demonstrate, and deploy carbon

capture technologies, DOE is interested in supporting new and innovative approaches to

beneficially utilize CO-2 from fossil fuel power plants. These technologies include biological utilization technologies, such
as algae cultivation.

2. CDCL development is key

Gorder ’13 (Pam, “New Coal Technology Harnesses Energy Without Burning, Nears
Pilot-Scale Development,” http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/looping203.htm, Stadt)
Liang-Shih Fan, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of Ohio State’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, pioneered the technology called
Coal-Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL), which chemically harnesses coal’s energy and efficiently contains
the carbon dioxide produced before it can be released into the atmosphere. “In the simplest sense,
combustion is a chemical reaction that consumes oxygen and produces heat,” Fan said. “Unfortunately, it also produces carbon dioxide, which is difficult to capture
the coal never
and bad for the environment. So we found a way to release the heat without burning. We carefully control the chemical reaction so that

burns—it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is entirely contained inside the reactor.” Dawei Wang,
a research associate and one of the group's team leaders, described the technology’s potential benefits. "The commercial-scale CDCL

plant could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America's
natural resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy
with jobs," he said. Though other laboratories around the world are trying to develop similar technology to directly convert coal to electricity, Fan’s lab is
unique in the way it processes fossil fuels. The Ohio State group typically studies coal in the two forms that are already commonly available to the power industry:
crushed coal “feedstock,” and coal-derived syngas. The latter fuel has been successfully studied in a second sub-pilot research-scale unit, through a similar process
called Syngas Chemical Looping (SCL). Both units are located in a building on Ohio State’s Columbus campus, and each is contained in a 25-foot-high insulated
metal cylinder that resembles a very tall home water heater tank. No other lab has continuously operated a coal-direct chemical looping unit as long as the Ohio State
lab did last September. But as doctoral student Elena Chung explained, the experiment could have continued. “We voluntarily chose to stop the unit. We actually
could have run longer, but honestly, it was a mutual decision by Dr. Fan and the students. It was a long and tiring week where we all shared shifts,” she said. Fan
agreed that the nine-day experiment was a success. “In the two years we’ve been running the sub-pilot plants, our CDCL and SCL units have achieved a combined
830 operating hours, which clearly demonstrates the reliability and operability of our design,” he said. At any one time, the units each produce about 25 thermal
kilowatts—that is, thermal energy, which in a full-scale power plant would be used to heat water and turn the steam-powered turbines that create electricity. The
researchers are about to take their technology to the next level: a larger-scale pilot plant is under construction at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Carbon
Capture Center in Wilsonville, AL. Set to begin operations in late 2013, that plant will produce 250 thermal kilowatts using syngas. The key to the technology is the
For CDCL
use of tiny metal beads to carry oxygen to the fuel to spur the chemical reaction. , the fuel is coal that’s been ground into a powder, and the metal
beads are made of iron oxide composites. The coal particles are about 100 micrometers across—about the diameter of a human hair—and the iron beads are larger,
about 1.5-2 millimeters across. Chung likened the two different sizes to talcum powder and ice cream sprinkles, though the mix is not nearly so colorful. The coal and
iron oxide are heated to high temperatures, where the materials react with each other. Carbon from the coal binds with the oxygen from the iron oxide and creates
carbon dioxide, which rises into a chamber where it is captured. Hot iron and coal ash are left behind. Because the iron beads are so much bigger than the coal ash,
they are easily separated out of the ash, and delivered to a chamber where the heat energy would normally be harnessed for electricity. The coal ash is removed from
carbon dioxide is separated and can be recycled or sequestered for storage. The
the system. The

iron beads are exposed to air inside the reactor, so that they become re-oxidized be used again. The beads can be re-used almost
indefinitely, or recycled. Since the process captures nearly all the carbon dioxide, it exceeds
the goals that DOE has set for developing clean energy. New technologies that use fossil fuels should
not raise the cost of electricity more than 35 percent, while still capturing more than 90 percent of the resulting carbon
dioxide. Based on the current tests with the research-scale plants, Fan and his team believe that they can meet or exceed that

requirement.

The impact is oil

A) Carbon Recycling key to Enhanced Oil Recovery
Ferber ’13 (Dan, “Ohio State’s carbon-capture breakthrough still has long road to
adoption,” http://midwestenergynews.com/2013/02/11/ohio-states-carbon-capture-
breakthrough-still-has-long-road-to-adoption/, Stadt)
Fan and many other carbon-capture researchers have worked toward this goal for years, and have developed more than a dozen
experimental carbon-capture technologies. To date, none of them has been used in a commercial-scale
coal plant, but a great deal of research and development is under way behind the scenes. For their recent research-scale demonstration at Ohio State
University, Fan’s team used a carbon-capture technology called coal-direct chemical looping that they have been developing
over the last 15 years. Many other carbon-capture technologies, including amine scrubbing, capture carbon dioxide from flue gas generated by burning coal the usual
way—at high temperatures under air. In contrast, the Ohio State researchers mix pulverized coal with beads of iron oxide, a compound akin to rusty iron. They do this
With the proper
in a reactor heated to about 1,650°F, and the coal inside reacts to produce carbon dioxide and water in the form of steam.

equipment, the steam cools into liquid water, leaving pure carbon dioxide, which can be
sequestered or used for enhanced oil recovery. After the reaction is complete, the hot iron
beads are transferred to a second reactor, where they undergo combustion. This combustion is different from, say, burning a charcoal briquette,
in that it produces no flame. But the hot iron beads nevertheless react with air and produce heat—“the same amount of heat as if you would have burned coal,” Fan
That heat boils water to produce steam, which drives a turbine that produces electricity.
said.

the iron beads are now partially rusted again—that is, they have oxygen attached—and they’re
At that point,

returned to the first reactor to react with more coal. It’s this recycling that gives “looping”
techniques their name. Because carbon dioxide separation occurs essentially as part of the
combustion process, “the 'capture' energy requirements are almost negligible,” and far less than amine
scrubbing, Fan said. That could dramatically lower the cost, he added. Coal-direct chemical looping has another advantage over burning coal, Fan said. Iron burns at
2,000°F, far lower than the 4,500°F needed to burn coal, and at this lower temperature nitrogen in the air does not form nitrogen oxides. That means that compared
with flue gas from burning coal, levels of nitrogen oxides are much lower in the flue gas, which means “there’s much less to scrub,” Fan said. In its recent run, Ohio
State’s combustion unit ran for 203 continuous hours, burned all the coal used, and while capturing 99 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by the reaction. This
represents the “longest integrated operation of chemical looping technology anywhere in the world to date,” according to a press release from the Department of
Energy, which helped fund the work through the agency’s Carbon Capture Program. The unit produced 25 kilowatts of thermal energy, which in a power plant would
have been used to produce electricity. “The chemical looping L.S. Fan is demonstrating is completely new,” said Lynn Brickett, division director of the Existing
Plants Emissions Control division of U.S Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in Pittsburgh. Next steps Meanwhile, DOE is
building a six-story-tall, 250 kW pilot plant at its National Carbon Capture Center in Wilsonville, Alabama to test a related carbon-capture technology Fan’s team
developed called syngas chemical looping. It's a similar process, except that the coal is converted to syngas--a mix of carbon monoxide, methane and other gases–then
the syngas reacts with the iron. Like coal-direct chemical looping, syngas chemical looping can produce electricity cleanly from coal and capture carbon dioxide. But
a syngas chemical looping plant could also be rejiggered to produce hydrogen instead of electricity. “This is a reactor that would allow you to generate electricity,
chemicals, or carbon dioxide cleanly by its nature, rather than do a retrofit” of an existing coal-fired power plant, said Karma Sawyer of ARPA-E, who directs the
agency’s Innovative Materials and Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies (IMPACCT) program, which is helping fund the Alabama test. The
Alabama pilot plant will be the first to test the syngas chemical looping technology outside of a laboratory setting, Brickett said. The $14 million project is being
Given looming emissions
funded by ARPA-E and by more than half a dozen companies that make technologies used in coal-fired power plants.

