Coal Disadvantages: 7 Week Juniors Heidt, Peterson, Silber, Clark Coal Disadvantages

7 Week Juniors Heidt, Peterson, Silber, Clark
Coal Disadvantages
COAL DISADVANTAGES
COAL DISADVANTAGES..............................................................................................................................1
1NC Coal DA ...................................................................................................................................................7
1NC- Coal DA..................................................................................................................................................8
1NC- China Cooperation DA
..........................................................................................................................................................................9
1NC- China Cooperation DA.........................................................................................................................10
1NC China Coal DA.......................................................................................................................................11
1NC China Coal DA.......................................................................................................................................12
1NC China Coal DA.......................................................................................................................................13
2NC/1NR Clean Coal.....................................................................................................................................14
Uniqueness – China Clean Coal Coop – China Seeks Investments...............................................................15
Uniqueness – China Coal – Structure, Infrastructure, mines inefficiency .....................................................16
Uniqueness – China Coal – Globalization......................................................................................................17
Uniqueness – China Coal – Collapsing now..................................................................................................18
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Obama/McCain..................................................................................................19
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE..................................................................................................................20
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE....................................................................................................................21
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE ...................................................................................................................22
Uniqueness- Clean Coal- Advancements now................................................................................................23
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Funding/Laws Now............................................................................................24
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Funding/Laws Now............................................................................................25
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bush Pledged......................................................................................................26
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Legislators Pledge.............................................................................................27
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Futuregen ...........................................................................................................28
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bipartisan/McCain Pledge.................................................................................29
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bipartisan ..........................................................................................................30
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – New York............................................................................................................31
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – New York............................................................................................................32
Uniqueness – Coal – Use inevitable...............................................................................................................33
Uniqueness – Coal – Use Inevitable...............................................................................................................34
Uniqueness – Coal – Use increasing Now.....................................................................................................35
Uniqueness – Coal - Use increasing Now......................................................................................................36
Uniqueness – Coal – Electricity Demand.......................................................................................................37
Uniqueness – Coal – Wyoming .....................................................................................................................38
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – More Coal Coming Now..............................................................................................39

Uniqueness – Coal – Industry Success...........................................................................................................40
Uniqueness – Coal – Key Source...................................................................................................................43
Uniqueness – Coal – Key Source...................................................................................................................44
Uniqueness – Coal – U.S. Reliance Now.......................................................................................................45
Uniqueness – Coal – Peak will occur.............................................................................................................46
Uniqueness – Profits High..............................................................................................................................47
Uniqueness – Prices High...............................................................................................................................48
Uniqueness – Coal – Consumption will increase ..........................................................................................56
Links- China Coop- China demands US exports............................................................................................57
Links- Coal DA- Alternaive energy................................................................................................................58
Links- Coal DA- Alternative energy...............................................................................................................59
Links- Coal DA- RPS.....................................................................................................................................60
Links- Coal DA- RPS.....................................................................................................................................61
Links- Coal DA- RPS.....................................................................................................................................62
Links- Coal DA- RPS.....................................................................................................................................63
Links- Coal DA- Carbon Tax..........................................................................................................................64
Links- Coal DA- Cap and Trade.....................................................................................................................65
Links – Coal – Tradable Permits....................................................................................................................66
Links- Coal DA- Nuclear Power....................................................................................................................67
Links- Coal DA- Solar Energy.......................................................................................................................68
Links-Coal DA-CEPS.....................................................................................................................................69
Links- Coal DA- Carbon Fuel Standard.........................................................................................................70
Links- Coal DA- Wing Energy.......................................................................................................................71
Links- Coal DA- Wind Energy.......................................................................................................................72
Links- Coal DA- Regulations.........................................................................................................................73
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Clean Coal DA- Regulations...............................................................................................................74

Links- Clean Coal- Regulations......................................................................................................................77
Links- Clean Coal- Regulations......................................................................................................................78
Links- Coal DA- Regulations.........................................................................................................................79
Link – China DA............................................................................................................................................80
Link – China DA............................................................................................................................................81
China Coal – WW3 Module...........................................................................................................................82
China Coal – WW3 Ext..................................................................................................................................83
China Coal- Kills the Economy......................................................................................................................84
AT: Gas...........................................................................................................................................................85
AT: Industry....................................................................................................................................................86
China Cooperation – Solves Warming............................................................................................................87
China Cooperation – Investment....................................................................................................................88
China Cooperation- AT: Coop Bad.................................................................................................................89
Coal – Laundry List........................................................................................................................................90
Coal – Economy Module................................................................................................................................91
Coal – Economy Module................................................................................................................................92
Coal – Economy Ext.......................................................................................................................................93
Impacts- Coal DA – Economy Ext.................................................................................................................94
Impacts- Coal DA – Economy Ext.................................................................................................................95
Coal – California Economy Module...............................................................................................................96
Coal – Mountain Economy Module...............................................................................................................97
Coal – Electric Economy Module...................................................................................................................98
Coal – Uniqueness – Railroads Strong...........................................................................................................99
Coal – Railroads - Brink...............................................................................................................................100
Coal – Railroads – Coal Key........................................................................................................................101
Coal – Railroads - Economy.........................................................................................................................102
Coal – Economy Ext.....................................................................................................................................103
Coal – Railroads - Hegemony.......................................................................................................................104
Coal – Hegemony Ext...................................................................................................................................105
Coal – Railroads – Food Prices....................................................................................................................106
Coal – Food Prices Ext ................................................................................................................................107
Coal - Natural Gas Bad ................................................................................................................................108
Coal Disadvantages
Coal - Natural Gas Bad - Hegemony ...........................................................................................................109

Clean Coal- Competitiveness........................................................................................................................110
Clean Coal – Economy Module....................................................................................................................111
Ext - Economy..............................................................................................................................................112
Clean Coal- Pollution....................................................................................................................................113
Clean Coal – Water Wars..............................................................................................................................114
Clean Coal- Indian Pollution Module...........................................................................................................115
Clean Coal – Warming Module....................................................................................................................116
Clean Coal – Warming Ext...........................................................................................................................117
Clean Coal- Exports solve warming.............................................................................................................118
Clean Coal- Warming- China/India..............................................................................................................119
Clean Coal- Warming- China/India Impact- Extinction...............................................................................120
Clean Coal- Warming- China/India Impact- 70%........................................................................................121
AT: China won’t use clean coal....................................................................................................................122
Impacts- Clean Coal- Foreign Oil Dependence............................................................................................123
Clean Coal – Hydrogen Production..............................................................................................................124
Hydrogen Good – Oil Dependency..............................................................................................................127
Hydrogen Good – Peak Oil...........................................................................................................................128
Hydrogen Good – Cyber Terrorism..............................................................................................................129
Hydrogen Good - Electricity........................................................................................................................130
Hydrogen Good - Electricity........................................................................................................................131
Hydrogen Good - Poverty.............................................................................................................................132
Clean Coal DA – AT: Renewables Solve......................................................................................................133
Clean Coal DA – AT: Increases Energy Costs..............................................................................................134
Coal DA- AT: Alternative Energy will fill in the gap...................................................................................135
**AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS**................................................................................................................136
Non- Unique- No Clean Coal.......................................................................................................................137
Non-Unique- No Clean Coal........................................................................................................................140
Non-Unique- No Funding.............................................................................................................................141
Uniqueness overwhelms link- Clean Coal....................................................................................................143
China Coal - Inevitable.................................................................................................................................144
Coal Disadvantages
China Cooperation – Inevitable....................................................................................................................145

No Link – Renewable Energy.......................................................................................................................146
No Link – CEPS...........................................................................................................................................147
No Link – Wind Energy................................................................................................................................148
Link Turn- Generic.......................................................................................................................................149
Link Turn- Regulation..................................................................................................................................150
Link Turn- Air regulations increase clean coal.............................................................................................151
Link Turn- RPS will bring clean coal...........................................................................................................152
1AR Link Wall..............................................................................................................................................153
1AR Link Wall..............................................................................................................................................154
AT: China Cooperation.................................................................................................................................155
AT: China Cooperation.................................................................................................................................156
AT: China Impact..........................................................................................................................................157
China Not A Threat.......................................................................................................................................158
China Not A Threat.......................................................................................................................................159
No China War...............................................................................................................................................160
A/T: Australia Impact...................................................................................................................................161
AT: Railroads Impact....................................................................................................................................162
AT: California Impact...................................................................................................................................163
AT: Mountain Impact....................................................................................................................................164
AT: Hydrogen impact (offense)....................................................................................................................165
AT: Hydrogen impact (offense)....................................................................................................................166
Ext: Hydrogen Impact Turn..........................................................................................................................167
AT: Hydrogen impact (defense)....................................................................................................................168
Ext: Hydrogen No Impact.............................................................................................................................172
AT: Economy................................................................................................................................................175
AT: Economy................................................................................................................................................177
A/T: Natural Gas (1/2) .................................................................................................................................178
A/T: Natural Gas (2/2)..................................................................................................................................179
Coal will run out ..........................................................................................................................................180
Clean Coal Fails
......................................................................................................................................................................181
Clean Coal Fails............................................................................................................................................182
Coal Disadvantages
Coal Bad – Laundry List...............................................................................................................................183

Earthquakes Turn
......................................................................................................................................................................184
Warming Turn (1/2)......................................................................................................................................185
Ext – Warming Turn
......................................................................................................................................................................186
2AC China Coal Disadvantage.....................................................................................................................187
2AC China CP- Coal Disadvantage..............................................................................................................188
Coal – Russian Hegmeony............................................................................................................................189
Coal - Systemic Death..................................................................................................................................190
Coal – Acid Rain...........................................................................................................................................191
Impact Turn- Economy and Environment....................................................................................................192
Coal – Warming............................................................................................................................................193
Coal- Oil Dependency..................................................................................................................................194
Impact- prevent use of fossil fuels................................................................................................................195
Extra Cards that can become useful..............................................................................................................196
Coal Disadvantages
1NC Coal DA
A. Barring new regulations, the coal industry will experience continued success
AP, 6/25/08. (Associated Press. Report sees big jump in energy, fossil fuel use.)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUMV8UJoaN5q_kTW2qE60EkyYQZQD91H68HG0//DMS
Despite persistently high oil prices, global energy demand will grow by 50 percent over the next two decades with continued heavy
reliance on environmentally troublesome fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, the government predicted Wednesday. The report forecast
the steepest increases in China and other emerging economies where energy demand is expected to be 85 percent greater in 2030 than it
is today. "What jumps out is the very strong growth in the emerging economies," said Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy
Information Administration, which conducted the long-term energy outlook. The projections said that without mandatory actions to
address global warming, the amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere each year from energy use will be 51
percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago. "Fossil fuels ... are expected to continue supplying much of the energy used
worldwide," the report predicts, in spite of the growth of renewable energy sources, especial wind and biofuels. "Global energy demand
grows despite the sustained high world oil prices that are projected to persist over the long term," said the report. Oil could cost as little
as $113 a barrel or as much as $186 a barrel in 2030, the analysis assumed in making the demand forecast. Adjusted for inflation, the
$113 price would be about $70 in 2006 dollars, the report said. "We're not going back to the historically low prices we saw in the '80s
and '90s," said Caruso. He said the EIA price estimates are not firm predictions, but assumptions of what costs are likely to be in the
long term. The report provided both high and low price scenarios because of the uncertainties of projecting future long-term energy
prices. Given current oil prices, the report says world oil prices appear on a path that more closely resembles the higher price scenario of
$183 a barrel oil in 22 years. Caruso said the analysis shows the importance of oil prices over the long term. He said while oil
consumption will increase, the forecast projects demand to be about 10 million barrels a day less at the higher price assumption. Still,
the report predicted continued growth of petroleum use in transportation and heavy coal use to produce electricity. The report assumes in
its analysis no additional measures to curtail carbon dioxide emissions to address climate change. The expected growth in energy
demand is especially dramatic in developing countries, led by China, that are expected to have continued strong economic growth over
the next two decades. For example, the use of coal worldwide is expected to increase at a rate of 2 percent a year. China alone will
account for nearly three-fourths of that increase, the report said. Despite coal burning's significant impact on climate change "it's the fuel
of choice for electricity production in the emerging economies, especially China," Caruso said at a meeting held by the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.
<<Insert Specific Link>>

Coal Disadvantages
1NC- Coal DA
C. Strong coal production is critical to sustain global economic and political stability
Burke, 4 – Vice President, Research & Development of CONSOL Energy, Inc

(Dr. Francis P. Burke, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 4-27-2004, “Sustainable Electricity Generation,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
The United States is not unique in its dependence on coal, and it is vital to our national interest to promote the increased use of coal not
only domestically, but worldwide as a key component of our energy and economic security. The most compelling evidence of this is
China. This year, the Chinese will mine and consume 1.5 billion tons of coal. In 15 years, they will consume 2.5 billion tons; China's
increase alone will equal our current consumption. They expect to double their coal-fueled electricity generating capacity to 600 GW by
2020. By 2040, the Chinese expect to use 4 billion tons of coal annually.
Throughout the world, economic growth and political stability are tied to electrification, and electricity is tied to coal. Therefore, the
desire and, in fact, the necessity of the world to utilize its abundant coal resources will not be denied. Energy availability and energy
quality are key to meeting all three aspects of sustainable development: economic, societal and environmental. The question is not
whether we need or will use coal for human development, but how we will use it.
D. Economic collapse turns the aff and causes extinction
Nyquist, 5 [J.R. renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, WorldNetDaily contributing editor, “The Political
Consequences of a Financial Crash,” February 4, www.financialsense.com/stormw...2005/0204.html]
Should the United States experience a severe economic contraction during the second term of President Bush, the American people will
likely support politicians who advocate further restrictions and controls on our market economy – guaranteeing its strangulation and the
steady pauperization of the country. In Congress today, Sen. Edward Kennedy supports nearly all the economic dogmas listed above. It
is easy to see, therefore, that the coming economic contraction, due in part to a policy of massive credit expansion, will have serious
political consequences for the Republican Party (to the benefit of the Democrats). Furthermore, an economic contraction will encourage
the formation of anti-capitalist majorities and a turning away from the free market system.
The danger here is not merely economic. The political left openly favors the collapse of America’s strategic position abroad. The
withdrawal of the United States from the Middle East, the Far East and Europe would catastrophically impact an international system
that presently allows 6 billion people to live on the earth’s surface in relative peace. Should anti-capitalist dogmas overwhelm the global
market and trading system that evolved under American leadership, the planet’s economy would contract and untold millions would die
of starvation. Nationalistic totalitarianism, fueled by a politics of blame, would once again bring war to Asia and Europe. But this time
the war would be waged with mass destruction weapons and the United States would be blamed because it is the center of global
capitalism. Furthermore, if the anti-capitalist party gains power in Washington, we can expect to see policies of appeasement and
unilateral disarmament enacted.
American appeasement and disarmament, in this context, would be an admission of guilt before the court of world opinion. Russia and
China, above all, would exploit this admission to justify aggressive wars, invasions and mass destruction attacks. A future financial
crash, therefore, must be prevented at all costs. But we cannot do this. As one observer recently lamented, “We drank the poison and
now we must die.”
Coal Disadvantages
A) The US and china are looking to cooperate on energy
Xinhua, 6 (Chinese National Newspaper, Accessed Through the China Insitute at the University of Alberta, “U.S., China energy
cooperation serves both interests: official”, http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/chinainstitute/nav03.cf
m?nav03=48793&nav02=43871&nav01=43092) // MDP
WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Xinhua) -- The United States and China face similar energy challenges and their cooperation will serve
interests of both countries, a senior U.S. official said Friday. The U.S. has a long and fruitful history of engagement with China on
energy related cooperation since January, 1979, and under the current administration, the U.S. has a robust engagement with China
through bilateral and multilateral mechanisms, Katharine A. Fredriksen, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Department
said in a testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. "While there are notable difference in our
approaches, cooperation between our two countries will promote greater energy security in our respective countries, as well as in the
world," she said at the two-day hearing which started on Thursday. The U.S. engagement with China takes place in many bilateral
mechanisms, including the U.S.-China Energy Policy Dialogue, the U. S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, the Peaceful Uses of
Nuclear Technologies Agreement, and the Joint Coordinating Committee on Science and Technology, said the official. "The Dialogue
emphasizes that the U.S. and China share many common challenges and opportunities as the two largest energy consumers in the world
and aims to promote greater cooperation to address concerns," she said. The U.S. actively engages with Chinas through multilateral fora
and China is an active member economy in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation's Energy Working Group, said Katharine, adding the
two countries also have been working together though international science and technology initiatives. "We plan to continue our
engagement with China and work with Beijing in a collaborative fashion to advance our mutual interests, " she added.
B) Chinas focus is clean coal
Matthews, 7 (Stuart, Writer for Arabian Business, 6/5/07, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/energy/energy/497329-the-burning-issue-of-

clean-coal) // MDP
China is still looking to coal to provide for its energy needs, but it's trying to find a cleaner way of using the resource. The
establishment of the Clean Energy Commercialisation Centre (CECC) is a start. It will be a joint project between BP and the Chinese
Academy of Sciences (CAS), although at this stage it is little more than a recently-signed memorandum of understanding (MoU). As
coal accounts for more than 70% of China's total energy consumption, cleaner use of it is considered critical for the sustainable
development of the Chinese economy. The stated aim of the CECC is ‘to accelerate the development in China of clean coal conversion
technologies'. How? Well, according to a BP statement, commercialising some key technologies and trying them out in large-scale
demonstration projects is the way forward. Coal will be used as the feedstock in these projects, which are looking to produce fuel,
chemicals and power. The CECC will also serve a co-ordination role, combining research and development from CAS institutes and
other organisations, from both China and elsewhere. The final target is the creation of commercially viable ideas that can add to China's
clean energy development and energy security. As a major consumer of Middle East oil, anything that has an impact on the country's
energy demand could have an impact elsewhere too, a point not lost on BP. "Given the increasingly important role China plays in the
global economy, China's choice and efforts in promoting new and cleaner energy applications will have a profound impact on both the
future of the Chinese economy and the global energy market," said Iain Conn, BP managing director and chief executive, Refining and
Marketing.
Coal Disadvantages