regulations that could shutter coal-fired power plants, “it behooves these companies to
move along technology that will enable coal to continue to be used in the United States,” Brickett said.

B) CCS-EOR reduces US oil dependence by 50% and avoids environmental risks

Howell ’10 (Katie, “Pairing Oil Recovery With Carbon Capture a Win-Win for U.S.,”
March 11, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/03/11/11greenwire-pairing-oil-recovery-
with-carbon-capture-a-win-52359.html, Stadt)
 says combining CCS with enhanced oil recovery
The Natural Resources Defense Council backed the report (pdf) that

could boost U.S. production by 3 million to 3.6 million barrels a day. "Significant growth is
dependent on sourcing affordable carbon dioxide," said Mike Godec, vice president of Advanced Resources International,
which prepared the report. "Climate legislation obviously would give enhanced oil recovery a kick start and allow the technology to grow most rapidly." Oil
companies for years have wrung as much oil as they could from maturing wells. And for the past 35 years or so, they have been pumping CO2 into aging reservoirs to
displace oil and enhance production. Those efforts have produced about 1.5 billion barrels of domestic oil since 1986, or more than 250,000 barrels per day. But
companies using the technique rely on natural sources of CO2, and that has posed a
problem. "The real limiting factor historically has been the availability of CO2 supplies, not the
availability of reservoirs," said Tracy Evans, president of Denbury Resources Inc., which uses enhanced oil recovery with CCS. A House-passed
climate bill and pending Senate legislation could spur the technology's use, the report says. If a price on CO2 emissions pushed industrial emitters to

develop capture technology, the greenhouse gas could easily be transported to oil recovery
sites, Evans said. And by pumping captured CO2 underground and sequestering it, the United States
could cut its carbon emissions by 530 million tons by 2030, the report says. Interest in enhanced oil
recovery with CCS has grown recently. In response to a separate report this month that mentioned combining oil
production and CCS, NRDC's Wesley Warren said such an effort "could cut U.S. oil imports in half, helping the
economy and enhancing national security without raising new environmental concerns."

C) Oil dependence creates multiple scenarios for war – increases the incentive to go
to war while short-circuiting barriers to conflict
GLASER 2011 (Professor of Political Science and International Relations Elliot School of International Affairs The George Washington University, “
Reframing Energy Security: How Oil Dependence Influences U.S. National Security,” August 2011, http://depts.washington.edu/polsadvc/Blog%20Links/Glaser_-
_EnergySecurity-AUGUST-2011.docx, Sawyer)

Oil dependence could reduce a state’s security if its access to oil is vulnerable to disruption and if oil is necessary for operating the state’s military forces. Vulnerable energy
supplies can leave a state open to coercion—recognizing that it is more likely to lose a war, the state

has a weaker bargaining position and is more likely to make concessions. Closely related, if war occurs 1

the state is more likely to lose. Conflict that is influenced by this mechanism is not fundamentally over the oil; rather, when states already have incentives for
2

conflict, the oil vulnerability influences their assessment of military capabilities and in turn the path to war. Recognizing this type of danger during the Cold War, U.S. planning to protect its sea
lanes of communication with the Persian Gulf was motivated partly by the importance of insuring the steady flow of oil that was necessary to enable the United States to fight a long war against
the Soviet Union in Europe. During the Second World War, Japan’s vulnerability to a U.S. oil embargo played an important role in destroying Japan’s ability to fight.3 This type of threat to the
U.S. military capabilities is not a serious danger today because the United States does not face a major power capable of severely interrupting its access to key supplies of oil. In contrast, China

does face this type of danger because its oil imports are vulnerable to disruption by the U.S. Navy. Protecting access to oil threatens other states—an access-driven security dilemma The
vulnerability of a state’s access to oil supplies could reduce its security via a second, more complicated mechanism—if the state’s efforts to
protect its access to oil threaten another state’s security, then this reduced security could in turn reduce the state’s own security. The danger would follow standard security-

dilemma logic, but with the defense of oil supply lines replacing the standard focus on protection of territory. In the most extreme case, a state could try to
solve its import vulnerability through territorial expansion. In less extreme cases, the state could deal with
its vulnerability by building up military forces required to protect its access to oil, which has the
unintended consequence of decreasing its adversary’s military capability and signaling that the state’s motives are malign,

1
For a full analysis of the when and how oil dependence leaves states vulnerable to coercion, see
Rosemary A. Kelanic, “Black Gold and Blackmail: The Politics of International Oil Coercion”
(PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, 2011).
2
For important exceptions, see Kelanic, “Black Gold and Blackmail.”
3
Jerome B. Cohen, Japan’s Economy in War and Reconstruction (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, 1949).
which decreases the adversary’s security, which leads the adversary to build up its own military forces. 4
Just as protecting a distant
ally can require a state to adopt an offensive capability, protecting access to oil can require offensive power-projection capabilities. Thus, a state’s need to protect its access to oil could create a

this security dilemma need not be over oil or access to oil; by damaging political relations the security
security dilemma that would not otherwise exist. Conflict fueled by

dilemma could prevent the states from resolving political disputes and avoiding the escalation of crises.
Here again, the United States does not currently face this type of danger; this is largely because the military status quo currently favors the United States, which relieves it from having to take
provocative actions. In contrast, China’s efforts to protect its access to oil could be more provocative and generate military competition with the United States. Oil makes territory increasingly

a state places greater value on owning territory because the territory contains
valuable In this type of case,