C) Energy cooperation stops escalation over Taiwan
China Daily, 5 (“Panel urges US-China energy cooperation”, 11/10/07, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/ doc/2005-
11/10/content_493337.htm)
A US congressional advisory panel examining US-China relations is urging lawmakers to kick-start efforts at energy and military
cooperation with Beijing and to respond more aggressively to its dramatic rise to power. The US-China Economic and Security Review
Commission made 57 recommendations to Congress about how to deal with China in a report being released Wednesday. The panel paid
particular attention to what it saw as China's quest for oil and its "methodical and accelerating military modernization" and influence in
Asia. With its economy booming, China is striving to meet its enormous energy needs by intensifying ties to major energy-producing
countries and seeking to buy a wide array of foreign oil and natural gas assets. China's attempt to corner oil markets outside the
international marketplace, and occasionally in countries with "poor human rights records threatens to exacerbate tensions with the
United States and other countries that are market participants," the report said. In a recent example, strong opposition in Congress
helped block a bid by a Chinese company to buy California's Unocal Corp., with lawmakers claiming the sale could threaten US
national security. The panel urged Congress to mandate creation of a US-China energy working group comprising top-level government
and industry officials from both countries, who would try to find ways to work together "for mutual benefit on energy issues," including
a search for alternative fuel technologies. Chu Maoming, a spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said China was
"willing to cooperate on energy issues with the international community." US lacking China strategy The United States is not prepared
to respond quickly if there is conflict between Beijing and Taiwan and lacks a broad strategy for dealing with China's rise, the
commission said, according to a Reuter report. The commission reaffirmed its skeptical view of Beijing, concluding that over the past
year "the trends in the US-China relationship have negative implications for our long-term national economic and security interests."
The commission was established by Congress in 2000 to examine the national security consequences of America's economic ties with
China. Its views are controversial and generally more hard-line than the official US position, which recently has focused on how
Beijing can work with Washington as a responsible member of the international system. It urged Congress to impose an "immediate
across-the-board tariff" on Chinese imports to force Beijing to strengthen significantly the value of its currency.
D) Conflict over Taiwan risks economic collapse and nuclear war
Johnson, 2 (Chalmers; President Japan Policy Research Institute, Professor Emeritus U.C. San Diego, The Nation 5/14 l/n) // MDP
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious US militarists know that China's
minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic
Chinese warheads versus more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of the Chinese
civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914 assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a
war that no one wanted, a misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that neither wants. Such
a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most
populous country and would be defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear
holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese attempt to declare its independence
formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders have virtually no deterrent effect.
Coal Disadvantages
1NC China Coal DA

Uniqueness – Chinas coal industry is collapsing now due to inefficiency
Rui, 4 (Huaichuan, Professor at Brussels Business and Adjunct Professor at Cambridge Business School, “Globalization, Transition and
Development in China The case of the coal industry”, Pg. 29-30) // MDP
That the force of development presented a major challenge to the coal industry in China was typically demonstrated by the consistently
severe shortages over decades and the consequent incalculable losses. It is no exaggeration to say that China's coal industry has a very
troubled history. It seemed that the coal industry, during most of the period from 1949 to the present day, was like a dog chasing its own
tail - the demands of an expanding economy and growing population chasing the never-adequate supply. The industry has never had the
time to catch up with that demand, to repair and renew its infrastructure, to update its methods and equipment, to adjust to expanding
markets and generally to improve itself. The vicious circle was one of ambitious economic development chasing ever-higher coal
outputs, and this was followed by a consequent imbalance between extraction and coalface preparation, which was, in turn, followed by
unsophisticated new mines being put into production, whilst at the same time economies imposed to meet ever-increasing demand led to
skimping on investment in general and safety in particular. At first production increased, but rapidly declined later as the result of
inadequate coalface preparation and the problems of trying to regain a balance between demand and production in order to meet ever
higher targets for economic growth. And so the circle turned, supply never adequately meeting demand in an industry that needed time
to reorganize itself from top to bottom. Since 1957, when economic development started on a large scale, the demand for coal increased
considerably. The Second Five-year Plan (1958-1962) had previously set the production target for 1962 at 190-210 Mt, and this already
exceeded capacity. However in 1958 - the first year of the 'Great Leap Forward' - as the coal industry was ordered to exceed UK
production in five years and to catch up with that of the USA within fifteen years, the original plan was revised, setting a target of 200
Mt by 1962, 500 Mt by 1967, and 800 Mt by 1972. This was revised again with targets of 300 Mt by 1962, 600 Mt by 1967 and 900 Mt
by 1972. To meet these targets, numerous small and unsophisticated mines were opened up, causing many of the problems endemic to
this type of mine. This sort of revision did not end until those imposed between 1963 and 1965. Again, after the Cultural Revolution, as
all other industries were recovered, demand for coal rose dramatically. In response, seven long-term plans were proposed for the
industry between December 1976 and August 1978. The The demand of the economy, a shortage of coke and coking coal is still the
cause of fluctuation in steel output. That the force of development presented a major challenge to the coal industry in China was
typically demonstrated by the consistently severe shortages over decades and the consequent incalculable losses. It is no exaggeration to
say that China's coal industry has a very troubled history. It seemed that the coal industry, during most of the period from 1949 to the
present day, was like a dog chasing its own tail - the demands of an expanding economy and growing population chasing the never-
adequate supply. The industry has never had the time to catch up with that demand, to repair and renew its infrastructure, to update its
methods and equipment, to adjust to expanding markets and generally to improve itself. The vicious circle was one of ambitious
economic development chasing ever-higher coal outputs, and this was followed by a consequent imbalance between extraction and
coalface preparation, which was, in turn, followed by unsophisticated new mines being put into production, whilst at the same time
economies imposed to meet ever-increasing demand led to skimping on investment in general and safety in particular. At first
production increased, but rapidly declined later as the result of inadequate coalface preparation and the problems of trying to regain a
balance between demand and production in order to meet ever higher targets for economic growth. And so the circle turned, supply
never adequately meeting demand in an industry that needed time to reorganize itself from top to bottom.
Coal Disadvantages
1NC China Coal DA

Link - China is looking to places like the US to sustain its coal industry – absent support it will collapse
Development in China The case of the coal industry”, Pg. 39) // MDP
In the face of closer competition from global mining giants after accession to the WTO, China has to import more to enable its best
coalmines to reach their maximum capacity. As a result, numerous mine equipment manufacturing or component companies, such as
Joy Mining from the USA and Debert from Germany, have set up business centres in major cities to provide pre- and after-sales
services. Their business is much more active than companies purely producing coal.
Huge potential attracts the entry of multinationals Besides China's vast coal business market, her coal-related business is equally large.
This at least includes the market connected to the implementation of CCT, coal liquefaction and gasification, mining equipment, mining
and shaft design cooperation, coal washing equipment, coalbed methane exploration and development, and other mining product
businesses such as the aluminium and the coke businesses. It is indeed a market which is too large to be ignored. Besides the huge
import market for mining equipment, implementing CCTs is another vast market. The worldwide controls on the emission of
greenhouse gases, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides provide a huge market for developed countries to export both their technology
and relevant CCT equipment to countries in need of it. It would be 'a bonanza for companies in the energy efficiency business' (FT 28
November 1998). The UK Department of Trade and Industry forecasts the value of the global CCT market could be up to £300 billion
for the decade 2001-10, and much more beyond 2010. Of which UK companies could benefit to the tune of some £30 billion between
now and 2010 and hope to establish a significant foot-hold for the longer term. Because of the degree of pollution resulting from coal
use, as the analysis above shows, China is obviously one of the biggest CCT markets.
And, a decrease in US coal prices boosts Chinas coal industry to newfound heights
Marquardt, 8 (Katy, Writer for the USA News and World Report, “Skip Alternative Energy—Dig for Coal Stocks”
http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/06/05/skip-alternative-energy--dig-for-coal-stocks.html) // MDP
Also, the dynamics are changing in the coal industry. Three situations have developed: First, China, which was once a big exporter of
coal, has become an importer to feed its growing demand for electricity. Second, there have been major disruptions to the operations of
the traditional coal exporters, with flooding in Australia and power outages in South Africa. Third, U.S. coal is more attractively priced
than coal from other regions of the world. These dynamics have made for dramatic increases in the exports of U.S. coal, although
traditionally, our coal was used primarily for domestic consumption. This export demand shows no signs of letting up in the future, as
both India and China each plan to build more than 1,000 new coal-fired electricity plants over the next five years.
Coal Disadvantages
1NC China Coal DA

Impact - The Chinese coal industry does not solve the energy crisis and MASSIVELY increases pollution
Roberts, 4 (Paul, “The end of oil on the edge of a perilous new world”, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, Page 247) // MDP
Instead, China will solve its looming energy security problems in the worst way possible: through coal. China is, in fact, well on its way
towards becoming the world’s largest coal economy. According to one forecast, to meet its demand for electricity, China must build as
many as sixty 400 megawatt electric power plans every year for the next decade, and most of them will burn coal. Despite an apparent
decline in coal use during the 1990’s (which Western analysts optimistically attributed to improved energy efficiently and a shift toward
gas), Chinese coal consumption is again rising in neighboring India, which is on a similar coal track, will account for more than two-
thirds of the growth in world demand for coal. By 2050, more than a third of the energy consumed by China and its neighbors will come
from coal,” warns Reid Detchon, a former energy official in the first Bush administration, “but whether China will use its coal cleanly.”
At this point, the answer seems to be no. China is so poor that is simply cannot afford the kind of cutting-edge IGCC technology needed
for a “clean-coal” energy economy. Instead, Beijing is relying largely on the same obsolete coal-fired technology that plagues the West.
Indeed, many of China’s; existing coal –fired power plants are so ancient they lack emissions control technology and waste most of the
energy they generate. The result is a power sector that is horribly polluting and so inefficient that, to meet the nation’s rising energy
demand, it has been forced to build new plants faster than if it used a more efficient power technology, like gas – thus committing China
to burn even more coal and emit even more pollutants.
<<Pollution bad>>
Coal Disadvantages
2NC/1NR Clean Coal

New funding means clean coal is coming now
Clean Tech, 8 (“U.S. DOE puts out the call for new CCS projects”, 24 June 2008,
http://media.cleantech.com/3026/u-s-doe-puts-out-the-call-for-new-ccs-projects)
The U.S. Department of Energy has released an official funding opportunity announcement to invest $1.3 billion in multiple
commercial-scale carbon capture and storage projects as part of the department's restructured FutureGen program. In January, the
DOE announced that it had pulled out of funding the existing, single FutureGen project after costs spiraled upward to $1.8 billion
(see FutureGen goes FutureBust). The Energy Department was responsible for the majority of the funding of the original FutureGen,
which was supposed to be a $1 billion project. The FutureGen Alliance, made up of 13 energy and mining companies from around
the world, recently reiterated its decision to try to keep the original project alive. Last December, the alliance picked a site in Illinois
for the project, designed to gasify and store carbon deep underground, as well as produce hydrogen (see FutureGen to build plant in
Mattoon, Ill.). Instead of funding one big project, the DOE has said it will look for new, multiple, 300 megawatt projects across the
country. "This announcement brings us one step closer towards the installation of carbon sequestration technology on commercial-
scale clean coal power plants," said Bud Albright, under secretary of energy. The DOE said it's looking to invest in integrated
gasification combined cycle or other clean coal power plants with carbon capture and storage technology. The department said it
expects $290 million will be available for funding of selected cost-shared projects through fiscal 2009, with an additional $1.01
billion to be available in subsequent years, subject to appropriations by Congress. Commercial operation of the DOE-funded CCS
projects is expected by the end of 2015.
Clean coal is key to reduce emissions from inevitable coal use

Li 7, (Minqui, “Peak Oil, the Rise of China and India, and the Global Energy Crisis” Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 37, 2007)
Coal may be converted into oil or gas through chemical processes. It is reported that China is currently investing $6 billion in
production facilities that will have the capacity to make 14 million barrels of oil a year (Heinberg, 2006: 29). Coal costs about $50 a
tonne and the conversion from coal to oil results in an energy loss of 40% (thus, one tonne of coal may be converted into just under
three barrels of oil). Assuming a plant life of 20 years, then the total production cost of converting coal into oil is about $38 a barrel.
Given the current world oil prices, this is not particularly expensive. However, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels. If coal is mined and
used on a massive scale to replace oil and natural gas, the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollution would get out of
control. The world would be on the path towards environmental catastrophe. Pollution problems may be somewhat alleviated if so-
called "clean coal" and carbon sequestration technologies are used to remove some of the pollution elements when coal is being
processed.
More clean coal impacts in the Impact portion of the file

Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – China Clean Coal Coop – China Seeks Investments
China seeks energy investments in the US
Harding 6 (Harry, director, Research and Analysis, at the Eurasia Group, and University Professor of International Affairs at The
George Washington University, “China Goes Global Implications for the United States” The National Interest, No. 85, September-
October 2006) // CCH
Finally, China is now in a position to make major investments in the United States itself. Two kinds of investment may be of particular
concern: strategic and iconic. Strategic investments are those by which China seeks to acquire, and thereby to control, critically
important resources. Oil is one obvious example, but I suspect that Chinese attempts to acquire American high-technology firms will be
the more common way in which this issue gets raised. Iconic investments would involve the acquisition of companies or other assets of
particular symbolic importance to the United States: imagine a Chinese attempt to buy a well-known American automobile or equipment
manufacturer, a major shopping center or resort, or an American film studio.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – China Coal – Structure, Infrastructure, mines inefficiency
Absent reform china’s coal industry will collapse
A) Structural problems
Development in China The case of the coal industry”, Pg. xiii) // MDP
The coal sector's numerous large state-owned mines face another type of challenge. The core mines in the sector began production many
years ago, having been established on the richest, most easily located coal seams. Today, many of these giant mines, with a huge
workforce, face a bleak future, having exhausted the most easily worked deposits, and facing exhaustion of reserves and rising costs of
extraction. The sector is heavily loss-making, and massively indebted to the state banks. Mines are typically located in relatively remote
areas in which the alternative employment opportunities for miners are slim. Miners in all countries are notoriously prone to take
political action in defence of their interests. However, the Chinese government cannot indefinitely prop up the huge ailing state-owned
mines with loans from the state-owned banks. In this respect, the mining sector illuminates some of the deepest problems of the
transitional economies. This sector also presents deep policy challenges for the Chinese government.
B) Development, transition infrastructure, and globalization
Policymakers in China, then, suffered a range of challenges which can be placed in three categories. First, they faced the challenges
arising from the basic difficulties of development. Second, they faced challenges arising from those of the transition from central
planning. Third, they faced challenges arising from the pressures of globalization. Very explicitly in the coal industry, the challenge
from development derived from the fact that in spite of problems, the development of TVE coalmines As noted, based on the case
studies of the Chinese coal industry, this research finds the underlying answers in the three key interlinked challenges from
development, transition and globalization. The three reinforce one another while at the same time also disrupting one another.
C) State owned mines inefficiency
The simplest of mine-shafts, out-dated equipment, hard-working peasant workers, and horrible working conditions were the best
indicators of the competitive capacity of TVE mines (see Figure 3.4). SOE coal workers were openly hostile to TVE mines because they
had lost market share to these TVEs. But as one TVE miner noted, putting up a defence: 'Can you see an SOE miner working
underground the whole day as I do?' In SOE coal bureaux the workers are not willing to work underground, so they have to hire
peasants to do the most dangerous and heavy work. This is partly why SOEs are overstaffed and have very high wage and welfare costs.
It was indeed sad that these redundant workers from SOEs had to stand in the snow waiting for jobs, but they still received their 218
yuan living allowance each month, and probably more, as the result of showing their anger
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – China Coal – Globalization
D) Globalization
The Chinese coal industry might be the best showcase to demonstrate the three challenges China has been facing. The challenge from
development has forced the coal industry to make tremendous efforts to fuel the nation's economy; to allow the problematic TVE
coalmines to grow to assist the rural populations' desire to eradicate poverty; and to reduce its pollution to pursue sustainable
development. The challenge from transition has been centred on the needs to transform the old command economy system and large
loss-making SOE coal bureaux, and on the huge difficulties of planning this. The challenge from the trend towards economic
globalization is reflected in the wider gap between China's coal companies and their counterparts among the leading global mining
giants, the urgent need for China to build large globally competitive firms to pursue internationally competitive capacity, as well as the
enormous difficulty to achieve this. The following three sections will explore each of the three challenges reflected in the coal industry.
A brief summary of the inter-relationship of the three challenges and an explanation of the role of the state in dealing with such inter-
relationship follows. The information in this Chapter is based on an overview of the entire history of the coal industry under the PRC's
regime from 1949 to the present, aiming not only to illustrate points made in Chapter 1, but also to provide background and guidance for
understanding
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – China Coal – Collapsing now
No risk of a unique turn – Chinas coal industry is collapsing now because of no government and international support
The society also disclosed plans to build large coal mining centers and big and medium-sized mines equipped with advanced equipment.
China's coal output for this year is estimated at a record 1.6 billion tons, up 14 percent over last year's 1.4 billion tons, industry sources
said on Friday. Nevertheless, coal is in short supply because of rapidly rising demand, shipment costs and coal prices. China's major
coal-fired power plants sent urgent signals that they were urgently needed fuel to generate. Some appealed for state intervention to solve
their acute coal shortages, which disrupted electricity production. A petition filed by China Huadian Group, China Huaneng Enterprise
Group and five other major power generating units said that most power plants in central and north China faced shortages. Coal
reserves at the power plants had dropped below the secure levels, and some plants had to shut down generators, it said. Some people
attributed the power shortage to soaring coal prices, rising transportation costs, and declining coal stocks and quality, but experts cited
the remarkable growth of the Chinese economy as the fundamental reason for the energy shortage. In 2003, China's economic growth
rate is expected to hit 8.5 percent. Some argued the reform pace of China's energy system was lagging behind national economic
development. Electricity pricing was still subject to government regulation, while coal prices floated in line with market demands, said
an official with the China Huaneng Enterprise Group. Thousands of small coal mines were closed for safety inspections following a
series of fatal explosions across the country, but many have since resumed production. Coal had accounted for at least 70 percent of
China's energy supplies, and the ratio would remain unchanged for a long period to come, said the deputy president.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Obama/McCain

Obama and McCain are all pushing clean coal.
CBS, 6/24/08. (“Clean Coal- Pipe Dream, Or Next Big Thing?”)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=mostpop_story // DMS
<(CBS) Much has been made about the skyrocketing price of oil lately, with some saying that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas
is a possible solution. But, as CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports, utilities are testing technology to make one of
America's most abundant fuel source - coal - a cleaner alternative. Coal is, by far, the dirtiest way America makes its electric power,
but a new ad campaign funded by the industry promises a future where clean coal is a viable option. And it's not just the industry. Both
presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, are pushing clean coal. But exactly what is the technology? The cleanest
coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal
exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas. According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal
allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain. "And you can do it much
cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil. That's the good news. But here's the problem. "There is no such
thing as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions
of tons of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas. "There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the
major long-term pollutant," says Hansen. But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there
is a solution. They believe it's possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground. The idea is called "capture and
sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves
beneath the North Sea. America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled
all funding when the price grew too high. "They took seven years just to decide where they were going to make a pilot plant - and then
they decided to cancel it," says Hansen. And now, the failure to solve the carbon dioxide problem is a threat to coal itself. In the last
five years, at least 63 coal-fired power plants have been scrapped or defeated by public opposition. Florida Governor Charlie Crist
helped pull the plug on the two clean coal plants because he says without a carbon solution, clean coal is not an option. "Until that time
comes, we want to develop more solar, more nuclear, more wind," says Crist. Which is why the industry needs an ad campaign. Until
the federal government funds the research on carbon dioxide, America's reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.>
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE

The DOE is committed to clean coal regulations, they recently issued $290 mil.
RTT News, 6/24/08. (“DOE announces funding opportunity for coal”.)

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/Policy.aspx?Id=638829//DMS
<(RTTNews) - The U.S. Department of Energy issued a $290 million Funding Opportunity Announcement Tuesday as part of their
FutureGen program. The program, designed to develop a clean-burning coal, has been undergoing restructuring since January 2008.
"The Department is committed to increasing the nation's energy security and addressing CO2 emissions by ensuring coal, an abundant
domestic resource, can be used to meet our growing energy demand in an environmentally responsible way," Under Secretary of Energy
Bud Albright said in a statement. "This announcement brings us one step closer towards the installation of carbon sequestration
technology on commercial-scale clean coal power plants." The department will be accepting applications through October 2008, and
the project will likely be selected by December 2008, Albright said in a press call with reporters. $1.1 billion will be available in the
future, he added, upon approval by Congress. The funding opportunity announcement requires at least 50 percent be used to produce
electricity, and the project must be located within the U.S. The goals of the restructured FutureGen include 90 percent capture of carbon
and mercury emissions. The FutureGen program was first announced in 2004, two years ahead of Bush's quip at the State of the Union
that Americans are "addicted to oil." In his 2006 address, Bush touted the program."Tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative
-- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas," he said
two years ago. "To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary
solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy." At the time, the goal of clean-burning coal that would not add to the
problem of global warming was described as "one of the boldest steps our nation has taken toward a pollution-free energy future."
However, the costs soon outweighed the perceived benefits, with estimated costs nearly doubling - with no end in sight. The project was
initially projected to cost $1 billion, but the costs quickly rose to $1.8 billion.>
DOE is developing clean coal tech now
Physorg.com 6 (“Coal for hydrogen: Experiments examine hydrogen-production benefits of clean coal burning,”
http://www.physorg.com/news63382590.html, 4-4-06) // JRC
The DOE has already demonstrated gasification technology in two pilot projects. Now, several commercial proposals are afoot in the
U.S. for utilities to build plants without government support. CRF role Working with the National Energy Technology Lab in
Morgantown, W. Va., the CRF is focused on understanding the chemistry and physics of coal combustion using state-of-the-art
diagnostic capabilities and modeling expertise. “We apply computational models of reacting particles to the data to understand why we
see the results we see,” says Shaddix. Shaddix and Alejandro Molina, a Sandia postdoctoral student, have been working in a small-
scale lab to analyze coal combustion. “It is very important to understand how fast [coal] burns and releases energy,” Molina says.
Burning coal in pure oxygen instead of air eliminates some separation problems, leaving water and CO2, which can be stored, or
sequestered, Molina says. One problem with this oxygen approach has been a high flame temperature, he continues, which can rapidly
destroy the metal burner materials. “The question is: what is the right proportion of oxygen and CO2?” After two years of small-scale
research, work is now under way to bring two other CRF facilities into the research. A gasification lab will help the researchers study
the behavior of coal gas under pressure. A two-story flow reactor that will help the team study the oxygen-coal combustion with
recycled CO2. Tests in this reactor are expected to begin in a few months.
Coal Disadvantages

The DOE issued $290 mil for funding clean coal projects, putting them one step closer to achieving CCS technology.
News Blaze, 6/24/08. (DOE Seeks to Invest Approximately $1.3 Billion to Commercialize CCS Technology).
http://newsblaze.com/story/20080624114531tsop.nb/topstory.html// DMS.
<The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) to invest in multiple commercial-
scale Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) or other clean coal power plants with cutting-edge carbon capture and storage
(CCS) technology under the Department's restructured FutureGen program. The solicitation is seeking multiple cost-shared projects to
advance coal-based power generation technologies that capture and store the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2). The Department
anticipates $290 million will be available for funding of selected projects through fiscal year (FY) 2009 and an additional $1.01 billion
is expected to be available in subsequent years, subject to appropriations by Congress. "The Department is committed to increasing the
nation's energy security and addressing CO2 emissions by ensuring coal, an abundant domestic resource, can be used to meet our
growing energy demand in an environmentally responsible way," Under Secretary of Energy Bud Albright said. "This announcement
brings us one step closer towards the installation of carbon sequestration technology on commercial-scale clean coal power plants.">
The applications the DOE has issued ensure clean coal fired plants.
<Today's FOA provides instructions for submitting applications and outlines the mission need and background, project description, and
the primary technical goals and performance requirements. The announcement also provides the evaluation criteria, terms and
conditions of a model cooperative agreement, as well as cost-sharing required for public-private cooperation under the restructured
FutureGen projects. Applications are due October 8, 2008 and the selection of projects is targeted for the end of calendar year 2008.
DOE announced a restructured approach to its FutureGen project on January 30, 2008, to build on technological research and
development advancements in CCS technology achieved over the past five years. This approach responds to changing market conditions
for clean coal technology, as well as efforts to limit taxpayer exposure and maximize the federal government's investment in this
cutting-edge technology. The restructured approach aims to accelerate the near-term deployment of advanced clean coal technology by
equipping new IGCC or other clean coal commercial power plants with CCS technology. By funding multiple projects DOE expects at
least to double the amount of CO2 sequestered compared to the amount under the concept announced in 2003. When these plants are
operational, they will be the cleanest coal-fired power plants in the world - each capturing and storing an expected 1 million metric tons
of carbon dioxide per year.> Subject to compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, the FOA envisions commercial
operation of IGCC or other clean coal power plants equipped with CCS technology to begin as soon as the plants are commissioned by
the end of 2015. The restructured FutureGen approach will focus on the challenges associated with avoiding and reducing carbon
emissions through sequestration. Technical, economic, and operational results from multiple projects will inform and guide the
promulgation of regulations related to wide-scale carbon sequestration activities and at the same time will help establish technologies
and protocols for CO2 monitoring, mitigation and verification. DOE's FOA requires that at least 50 percent of the energy output of the
project's energy conversion system must be used to produce electricity and the project must be located in the United States. In addition,
the FutureGen goal is 90 percent capture of carbon content in the syngas or flue gas. Projects must also remove at least 90 percent of the
mercury emissions based on mercury content of the coal, and reduce sulfur, nitrogen oxides and particulate emissions to very low levels.
To ensure safe and permanent sequestration, DOE also includes in the FOA monitoring and verification performance requirements for
FutureGen projects, including quantifying and assessing CO2 capture, transport, and storage during a 3-5 year demonstration of at least
one million metric tons of CO2 injected per year in a saline formation; monitoring and reporting to DOE the plumes of injected CO2 for
a minimum of two years after cessation of the injection demonstration; and developing information necessary to estimate costs of future
CO2 management systems.>
Coal Disadvantages

The DOE has just allocated funds for clean coal technology.
Clean Tech, 8 (“U.S. DOE puts out the call for new CCS projects”, 24 June 2008,
http://media.cleantech.com/3026/u-s-doe-puts-out-the-call-for-new-ccs-projects)
commercial-scale carbon capture and storage projects as part of the department's restructured FutureGen program. In January, the DOE
announced that it had pulled out of funding the existing, single FutureGen project after costs spiraled upward to $1.8 billion (see
FutureGen goes FutureBust). The Energy Department was responsible for the majority of the funding of the original FutureGen, which
was supposed to be a $1 billion project. The FutureGen Alliance, made up of 13 energy and mining companies from around the world,
recently reiterated its decision to try to keep the original project alive. Last December, the alliance picked a site in Illinois for the
project, designed to gasify and store carbon deep underground, as well as produce hydrogen (see FutureGen to build plant in Mattoon,
Ill.). Instead of funding one big project, the DOE has said it will look for new, multiple, 300 megawatt projects across the country. "This
announcement brings us one step closer towards the installation of carbon sequestration technology on commercial-scale clean coal
power plants," said Bud Albright, under secretary of energy. The DOE said it's looking to invest in integrated gasification combined
cycle or other clean coal power plants with carbon capture and storage technology. The department said it expects $290 million will be
available for funding of selected cost-shared projects through fiscal 2009, with an additional $1.01 billion to be available in subsequent
years, subject to appropriations by Congress. Commercial operation of the DOE-funded CCS projects is expected by the end of 2015.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness- Clean Coal- Advancements now
Clean coal tech continues to advance
The News-Herald, 8 (“Invest in technology for cleaner coal plants,” 5-28-2008,

www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19724560&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=220548&rfi=6) // JMP
We must invest in this energy option to ensure the air we breathe is clean. We shouldn't even have to think about it.
We never give it a thought. When we flip a switch, want to microwave popcorn or shred that sensitive document, we never consider how
it's done.
If you looked into it, however, you'd realize it takes 876 kilowatts of power to illuminate a 100-watt light bulb for one year.
That takes a lot of coal from the FirstEnergy power plant in Eastlake.
Coal attracts attention in this area because discharges of such items as sulfur, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, mercury and fly ash
cause environmentalists concern.
But officials insist FirstEnergy's coal plants are retrofitted with technology that keeps them cleaner than they were even 10 years ago.
Meanwhile, clean coal technology, which reduces the harmful fossil fuel emissions from coal plants, continues to advance.
We must invest in this energy option to ensure the air we breathe is clean. We shouldn't even have to think about it.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Funding/Laws Now
Clean coal technology is being accelerated to reduce emissions and boost the economy
Johnson, 8 – has spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues
(Keith, “Clean Coal: Hype or Hard Slog?” 5-28-2008, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/05/28/clean-coal-hype-or-hard-
slog/?mod=googlenews_wsj) // JMP
More and more companies are starting to dabble with “clean-coal” technology. Whether that’ll make a difference for the economy or the
environment remains an open question.
General Electric and oil-field services firm Schlumberger announced Wednesday a deal to work together to develop clean-coal
technology. The two would match GE’s experience with a new generation of power plants that can capture carbon dioxide, and
Schlumberger’s experience with pumping the stuff underground to goose reluctant oil wells.
After the U.S. government pulled the plug on its big clean-coal demonstration project earlier this year, private industry is trying to fill
the gap to make clean coal a viable power solution. As we’ve noted before, that’s crucial to curbing emissions and keeping the economy
functioning—even though many environmentalists see clean coal as an expensive oxymoron.
The GE/Schlumberger deal follows the latest industry pattern: pairing power experts and oilfield veterans. Italy’s big power company
Enel announced a deal in February with oil and gas company Eni to study how to store carbon dioxide underground in Italy and off its
coast. For Italy, the problem is especially acute. The lack of nuclear power leaves the country with few scaleable, low-carbon options to
keep the lights on, unless it develops clean coal in a hurry.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Funding/Laws Now

Clean coal technology is funded now.
<Clean coal technology is a vital component of the Bush Administration's vision for a cleaner, more secure energy future and the
restructured approach to FutureGen will demonstrate the integration of IGCC or other clean coal technology with CCS to enable wider
use and more rapid commercialization, facilitating economic growth, and increasing living standards in a way that maximizes Federal
investment and limits taxpayer risk. President Bush's FY 2009 budget request of $648 million for clean coal research, development and
deployment represents the largest amount requested for DOE's coal program in more than 25 years and builds on more than $2.5 billion
invested to advance clean coal technology since 2001>
Clean Coal laws being enacted now.
McCown, 8 (Debra, Bristol Herald Courier, “Conservationist Sys Coal Plant Emissions Could Damage Smokies”, 20 June 2008,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1442936/conservationist_says_coal_plant_emissions_could_damage_smokies/)
<"The General Assembly has passed a law that declares this clean-coal technology," Cortez said. "I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what's
the definition is of clean-coal technology ... but as an engineer, it would be hard for me to call this clean-coal technology." He said while
the circulating fluidized bed technology would be the only choice for burning waste coal, another technology -- integrated gasification
combined cycle (IGCC) -- would be the cleanest and, when climate change laws take effect, it will be the cheapest. He also questioned
the company's commitment to burn gob piles -- massive heaps of waste coal that pollute the landscape. "What is clear to me in
everything I've read ... there's no assurance that any of the biomass or waste coal will ever be used at this plant," Cortez said. "It's up to
Dominion whether they want to use this fuel." Dan Genest, spokesman for Dominion Virginia Power, which is proposing to build the
$1.8 billion Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center near St. Paul, Va., said the plant meets and exceeds environmental regulations designed
to protect human health and the environment. "The technology we are using can turn this waste coal into megawatts, and it's a very low-
cost fuel, so the economics are there to make it attractive for us to use this coal to generate electricity," he said. "We can burn up to 20
percent gob. It'll be a blend. We'll use regular coal, gob, and waste wood. And how that will be blended, that hasn't been determined." >
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bush Pledged

Bush pledged $2 billion to clean coal technology, the technology will be available in the near future
DOE, 4/23/08. (U.S. Department of Energy. ..............................Clean Coal Technology & The President's Clean Coal Power Initiative)
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal// DMS
During his campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush pledged to commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology -
a pledge he has subsequently carried out in the National Energy Policy and in budget requests to Congress. "Clean coal technology"
describes a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants from coal-burning power plants.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy conducted a joint program with industry and State agencies to
demonstrate the best of these new technologies at scales large enough for companies to make commercial decisions. More than 20 of the
technologies tested in the original program achieved commercial success. The early program, however, was focused on the
environmental challenges of the time - primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century,
additional environmental concerns have emerged - the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic
particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases. With coal likely to
remain one of the nation's lowest-cost electric power sources for the foreseeable future, President Bush has pledged a new commitment
to even more advanced clean coal technologies. As the President said in presenting his National Energy Policy to the American public
on May 17, 2001, "More than half of the electricity generated in America today comes from coal. If we weren't blessed with this natural
resource, we would face even greater [energy] shortages and higher prices today. Yet, coal presents an environmental challenge. So our
plan funds research into new, clean coal technologies."
Building on the successes of the original program, the new clean coal initiative encompasses a broad spectrum of research and large-
scale projects that target today's most pressing environmental challenges. The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government co-
financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the President's Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury
pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018. Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce
greenhouse emissions by boosting the efficiency by which coal plants convert coal to electricity or other energy forms. In January of
2003, eight projects were selected under the first round CCPI solicitation, of which two were withdrawn. Of the remaining six projects
supported by the first round of the CCPI, three projects are currently in the operational phase, two are in the construction phase, and one
is still in the pre-award phase. In October of 2004, four projects were selected from the second round CCPI solicitation. One project has
since been withdrawn. The remaining three projects are in various stages of development. Two of these projects will demonstrate
advanced IGCC technology, while the third will demonstrate a neural-network control process for advanced multi-pollutant controls by
means of plant optimization.
A third round CCPI solicitation will focus on developing projects that utilize carbon sequestration technologies and/or beneficial reuse
of carbon dioxide.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Legislators Pledge

Legislators pledge $1 billion annually.
Talbert 6/18/08. (, Jim. “Boucher Introduces Clean Coal Technology”. SWVA today)
http://www.swvatoday.com/comments/boucher_introduces_clean_coal_technology/news/2899//DMS
l technology.
Congressman Rick Boucher joined by Nick Joe Rahall and other legislators introduced a bill last week to advance the development and
deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies. CCS is a method of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by capturing and
injecting underground the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generation plants that use fossil fuels. The bill is a bipartisan effort
and in addition to Democrats Boucher and Rahall has the support of Republicans Ed Whitfield from KY, and Deborah Pryce of Ohio
among others. The legislation would establish a $1 billion annual fund, derived from fees on the generation of electricity from coal, oil
and natural gas. Grants from the fund will be awarded to large-scale projects advancing the commercial availability of CCS technology.
“Coal is America’s most abundant domestic fuel, and today, coal accounts for more than one-half of the fuel used for electricity
generation. Given our large coal reserves, its lower cost in comparison with other fuels, and the inadequate availability of fuel
alternatives, preservation of the ability of electric utilities to continue coal use is essential. The legislation introduced today addresses
this clear need by enabling electric utilities that use coal to have the continued ability to do so when a mandatory program is
implemented to control greenhouse gas emissions,” Boucher said. The Ninth District Congressman said making the CCS technology
available quickly could prevent electric generating plants switching to other fuels. He said switching from coal to natural gas or other
energy sources would result in higher prices for residential and industrial consumers. “Today 58% of U.S. homes are heated with
natural gas, and numerous industries are heavily reliant on it. If large scale switching by utilities from coal to natural gas occurs, tens of
millions of Americans would experience deep economic pain, and many domestic industries would be dislocated. The early arrival of
CCS is essential to prevent this economic disruption in a carbon constrained economy,” Boucher said. Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican
from Texas said carbon capture technology is reaching maturity and offers the option of affordable power. “When working families are
paying electricity bills so high they look like house payments, we in Washington can’t afford to put our country’s least expensive and
most available energy off limits,” he said. The legislation would establish a non governmental fund to accelerate the deployment of
carbon capture storage technology. It would be a Carbon Storage Research Corporation operated as an affiliate of the Electric Power
Research Institute. The Corporation will assess fees on distribution utilities for all fossil fuel-based electricity delivered to retail
consumers. The assessment shall be applied to electricity generated from coal, natural gas and oil and will reflect the relative carbon
dioxide emission rates of each fuel. The total assessment will be approximately $1 billion annually. The legislation specifies that
distribution utilities will be allowed to recover the costs of the fee from retail consumers. The fee translates into a roughly $10-12 total
annual increase in residential electricity rates. The Corporation shall distribute the funds through grants and contracts to private,
academic and governmental entities with the purpose of accelerating the commercial availability of carbon dioxide capture and storage
technologies. Supported projects should encompass a range of different fuel varieties, be geographically diverse, involve diverse
storage media and employ technologies suitable for either new or retrofit applications.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Futuregen

Futuregen has decided to go through with original project; new funding now available.
Cleantech (6/25/08. U.S. DOE puts out the call for new CCS projects).
http://u.s.%20doe%20puts%20out%20the%20call%20for%20new%20ccs%20projects// DMS
The department's restructured FutureGen program is looking to invest $1.3 billion in multiple projects.
commercial-scale carbon capture and storage projects as part of the department's restructured FutureGen program. In January, the DOE
announced that it had pulled out of funding the existing, single FutureGen project after costs spiraled upward to $1.8 billion (see
FutureGen goes FutureBust). The Energy Department was responsible for the majority of the funding of the original FutureGen, which
was supposed to be a $1 billion project.
The FutureGen Alliance, made up of 13 energy and mining companies from around the world, recently reiterated its decision to try to
keep the original project alive. Last December, the alliance picked a site in Illinois for the project, designed to gasify and store carbon
deep underground, as well as produce hydrogen (see FutureGen to build plant in Mattoon, Ill.). Instead of funding one big project, the
DOE has said it will look for new, multiple, 300 megawatt projects across the country."This announcement brings us one step closer
towards the installation of carbon sequestration technology on commercial-scale clean coal power plants," said Bud Albright, under
secretary of energy. The DOE said it's looking to invest in integrated gasification combined cycle or other clean coal power plants with
carbon capture and storage technology. The department said it expects $290 million will be available for funding of selected cost-shared
projects through fiscal 2009, with an additional $1.01 billion to be available in subsequent years, subject to appropriations by Congress.
Commercial operation of the DOE-funded CCS projects is expected by the end of 2015.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bipartisan/McCain Pledge

Bipartisan support for clean coal technology. McCain pledges billions.
McCain, John .(The Hotline> “On Luxury and Virtue”. ).