energy resources that are increasingly valuable. The greater value of territory can increase competition between states, because
the benefits of success grow relative to the costs of competition, for example, the costs of arming. For similar reasons, the greater value of territory
increases the probability that crises over territory will lead to war instead of negotiated compromises, as states are more willing to run the
risks of fighting. 5 This type of conflict is the classic resource war, which is the path by which oil is most commonly envisioned leading to conflict. 6 We can also hypothesize that the probability
of conflict is greater when territorial boundaries are contested and the political status quo is ambiguous. Because the norm of state sovereignty is now widely held, states are less likely to launch
expansionist wars to take other states’ territory. However, when boundaries are not settled, states are more likely to compete to acquire territory they value and will compete harder when they
value it more.7 In addition, unsettled boundaries increase the possibilities for boundedly rational bargaining failures that could lead to war. There are two basic paths via which a state could
become involved in this type of oil conflict. The more obvious is for the state to be a claimant in the dispute and become directly involved in a territorial conflict. The second is likely more
important for the United States—an alliance commitment could draw the state into a resource conflict that initially began between its ally and another state.8 The state would not have energy
interests of its own at stake, but intervenes to protect its ally. Along this path, energy plays an important but less direct role in damaging the state’s security, because although energy interests fuel
the initial conflict, they do not motivate the state’s intervention. 9 A later section explores the possibility of conflict between China and Japan in the East China Sea, with the United States drawn

in to protect Japan and consequently involved in a war with China. When a state’s economy depends heavily on oil, severe supply
disruptions might do sufficiently large economic damage that the state would use military force
to protect its prosperity. A state this suffers this vulnerability risks not only suffering the damage that could be inflicted by a supply disruption, which might be the
by-product of unrelated domestic or international events, but also risks being coerced by an adversary. Consequently, states will want to be confident that
their ability to import oil will be uninterrupted and will pursue policies to ensure secure access.

4
On the security dilemma see Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World
Politics, Vol. 30, No. 2 (January 1978), pp. 167-214; and Charles L. Glaser, “The Security
Dilemma Revisited,” World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 1 (October 1997), pp. 171-201.
5
In terms of bargaining theory, see Robert Powell, Bargaining in the Shadow of Power
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), Chp. 3.
6
For a generally skeptical analysis of the standard resource war arguments see David G. Victor,
“What Resource Wars,” The National Interest (November/December 2007).
7
For related points, see Shaffer, Energy Politics, pp. 67-70, who identifies additional examples
that I do not address, including the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea and the Arctic Circle.
8
Still another path is for a state to intervene in an energy-driven conflict to protect its access to
oil; this is an example of how various mechanisms could overlap with each other.
9
This can be understood as a form of alliance entrapment; see Glenn H. Snyder, “The Security
Dilemma in Alliance Politics,” World Politics, Vol. 36, No. 4 (July 1984), pp. 461-495.
Advantage 2
 Warming
1. Warming is real and anthropogenic – 97% comprehensive expert consensus
Green 13 – Professor of Chemistry @ Michigan Tech,

*John Cook – Fellow @ Global Change Institute, produced climate communication resources
adopted by organisations such as NOAA and the U.S. Navy
**Dana Nuccitelli – MA in Physics @ UC-Davis
***Mark Richardson – PhD Candidate in Meteorology, et al.,
(“Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”
Environmental Research Letters, 8.2)
An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). Communicating the scientific consensus also increases people's acceptance that climate change (CC) is happening (Lewandowsky et al

In the most
2012). Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012).

comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-

reviewed climate papers We examined a large sample of the scientific in Oreskes (2004).

literature published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of

on global CC,

scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW

global warming ¶ Surveys of climate scientists have found strong agreement

(anthropogenic , or AGW).

(97–98%) regarding AGW amongst publishing climate experts (Doran and Zimmerman 2009, Anderegg et al 2010).

Repeated surveys of scientists found that scientific agreement about AGW steadily
increased ¶
from 1996 to 2009 (Bray 2010). This is reflected in the increasingly definitive statements issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the attribution of recent GW (Houghton et al 1996, 2001, Solomon et al 2007). The peer-
reviewed scientific literature provides a ground-level assessment of the degree of consensus among publishing scientists. An analysis of abstracts published from 1993–2003 matching the search 'global climate change' found that none of 928 papers disagreed with the
consensus position on AGW (Oreskes 2004). This is consistent with an analysis of citation networks that found a consensus on AGW forming in the early 1990s (Shwed and Bearman 2010). ¶ Despite these independent indicators of a scientific consensus, the perception of the
US public is that the scientific community still disagrees over the fundamental cause of GW. From 1997 to 2007, public opinion polls have indicated around 60% of the US public believes there is significant disagreement among scientists about whether GW was happening

this
(Nisbet and Myers 2007). Similarly, 57% of the US public either disagreed or were unaware that scientists agree that the earth is very likely warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).¶ Through analysis of climate-related papers published from 1991 to 2011,

study provides the most comprehensive analysis of its kind to date in order to
quantify and evaluate the level and evolution of consensus over the last two decades ¶ .