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/06/on_luxury_and_v.html//DMS
Full text of John McCain's environmental speech is available after the jump. Here's a snippet:"Energy efficiency is no longer just a
moral luxury or a personal virtue. A smarter use of energy is part of a critical national effort to regain control of our own energy future.
And in this effort, practical ideas are worth a lot more than uplifting lectures." Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of
the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, and the warm welcome to California. I'm here to listen about energy issues as well as to
talk. So let me just start things off with a few ideas. We're in the middle of a great debate in this presidential campaign about the energy
security of the United States. For my part, in recent days I've been laying out a clear agenda to protect our economy from runaway
energy costs, and to break America's dependence on foreign oil. This is going to require the best efforts and ideas of our country, and I
am confident we are up to the task. At a time when a gallon of gas is running at more than four dollars, our government needs to shake
off years of partisan paralysis that have prevented America from achieving energy security. Nothing is more urgent right now than
regaining our energy security -- we need to get it done and get it right. The immediate problems of high gasoline prices and of our
strategic dependence on foreign oil are upon us. And on recent days I've been setting forth a plan of action. When people are hurting,
and struggling to afford gasoline, food, and other necessities, common sense requires that we draw upon America's own vast reserves of
oil and natural gas. When nations across Europe and Asia are building nuclear power plants to meet their electricity needs, America, too,
must make more use of this clean, efficient, and proven source of power. And we must turn all the brilliance and ingenuity of America
loose in the search for alternative energy sources -- from cleaner coal and wind power to biofuels and solar. But even as we address our
present economic and strategic troubles, we face a long-term danger we hardly even understood back when America first learned to
associate the word "energy" with "crisis." We now know that fossil fuel emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten
disastrous changes in climate. No challenge of energy is to be taken lightly, and least of all the need to avoid the consequences of global
warming. Among the compelling evidence of this danger, satellite images reveal shrinking glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice
sheets. Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We
have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few
years. In the frozen wilds of Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, wildlife biologists have noted sudden changes in animal
migration patterns, a loss of their habitat, a rise in sea levels. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in
Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we act to meet the challenge, and act quickly. To
dramatically reduce carbon emissions, I have proposed a new system of cap-and-trade that over time will change the dynamic of our
energy economy. We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the
year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission, by 2020, a return to 1990 levels, and so on until we have achieved at least a
reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In this way, we will transition into a low carbon energy future while
staying on a course of economic growth. The purpose of this plan is to give American businesses new incentives and rewards to seek,
instead of just giving new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. My strategy gives people time to adapt, instead of causing a jolt to your
electricity bill and widespread shutdowns of tradition coal-fired plants. For the market to do more, government must do more by
opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. So I have proposed a permanent research and development tax credit, to open the
door to a new generation of environmental entrepreneurs. I am committed to investing two billion dollars every year for the next
15 years on clean coal technologies -- to unlock the potential of America's oldest and most abundant resource. And we will issue a
Clean Car Challenge to automakers, in the form of a tax credit to the American people: For every automaker who can sell a zero-
emissions or very close to zero-emissions car, we will commit up to a 5,000 dollar tax credit to each and every customer who buys that
car. In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing
failure. From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bipartisan

Clean coal initiatives have strong bipartisan support.
Archer, 8 (Bill, Bluefield Daily Telegraph, “Boucher introduces key bill in push for clean coal energy”, 12 June 2008,
http://www.bdtonline.com/local/local_story_164205530.html)
<U.S. Rep. Frederick C. “Rick” Boucher, D-Va., introduced legislation in congress today with broad-based bipartisan support that will
pump $1 billion into technology aimed at developing viable carbon capture and storage to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
capturing and injecting underground, the carbon dioxide emitted from electricity generation plants that use fossil fuels.“Coal is
America’s most abundant domestic fuel, and today, coal accounts for more than one-half of the fuel used for electricity generation,”
Boucher was quoted as stating in a press release. Boucher is chairman of the House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee. “Given our
large coal reserves, its lower cost in comparison with other fuels and the inadequate availability of fuel alternatives, preservation of the
ability of electric utilities to continue coal use is essential.“The legislation introduced today addresses this clear need by enabling
electric utilities that use coal to have the continued ability to do so when a mandatory program is implemented to control greenhouse gas
emissions,” Boucher was quoted as stating.>The list of congressmen who joined Boucher in sponsoring the legislation is formidable and
includes U.S. Reps. Fred Upton, R-Mich., John Murtha D-Pa., Joe Barton, R-Texas, Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., Jerry
Costello, D-Ill., John Shimkus, R-Ill., Jim Matheson, D-Utah, Mike Doyle, D-Pa., Tim Holdren, D-Pa., Brad Ellsworth, D-Ind., Baron
Hill, D-Ind., Charlie Wilson, D-Ohio and Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio.“Energy prices drive our economy,” Rahall, chairman of the House
Committee on Natural Resources was quoted in the press release as stating. “As the price of gasoline has skyrocketed due in part to
policies that limit access to American energy resources, it is critical that electricity rates do not follow suit.”Rahall said that clean coal
technology answers part of the nation’s future energy needs. <“In our quest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the
environment, we must promote exciting new clean coal technologies that will not only keep costs down for consumers, but also foster
new jobs and a strong economy.”Reaction to reports of the legislation in the West Virginia and Virginia coalfields was solid in support of
the efforts. “It’s absolutely critical for the future of this nation for the technology (of carbon capture and storage) to mature and
develop,” Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association said. “The federal government has to take a leadership role in this
process. If congress decides to enact (more rigid emissions requirements), they have to take some responsibility in developing new
technologies.”Raney said that that coal produces more than half of the energy consumed in the U.S., and that despite the desire to
develop alternate energy sources, coal remains the most important aspect of the nation’s domestic energy production.Barbara Altizer,
executive director of the Eastern Coal Council said that she hopes to review the bill in greater detail, but she was impressed by what the
co-sponsors said about coal and the need to concentrate on domestic energy sources.“I was thrilled with some of the statements these
political leaders made,” Altizer said. “We have enough coal to last hundreds of years. I think this bill will help efforts to control
greenhouse gas emissions in the years to come.”Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America expressed his support
for the legislation in the press release from Boucher’s office, and the leadership of several domestic energy producing companies
including Michael G. Morris, president and chief executive officer of American Electric Power, Kraig Naaz, National Mining
Association president and chief executive officer, Jim Rogers, Duke Energy chief executive officer, Thomas F. Farrell II, chairman of
Dominion, David Ratcliffe, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Southern Company, Bill Johnson, chairman, president and
chief executive officer of Progress Energy and Dick Silverman, chief executive officer of Salt River Project joined in supporting the
legislature.>
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – New York

New York is already taking steps towards CCS technology.
ENS, 6/12/08. (Environment News Service. New York Governor Encourages Unique Clean Coal Plant). http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-12-094.asp//DMS
ALBANY, New York, June 12, 2008 (ENS) - New York Governor David Paterson Tuesday announced that the state would offer up to
$6 million in financial support for construction of a coal-fired power demonstration plant in Jamestown that will be the first of its kind
in the world.
The Jamestown coal plant would burn coal in pure oxygen instead of air. This process leaves water and the greenhouse gas carbon
dioxide, CO2, which can be stored, or sequestered, underground for permanent storage.
Burning coal in oxygen can produce exhaust streams that are close to pure carbon dioxide, according to scientists at Sandia National
Lab. Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal combustion at Sandia's Combustion Research Facility, says when coal is burned
in pure oxygen, harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds, and mercury are virtually eliminated. The Jamestown plant
will serve as a demonstration facility for the promising new technology. The oxy-combustion approach is favored by companies in
Japan, Canada and Germany, where pilot plants are under construction. New York Governor David Paterson visits Jamestown to
announce support for a clean coal plant there. (Photo courtesy Office of the Governor) The geology of Upstate New York is considered
favorable for sequestration, the region needs jobs, and Governor Paterson said he views the project as a way to strengthen the ability of
New York firms to launch exports of advanced coal technology to the rest of the world. "Using pure oxygen to burn coal is one of the
most cost effective ways of avoiding the impending climate changes associated with the accumulation of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere." said Harvey Stenger, dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the University at Buffalo. "Producing
pure oxygen from air is a process developed and refined at Praxair," he said. "Using it to combust coal, our nation's most plentiful
energy resource, is a technology that once refined by Praxair and its partners, will allow us to capture and sequester almost all of the
carbon dioxide emitted when coal is burned." This research will be conducted by the Oxy-Coal Alliance, which is made up of: Praxair,
Dresser-Rand, E&E, Ecology and Environment, Foster Wheeler, Battelle Labs, State University of New York-Buffalo and AES
Corporation. Charles McConnell, vice president of gasification and oxy-coal technology at Praxair, said, "This is an excellent
opportunity to demonstrate new, world-class technology right in our own community. Demonstration projects are fundamental to
building a road map to commercial implementation of carbon dioxide capture technology in the future." Following completion of the
research, the Oxy-Coal Alliance group will apply for a federal grant to continue research and development of the proposed Jamestown
power plant. Grant notification is expected by the middle of 2009. The Paterson administration's new strategy for advanced coal
development includes qualified financial support of up to $6 million for the New York Oxy-Coal Alliance in Jamestown. In addition, the
project will enjoy research and development funding from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. The
strategy also includes the formation of a Carbon Capture and Sequestration Working Group. New York's senior U.S. Senator Charles
Schumer said, "Governor Paterson's decision to support the development of an advanced coal power plant in Jamestown is a knockout
win for both Western New York and the country." Joe Brown, business manager of Boilermakers Local 7 said, "Being one of the
predominant crafts on site we will employ over 100 people for two and a half years, a huge economic impact for the community. I'd like
to thank the Governor's Office for their effort in putting New York State at the forefront of the newest technology to help address
climate change." The Paterson administration wants to showcase New York's green credentials and used the announcement of support
for the Oxy-Coal Alliance to remind residents that New York is the lead state in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the nation's
first viable carbon cap-and-trade system. New York is also a leader in renewable energy production with a Renewable Portfolio
Standard that ensures New Yorkers will obtain 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2013. New York also is a
national leader in energy efficiency, the administration said, pointing to New York's "15 by 15" initiative - the nation's most aggressive
energy efficiency goal which calls for a 15 percent reduction in energy use below projected levels by 2015. Now, if only sequestration
works in New York's geology, the oxy-combustion coal technology could help the state meet its own energy needs using a domestic fuel
and spur economic development and clean tech jobs.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Clean Coal – New York

New clean coal initiatives being adopted—New York proves.
Environment News Service, 8 (“New York Governor Encourages Unique Clean Coal Plant”, 12 June 2008, http://www.ens-
newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-12-094.asp)
<New York Governor David Paterson Tuesday announced that the state would offer up to $6 million in financial support for
construction of a coal-fired power demonstration plant in Jamestown that will be the first of its kind in the world. The Jamestown coal
plant would burn coal in pure oxygen instead of air. This process leaves water and the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, CO2, which can
be stored, or sequestered, underground for permanent storage. Burning coal in oxygen can produce exhaust streams that are close to
pure carbon dioxide, according to scientists at Sandia National Lab. Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal combustion at
Sandia's Combustion Research Facility, says when coal is burned in pure oxygen, harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur
compounds, and mercury are virtually eliminated.>
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Use inevitable

Coal use is inevitable despite environmental concerns
Dunn 99, (Seth, research associate at the Worldwatch Institute, “King Coal's Weakening Grip on Power” World Watch, Vol. 12,
September 1999) // CCH
The fuel that ushered in the Industrial Revolution still burns, but a new era beckons. Revolution was literally in the Beginning with the
city's 42-square-mile central limits, the government plans to establish coal-free zones, with local authorities helping residents switch
from coal to cleaner-burning natural gas. Beijing's move to banish what was known as "King Coal" in the nineteenth century in the
United States and Europe illustrates how perceptions of this fossilized substance have changed over time. A thousand years ago, China
fired coal in blast furnaces to produce the armor and arrowheads that defended its dynasties against outside invaders. But it was in the
West that coal was first burned in massive amounts, beginning in the eighteenth century. If the Industrial Revolution was "Prometheus
unbound," coal was the fire stolen from the gods that made it possible. With its production paralleling the rise of national powers, this
fossil fuel became synonymous with wealth and modernity in the nineteenth century. In his classic 1865 work, The Coal Question,
economist William Jevons went as far as to predict the collapse of the British Empire as its coal mines approached depletion. But
Prometheus paid clearly for his deed; chained to a mountaintop, he had his liver torn out daily by vultures. Likewise, the reign of King
Coal has not been without heavy costs: its use has left a legacy of human and environmental damage that we have only begun to assess.
At the close of the twentieth century, coal's smog-choked cityscapes are no longer the symbol of industrial opportunities and wealth that
they were 100 years ago. Instead, coal is increasingly recognized as a leading threat to human health, and one of the most
environmentally disruptive human activities. Indeed, the sun may be setting on the empire of coal. Its share of world energy, which
peaked at 62 percent in 1910, is now 23 percent and dropping. Although coal's market price has fallen 64 percent in the past 20 years to
a historical low of $32 per ton, global use is at its lowest in a decade, having fallen 2.1 percent in 1998. One reason for this decline is
that the price of dealing with coal's health and environmental toll - the "hidden cost" - is rising. And now King Coal's remaining
colonies find themselves confronted with a concern of the sort that bedeviled Jevons. This time, however, it is coal dependence - not
depletion - that is the potential threat to progress. Even so, the mirage of coal as a source of cheap energy continues to be a powerful
lure, and many countries have gone to great lengths to rationalize their reliance - suppressing information, compartmentalizing
problems, or socializing costs. Until now, the problems of coal have been treated with an "emergency room" approach: ecological
impacts have been addressed pollutant by pollutant, mine by mine; the health hazards, one urban crisis at a time. This narrow approach
has been an expensive one, both economically and environmentally, and has had perverse, unforeseen consequences: each time one of
coal's impacts is "mitigated," a more pervasive and chronic problem is created, exacerbating and spreading the fuel's negative effects out
over space and time. For example, towering smokestacks, built to alleviate local air pollution, created the problem of acid rain. And
efforts to curtail acid rain, in turn, are adding to greenhouse-gas emissions. Increasingly, human health, ecological, climatic, and
socioeconomic concerns are pushing us away from this piecemeal regulation - toward an end to the "end-of-pipe" approach. But for the
world to judge whether continued dependence on coal is viable, a more comprehensive examination is in order. After centuries of
treating coal like a first-time offender, there is a growing consensus that it is time to assess this fossil fuel in terms of its cumulative
offenses and to seriously weigh the benefits of replacing it with cleaner, and ultimately cheaper, alternatives.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Use Inevitable

Coal use is inevitable
Tucker 6, (Patrick, “Coal in the 21st Century: Technology Is Making a Dirty Fuel Look New” The Futurist, Vol. 40, September-October
2006) // CCH
With so much talk about hydrogen solar, wind, and other alternative fuels, few people realize that the world's principal source of
household energy remains the same as it was during the nineteenth century: coal. As the developing global economy hungers for more
electricity, and as countries like the United States put greater emphasis on energy independence, the world's use of coal will only
increase in the years ahead (around 1.5% per year, according to the World Coal Institute). If that increase isn't managed properly, the
effects could be disastrous. "The United States is more dependent on coal today than ever before. The average American consumes
about 20 pounds of it a day. We don't use it to warm our hearths anymore, but we burn it by wire whenever we flip on the light switch or
charge up our laptops," writes veteran journalist Jeff Goodell in his book, Big Coal: The Dirty Secret Behind America's Energy Future
(Houghton Mifflin, 2006). According to the World Coal Institute, 39% of the world's electricity comes from coal, and electricity use is
on the rise. Goodell points out that U.S. coal consumption rose to more than a billion tons in 2005, an increase of 1.9% over 2004 when
revenues for the industry stood at $260 billion. (By way of comparison, the rebuilding costs from Hurricane Katrina are estimated at
$200 billion.) Goodell sees increased use of energy-hungry computers and other high-tech gadgets as the key force driving energy (thus
coal) consumption in the United States. "We may not like to admit it, but our shiny white iPod economy is propped up by dirty black
rocks," he writes. The expanding high-tech gadget market is only one factor in the rise of coal usage worldwide.
Increase in Coal consumption is inevitable