2. Methodology¶ This letter was conceived as a 'citizen science' project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website (www.skepticalscience.com). In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches
for 'global warming' or 'global climate change'. Article type was restricted to 'article', excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types. The search was updated in May 2012 with papers added to the Web of Science up to that date.¶ We classified
each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are
contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to
the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations). ¶ Table 1. Definitions of each type of research category. ¶ Category Description Example¶ (1) Impacts Effects and impacts of climate change on the environment, ecosystems or humanity '...global
climate change together with increasing direct impacts of human activities, such as fisheries, are affecting the population dynamics of marine top predators' ¶ (2) Methods Focus on measurements and modeling methods, or basic climate science not included in the other
categories 'This paper focuses on automating the task of estimating Polar ice thickness from airborne radar data...' ¶ (3) Mitigation Research into lowering CO2 emissions or atmospheric CO2 levels 'This paper presents a new approach for a nationally appropriate mitigation
actions framework that can unlock the huge potential for greenhouse gas mitigation in dispersed energy end-use sectors in developing countries'¶ (4) Not climate-related Social science, education, research about people's views on climate 'This paper discusses the use of
multimedia techniques and augmented reality tools to bring across the risks of global climate change' ¶ (5) Opinion Not peer-reviewed articles 'While the world argues about reducing global warming, chemical engineers are getting on with the technology. Charles Butcher
has been finding out how to remove carbon dioxide from flue gas' ¶ (6) Paleoclimate Examining climate during pre-industrial times 'Here, we present a pollen-based quantitative temperature reconstruction from the midlatitudes of Australia that spans the last 135 000
years...'¶ Table 2. Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW. ¶ Level of endorsement Description Example¶ (1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming 'The global warming during the 20th
century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s' ¶ (2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a
known fact 'Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change' ¶ (3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly
stating humans are the cause '...carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change' ¶ (4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming ¶ (4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human's role on recent global warming is
uncertain/undefined 'While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...' ¶ (5) Implicit rejection Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global
warming '...anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results' ¶ (6) Explicit rejection without quantification Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
'...the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect'¶ (7) Explicit rejection with quantification Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming 'The human contribution to the CO2 content in the
atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of carbon dioxide emission' ¶ Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author
names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters. A team of 12 individuals completed 97.4% (23 061) of the ratings; an additional 12 contributed the remaining 2.6% (607). Initially, 27%
of category ratings and 33% of endorsement ratings disagreed. Raters were then allowed to compare and justify or update their rating through the web system, while maintaining anonymity. Following this, 11% of category ratings and 16% of endorsement ratings disagreed;
these were then resolved by a third party.¶ Upon completion of the final ratings, a random sample of 1000 'No Position' category abstracts were re-examined to differentiate those that did not express an opinion from those that take the position that the cause of GW is
uncertain. An 'Uncertain' abstract explicitly states that the cause of global warming is not yet determined (e.g., '...the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive...') while a 'No Position' abstract makes no statement on AGW. ¶ To complement the abstract
analysis, email addresses for 8547 authors were collected, typically from the corresponding author and/or first author. For each year, email addresses were obtained for at least 60% of papers. Authors were emailed an invitation to participate in a survey in which they rated
their own published papers (the entire content of the article, not just the abstract) with the same criteria as used by the independent rating team. Details of the survey text are provided in the supplementary information (available at
stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia).¶ 3. Results¶ The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and
published in 1980 journals. To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).¶ We examined
four metrics to quantify the level of endorsement: ¶ (1) The percentage of endorsements/rejections/undecideds among all abstracts. ¶ (2) The percentage of endorsements/rejections/undecideds among only those abstracts expressing a position on AGW.¶ (3) The
percentage of scientists authoring endorsement/ rejection abstracts among all scientists. ¶ (4) The same percentage among only those scientists who expressed a position on AGW (table 3). ¶ Table 3. Abstract ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and
total number of papers.¶ Position % of all abstracts % among abstracts with AGW position (%) % of all authors % among authors with AGW position (%) ¶ Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) 97.1 34.8% (10 188) 98.4¶ No AGW position 66.4% (7930) — 64.6% (18 930) —¶
Reject AGW 0.7% (78) 1.9 0.4% (124) 1.2¶ Uncertain on AGW 0.3% (40) 1.0 0.2% (44) 0.4¶ 3.1. Endorsement percentages from abstract ratings ¶ Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed
a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. ¶ The time series of each level of endorsement of the consensus on AGW was analyzed in terms of the number of abstracts (figure 1(a)) and the percentage of abstracts (figure 1(b)). Over time, the no
position percentage has increased (simple linear regression trend 0.87% ± 0.28% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.66,p < 0.001) and the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW has equally decreased. ¶ Reset¶ Figure 1. (a) Total number of abstracts categorized into
endorsement, rejection and no position. (b) Percentage of endorsement, rejection and no position/undecided abstracts. Uncertain comprise 0.5% of no position abstracts. ¶ Export PowerPoint slide¶ Download figure: Standard (154 KB)High-resolution (248 KB)¶ The
average numbers of authors per endorsement abstract (3.4) and per no position abstract (3.6) are both significantly larger than the average number of authors per rejection abstract (2.0). The scientists originated from 91 countries (identified by email address) with the
highest representation from the USA (N = 2548) followed by the United Kingdom (N = 546), Germany (N = 404) and Japan (N = 379) (see supplementary table S1 for full list, available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia). ¶ 3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-
ratings¶ We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors.
The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.
Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus. ¶ Table 4. Self-ratings for each level of endorsement, shown as percentage and total number of papers. ¶ Position % of all papers % among papers with AGW position (%)
% of respondents % among respondents with AGW position (%) ¶ Endorse AGWa 62.7% (1342) 97.2 62.7% (746) 96.4¶ No AGW positionb 35.5% (761) — 34.9% (415) — ¶ Reject AGWc 1.8% (39) 2.8 2.4% (28) 3.6¶ aSelf-rated papers that endorse AGW have an average
endorsement rating less than 4 (1 =explicit endorsement with quantification, 7 = explicit rejection with quantification). bUndecided self-rated papers have an average rating equal to 4. cRejection self-rated papers have an average rating greater than 4. ¶ Figure 2(a) shows the
level of self-rated endorsement in terms of number of abstracts (the corollary to figure 1(a)) and figure 2(b) shows the percentage of abstracts (the corollary to figure 1(b)). The percentage of self-rated rejection papers decreased (simple linear regression trend −0.25% ±
0.18% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.28,p = 0.01, figure 2(b)). The time series of self-rated no position and consensus endorsement papers both show no clear trend over time. ¶ Reset¶ Figure 2. (a) Total number of endorsement, rejection and no position papers as self-rated by
authors. Year is the published year of each self-rated paper. (b) Percentage of self-rated endorsement, rejection and no position papers. ¶ Export PowerPoint slide ¶ Download figure: Standard (149 KB)High-resolution (238 KB) ¶ A direct comparison of abstract rating versus
self-rating endorsement levels for the 2142 papers that received a self-rating is shown in table 5. More than half of the abstracts that we rated as 'No Position' or 'Undecided' were rated 'Endorse AGW' by the paper's authors.¶ Table 5. Comparison of our abstract rating to
self-rating for papers that received self-ratings. ¶ Position Abstract rating Self-rating¶ Endorse AGW 791 (36.9%) 1342 (62.7%) ¶ No AGW position or undecided 1339 (62.5%) 761 (35.5%) ¶ Reject AGW 12 (0.6%) 39 (1.8%) ¶ Figure 3 compares the percentage of papers
endorsing the scientific consensus among all papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus. The year-to-year variability is larger in the self-ratings than in the abstract ratings due to the smaller sample sizes in the early 1990s. The percentage of AGW
endorsements for both self-rating and abstract-rated papers increase marginally over time (simple linear regression trends 0.10 ± 0.09% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.20,p = 0.04 for abstracts, 0.35 ± 0.26% yr−1, 95% CI, R2 = 0.26,p = 0.02 for self-ratings), with both series
approaching approximately 98% endorsements in 2011.¶ Reset¶ Figure 3. Percentage of papers endorsing the consensus among only papers that express a position endorsing or rejecting the consensus.¶ Export PowerPoint slide¶ Download figure: Standard (83 KB)High-
resolution (128 KB)¶ 4. Discussion¶ Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than
on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and
Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did
not express a position on AGW in their abstracts. ¶ The self-ratings by the papers' authors provide insight into the nature of the scientific consensus amongst publishing scientists. For both self-ratings and our abstract ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers
expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time, consistent with Bray (2010) in finding a strengthening consensus.¶ 4.1. Sources of uncertainty ¶ The process of determining the level of consensus in the peer-reviewed literature contains several sources of
uncertainty, including the representativeness of the sample, lack of clarity in the abstracts and subjectivity in rating the abstracts. ¶ We address the issue of representativeness by selecting the largest sample to date for this type of literature analysis. Nevertheless, 11 944
papers is only a fraction of the climate literature. A Web of Science search for 'climate change' over the same period yields 43 548 papers, while a search for 'climate' yields 128 440 papers. The crowd-sourcing techniques employed in this analysis could be expanded to
include more papers. This could facilitate an approach approximating the methods of Doran and Zimmerman (2009), which measured the level of scientific consensus for varying degrees of expertise in climate science. A similar approach could analyze the level of consensus
among climate papers depending on their relevance to the attribution of GW. ¶ Another potential area of uncertainty involved the text of the abstracts themselves. In some cases, ambiguous language made it difficult to ascertain the intended meaning of the authors. Naturally,
a short abstract could not be expected to communicate all the details of the full paper. The implementation of the author self-rating process allowed us to look beyond the abstract. A comparison between self-ratings and abstract ratings revealed that categorization based on
the abstract alone underestimates the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW. ¶ Lastly, some subjectivity is inherent in the abstract rating process. While criteria for determining ratings were defined prior to the rating period, some clarifications and amendments
were required as specific situations presented themselves. Two sources of rating bias can be cited: first, given that the raters themselves endorsed the scientific consensus on AGW, they may have been more likely to classify papers as sharing that endorsement. Second,
scientific reticence (Hansen 2007) or 'erring on the side of least drama' (ESLD; Brysse et al 2012) may have exerted an opposite effect by biasing raters towards a 'no position' classification. These sources of bias wer e partially addressed by the use of multiple independent
raters and by comparing abstract rating results to author self-ratings. A comparison of author ratings of the full papers and abstract ratings reveals a bias toward an under-counting of endorsement papers in the abstract ratings (mean difference 0.6 in units of endorsement
level). This mitigated concerns about rater subjectivity, but suggests that scientific reticence and ESLD remain possible biases in the abstract ratings process. The potential impact of initial rating disagreements was also calculated and found to have minimal impact on the
level of consensus (see supplemental information, section S1 available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia). ¶ 4.2. Comparisons with previous studies ¶ Our sample encompasses those surveyed by Oreskes (2004) and Schulte (2008) and we can therefore directly
compare the results. Oreskes (2004) analyzed 928 papers from 1993 to 2003. Over the same period, we found 932 papers matching the search phrase 'global climate change' (papers continue to be added to the ISI database). From that subset we eliminated 38 papers that
were not peer-reviewed, climate-related or had no abstract. Of the remaining 894, none rejected the consensus, consistent with Oreskes' result. Oreskes determined that 75% of papers endorsed the consensus, based on the assumption that mitigation and impact papers
implicitly endorse the consensus. By comparison, we found that 28% of the 894 abstracts endorsed AGW while 72% expressed no position. Among the 71 papers that received self-ratings from authors, 69% endorse AGW, comparable to Oreskes' estimate of 75%
endorsements.¶ An analysis of 539 'global climate change' abstracts from the Web of Science database over January 2004 to mid-February 2007 found 45% endorsement and 6% rejection (Schulte 2008). Our analysis over a similar period (including all of February 2007)
produced 529 papers—the reason for this discrepancy is unclear as Schulte's exact methodology is not provided. Schulte estimated a higher percentage of endorsements and rejections, possibly because the strict methodology we adopted led to a greater number of 'No
Position' abstracts. Schulte also found a significantly greater number of rejection papers, including 6 explicit rejections compared to our 0 explicit rejections. See the supplementary information (available at stacks.iop.org/ERL/8/024024/mmedia) for a tabulated comparison