The Washington Times 6, (Jeffrey Sparshott “International Demand Fuels Market for U.S. Coal” January 5, 2006) // CCH
The American coal industry, supported by burgeoning international demand for energy and continuing U.S. reliance on the fossil fuel for
electricity, has seen steadily rising sales, revenue and investment after almost 20 years of stagnation. "It is a thriving industry. We
produce more coal year in and year out than ever before. It is still one of our lowest-cost, if not the lowest-cost, source of energy," said
Trina Karolchik Wafle, associate director at National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University. A deadly
accident at a West Virginia coal mine this week underscored the dangerous work performed by tens of thousands of miners to keep
power plants and industries running worldwide. Coal-burning power plants produce about half of all electricity in the U.S.
Rising prices for natural gas, caused by strong demand and exacerbated by hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico this summer, has made
some gas-fired plants too expensive to operate. They account for 23 percent of U.S. electric-generating capacity but less than 18 percent
of output, according to the Energy Information Administration. Regulatory limits on nuclear energy, which generates almost 20 percent
of U.S. electricity, and technological barriers with other sources leave coal as one of the most cost-effective, if heavily polluting, sources
of energy. "Coal is still the predominant fuel used in generating electricity, and the demand for electricity continues to increase. Because
of that, the demand for coal will continue to increase for the foreseeable future," said Pat Hemlepp, spokesman for American Electric
Power, the largest U.S. coal consumer.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Use increasing Now

The coal industry continues to increase
Hall & Kirkham, 7 – natural resource attorneys with Stoel Rives LLP
(Richard R. Hall and John S. Kirkham, The Enterprise Newspaper, “Coal: Like It or Not, It's Here to Stay,” 6-1-2007,
www.stoel.com/showarticle.aspx?Show=2484) // JMP
Despite environmental concerns and the development of alternative energy sources, the coal industry (and coal consumption) is on the
rise, with no signs of slowing in the next few decades. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicates that U.S. coal
production in 2005 increased 1.9% to 1133.3 million short tons. This is the second straight year of increased production after significant
declines from 2001-2003. This trend is expected to continue. The EIA predicts that U.S. coal production will continue to increase by an
average of 1.1% each year until 2015, when total production will equal 1272 million short tons. Coal production growth should be even
stronger between 2015 and 2030, averaging 2% per year, as electricity demand continues to increase. This demand will likely be met
with new or expanded coal-fired power plants.
Coal is abundant and cheap to use
Coal, although a finite resource, is an abundant source of energy. Coal is widely distributed around the world – with mining activities in
over 50 countries. Coal is easy and safe to transport, ensuring supplies are readily available. In addition to being abundant, coal is
relatively cheap. Coal can provide usable energy at a cost of between $1 to $2 per MMBtu compared to $6 to $12 per MMBtu for oil
and natural gas. Moreover, coal resources are distributed in regions of the world other than the Persian Gulf. In contrast, oil and gas
reserves are mainly concentrated in regions that are prone to political unrest and economic uncertainty. In particular, the United States,
China and India, three of the world’s largest energy consumers, have immense coal reserves that are secure and readily accessible.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal - Use increasing Now
Coal use will increase – there is an abundance of it and its price is cheap and stable
Fields, 4 (Scott, Environmental Health Perspectives, “Coal: Poised for a Comeback?” November 2004, vol.112, no.15, p.4) // JMP
Coal could be called energy's comeback kid: sometimes forgotten, perhaps underappreciated, but always available for one more shot at
the big time. It is one of humankind s original sources of energy, and is used worldwide for cooking, heating, forging steel, and making
electricity. In the United States, coal's role today is limited almost exclusively to electricity generation; for the last decade or so, even
that use has stagnated. For years new power facilities that relied on coal were spurned in favor of natural gas, as American electric
companies were wooed by the cleaner-burning fossil fuel and its easier-to-site and cheaper-to-build power plants. Still, because so many
coal-fired plants were built before the natural gas craze, coal accounts for over 50% of our annual electric generation. And now many
energy experts say coal is poised to once again play a prominent role in the United States.
Coal does have an appeal. For one thing, there's plenty of it. It's located here in the United States, a comfort to those worried about the
political and security hazards of overdependence on imported energy. It's cheap. And its price is stable, at least compared to natural
gas.
But coal can be ugly, too. If left unchecked with inadequate emissions control, it can emit ash (which has been linked to human cancers
and gcnotoxic effects in some animal studies), sulfur dioxide (which contributes to acid rain), carbon dioxide (CO2; the chief culprit
behind global warming), nitrogen oxides (NO^sub x^; which can produce smog and low-lying ozone), and mercury (linked to disorders
in the kidneys and the nervous, digestive, and respiratory systems). Mining coal can also be a messy business, carving scars into the
Earth, releasing clouds of dust, leaving behind sources of acidic water thai can persist decades after a mine closes, and requiring
dams-"impoundments" in industry lingo-that sometimes break and ravage miles of waterways.
In coming years, however, what's right about coal will almost certainly overpower what's wrong, says Richard Gendreau, a senior
market consultant for R.W. Beck, a Framingham, Massachusetts, management consulting and engineering company. And what's wrong,
he says, will be made better by new technologies and more vigorous application of existing technologies. "The ultimate driver on all of
this," he says, "is that ninety-five percent of our fossil energy reserves-the amount of fossil energy that we have within our boundaries
that we can rely on for energy and economic security, as well as national security-is coal."
( ) Coal production and use is increasing – it provides cheaper and more stable energy supplies and expands employment
Herald-Dispatch, 4 (Pamela Brogan and Jean Tarbett, “Coal-fired Plants Raise Health Concerns,” 8-11-2004, www.herald-
dispatch.com/2004/August/11/LNspot.htm) // JMP
Despite health risks, public officials and communities across the nation are looking to coal to provide cheaper, more stable energy
supplies.
In 2003, coal costs for utilities were, on average, more than four times cheaper than natural gas, which produces less pollution. And the
cost of coal has remained relatively stable while natural gas prices have soared in the past few years.
Coal proponents also argue that it makes the United States less dependent on foreign fuel. The United States owns 250 years of coal
reserves.
"You are on your own, price spikes don’t affect you, and you aren’t subject to other people’s supply problems," said Katrina Sumey, an
economist for Platts energy research and consulting firm.
Other officials and communities say the utilities will bring jobs and economic development to financially depressed areas.
Hugh Sweatt, mayor of Central City, Ky., supports construction of a 1,500-megawatt coal-fired plant in his community.
"Clear and simple, it’s jobs," said Sweatt, who considers himself a conservationist. "It will be a boon to our community. About 150
people will work at the plant, and it will provide 400 to 600 mining jobs. What’s the solution, nuclear? At least we have the coal here.
We are not held hostage by a Middle East country."
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Electricity Demand
Electricity demand is driving greater coal use
The demand for coal in Utah and nationally follows demand for electricity, which continues to grow with increases in population and
greater electricity usage on an individual basis. The EIA projects that U.S. domestic consumption of coal for all uses will total 1150
million shorts tons in 2006, of which 1058 million short tons, or 92%, will be consumed at electric utility plants. Future projections
show a continued increase in demand by an average of 1.8% per year through 2030.
Alternative means of electricity production are actively being pursued to reduce global reliance on coal. These alternatives, however,
have had only limited success. For instance, in the United States, where coal is used almost exclusively to generate electricity, the chief
alternative to coal is cleaner, natural gas. During the 1990s, the price of natural gas averaged below $3 per thousand cubic feet. These
low prices made new, low-cost, efficient natural gas combined cycle power plants competitive with coal-generated power. As a result of
the lower prices and environmental concerns, the electric power sector shifted to increased natural gas use. Since 2000, natural gas
prices have increased and are projected to remain above $3 per thousand cubic feet, making coal-fired plants increasingly more
competitive. Based on the current forecasts, coal will retain its competitive advantage over natural gas for the foreseeable future. This
has resulted in a swing back toward greater reliance on coal. Consistent with this shift, the Department of Energy recently reported that
U.S. utilities are planning to build 150 more coal-fired power plants through 2030, with nearly half slated for operation by 2011.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Wyoming

Coal demand is up – Wyoming is key
AP December 7, 2007 JRC
The continuing railroad delivery problems aren't the whole story because utilities all across the country are burning more coal. Last year,
coal consumption nationwide increased 1.9 percent, to 1.13 billion tons, according to a report from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Wyoming produced 406.4 million tons of that to remain the leading coal-producing state in the nation, and Montana's
mines added 40.4 million tons. Those numbers are likely to be up again this year. BNSF and UP said this week they loaded a record
average of 67.1 coal trains per day last month on the 102 miles of rail coming out of the southern Powder River Basin they own jointly.
The previous record of 66.5 trains per day was set in June. UP also said its tonnage per train was increasing. More than 350 million tons
of coal will be carried across the joint Powder River line this year, Omaha, Neb., based UP said. That's up from about 325 million tons
last year, and the railroads predict a similar jump in 2007.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – More Coal Coming Now

Lack of energy will be filled by coal
AP March 23, 2006 (Boston Globe, “Utility Officials Ponder Coal, Nuclear Plants)//JRC
Facing a worsening crunch in the supply of electricity, soaring prices, and rolling blackouts, top New England utility officials are
thinking about some once-unthinkable solutions: more coal and nuclear power. Officially, no proposals for new nuclear reactors or coal-
fueled power plants are in the works. But in an interview with the Globe, Gordon van Welie, chief executive of Independent System
Operator New England, which runs the six-state power grid, broached the idea of coal and nuclear plants along with better conservation
and wind power as steps the region, overly reliant on natural gas, must consider to stave off a power crisis. "We don't want coal. We
don't want nuclear power. We don't want windmills off the coast of Massachusetts. We don't want windmills in Vermont," van Welie
said. "We don't want any of that stuff, but then once you've made that decision, acknowledge what the costs are. You can't have it both
ways." To many environmentalists, coal and nuclear remain nonstarters. But as ISO New England girds for the possibility of having to
impose Third World-style rolling blackouts as soon as the summer of 2008 to stretch out insufficient electric supplies, van Welie said,
regional officials must "start tackling the resource mix issue." That refers to New England's much heavier reliance on gas and oil and
less on coal and nuclear power than other regions, for producing electricity.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Industry Success

The coal industry is doing well now—it’s never been more profitable.
Herald Tribune, 8 (“Coal’s rise helps Tamps businesses”, 6 June 2008,
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080606/NEWS/806060484/-1/newssitemap)
Coal mining has never been more lucrative. The price of coal, a major ingredient in the production of electricity and steel, has doubled
since January, pushing the stock prices and earnings of U.S. coal producers to new highs. The reason: Steel makers in developing
countries have increased production to record levels and disruptions in global coal production have created a coal market that
is undersupplied. In just five months, spot prices for U.S. coal have surged from about $55 a ton to more than $100. The booming
international coal market means demand for U.S. coal may reach a record 1.22 billion tons this year. Two Tampa companies, Walter
Industries Inc. and TECO Energy Corp., are benefiting from the historical surge in coal prices. Both are major producers of
metallurgical coal, which is used in steel production and is in high demand in countries such as India and China. "The demand from
India and China has affected the global supply of this product," said Victor Patrick, vice chairman and chief financial officer of
Walter Industries. As the price soars for metallurgical coal -- a higher-quality, hotter-burning coal -- other types that can be used to make
steel are being sold in the higher-priced metallurgical coal market. As a result, prices for all types of coal have skyrocketed. "Any coal
anywhere that can be used as a met coal is being pulled into the met coal market," Patrick said. "The growth of the steel industry in
China and Brazil has been enormous." This week, coal industry analyst David Khani raised his 2009 price forecast for metallurgical coal
to $250 a ton from $130 a ton. Although producers are ramping up production of metallurgical coal, supplies will remain tight through
next year amid stronger-than-expected demand for steel, said the Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group analyst. This year, supply contracts
at Walter Industries range from $135 a ton to more than $315 a ton, for an average of $209 a ton. That is up from an average of $101 a
ton last year. Although coal prices are expected to drop as producers replenish supplies, industry experts say the cost of coal will remain
strong, citing rapid industrial growth in China, India and Brazil.
Coal Disadvantages

Even with the recent popularity of environmental action, the coal industry is still doing well.
Charlier, 8 (Tom, Red Orbit News, “Coal-Burning Plants Enjoying Resurgence—But Boom in Old Fuel Source Generates Global-
Warming Concerns”, 24 June 2008,
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1446638/coalburning_plants_enjoying_resurgence__but_boom_in_old_fuel/)
<For all the recent talk of a nuclear-power resurgence and all the climate-change rhetoric in the current presidential race, the smoke
stack of the Plum Point power station rises like a 465-foot-tall exclamation mark to a very contrary proposition: Coal is still king.
Located just 40 miles north of Memphis, the unfinished power plant could become the largest generating facility built in the Mid- South
in more than a generation.
The first 665-megawatt unit, costing $1.3 billion, will begin generating power for utilities in eight states two years from now. And a
proposed second unit would boost the output to 1,330 megawatts - 75 percent larger than that of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Allen
Fossil Plant in Memphis. Plum Point is part of a national and worldwide boom in coal- fired generating facilities. At least 27 coal units
are under construction nationwide, with perhaps 150 more proposed, and frenetically growing countries such as China and India are
adding generators at a dizzying pace.
"Electrical demand continues to grow, and coal provides relatively low-cost electricity on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a- week basis,"
said Eric Crawford, assistant vice president of LS Power Development, the New Jersey-based firm that's helping build the Plum Point
plant along with Houston-based Dynegy Inc. But the boom comes despite intractable environmental drawbacks and mounting political
pressure against coal as an energy source.>
The Coal industry is flourishing, but environmental concerns could stop its usage.
Peeks, 6/23/08. (Edward. Writer for the Charleston Gazette. “Coal abundant, but pollution fight remains”).
http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/EdwardPeeks/200806230587?page=2&build=cache//DMS
< Boone County alone has enough coal to supply the energy needs of the nation for the next 100 years, according to Ken Hechler,
former congressman and West Virginia secretary of state. Hechler made the observation during a previous energy crunch, although
gasoline wasn't $4 a gallon at the pump and still rising as it is this time around. Yet, the crunch hurt in the broken string of energy crises
since the Middle East oil embargo in the early 1970s. The off-and-on problem must strike many West Virginians and other folks as déjà
vu and surely as something overly or unpleasantly familiar. Truth to tell, the abundance of coal in the Mountain State and other coal-
producing states remains an undisputed national asset in an energy-hungry world recognized by Hechler and other observers.> True also
is the problem of mining coal safely and responsibly, coupled with the ever-growing challenge to convert coal into liquid fuels. The
challenge is to make coal cleaner to burn and more environmentally friendly. As for mining, organizations like the Sierra Club, Coal
River Mountain Watch and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy have turned up the heat on mountaintop removal mining. They
oppose destruction of forests and streams. Earlier this month, the West Virginia Democratic State Convention wrestled with the issue.
Delegates voted down a resolution to freeze permits for new mountaintop removal sites. Young Democrats backing the resolution said
that wasn't the end of the matter. During the first administration of Gov. Jay Rockefeller, the administration sent up a trial balloon
proposing to ban strip mining, period. The coal industry and its allies quickly shot it down.
Around that time, coal operator Tracy Hylton was credited with effecting mountaintop removal mining in the Southern West Virginia
coalfields. A story was that in the first banner year, Hylton gave new Cadillacs as Christmas presents to staff and assorted colleagues.
Coal conversion to liquid fuels was part of the scene in past energy crunches and in the experience of déjà vu. Pilots demonstrated that
such fuel would power vehicles and otherwise generate electricity. Union Carbide, for instance, developed a pilot project in South
Charleston. So did Consol Energy in Pennsylvania. But it was something else again to make coal liquid fuels competitive in the market
with then relatively cheaper oil and natural gas at that time. One of the latest national calls for energy independence came from Rep.
Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., sponsor of the Clean Coal-Derived Fuel for Energy Security Act. "The worldwide demand for energy is
enormous," Capito said. "We've got to have true energy independence and we should be using American resources of energy. Coal is one
of the most abundant resources and any comprehensive energy policy must include coal."
Coal Disadvantages
The Coal Industry doing well now but may be on the brink
Wall Street Journal, 8 (“Coal Producers Struggle to Meet Demand”, 24 June 2008,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121426607541798571.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
<U.S. coal producers have been largely unable to meet growing demand because of a lengthy permitting process, lack of capital
investment and a shortage of skilled miners, which will keep supplies tight and prices high.
industrywide issues are compounded by severe floods in the Midwest, which have stranded barges full of coal and submerged railcars
used to haul coal. It isn't clear what impact those interruptions will have on supplies and prices.
Paul Forward, a coal analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., expects demand for coal in the U.S. to outstrip supply this year by 15 million
tons, in large part because of the increase in exports, which shot up 49% through April compared with last year. Constraints to
production also played a role in the growing shortfall, he said.
Limited Supply Response "Despite the strong margins that coal companies are seeing, the supply response has so far been limited," said
Mr. Forward. "I think it's probably a couple years worth of time where these markets stay tight."Up to 40 million tons of potential and
anticipated coal production is being held back because of delays in obtaining environmental permits and new safety regulations,
estimates David Khani, director of research at FBR Capital Markets Inc. in Arlington, Va. While 40 million tons doesn't seem significant
given that the U.S. produced 1.15 billion tons of coal last year, even small shifts in supply can have a big impact on price. The reason,
analysts say, is that a large percentage of coal supply is tied up in multiyear contracts, so there is little slack to make up for production
shortfalls. That could force some utilities to buy coal at current high spot-market prices and pass some of those costs on to consumers.
"People are going to get sticker shock when they open their electricity bills this summer and next summer," said Mr. Khani. Price
increases will depend on rules in individual states and on the hedging strategies of utilities.>
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Key Source
Coal is the number one source of electricity in the U.S.
Charlier, 6/24/08. (Tom. Coal-Burning Plants Enjoying Resurgence -- But Boom in Old Fuel Source Generates Global- Warming
Concerns, http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1446638/coalburning_plants_enjoying_resurgence__but_boom_in_ol d_fuel//DMS)
OSCEOLA, Ark. - For all the recent talk of a nuclear-power resurgence and all the climate-change rhetoric in the current presidential
race, the smoke stack of the Plum Point power station rises like a 465-foot-tall exclamation mark to a very contrary proposition: Coal is
still king. Located just 40 miles north of Memphis, the unfinished power plant could become the largest generating facility built in the
Mid- South in more than a generation. The first 665-megawatt unit, costing $1.3 billion, will begin generating power for utilities in eight
states two years from now. And a proposed second unit would boost the output to 1,330 megawatts - 75 percent larger than that of the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Allen Fossil Plant in Memphis. Plum Point is part of a national and worldwide boom in coal- fired
generating facilities. At least 27 coal units are under construction nationwide, with perhaps 150 more proposed, and frenetically growing
countries such as China and India are adding generators at a dizzying pace. "Electrical demand continues to grow, and coal provides
relatively low-cost electricity on a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a- week basis," said Eric Crawford, assistant vice president of LS Power
Development, the New Jersey-based firm that's helping build the Plum Point plant along with Houston-based Dynegy Inc. But the boom
comes despite intractable environmental drawbacks and mounting political pressure against coal as an energy source. Not only do coal
plants aggravate smog problems and release dangerous particulate pollution, they are the source of roughly one- third of all U.S.
emissions of carbon dioxide, a so-called greenhouse gas implicated in climate change. That's why environmentalists and scientists
worried about global warming view projects like Plum Point as ill-advised. "If they build all 1,300 megawatts, it will be one of the
biggest new sources of global-warming pollution in the U.S. in the last 30 years," said Bruce Nilles, director of the Sierra Club's
national coal campaign. Facilities like Plum Point also could bear the brunt of proposals aimed at controlling carbon emissions. The
presumed presidential candidates for the two major parties - Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama - both support cap-
and-trade systems that could require polluters to obtain credits giving them the the right to emit excessive amounts of carbon.
Since coal-fired plants are major emitters of carbon, the cap- and-trade systems could force them to pay substantial sums to buy the
credits necessary to meet the caps. Those costs likely would be passed on to ratepayers. "The 800-pound gorilla in the room with coal
obviously is global- warming gases," said Stephen A. Smith, executive director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, a Knoxville-
based group advocating alternative power sources, conservation and similar measures. The environmental concerns associated with coal
have helped fuel forecasts for a resurgence in nuclear power, which isn't a major source of greenhouse gases. In fact, more than two
dozen reactors are planned in 15 states. But nuclear projects remain plagued by issues ranging from high costs to safety and terrorism
concerns. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn't approved a construction license for a new reactor in 30 years. As a consequence,
coal-fired plants continue to generate half of the nation's electricity. And even as demand for power is projected to grow by almost one-
third by 2025, coal's share of the load should increase to 54 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. "That's a growing
share of a growing market," said Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, a coal-industry trade group.Industry
officials and representatives of the Plum Point project say there are valid reasons for the continued use of the fuel. Foremost are
availability and cost considerations. The U.S. has 27 percent of the world's known coal reserves, meaning no imported fuel is needed.
And although the cost of coal has doubled in the past year, the plants burning it remain cheaper to build and operate than nuclear
reactors and natural gas-fired plants. "What this fuel source gives you is an affordable solution, one that's entirely U.S.-based. And it's
extremely reliable," said Dynegy spokesman David Byford.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Key Source

Coal is the main source of energy in the status quo, but it’s only a matter of time before we run out.
Loa, 6/25/08. (Juan. Senior Student, Ateneo de Iloilo “Try Coal”.) http://www.thenewstoday.info/2008/06/25/try.coal.html//DMS
<Economic prices, even though hard to admit, have been rapidly increasing almost every quarter of the year. But sad to say income still
remained as it is for a typical average employee. With the insufficient budget it is just enough for one to be able to pay all his bills –
from water consumption, daily necessities, transportation, and not to forget our ever increasing and well in demand electric
consumption. As we continue to live everyday, these payments too continue to deflate in a shockingly sooner pace compared to what we
thought. And along with the low salary and expensive necessities we are forced to find ways to further be able to sustain our unlimited
wants and needs, at the same time we are to be able to afford and still enjoy society's pleasures. Energy consumption and allocation is
just one of the few crises we are continually faced with. With the number of population we have now, our energies aren't enough to
sustain us all. Coal has been and still is used throughout the developed world of fuel transportation, electricity generation, industrial
power needs, and household heating. This fossil fuel extracted from the ground or surface mining is the largest single source of
electricity consumed world-wide.>
Even if coal is unpopular among the public, the coal industry is doing well because of the necessity of it.
Washington Post, 8 (“Debating Coal’s Cost in Rural Va.”, 25 June 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401552.html)
<If it were possible to build a coal-fueled power plant in Virginia without controversy, it would happen here. In the state's Appalachian
southwest, there is coal in the hills, coal in the rail cars, and coal in family histories that stretch back to picks and shovels. Apparently,
it's not possible. "I am opposed to this plant," Wise County resident Jaculyn Hanrahan told the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board on
Tuesday. "Because I am opposed to respiratory illness, smog, neurotoxins and acid rain." Dominion Virginia Power wants to build a
large coal-fired plant in a mountain hollow here to meet statewide demand pushed upward by Northern Virginia's air conditioners,
laptop computers and other electrical devices. The utility has been met by strong opposition, however, fed by a region-wide hostility to
new power projects and a national backlash against the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with coal. On Tuesday, people in a high
school auditorium argued a question that would have seemed ridiculous to their grandparents: Should coal be burned for power in
Virginia coalfields? "This plant will be the greatest thing to come to Wise County in our lifetimes," said Gerald Collins, a local mining
engineer. "I don't want to pay a higher cost for electricity just because somebody thinks that coal is dirty." Dominion's proposal calls for
a 585-megawatt plant, big enough to power 146,000 homes, to be built on an old strip-mine site in this hilly region near the Kentucky
border.
The plant has been approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission, the state's utility regulator. Now it faces a major hurdle:
requesting a pair of air-pollution permits from the air pollution control board. That board heard testimony Tuesday, and could announce
its decision as early as today. The Dominion plant's fuel would come largely from Appalachia, but most of its electricity would not stay
in that area. Instead, Dominion officials said much of the electrical power would be sent more than 375 miles away, to highly wired
Northern Virginia. The company's demand for electricity is expected to grow 20 percent in 10 years, with much of that coming from the
Washington area. Dominion officials said there is no feasible way to meet the demand without burning fuel to produce energy. By
comparison, it might take 875 wind turbines, at a much greater cost, to provide the same amount of power as this single coal plant. "You
just wouldn't be able to do enough wind to meet our energy supply" needs, said Pamela Faggert, Dominion's chief environmental
officer. Dominion plans to lessen the environmental impact by someday adding technology that captures greenhouse gases before they
escape, Faggert said, adding that those technologies do not yet exist on a commercial scale.>
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – U.S. Reliance Now
The U.S. will continue to heavily rely on the coal industry.
AP, 6/25/08. (Associated Press. “Report projects energy, fossil fuel use to grow”).
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUMV8UJoaN5q_kTW2qE60EkyYQZQD91H44V80//DMS
WASHINGTON (AP) — A government report says global energy demand will grow by 50 percent over the next two decades despite
high oil prices. And the world's heavy reliance on environmentally troublesome fossil fuels — especially coal and oil — will continue.
The report out Wednesday is the Energy Department's long-term energy outlook. It assumes no action will be taken to limit global
warming. With such energy growth, the report says, the annual amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere will
be 51 percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago. The report predicts that global energy use will increase sharply even though oil
will be over $100 a barrel in 2030, possibly as high as $186 a barrel.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Peak will occur

Peak Coal will occur by 2025.
Zeus Development Corp. 6/23/08. (“Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) Potential Eases Peak-Coal Fear, Conference to Discuss”).
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=871635//DMS
HOUSTON, TX--(Marketwire - June 23, 2008) - Peak coal could occur worldwide as early as 2025 at total recoverable reserves of 6.4
billion tons in one estimate and in 2030 at 8.3 billion tons in another forecast. The concept of peak coal is as real as peak oil or peak
natural gas.
At least 20 nations including the UK, Germany and Japan have already passed peak coal. Some major coal-producing nations have a
relatively young coal industry that is only in the beginning of their production curves.
Some analysts are pessimistic about future world coal production, while strong arguments are also made that world coal resources and
production potential are underestimated. Underground coal gasification (UCG) can remove the uncertainty. UCG will develop more
global reserves using in-situ conversion of stranded coal deposits into power, fuels, chemicals and other products. Nearly 85% of known
coal reserves are unmineable with surface mining techniques, but UCG is producing fuels and hydrocarbon feedstock today from
unrecoverable coal deposits.
Countries are turning to UCG to fully utilize their coal resources in an economically viable and environmentally acceptable manner.
Using UCG technology even without a CCS plan could also be eligible for carbon credits.
UCG will be needed to ensure there is enough reliable supply for power generation and transportation fuels. UCG can also easily be
converted to substitute natural gas for use in chemical and fertilizer production.
The technology allows nations that are endowed with coal to use this resource as a strategic energy base for industrial expansion and to
disconnect from the world's crude-oil-based system that is dictating the price of fuel.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Profits High

The coal industry is doing well now.
Nichols, 8 (Bruce, Reuters, “Current U.S. coal bool likely to last: experts”,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKN2625742720080626?sp=true)
Unlike previous U.S. coal booms, the current one is likely to last because of persistent world demand and output problems in other
producing countries, an industry analyst said Thursday. Jim Griffin, managing director of Rothschild Inc, told the 2008 McCloskey Coal
USA conference that some factors in today's coal market resemble the boom-bust cycle of the 1980s, such as strong Asian demand and a
weak dollar. But now is different, he said, citing the difficulty of expanding coal production amid regulatory, labor and financing
challenges. He also cited the breadth of world economic growth that is driving persistent coal demand. "I do not believe this cycle will
end like the last," Griffin said.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Prices High

Coal in China has become increasingly expensive despite the cap.
Shen, 6/25/08 (“China Coal-Spot coal price jumps despite price freeze”.)
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINSHA27482420080625?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0//DMS
SHANGHAI, June 25 (Reuters) - The spot coal price in China jumped to a record high on Wednesday despite a government order last
week to cap thermal coal prices, as supply tightened with the arrival of the peak summer consumption season. The benchmark spot
price for top grade 5,800 kcal/kg coal at Qinhuangdao, the country's top coal shipping port, jumped 40 yuan, or 4 percent, on
Wednesday to 950-960 yuan ($138.40-139.80) per tonne, more than doubling from a year earlier. "It is already the peak season. Prices
would rise anyway, with or without the price cap order," said an analyst at a large state-owned securities firm, who declined to be
named. China last Thursday announced a cap on thermal coal prices through the end of the year at the June 19 level, while hiking
diesel, gasoline and jet fuel prices immediately and raising retail electricity tariffs beginning on July 1. Analysts and traders believed
the price cap would be temporary and would not change the upward trend in the coal price. "Traders expect prices to go up, so they are
reluctant to release their coal stocks, which has caused a fall in available coal inventories on the market," said Chen Liang, an analyst at
Ping An Securities. Some traders said the price cap, which only applies to mine mouth prices and leaves plenty of leeway for evasion
by miners and traders, nevertheless had helped slow the rise in coal prices. "Without the price capping policy, it would rise faster," said
a Qinhuangdao-based trader. Movement on the Daqin railway, which links Shanxi, the top coal-producing province, to Qinhuangdao,
has been slowed since early June by annual maintenance work, said industrial officials and traders. "Coal transportation has declined
due to the maintenance work, which shuts down the railway for three hours a day," said the Qinhuangdao-based trader. But some
industrial officials said the routine maintenance would not seriously affect thermal coal supplies, as capacity on the line had been
increased. "Transportation capacity on the Daqin route has increased by 50 million tonnes this year, to 350 million tonnes," said Liang
Dunshi, deputy secretary general of the China Coal Transportation and Distribution Association. ($1=6.866 Yuan) (Reporting by Rujun
Shen; Editing by Edmund Klamann)
The price of coal in China is souring at an alarming rate.
Lazzaro, 2/12/08. (Joseph holds an ABD/Ph.D. in American Government and International Economics from the University of
Connecticut. “Coal's price is surging on China demand”) http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/02/12/coals-price-is-surging-higher-on-
china-demand//DMS
Asia prices are up more than 30% this year, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday (subscription required), due mostly to China's net
importer status. China had been a net exporter of coal, but in mid-2007 it imported coal for the first time. Coal is trading above $125 per
metric ton. In 2003 it traded at about $25 per metric ton. Since January 2007 alone, coal is up more than 140%. U.S. coal suppliers
have benefited from the run-up: Arch Coal (NYSE: ACI) is up about 90% since August 2007; ACI was down about $1.50 to $53.32 in
Tuesday afternoon trading. Meanwhile, Peabody Energy (NYSE: BTU) is up about 45% since August 2007; BTU fell 40 cents to $56.12
on Tuesday afternoon. Electric rates rise About 40% of coal is used as fuel in coal-fired electric generating plants, according to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Economist Glen Langan told BloggingStocks Tuesday electric utility rates -- already up more
than 15% since 2007 in many sections of the United States -- are likely to continue to rise in the years ahead, because despite efforts by
the Chinese government to slow its economy, China's coal demand is likely to continue to increase by more than 5% annually, perhaps
more, in the immediate years ahead. Langan also noted that coal demand is rising elsewhere, too, including Russia and the U.S. "China
doesn't have the mechanisms in place to have electric companies switch from coal-fired generation to natural gas-fired as we do in many
places in the U.S., so the short-term outlook for coal's price is not good. And that means electricity prices in the U.S. are likely to rise in
those areas that use primarily coal-fired plants," Langan said. Langan said economists and analysts originally had theorized that coal
would remain the low-cost energy substitute -- an alternative and a "cost escape valve" as oil prices surged first over $60, then over $70
and $80 per barrel. That has not been the case. "What we've seen is that the demand-pull effect on prices that drove oil to high levels is
happening in coal," Langan said. "Global demand, especially increased demand in Asia, is driving coal's price massively higher, and it's
happening in other commodities, such as copper, and in food stuffs, such as corn, wheat and soy beans."
Coal Disadvantages

The price for coal in China is record high.
INTERFAX-CHINA, 5/14/08. (“Low coal supply major factor behind record prices”.) http://www.chinamining.org/News/2008-05-
14/1210729493d13695.html
Record-high prices for coal in China are largely due to limited supplies on the domestic market, an analyst told Interfax today.
"Another reason is the government's previous control in the domestic coal industry," said Li Chaolin, an analyst with the China
Coal Trade and Development Association. Government control in the industry has had several effects, including limiting output by
imposing environmental and safety regulations and discouraging production, especially among independent coal producers, through
price caps. It is unusual to see the price of coal rise so dramatically during this time of year, when few people are using electricity
consuming heaters or air conditioners. With the drought season over and hydropower plants beginning post-winter operations,
market consensus says that domestic demand should be lower, not higher. "Coal price is influenced by supply and demand," Li said.
"When coal supply cannot meet demand, a rise in coal price is inevitable." According to recent market rumors, some Chinese coal
companies have limited their coal output so as to raise coal prices. Statistics from Qinghuangdao Port, China's largest coal trans-
shipment port, show that the price for Datang Premium Blend coal was up yesterday by RMB 20 ($2.86) per ton week-on-week at
RMB 690 ($98.73), its highest price ever on the Chinese coal market. Coal prices in Qinghuangdao Port are considered benchmark
prices for Chinese steam coal.
The price of coal is steadily increasing in China.
The Wall Street Journal, 2/13/08. (“China demand sees coal price soar”.)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23204577-5005200,00.html//DMS
CHINA is doing for coal what it once did for oil: helping push prices to new highs, adding more pressure to the creaking global
economy. The east Asian giant has long been a huge supplier of coal to itself and the rest of the world. But in the first half of last year, it imported more than it exported for the first time, setting off a near doubling of
most coal prices around the world. The surging prices were given a further boost late last month when a winter of punishing snowstorms and power shortages led Beijing to suspend coal exports for at least two months. Since
then Asian prices have shot up a further 34 per cent. Last week, coal benchmarks hit all-time highs in the US, Europe and Asia. "The velocity of the change has been remarkable," says Tom Hoffman, senior vice-president for
external affairs for US-based coal supplier Consol Energy, which he says is considering holding off on some commitments to supply coal to see if prices rise even further. The result is similar to what happened after China
the Chinese factor is unfolding much faster with coal. It wasn't until China's industrial development shifted into overdrive this decade that the nation
became a net importer of oil in 1993 but
.
began to shake global petroleum markets. Oil's big price surge came after widespread brownouts in China in 2004 forced factories there to buy diesel fuel for backup generators, increasing the country's foreign oil demand
China's need for coal is rising as other factors around the world are putting severe strain on supply. Flooding at major mines in Australia since mid-January has
dramatically stunted a major coal producer's exports to Asian markets. Power shortages and blackouts in South Africa amid rising demand there have curtailed exports to Europe. In Russia, another major coal producer, rail-car
shortages have frustrated attempts to meet growing world demand. Demand is rising quickly elsewhere. Japan, one of the world's biggest importers, is burning even more coal since an earthquake damaged a nuclear reactor last
year, doubling one utility's coal intake. Longer-term pressure comes from India, which has mounted a major expansion of coal-fired electricity plants that is driving up the country's coal imports despite its large reserves.
Indonesia has been moving during the past year or so to divert more of its coal stores to domestic use, as the coal industry there has been depleting its higher-quality coal reserves. Even US coal producers are increasing exports
to Europe, as buyers who for years were uninterested in American coal are now scrounging for supply. "There's a butterfly effect", with issues inside China pushing up demand and prices for the fuel from other coal-producing
Thermal coal prices at Newcastle,

nations, says Vic Svec, a senior executive at coal producer Peabody Energy. "Demand from Beijing can ripple back to Queensland or Gillette, Wyoming," in the US.
an Asian price benchmark, jumped to $US125 a tonne on Monday, according to the Global Coal international trading platform. That was
up 34 per cent since January 25 and up 143 per cent from January 2007. Some experts say coal prices could remain high or even keep
rising through 2009 or beyond, weighing on the already slowing world economy. Coal now fuels about 40 per cent of the world's
electricity production. Its share of the world's energy diet is rising even though it is a leading source of greenhouse gases. That could
help keep its price up in a recession.
Coal Disadvantages