among 'global climate change' papers that

of results. Among 58 self-rated papers, only one (1.7%) rejected AGW in this sample. Over the period of January 2004 to February 2007,

state a position on AGW, we found 97% endorsements ¶ ¶ . 5. Conclusion The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public

there is a significant gap between public perception and reality

support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, , with 57% of

¶ Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are

the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate
scientists . In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510 000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting
scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff

The narrative
2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008). ¶

presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of
collapse' A systematic, comprehensive review of the
(Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et al 2012).

literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of

papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the
percentage decreasing over time Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an
slightly .

overwhelming percentage endorses the scientific consensus on (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings)

AGW .2.

2. Warming causes extinction – removing coal emissions the only way to avoid
ecosystem collapse and catastrophic destruction
Hansen 8 (James Hansen, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, adjunct
professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, “Tell
Barack Obama the Truth – The Whole Truth,” Nov/Dec 2008)
Embers of election night elation will glow longer than any prior election. Glowing even in other nations, and for good reason. We are all tied
together, more than ever, like it or not.¶ Barack Obama’s measured words on election night, including eloquent recognition of historic progress,
from the viewpoint of a 106-year-old lady, still stoke the embers. But he was already focusing on tasks ahead, without celebratory excess. ¶ Well
he should. The challenge he faces is unprecedented. I refer not to the inherited economic morass, as threatening as it is. The human toll due to
past failures and excesses may prove to be great, yet economic recessions, even depressions, come and go. ¶ Now our planet itself is in
peril. Not simply the Earth, but the fate of all of its species, including humanity. The situation
calls not for hand-wringing, but rather informed action.¶ Optimism is fueled by expectation that decisions will be guided by reason
and evidence, not ideology. The danger is that special interests will dilute and torque government policies, causing
the climate to pass tipping points, with grave consequences for all life on the planet.¶ The
President-elect himself needs to be well-informed about the climate problem and its relation to energy needs and economic policies. He cannot
rely on political systems to bring him solutions – the political systems provide too many opportunities for special interests.¶ Here is a message I
think should be delivered to Barack Obama. Criticisms are welcome. ¶ Climate threat. The world’s temperature has increased about 1°F over the
past few decades, about 2°F over land areas. Further warming is “in the pipeline” due to gases already in
the air (because of climate system inertia) and inevitable additional fossil fuel emissions (because of energy system
inertia).¶ Although global warming to date is smaller than day-to-day weather fluctuations, it has brought global
temperature back to approximately the highest level of the Holocene, the past 10,000 years, the period
during which civilization developed. Effects already evident include:¶ 1. Mountain glaciers are receding worldwide
and will be gone within 50 years if CO2 emissions continue to increase. This threatens the
fresh water supply for billions of people, as rivers arising in the Himalayas, Andes and
Rocky Mountains will begin to run dry in the summer and fall.¶ 2. Coral reefs, home to a quarter of
biological species in the ocean, could be destroyed by rising temperature and ocean
acidification due to increasing CO2.¶ 3. Dry subtropics are expanding poleward with warming, affecting
the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, and Australia, with increasing drought and fires.¶ 4. Arctic sea ice
will disappear entirely in the summer, if CO2 continues to increase, with devastating effects on wildlife and
indigenous people.¶ 5. Intensity of hydrologic extremes, including heavy rains, storms and floods on the one hand,
and droughts and fires on the other, are increasing.¶ Some people say we must learn to live with these effects, because it is an almost god- given
fact that we must burn all fossil fuels. But now we understand, from the history of the Earth, that there
would be two monstrous
consequences of releasing the CO2 from all of the oil, gas and coal, consequences of an enormity that cannot be accepted.¶
One effect would be extermination of a large fraction of the species on the planet. The other is initiation of ice sheet disintegration and sea level
rise, out of humanity’s control, eventually eliminating coastal cities and historical sites, creating havoc, hundreds of millions of refugees, and
extermination and ice sheet disintegration are both ‘non-linear’
impoverishing nations.¶ Species
problems with ‘tipping points’. If the process proceeds too far, amplifying feedbacks push
the system dynamics to proceed without further human forcing. For example, species are
interdependent – if a sufficient number are eliminated, ecosystems collapse. In the physical climate
system, amplifying feedbacks include increased absorption of sunlight as sea and land ice areas are reduced and release of methane, a powerful
greenhouse gas, as permafrost melts.¶ The Earth’s history reveals examples of such non-linear collapses. Eventually, over tens and hundreds of
thousands of years, new species evolve, and ice sheets return. But we
will leave a devastated impoverished planet
for all generations of humanity that we can imagine, if we are so foolish as to allow the
climate tipping points to be passed.¶ Urgency. Recent evidence reveals a situation more urgent than had been expected, even
by those who were most attuned. The evidence is based on improving knowledge of Earth’s history – how the climate responded to past changes
of atmospheric composition – and on observations of how the Earth is responding now to human-made atmospheric changes.¶ The conclusion – at
first startling, but in retrospect obvious – is that the human-made increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2), from the pre-industrial 280 parts per million (ppm) to today’s 385 ppm, has already raised the CO2
amount into the dangerous range. It will be necessary to take actions that return CO2 to a
level of at most 350 ppm, but probably less, if we are to avert disastrous pressures on fellow species and large sea level rise. ¶ The
good news is that such a result is still possible, if actions are prompt. Prompt action will do more than
prevent irreversible extinctions and ice sheet disintegration: it can avert or reverse consequences that had begun
to seem inevitable, including loss of Arctic ice, ocean acidification, expansion of the
subtropics, increased intensity of droughts, floods, and storms.¶ Principal implication. CO2 is not
the only human-made gas that contributes to global warming, but it is the dominant gas
with a lifetime that dwarfs that of the other major gases. Much of the CO2 increase caused by burning fossil
fuels remains in the air more than 1000 years. So CO2 must be the focus of efforts to stop
human-caused climate change.¶ It would be easy to jump to the conclusion that solution of global warming is to phase down
total fossil fuel emissions by some specified percentage. That approach will not work as a strategy. The reason for that conclusion and an outline
of a better strategic approach follow immediately from geophysical boundary constraints.¶ Figure 1a shows oil, gas and coal reserves,
with the purple portion being the amount that has already been burned and emitted into the atmosphere. Despite uncertainty in the size of