Coal prices in China increased by 20% in the last month.
The Economic Times, 6/20/08. (“China freezes coal prices to avert power crisis”)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International_Business/China_freezes_coal_prices_to_avert_power_crisis/articleshow/3147
356.cms//DMS
BEIJING: China's decision to freeze thermal coal prices is an attempt to avert possible power shortages this summer, but could
exacerbate the situation if coal miners decide to curb supply further. Late on Thursday night, China said it would cap thermal coal
prices at Thursday's level through the end of the year, while hiking diesel, gasoline and jet fuel prices immediately and electricity tariffs
beginning July 1. Some power generators had faced a cash flow problem, as they were unable to pass on rising coal prices to power
consumers, the National Development and Reform Commission said. Coal supply had been hampered by severe diesel shortages,
which impeded coal delivery and drove up haulage rates as trucks queuing for diesel effectively created a shortage in transport capacity,
said industry expert Michael Komesaroff of Urandaline Investments. But coal miners, certain that prices would continue to rise, had
also held back supplying power plants at lower, term prices. Their reluctance, and power generators' preference for keeping as few
pricey stocks as possible, made the system vulnerable to disruption. Peak power shortfalls due to fuel shortages threatened to reach as
high as 6 gigawatts this summer in Guangdong, whose export-oriented factories have powered China's economy for over two decades,
an official with China Southern Power Grid Corp. told Reuters on Thursday. And most power firms in the poor and arid Northwest,
where China is promoting industrial development, were losing money after coal prices jumped 20 percent this month, the Shanghai
Securities News said on Friday.
The price of coal has reached record highs this June.
Coal Gossip.com, 6/17/08. (“China to Raise Price of Electricity”). http://coalgossip.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/china-to-raise-price-of-

electricity//DMS
The National Development and Reform Commission, other government departments and the head of major electricity enterprises
recently held a conference and discussed the price of electricity. The power enterprises have proposed that the Chinese Government
should raise the price three times if it is to close the current power price gap of RMB0.05/kWh. Although the Chinese Government
released a notice in May requiring that small-scale coal mines resume operations as soon as possible, the price of coal has been surging
since the beginning of June. For example, the price of Datong quality mix coal at Qinhuangdao Port with calorific value of
6,000kcag/kg GAR stood at RMB820/t on June 10th, marking a new record. At the same time, due to the significant increase in the
price of coal on the market, some coal enterprises have broken their key electrical coal contracts signed with power enterprises at the
beginning of the year and have raised the contractual coal price. Chinese power enterprises to incur total losses of RMB2.7bn. Wang
Yonggan, spokesman of the China Electricity Council, also pointed out that the power supply shortage during the peak summer period
will hit 10 million kW.
Coal prices in China have significantly increased since May.
The Epoch Times, 6/9/08. (“Administrative Regulation Could Trigger Coal Price Increase in China”). http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-
6-9/71557.html//DMS
Since May, coal prices have increased. For instance, the coal price in Datong, Shanxi Province was 25.7 percent higher than at the
beginning of this year. On May 20, every ton of coal generating 6,000 kilocalories of heat cost 460 yuan (approximately US$ 65), which
is twice as much as the same period last year.
Coal Disadvantages

The price of coal in China is at a record high and will continue to rise.
ChinaStakes.com, 7/1/08. (“China's Regulated Power Squeezed by Surging Coal Prices”).

http://www.chinastakes.com/story.aspx?id=293//DMS
China’s ever-rising coal prices and the stalled government-controlled electricity price are putting pressure on power generators, and
companies are losing money. The five biggest power producers have been urging an upgrading of the coal-electricity linkage policy for
some time. The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is said to be studying the question but so far coal goes up
while electricity prices remain the same. While coal prices have been left to market determination, the price of electricity is under strict
regulation. Naturally, coal prices have been rising these years. Since the 2002 marketization of coal, the price of coal used to generate
electricity has increased from 110 yuan per ton in 2002 to nearly 950 yuan now, and in some regions, the price has reached 1000 yuan
per ton. Taiyuan’s coal companies, affected by the price hike of raw materials and the shortage of supply, have increased their coke
prices by 100 yuan to 200 yuan per ton. Many miners are now selling their first level coke at over 2000 yuan per ton. General manager
Lu Qizhou of China Power Investment Corporation says that the company’s price for coal increased 35 yuan per ton on average in 2007,
and in some regions, the price increased 65 yuan per ton, resulting in a 1.968 billion yuan rise in annual production costs. According to
contracts with coal companies this year, the price of coal will rise another 40.12 yuan per ton, bringing an energy cost increase of more
than 4 billion yuan. China Power Investment Corporation’s 2007 annual profit was 4.5 billion yuan. Li Xiaolin, the general manager of
China Power International Development, claims that coal and electricity use, the construction of power plants and the allocation of coal
resources have not been optimized. She suggests that the government should try to create a harmonious and healthy environment in the
coal and electricity sector by paying special attention to financial resources and market entry threshold, encouraging collaboration
between the two industries, and increasing the amount of electricity produced from coal per unit. Currently the five biggest power
producers, including big regional power plants, have sped up their collaboration with coal enterprises. Most of them have become coal
firm shareholders, but as coal prices rise, acquisition will become the focus of some power producers, starting with relatively small coal
operations. “The coal price has increased 8.9% this year, further narrowing margins for power producers,” says Wang Yonggan, the
general secretary of the China Electricity Council. In recent years, profit growth in the electricity industry has lagged behind that of
industrial enterprises. This year, the increase is predicted to be 20%, below the 38% level of other industrial firms.
Coal prices in China are at a record high.
The Financial Express, 2/27/08. (“Rise in Chinese coking coal price in March may hit India”).
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Rise-in-Chinese-coking-coal-price-in-March-may-hit-India/277831//DMS
Chinese domestic coking coal prices are expected to rise $14 per tonne next month, which could trigger problems for the Indian steel
industry whose demand for coke is expected to touch 85.34 million metric tons by 2011-12. “Chinese domestic coking coal prices are
expected to rise by 100 yuan ($14) per tonne for March delivery, pushed up by strong demand for coke,” the Metal Bulletin reported.
Coal producers in China are talking about raising prices next month in the face of strong demand as steel mills gradually ramp up
production after the snowstorms, it quoted Chinese trading sources as saying. Currently, coking coal is transacting at 1,300-1,400 yuan
per tonne in Shanxi province, China’s largest coal and coke producer. This is double the price paid in the middle of last year. Indian
Steel Alliance sources said that rise in Chinese coking coal prices could generate problems for the Indian steel industry as domestic
firms are considerably dependent on the neighbouring country for coke. Recent force majeure announcements by BHP Billiton and Rio
Tinto at several hard coking coal mines in Queensland, Australia, have also seriously affected many Asian steel mills and caused a
global shortage of coking coal supply.
Coal Disadvantages

China’s demand cannot keep up with its supply, which is causing uncontrollable increases in coal prices.
Chandler, 5/25/08. (Marc: Writer for THE STREET: Real Money. “China Demand Will Keep Coal Prices High”).
http://www.thestreet.com/p/rmoney/energy/10358876.html//DMS
Non-oil energy commodities are gaining momentum as countries search for alternatives. China's booming economy and its near
unquenchable thirst for energy threaten not only to underpin the price of oil, but coal as well. China is the world's largest producer and
consumer of coal. Right now its coal exporters are in a contentious second round of negotiations with buyers in South Korea and Japan.
These negotiations are likely to see the price of coal pegged higher for the foreseeable future, which would have some collateral benefit
for U.S. coal companies. As new power plants come on line, China's demand for coal outstrips its supply. In order to better distribute
the scarce resource, China's coal exporters are trying to negotiate as much as a 44% increase in prices for South Korean and Japanese
buyers. Excluding freight, which is also increasing, Chinese producers seek a $22.90 increase per metric ton to $75. Reports suggest
Japanese and Korean importers have drawn the line at $65 a ton. In the first quarter, the average price at China's largest coal port was
about $63.50 a ton. Under the contract that expired in April, Japanese importers were paying just below $53 a ton. Under the contract
that expires in July, Korean importers pay a little more than $52 a ton.
China’s coal industry cant keep up with demand causing high prices.
Zhang, 6/4/08. (Face: writer for Ezine. “China's Coal Pricing Mechanism Needs Improvement”).
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS282&pwst=1&q=coal+prices+china&start=50&sa=N//DMS
China's coal consumption peak season typically starts before the Chinese New Year. Coupled with the unusual snowstorm in southern
provinces this year, coal prices in China shot up furiously within a short period of time at the beginning of 2008. In the transit hub of
Qinhuangdao, major coal prices reached a record high in January 2008, up more than 20% from just a month ago, and such increases are
on top of the continued uptrend in coal prices since 2004. Coal is the most important energy source in China, accounting for 70% of the
national energy consumption. Why would the coal price keep going up in recent years? "Tight balance" between supply and demand
The coal price trend in China is closely related to its price forming mechanism. And the reform progress in China's coal pricing
mechanism in recent year has shown a clear tendency towards marketization. In the era of planned economy, coal prices were
uniformly set by the government. In 1993, China started to relax sale prices for coal products other than thermal coal, which accounted
for 50% of total coal consumption in China, so thermal coal price was still under a dual pricing mechanism of "planned coal" and
"market coal". In late 2004, the government announced the "Coal-Electricity Price Linking Mechanism", which allows periodic
electricity price increases once thermal coal price increases 5% or more in the past 6 months, and the thermal coal price in turn can be
determined by negotiation between coal sellers and buyers in the market. For various reasons, thermal coal price failed to become
marketised initially, but the price differentials under the dual pricing mechanism began to converge. In 2007, the 50-year-old system of
government organising annual coal order meeting among coal producers, transporters and users was finally removed, and now suppliers
and buyers are starting to independently negotiate prices based on market circumstances, under the government's macro control
framework. Against such a backdrop, the relationship between supply and demand has now become the major factor in determining
coal prices. From a consumption mix perspective, the electricity, metallurgical, chemical and construction materials industries, which
collectively account for 70% of total coal consumption, are the main users of coal in China. In the first three quarters of 2007, outputs
from China's coal-fired power, coke, raw steel and cement industries had grown 16.7%, 19.4%, 17.6% and 15% respectively over
previous comparable period, far exceeding raw coal output growth of 11% from the same period. On one hand, the demand for coal had
been increasing significantly. On the other hand, the government were mandating the closure of small and medium coal mines and
limiting the capacity expansion of coal mines, thus reducing coal supply growth. And the railway transportation in China has long been
a bottleneck for coal. As a result of all these factors, demand and supply of coal in China has been in a "tight balance" situation for
years. Coal prices in China started to decline in 1997 and reached a bottom in 2001. The problem of coal shortage started to surface in
2004. Although coal producers had been expanding their production in the following years, with 8.2% increase in output in 2007 alone,
the supply shortage nevertheless failed to alleviate. Therefore, coal producers in China have made a windfall profit in recent years,
thanks to the ever-rising coal prices.
Coal Disadvantages

China’s coal price is increasing as a result of economic crises.
Bradsher, 6/20/08. (Keith: writer for the New York Times. “China Sharply Raises Energy Prices”).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/world/asia/20china.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin//DMS
HONG KONG — Faced with increasingly severe fuel shortages and the prospect of power failures during the summer air-conditioning
season, the Chinese government unexpectedly announced sharp increases late Thursday night in regulated prices for gasoline, diesel and
electricity. The increases are the latest sign of how China’s integration into the global marketplace has limited the flexibility of the
country’s leaders in responding to economic crises. The government has come under intense pressure recently from both
environmentalists and other governments to ease up on its fuel subsidies, which are blamed for distorting global markets, encouraging
greater consumption and pushing oil prices higher for other nations. The government, like many around the world, has struggled to
keep up those subsidies as oil prices have spiked in recent months. Finally, despite fears that it will spur inflation, the government raised
the retail price of diesel by 18 percent, to the equivalent of $3.58 a gallon, and the price of gasoline by 16 percent, to $3.83 a gallon.
Electricity tariffs and the price of jet fuel were also raised.
Coal prices have gone up significantly in China since last year.
Rueters, 5/21/08. (“China Coal-High prices, safety fears push mine consolidation”).
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINSHA29321820080321?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0//DMS
SHANGHAI, March 21 (Reuters) - High coal prices may expedite a consolidation of small mines in China, as local governments seek
tighter control of the highly profitable resource, analysts said. Small mines contributed 38 percent of China's coal output in 2007,
according to the State Administration of Work Safety, although they have been blamed for the sector's notoriously poor safety record.
Beijing has been pushing forward a safety drive for the past few years, forcing small mines to close or sell out to larger companies.
High coal prices have made mines more alluring as a source of revenue for local governments, which are likely to force small mines to
sell out to larger state-owned firms, said analysts. "Local governments would want to concentrate the resource in state-owned
enterprises that they control," said a Shanghai-based analyst at a large securities trading firm. Domestic spot coal prices hit record highs
in early February, after the harshest winter weather in decades disrupted coal transportation, and helped to trigger severe coal and power
shortages. Prices have since been easing with the start of spring and a decline in demand for heating. Benchmark spot coal prices at
Qinhuangdao, China's top coal port, for top-grade thermal coal edged down 5 yuan on the week, trading between 635 and 645 yuan
($90.07-$91.49) a tonne, still 32 percent higher than a year earlier. "If prices were lower, consolidation would be a lot slower," said
Henry Liu, an analyst at Macquarie. "Now local governments are highly motivated." With the end of last month's Lunar New Year
holiday and this month's annual parliamentary session -- a politically sensitive period, small mines are returning to normal production,
boosting coal supplies but prompting safety concerns. Coal stocks at Qinhuangdao were at 7.45 million tonnes on Friday morning,
about 72 percent higher than after the Lunar New Year holiday.
Coal Disadvantages

Coal prices in China will continue to soar.
Bloomberg, 4/9/08. (“China's Coal Prices May Increase on Environmental, Safety Costs”).
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&refer=Asia&sid=a_2xcypJo96A//DMS
Coal prices in China, the world's largest producer and consumer of the fuel, are likely to rise as authorities strengthen regulations to
improve environmental and safety standards at mines, a government official said. ``China's low coal prices are the result of a neglect of
environmental and safety issues in the past,'' Hou Shiguo, a deputy director in charge of industry policies at the National Development
and Reform Commission, said in a telephone interview in Beijing today. ``We will step up efforts on the policy level to make our coal
mines cleaner and safer, and that will accordingly increase companies' production costs.'' The Chinese government has pledged to
reduce accidents at pits that killed 4,746 people in 2006, making the country's coal mining industry the most dangerous in the world.
Prices of coal rose to a record last month at Qinhuangdao, China's largest port for the fuel, because of increased use of air-conditioners.
China burns coal for 78 percent of its power. ``The increase in prices is a long-term trend as the government moves toward a more
market-based mechanism to price coal,'' said Hou, who works for China's top economic planning agency. Higher crude oil prices are
driving up operating costs and contributing to making coal more expensive, he said. China became a net coal importer for the first time
in January, ending centuries of self-sufficiency and boosting benchmark prices of the fuel in Australia's Newcastle Port to records last
month. Japan, South Korea Japanese utilities may have to pay 22 percent more for Australian coal next year after South Korean buyers
locked in supplies seven months early, anticipating a shortage, Goldman Sachs JBWere Pty. said in Sept. 13 report. Prices of thermal
coal may jump to $68 a metric ton, increasing an earlier forecast by 10 percent. South Korean utilities ordered one-quarter of their
planned 2008 purchases from Australia at about $66, before contracts start April 1, it said, citing McCloskey's Coal Report. In China,
``coal prices will peak next year and may fall in 2009 on expanded capacity worldwide and improved port and transportation facilities,''
Huang Teng, manager of Beijing-based LT Consultants Ltd., whose clients include Japanese utilities purchasing coal from China, said
by telephone in Beijing today. The nation's coal imports surged 50 percent to 30.96 million tons in the first seven months while exports
fell 21 percent to 28.86 million tons, according to customs data released on Aug. 15. China's coal producers increased output by 10
percent in the first half to 1.26 billion metric tons, while demand gained 12 percent to 1.263 billion tons, the commission said Aug. 27.
The price of coal has already increased by 10% this year.
People’s Daily Online, 5/23/08. (“Coal cost for electricity increases 10%”).
http://english.people.com.cn/200701/25/eng20070125_344741.html//DMS
Facing an increase in coal prices of up to 10 percent this year, China's electricity generators may seek government permission to raise
the electricity prices again. "Power producers may suggest to the government raise electricity tariffs in order to counter coal price
increases of an average of 30 yuan per ton this year," said Ye Rongsi, senior adviser with the China Electricity Council (CEC). But an
analyst from the China Coal Industry Association, who did not want to be named, said power companies cannot easily raise prices as
they face an on-grid electricity price bidding mechanism. Rising coal prices have long been a bone of contention between power
generators and coal producers in China. Electricity giants continue to insist that rising coal prices have undermined their profits.
Compared with the coal prices, which are more market-oriented, the nation's electricity prices are still controlled by the government.
Due to the rising cost of coal, the country's main resource for electricity production, the Chinese government decided to approve a
mechanism linking coal and power prices at the end of 2004. Under the linkage, electricity prices will move in line with coal price
increases. If coal prices rise by more than 5 percent in a six-month period, electricity prices will be adjusted by the government. Under
the mechanism, 70 percent of coal price increases are passed on to consumers. Power generating firms absorb the remaining 30 percent.
Leaving key energy prices to market forces is an inevitable step on the road to a market-oriented economy, said Zhou Dadi, former
director of the Energy Research Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC).
Coal Disadvantages

The price of Chinese coal has increased 47% since the end of 2007.
Steel Guru, July 1,2008. (“Chinese coal miners to increase PCI prices”).
http://steelguru.com/news/index/2008/06/30/NTI4NTc%3D/Chinese_coal_miners_to_increase_PCI_prices.html//DMS
Umetal.com reported that under the influence of shortage of supply and boom in downstream demand, China’s major pulverized coal
producers will raise the selling price of pulverized coal by about CNY 300 per tonne once more. According to the report, price of
pulverized coal has climbed constantly this year. The contract price was raised by CNY 200 per tonne in May and continued rising by
CNY 150 per tonne to CNY 80 per tonne in June up by 43% from the end of 2007. The price went up by CNY 250 per tonne to CNY
300 per tonne in the first half of June in Shanxi and Heilongjiang provinces and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region with the sales
prices at CNY 950 per tonne to CNY 1,100 per tonne. The report also added that with the adjustment of CNY 300 per tonne the ex
plant price will top CNY 1,200 per tonne to reach CNY 1,
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness – Coal – Consumption will increase