undiscovered resources, their amounts are
certainly enough to yield atmospheric CO2 greater than 500
ppm. That amount would be disastrous, assuring unstable ice sheets, rising sea level out of
humanity’s control, extermination of a large fraction of the species on Earth, and severe
exacerbation of climate impacts discussed above.¶ Oil is used primarily in vehicles, where it is impractical to capture
CO2 emerging from tailpipes. The large pools of oil remaining in the ground are spread among many countries. The United States, which once
had some of the large pools, has already exploited its largest recoverable reserves. Given this fact, it is unrealistic to think that Russia and Middle
East countries will decide to leave their oil in the ground.¶ A
carbon cap that slows emissions of CO2 does not
help, because of the long lifetime of atmospheric CO2. In fact, the cap exacerbates the problem if it allows coal
emissions to continue. The only solution is to target a (large) portion of the fossil fuel reserves to be left
in the ground or used in a way such that the CO2 can be captured and safely sequestered.¶ Coal is the
obvious target .
 The first internal link is China
A. China is most of coal emissions
US Energy Information Administration 1/29/13 China consumes nearly as much coal as
the rest of the world combined http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751
Coal consumption in China grew more than 9% in 2011, continuing its upward trend for
the 12th consecutive year, according to newly released international data. China's coal use grew by 325 million tons in 2011,
accounting for 87% of the 374 million ton global increase in coal use. Of the 2.9 billion tons of global
coal demand growth since 2000, China accounted for 2.3 billion tons (82%). China now accounts for 47% of global coal
consumption—almost as much as the entire rest of the world combined.¶ Robust coal
demand growth in China is the result of a more than 200% increase in Chinese electric
generation since 2000, fueled primarily by coal. China's coal demand growth averaged 9% per year
from 2000 to 2010, more than double the global growth rate of 4% and significantly higher than global growth excluding
China, which averaged only 1%.

B. Renewables fail – reorienting our approach to coal is the only feasible energy
solution
James Fallows is an Atlantic national correspondent 2010 December “Dirty Coal, Clean
Future” http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/dirty-coal-clean-
future/308307/?single_page=true, Stadt
Isn’t “clean energy” the answer? Of course—because everything is the answer. The people I spoke with and reports I read
differed in emphasis, sometimes significantly. Some urged greater stress on efficiency and conservation; some, a faster move toward nuclear
power or natural gas; some, an all-out push for solar power and other renewable sources; others, immediate preparation for “geo-engineering” or
“abatement” projects to offset the effects of climate disruption once they occur. But in a sense they were all in harmony, because everything on
all the lists works toward the same end.¶ The best-known illustration of the need for an all-fronts approach is the “carbon wedge” analysis from
the Carbon Mitigation Initiative at Princeton. Its premise is that to keep the carbon-dioxide level from going into the 500s, or twice its pre-
industrial-age level, over the next 50 years, the world collectively will need to reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions by a total of about 26 billion
tons per year. (Technically, CMI measures its goals in billions of tons of carbon contained within the carbon dioxide. For clarity, I’ve converted
the figures.) To reach that total, CMI proposes seven “stabilization wedges” of a little less than 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide each. A 4-billion-
ton “wedge” through efficiency efforts of all kinds; another wedge of that size through renewable power; another through avoiding deforestation
and changing agricultural practices. Eventually it adds up. “There are many good options,” Julio Friedmann, a geologist at Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, told me soon after I first met him in Beijing two years ago. “But there are no unlimited options. Each
is limited
by cost, limited by scale, limited by physics and chemistry, limited by thermodynamics. For
example, there’s nothing wrong with switchgrass as a biofuel”—one of George W. Bush’s novel proposals—“but there’s not a lot of energy in
it.”¶ We’ll hear from Friedmann again. This
emphasis on limits is what begins pointing us back to coal.¶
“Emotionally, we would all like to think that wind, solar, and conservation will solve the
problem for us,” David Mohler of Duke Energy told me. “Nothing will change, our comfort and convenience will be the same, and
we can avoid that nasty coal. Unfortunately, the math doesn’t work that way.”¶ The math he
has in mind starts with the role that coal now plays around the world, and especially for
the two biggest energy consumers, America and China. Overall, coal-burning power plants
provide nearly half (about 46 percent this year) of the electricity consumed in the United States. For the record:
natural gas supplies another 23 percent, nuclear power about 20 percent, hydroelectric power about 7 percent, and everything else the remaining 4
or 5 percent. The
small size of the “everything else” total is worth noting; even if it doubles or
triples, the solutions we often hear the most about won’t come close to meeting total
demand. In China, coal-fired plants supply an even larger share of much faster-growing
total electric demand: at least 70 percent, with the Three Gorges Dam and similar hydroelectric projects providing about
20 percent, and (in order) natural gas, nuclear power, wind, and solar energy making up the small remainder. For the world as a whole, coal-fired
plants provide about half the total electric supply. On average, every American uses the electricity produced by 7,500 pounds of coal each year. ¶
Precisely because coal already plays such a major role in world power supplies, basic math
means that it will inescapably do so for a very long time. For instance: through the past decade, the United States
has talked about, passed regulations in favor of, and made technological breakthroughs in all fields of renewable energy. Between 1995 and 2008,
the amount of electricity coming from solar power rose by two-thirds in the United States, and wind-generated electricity went up more than 15-
fold. Yet over those same years, the amount of electricity generated by coal went up much faster, in absolute terms, than electricity generated
from any other source. The journalist Robert Bryce has drawn on U.S. government figures to show that between 1995 and 2008, “the absolute
increase in total electricity produced by coal was about 5.8 times as great as the increase from wind and 823 times as great as the increase from
solar”—and this during the dawn of the green-energy era in America. Power
generated by the wind and sun
increased significantly in America last year; but power generated by coal increased more
than seven times as much. As Americans have read many times, Chinese companies are the world’s leaders in manufacturing solar
panels, often using technology originally developed in the United States. Many of the panels are used inside China for its own rapidly growing
solar-power system; still, solar energy accounts for about 1 percent of its total power supply. In his book PowerHungry, Bryce describes a visit to
a single coal mine, the Cardinal Mine in western Kentucky, whose daily output supports three-quarters as much electricity generation as all the
solar and wind facilities in the United States combined. David MacKay, of the physics department at Cambridge University in England, has
compiled an encyclopedia of such energy-related comparisons, which is available for free download (under the misleadingly lowbrow title
Sustainable Energy—Without the Hot Air). For instance: he calculates that if the windiest 10 percent of the entire British landmass were
completely covered with wind turbines, they would produce power roughly equivalent to half of what Britons expend merely by driving each day.

C. Independently, co-op solves extinction and the impact to prospective

disadvantages
Wenzhong, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2-7-4 (Zhou, “Vigorously Pushing Forward the
Constructive and Cooperative Relationship Between China and the United States,” http://china-
japan21.org/eng/zxxx/t64286.htm)
China's development needs a peaceful international environment, particularly in its periphery. We will continue to play a constructive role in
global and regional affairs and sincerely look forward to amicable coexistence and friendly cooperation with all other countries, the United States
included. We will continue to push for good-neighborliness, friendship and partnership and dedicate ourselves to peace, stability and prosperity in
the region. Thus China's development will also mean stronger prospect of peace in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large. China
and the US should, and can, work together for peace, stability and prosperity in the region. Given the
highly complementary nature of the two economies, China's reform, opening up and rising economic size have opened broad horizon for
sustained China-US trade and economic cooperation. By
deepening our commercial partnership, which has already
delivered tangible benefits to the two peoples, we
can do still more and also make greater contribution to global
economic stability and prosperity. Terrorism, cross-boundary crime, proliferation of advanced weapons,
and spread of deadly diseases pose a common threat to mankind. China and the US have extensive
shared stake and common responsibility for meeting these challenges, maintaining world peace and
security and addressing other major issues bearing on human survival and development. China is ready to
keep up its coordination and cooperation in these areas with the US and the rest of the international
community. During his visit to the US nearly 25 years ago, Deng Xiaoping said, "The interests of our two peoples and those of world peace
require that we view our relations from the overall international situation and a long-term strategic perspective." Thirteen years ago when China-
US relations were at their lowest ebb, Mr. Deng said, "In the final analysis, China-US relations have got to get better." We are optimistic about
the tomorrow of China-US relations. We have every reason to believe that so long as the two countries view and handle the relationship with a
strategic perspective, adhere to the guiding principles of the three joint communiqués and firmly grasp the common interests of the two countries,
we will see even greater accomplishments in China-US relations.
 The second internal link is global coal
A. Global coal consumption is inevitable – it’s only a question of adaptation
McCullough 3/5/13 (Mark, Executive Vice President American Electric Power, AMERICAN
ENERGY SECURITY AND INNOVATION; ¶ COMMITTEE: HOUSE ENERGY AND
COMMERCE; ¶ SUBCOMMITTEE: ENERGY AND POWER¶ THE NEED FOR
REVOLUTIONARY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, CQ Congressional Testimony, lexis,
Stadt)
The dash to gas and the potential problems created in its wake has come at the same time
that other countries around the world are increasingly turning to coal to fuel their
economies. China is currently far and away the largest consumer of coal, and in fact is consuming almost as much
coal as the rest of the world combined.1 Additionally, Europe is increasingly returning to coal to
fuel its electric sector, with much of the imported coal coming from the United States.2
Consequently, any policy, direct or indirect, to restrict coal use within the U.S. is unlikely to have
a significant impact on reducing global coal consumption. The more significant impacts will be felt however by
the U.S. economy, particularly in regions of the country which rely on coal production for economic stability and low-cost electric generation.

B. Power plants are key – they’re the gateway issue of emissions reductions
Waxman 2013
Henry A. Waxman, [California Ranking Member (D) Congress 3/4/13 ONE HUNDRED
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS¶ Congress of the United States House of Representatives¶
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE
BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115¶ Majority (202) 225-2927 Minority (202) 225-
3641¶ MEMORANDUM March 4, 2013¶ To: Subcommittee on Energy and Power Democratic
Members and Staff, Stadt]
According to EIA, U.S. energy-related combustion emissions are expected to decrease 3.4% in 2012 to the lowest level since 1994.20 This
change is the result of increased use of renewable energy, fuel switching from coal to natural gas in the power sector, and slow economic
growth.21 In
2012, coal combustion, almost entirely in the electric power sector, accounted for
32% of U.S. carbon emissions. U.S. energy-related carbon emissions have declined 11.5% since 2005 but are still 5.4% above
1990 levels.22 Estimates for total greenhouse gas emissions are not yet available for 2012, but a recent draft from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) calculates 2011 emissions that are similar to levels observed in the mid-1990s.23¶ Absent
policy action in
the U.S., carbon pollution is projected to grow in the coming years. President Obama has
pledged to cut emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. However, absent additional action, the
U.S. will not meet this target as carbon pollution from energy-related combustion is
projected to be only 9% below 2005 levels.24 Moreover, without further action, EIA expects
U.S. carbon pollution emissions to increase by 6% between 2012 and 2040.25 As vehicles
become more fuel efficient, emissions from petroleum consumption will fall, but rising
emissions from coal and natural gas combustion would more than offset this reduction.26
 C. The plan can’t wait – acting before 2017 is the crucial threshold for
irreversibility
Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce
3/5/13 Hearing on “American Energy Security and Innovation: The Role of a Diverse Electricity
Generation Portfolio” Subcommittee on Energy and Power, Stadt)
I have exactly the opposite view. In this Committee, we like to pretend that there is no connection between how we generate our energy and
climate change. But the fact is, climate change is the biggest energy challenge we face as a country. We
can’t have a conversation about America’s energy policy without also having a conversation about climate change. ¶ In November, the
International Energy Agency concluded that if the world does not take action to reduce
carbon pollution before 2017, then it will be impossible to prevent the worst effects of climate
change because of the carbon dioxide emissions that would be locked-in by energy
infrastructure existing at that time.¶ That means that the energy policy decisions that we
make today will have a real and direct impact on whether we can prevent the worst
impacts of climate change in the future. ¶ Every decision to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant poses climate risks.
We need to understand and weigh those risks.¶ Otherwise, we are going to be locking in infrastructure that will
produce carbon pollution for decades to come or creating stranded investments that must
be shut down before they have served their useful life.¶ Ideally, this Committee would listen to the scientific
experts and enact a responsible energy policy that recognizes the reality of climate change. But as the President said in his State of the Union
Address, he will act if we don’t. EPA’s proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants is a
good first step. It is a fuel-neutral standard that requires new plants to keep their pollution below a specified level. ¶ The proposed
standard provides compliance flexibility and incentives for the deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Both natural gas
and clean coal can meet this standard, which creates a level playing field for fossil fuel-fired generation.¶ Some utilities don’t
like this proposed rule. The question we should ask them is how they can reconcile unrestrained and ever-increasing carbon pollution with the
scientific reality of climate change.

D. Coal-Direct Chemical Looping solves runaway climate change – it’s the only
technology that prevents a complete collapse of the coal industry
Energy News 2-22-13 (“Clean Coal Could be the Solution to Global Warming,”
http://www.yourenergyblog.com/clean-coal-could-be-the-solution-to-global-warming,
Stadt)
The damaging effects that result from burning coal may soon be nonexistent. It took scientists from
Ohio State University 15 years and $5 million, but the clean coal technique has finally been developed. They have discovered
a way to obtain the energy from coal without actually burning it, eliminating nearly all of the pollution. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration
(EIA), “Coal emits sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and heavy metals (such as mercury and arsenic) and acid gases (such as hydrogen chloride), which have been
Even with so many harmful side-
linked to acid rain, smog, and health issues. Coal also emits carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.”

effects, the U.S. continues get a large amount of its energy from coal, roughly 20 percent. Well
enough is enough. It is time to embrace the clean coal technique. Eliminating 99 percent of the pollution from coal, the Coal-

Direct Chemical Looping (CDCL) technique will have a significant impact on the rate of global warming. The

Environmental Protection Agency has found that in 2010, coal-burning power plants were responsible for about one-

third of the country’s carbon dioxide, equivalent to 2.3 billion metric tons. If energy can be obtained from coal
without burning it, this number should drop considerably. Liang-Shih Fan, a chemical engineer and director of Ohio
State’s Clean Coal Research Laboratory, explains the process, “We found a way to release the heat without burning. We carefully control the chemical

reaction so that the coal never burns–it is consumed chemically, and the carbon dioxide is
entirely contained inside the reactor.” The metal from the iron-oxide is recyclable and the only waste products are coal ash and water.
If everything goes according to plan, Fan is confident that his discovery can be used to power energy plants within the next 10 years.

Research Associate Dawei Wang shared his thoughts regarding the benefits of this technology, “ The commercial-scale CDCL plant

could really promote our energy independence. Not only can we use America’s natural
resources such as Ohio coal, but we can keep our air clean and spur the economy with
jobs.” President Obama is already in complete support for the development of clean coal. In 2011, he
declared his goal of generating 80 percent of the nation’s energy from clean sources, including clean coal. The following year, he summarized the “all-of-the-above”
energy strategy, which also incorporated clean coal technologies. Although the President is on board for clean coal development, two liberal senators recently
introduced a bill that would put an end to Obama’s research and development for this safe alternative. Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Bernie Sanders are
attempting to eliminate The Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development under the Sustainable Energy Act. Although many believe that
With the level of carbon emissions spiraling out of
the legislation will not pass Congress, nothing is for certain just yet.

control, our nation is in desperate need of a solution. As of right now, the CDCL seems to be the
only logical answer to reducing the current rate of global warming without completely
eliminating the use of coal, one of the nation’s primary sources of energy.

E. U.S. implementation is critical – the plan is key to global adoption – it’s the
only viable solution to warming
Syd S. Peng is the Charles E. Lawall Chair in Mining Engineering Emeritus at West Virginia
University 2/13/13 http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201302150152
With its ambitious plans for promoting energy efficiency and expanding the use of
renewable energy sources in the fight against global warming, the Obama administration has climbed aboard
the biggest bandwagon in energy policy. But the idea that a modern economy can forgo the use of fossil
fuels and nuclear power because a combination of conservation and "clean" energy sources can
take their place is absurd.¶ There are legitimate reasons to be worried about climate change. Global energy consumption is so
great and rising so fast that human activities are linked to climate change. Sea levels are rising, storms are becoming more frequent and stronger,
and large parts of the United States and other countries are now subject to extreme drought, resulting in less food production.¶ But the
fundamental question is not how we can expand the use of solar and wind energy while increasing its efficient use. The question is how much
we're willing to do to ensure that Americans -- and billions of people throughout the world -- have affordable access to oil, natural gas and coal as
well as nuclear power.¶ Reducing
the consumption of energy would help control greenhouse-gas
emissions. But that's not likely to be sufficient to solve the problem. Nor will replacing fossil
fuels with alternative sources of energy like solar and wind, which are too impractical to be
used for supplying base-load electricity on a large scale. Modern economies are thus bound to
remain dependent on fossil fuels, which account for about 80 percent of the world's
primary energy use.¶ An important technology has emerged that offers a way to capitalize
on fossil fuels, coal in particular. Called "carbon sequestration," it is a way to capture carbon emissions from coal combustion
and store them deep underground in geological formations and depleted oil and gas wells. China, India and other countries with fast-growing
economies understandably want to use their vast coal resources for industrialization and to bring electricity to billions of people in rural areas
who still do not have access to a power grid. But most countries with a lot of coal are not going to stop using it because of concerns about global
warming.¶ With the right incentives and access to technology, however, sequestration can be made attractive so that key countries like China and
India would back its use. But the leadership in developing and demonstrating the technology will have
to come from the United States. We were the first country to crack down on smoking, require seat belts in cars, and adopt clean air
regulations for airborne emissions that cause acid rain and ozone smog. Almost every industrialized country and
many developing countries have followed our example. The logic seems unassailable: demonstrate the
technology for carbon sequestration and other countries will follow suit, because carbon capture-and-
storage may be the only realistic way to satisfy the world's enormous energy needs while
lessening their side effects.¶ And instead of letting nuclear power slip away, we need to recognize that nuclear reactors have been
overwhelmingly good for energy production and the environment. Nuclear reactors produce a huge amount of energy in the foreseeable future
from a small amount of fuel. They have been good for our country.¶ For something as vital as energy production, we need federal policies that
can help meet our national security and economic aspirations. If the government imposed an affordable price on carbon emissions from the
production and use of energy, some of the revenue could be used to develop and demonstrate technologies for carbon sequestration and advanced
nuclear power. Such technologies could help revive sagging manufacturing industries in the United States and provide a significant export.¶ It
is essential that the United States maintain its technological leadership on the energy front.
Developing new advances in clean coal and nuclear systems would provide an energy solution to
the global warming problem and it would help ensure that we can maintain a livable
environment.