Coal consumption is going to increase by 50% before 2030.
Revkin, 6/25/08. (Andrew, Reporter for the New York Times. Reports: Energy Thirst Still Topping Climate Risks).
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/reports-energy-thirst-still-topping-climate-risks/?ref=science//DMS
Two studies out Wednesday — one on energy trends, one on climate as a security issue — bode poorly for those seeking to prevent
global warming from passing dangerous thresholds. Coal and oil use climb relentlessly, at a rate similar to that for growth in wind, solar,
and nuclear power, but in vastly larger quantities.
The report on global warming as a source of conflict sees climate change amplifying discord in parts of Africa and Asia, but not enough
to destabilize governments — and even as its impacts through 2020 in rich countries remain small. The “climate divide” we explored
last year is alive and well. As I wrote the other day, it looks like countries are going to remain focused on addressing real-time problems
related to energy security (most notably high oil prices) for the time being, even as evidence builds that global warming could fuel
turmoil, particularly in already-troubled places like sub-Saharan Africa, in the long run. I ran a panel at a meeting on China, energy, and
climate at the Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday, and in the preceding session, Zhou Dadi, one of the leading figures shaping
China’s energy and climate policies said energy security will remain China’s top priority for a long while to come. He restated the
longstanding mantra from China on climate, saying the responsibility for blunting emissions curves for greenhouse gases will remain
with industrialized powers for a long time to come. Here’s are the take-home points from two assessments, one from the Energy
Information Administration and the other provided to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by the National
Intelligence Council: Energy and CO2 Trends The energy forecast (keep in mind such forecasts are often way off, but at least the sign,
plus or minus, has tended to be right) highlights: World marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by 50 percent between 2005
and 2030, driven by robust economic growth and expanding populations in the world’s developing countries… Coal’s share of world
energy use has increased sharply over the past few years, and without significant changes in existing laws and policies, particularly
those related to greenhouse gas emissions, robust growth is likely to continue. Coal accounted for 24 percent of total world energy use
in 2002 and 27 percent in 2005, largely as a result of rapid increases in coal use in China. China’s coal consumption has nearly doubled
since 2000, and given the country’s rapidly expanding economy and large domestic coal deposits, its demand for coal is projected to
remain strong…
Coal Disadvantages
Links- China Coop- China demands US exports
China demands US coal exports

Washington Times 6, (Jeffrey Sparshott “International Demand Fuels Market for U.S. Coal” January 5, 2006) // CCH
China, meanwhile, is demanding more fuel for its steel mills and growing electricity needs, prompting U.S. mines to export coal rather
than leave it on the U.S. market. China is the world's largest coal producer and consumer. "The wide-ranging economic expansion
experienced in China in 2004 drove world markets for many commodities into overdrive and helped to re-establish the United States
into Asian coal markets," the EIA said in a November report. Rising global demand has been good news for U.S. mining companies,
which sit on the world's largest coal reserves.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Alternaive energy

Renewable Energy trades off with coal production – strength and momentum of renewables inevitable
Ethan, 8 (Political Correspondent, “Renewable Energy likely to overtake oil and coal sooner than you think,” 6-17-2008,
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleIenergyandelectricitryd=281474977375141) // HBG
<Renewable energy is expanding voraciously and will do so even faster, according to experts at a Worldwatch Institute panel (Tipping
Point). Wind power is already in the midst of an explosion, under-remarked on in the mainstream media, and other renewable energies,
such as solar and cellulose ethanol, are likely to follow. Worldwatch President Chris Flavin explains that we are at an amazing moment
in the history of energy, a transformational moment, driven by historic high energy costs, concern about climate change, and the
worldwide impact of government policies. Wind, solar, and other renewables are likely to replace oil and gas sooner rather than later.
Renewable energy has accelerated greatly in the last three years, and the scope and import of this expansion are severely under-reported,
according to Worldwatch fellow and energy expert Eric Martinot. Investment in new renewable capacity hit $71 billion dollars in 2007
and continues to exceed expectations. Government policy has been a key driver, Martinot says, overcoming resistance to renewable
energy. If current policies supporting renewable energy are simply maintained, he believes that the momentum will be unstoppable.
Venture capitalist Michael Liebreich, an expert in renewable energy investment, explains that the implications of current growth are far
bigger than people think. Conventional energy use is growing only incrementally, as opposed to the exponential growth of renewable
energy, which is accelerating with stunning speed. Conventional thinking, which sees oil and coal as virtually unchallenged, is all
wrong, according to Liebreich. This is because the big curve upward of renewable energy will inevitably beat the little curve of
conventional energy. Liebreich sees conventional energy as dumb, slow, and ultimately untenable in every dimension. It relies on a few
large stations and suppliers, it is monocultural, boring and high carbon. Renewable energy, by contrast, uses a variety of sources, often
on a local level. It is insulated from price spikes. Liebreich describes renewable as exciting, entrepreneurial, cutting edge, and the
future. Indeed, worldwide investment in renewables last year were remarkably widespread. China is the main new investor, moving into
a market long dominated by Europe. Chinese use of wind power is zooming, while China is about to become the largest producer of
solar technology, according to Martinot. Upon reflection, given its tremendous pollution problems, it's not so surprising that China is
working so hard to use renewable energy. The U.S., too, is making a strong push in renewables, notably wind power in Texas. A deeply
entrenched historical pattern that some thought was an iron-clad law is in the midst of being broken, according to Liebreich. Economic
growth has always been accompanied by increased energy use—meaning higher carbon emissions and ultimately more global warming.
Future economic growth, however, will be accompanied by shrinking energy use, says Liebreich, due to greater efficiency and the move
to technology and services. In the short term, however, the Worldwatch panel sees great difficulties as environmental problems mount.
It is simply too late to avoid some nasty consequences of our ongoing energy habits. Yet when it comes to the planetary future, the panel
is brazenly optimistic, seeing great advances now and even bigger ones in the near future as the best minds engage with renewable
energy. Liebreich predicts that greenhouse inducing carbon output will peak and begin to decline before 2020. Previous estimates had
expected this to happen around 2050. If the Worldwatch panel is correct, the long-term human future will be bright, clean, and
renewable.>
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Alternative energy
Alternative energy empirically dents the coal industry affecting nations’ economies
"The story of coal in America," writes Duane Lockard in Coal: A Memoir and Critique, "is the story of corporate successes and excesses
generally." The same can now be said for the coal industry worldwide. Shrinking profits and growing deficits are leading to drastic cost-
cutting practices that translate into lower prices but also major job losses, creating an employment crisis among coal miners around the
globe. It is, however, both necessary and possible to reduce reliance on coal while minimizing the displacement of workers that
inevitably accompanies the decline of an industry. Worldwide, only about 10 million coal mining jobs remain, making up one-third of
all mining jobs and accounting for one-third of 1 percent of the global workforce. In industrial nations, the coal-mining industry is no
longer a major employer, and employment is falling even where production or exports are rising. In developing countries and
transitional economies, where employment is still relatively high, pressures to reform the industry and cut costs are causing major job
dislocations. Like other sunset industries, the coal sector is increasingly characterized by bigger and fewer companies, more and larger
equipment, and less labor-intensive operations. In the United States, the 10 largest firms account for 60 percent of output, up from 35
percent a decade ago. During coal's peak, in 1924, 705,000 miners toiled in U.S. mines; today there are fewer than 82,000. Thanks
mostly to surface mining, employment has declined by two-thirds over the last 20 years and is expected to continue to fall; coal miners
now count for less than 0.1 percent of the nation's workforce. Though domestic consumption continues to crawl upward, exports have
dropped 25 percent since 1996, and experts agree that they will never return to pre-1998 levels. The rate of contraction has as much to
do with politics as with economic and environmental factors. Coal industries in both the United Kingdom and Germany have been
weakened since the 1960s by environmental regulations and the switch to cleaner natural gas, now the fuel of choice for power
generation in industrial nations. But while contraction in the United Kingdom has been rapid - only 13,000 union coal miners remain,
out of 1.2 million in 1978 - the decline in Germany has been more gradual, from 190,000 in 1982 to less than 90,000 today. Similar
struggles lie ahead for other coal-dependent nations. In Australia, 9,000 of the nation's 22,000 coal miners went on strike in 1997 when
impending job cuts led Rio Tinto, the world's largest mining company, to try to deunionize the industry. In South Africa, coal production
has risen 65 percent, but employment has fallen over 20 percent, since 1980. In India, where production has doubled since 1980,
employment is still declining as a proportion of population. Poland's mines lose nearly $700 million each year. Russia has halted
production in 90 mines and intends to have shut 130 of its 200 mines by 2000. Major future losses are expected in these countries as
improved productivity and the shift to less energy-intensive service industries make more jobs redundant.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- RPS

Electricity industries have suffered from the increase in federal RPS – increasing costs and uncertainty proves tradeoffs
Fershee, 8 – Assistance Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota School of Law
(Joshua P., Energy Law Journal, “changing Resources, Changing Market: The Impact of National Renewable Portfolio Standard on the
U.S. Energy Industry,” 29 Energy L. J.49,Lexis-Nexis Scholastic) // HBG
<"standard can provide many benefits for the nation, including increasing energy security, fuel diversity, price stability, jobs, farm and
ranch income, tax revenues, technology development, customer choices, and reduced environmental impacts, water consumption, and
resource depletion, as well as reduced compliance costs with current and future environmental regulations." ... Southeastern states, like
Florida and Virginia, have very limited wind resources available, which could mean that such states would need to purchase RECs from
renewable-rich states to stay in compliance with the national RPS requirements. ... Electricity industry representatives (such as the
Edison Electric Institute) have argued that a federal RPS, which mandates "different targets, technologies, and timetables through a
federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for
electricity suppliers and consumers in those states." ... What should be clear is that generation investment and transmission investment
are not separate issues, and any national RPS should be part of a comprehensive energy package to help utilities make informed and
more accurate decisions. Synopsis: The U.S. Congress recently passed a new energy bill that, until that last minute, included provisions
that would have established a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS would have required electric utilities to procure a
certain percentage of their electricity from renewable resources or purchase renewable energy credits from other sources to meet the
standard. The recent energy bill is just the latest of repeated, and thus far failed, efforts to impose a national RPS. As such, there has
been much debate about the potential merits and hazards of a national RPS, and more is sure to follow. Rather than joining this part of
the policy debate, this Article considers the effects implementing a national RPS would have on the operation of the energy industry.
More specifically, the Article considers what a national RPS would mean for electric utilities, regulators (state and federal), and
consumers.>
Electricity industries have suffered from the increase in federal RPS – increasing costs and uncertainty proves tradeoffs
<"standard can provide many benefits for the nation, including increasing energy security, fuel diversity, price stability, jobs, farm and
ranch income, tax revenues, technology development, customer choices, and reduced environmental impacts, water consumption, and
resource depletion, as well as reduced compliance costs with current and future environmental regulations." ... Southeastern states, like
Florida and Virginia, have very limited wind resources available, which could mean that such states would need to purchase RECs from
renewable-rich states to stay in compliance with the national RPS requirements. ... Electricity industry representatives (such as the
Edison Electric Institute) have argued that a federal RPS, which mandates "different targets, technologies, and timetables through a
federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even further for
electricity suppliers and consumers in those states." ... What should be clear is that generation investment and transmission investment
are not separate issues, and any national RPS should be part of a comprehensive energy package to help utilities make informed and
more accurate decisions. Synopsis: The U.S. Congress recently passed a new energy bill that, until that last minute, included provisions
that would have established a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS would have required electric utilities to procure a
certain percentage of their electricity from renewable resources or purchase renewable energy credits from other sources to meet the
standard. The recent energy bill is just the latest of repeated, and thus far failed, efforts to impose a national RPS. As such, there has
been much debate about the potential merits and hazards of a national RPS, and more is sure to follow. Rather than joining this part of
the policy debate, this Article considers the effects implementing a national RPS would have on the operation of the energy industry.
More specifically, the Article considers what a national RPS would mean for electric utilities, regulators (state and federal), and
consumers.>
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- RPS

RPS will drive up costs and mandates, destroying electricity and coal mandates
<That is, 15% of each covered retail electricity supplier's energy would have needed to be either generated from renewable energy
resources or the retail electric supplier would need to otherwise purchase or exchange credits derived from renewable generation. ... One
of the broader descriptions of the potential benefits of a national RPS can be found in the Union of Concerned Scientists' response, which stated that a national RPS
"standard can provide many benefits for the nation, including increasing energy security, fuel diversity, price stability, jobs, farm and ranch income, tax revenues,
technology development, customer choices, and reduced environmental impacts, water consumption, and resource depletion, as well as reduced compliance costs with
current and future environmental regulations." ... Southeastern states, like Florida and Virginia, have very limited wind resources available, which could mean that such
states would need to purchase RECs from renewable-rich states to stay in compliance with the national RPS requirements. ... Electricity industry representatives
(such as the Edison Electric Institute) have argued that a federal RPS, which mandates "different targets, technologies, and timetables
through a federal RPS on top of the state programs would create uncertainty and drive up the cost of meeting renewable mandates even
further for electricity suppliers and consumers in those states." ... What should be clear is that generation investment and transmission investment are not
separate issues, and any national RPS should be part of a comprehensive energy package to help utilities make informed and more accurate decisions. Synopsis: The U.S.
Congress recently passed a new energy bill that, until that last minute, included provisions that would have established a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS).
The RPS would have required electric utilities to procure a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable resources or purchase
renewable energy credits from other sources to meet the standard. The recent energy bill is just the latest of repeated, and thus far failed, efforts to impose
a national RPS. As such, there has been much debate about the potential merits and hazards of a national RPS, and more is sure to follow. Rather than joining this part of
the policy debate, this Article considers the effects implementing a national RPS would have on the operation of the energy industry. More specifically, the Article
considers what a national RPS would mean for electric utilities, regulators (state and federal), and consumers. The Article begins with an introduction to the most recent
national RPS proposal, including a brief summary of both the program's goals and major criticisms of the proposal. This introduction also includes an overview of the
current and pending state-level RPS standards. The Article then discusses the primary issues a national RPS would raise for key stakeholders. First, the Article considers
what a national RPS would mean for electric utilities - focusing on necessary compliance activities and the possible effects on short-and long-term investment decisions -
including infrastructure and RPS compliance sources. Next, the Article discusses the impacts on state and federal regulators, focusing on the development of a renewable
energy credit tracking system, the enforcement of the national RPS, and the role regulators at each level will have in the process. Finally, the Article considers the impacts
a national RPS could have on consumers with regard to short-and long-term electricity costs. The Article concludes that, although the implementation of any major policy
initiative takes significant resources, the biggest hurdle facing a national RPS is political, not technological or economic.
A national RPS of even 10% would substantially decrease the use of coal—prefer our government evidence
DOE 2.( Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting of the Energy Information Administration of the DOE, “Impacts of a 10-Percent
Renewable Portfolio Standard”, February 2002, pg. 5, http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2002)03.pdf)//TM
The key results of this analysis are:
• The sunset and civil penalty provisions of S. 1766 have a significant impact on the amount of renewables stimulated by the RPS. S. 1766 states that the RPS requirement
ends (sunsets) on December 31, 2020. It also imposes a civil penalty of up to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour for retail electricity suppliers who do not submit their required
number of renewable credits in any given year.
• Under the AEO 2002 Reference case assumptions, the 10-percent RPS called for in S. 1766 target is not projected to be achieved because of the 3-cent
per kilowatt-hour credit penalty and the sunsetting of the program in 2020. As the end of the program approaches (December 31, 2020), electricity suppliers are projected
to pay the penalty rather than invest in additional renewables that would only receive the credit for a few years. The level achieved by 2020 is projected to be
8.4 percent.4 If the sunset provision were removed the required RPS is projected to be achieved.
• A 10-percent RPS requirement would lead to greater generation from wind, biomass, and to a lesser extent, geothermal, resources. Conversely, the imposition of the
RPS would lead to lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.
the credit for a few years.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- RPS
Biomass from RPS trades off with coal generation – studies prove
EIA, 7 (Energy Information Administration, “Energy and Economic Impacts of Implementing Both a 25-Percent RPS and a 25-Percent
RFS by 2025,” 9-2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/eeim/index.html) //HBG
<Implementing a 25-percent RPS by 2025 has significant impacts on power sector generation by fuel, generating technology selection, and electricity
prices. The power sector shifts away from its long-term reliance on coal-fired generation, toward increased reliance on non hydropower renewable
generation and incremental hydroelectric generating sources. This trend has little impact on emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury.
Because these three pollutants are subject to emissions caps, their levels are essentially unchanged (although the costs of compliance are lower).
However, the change in fuel mix leads to somewhat lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which currently are not regulated. The higher cost of
renewable generating technologies results in lower delivered prices for fossil fuels but higher electricity prices overall. Table 2 summarizes key
electricity sector impacts. The RPS credit price, shown in Table 2 for 2025 and 2030, generally increases through 2025, when the maximum required
share for renewable generation is initially imposed. Between 2025 and 2030, the credit price is projected to vary between 3.8 and 4.8 cents per
kilowatthour. The credit price represents the incremental cost of meeting the specified renewable target. Essentially, it describes the difference between
the cost of the cheapest available renewable option that satisfies the requirement and the alternative technology that would have supplied the electricity
if the RPS had not been in place. Naturally, the credit price is affected by the costs and performance of the available renewable options and the
alternative nonrenewable technologies. Figure 1 illustrates the RPS credit prices in the Policy Case. The proposed Policy analyzed in this report calls
for compliance with separate renewable sales targets in the electricity and transportation sectors. The marginal cost of compliance, as reflected by the
credit price for each sector, would not be expected to be the same for each sector, as each has different compliance options. Both sectors can and do use
significant amounts of cellulosic biomass as part of the compliance strategy, and at times this may represent the marginal unit of supply to one or both
sectors. Even so, costs may differ between the two sectors, as each has different conversion efficiencies and capital and non-feedstock operating costs.
If the proposed Policy were applied as an aggregate target for the two sectors, with credit trading allowed between the sectors (that is, 25 percent of the
combined electricity and motor transportation fuels markets), the credit prices in the two sectors would converge to a common value. Currently, the
electricity sector target is specified in cents per kilowatthour and the transportation sector target in dollars per gallon of ethanol. A joint target would
require a common unit of comparison, as shown in Figure 2 for the Policy Case. The higher credit price in the transportation sector indicates that an
aggregate target would encourage more compliance in the electricity sector and reduced compliance in the transportation sector. More than 25 percent
of the electricity generated in the electricity sector would be from renewable fuels, and less than 25 percent of the motor transportation fuels would be
biofuels. The shift in the compliance burden between sectors would tend to reduce the overall cost of compliance; however, EIA is not able to
determine the impact of such a scheme without specification of a mechanism for inter-sector credit trading. Generation by Fuel. In the Reference Case,
coal-fired plants continue as the primary source of electricity, increasing from about 50 percent of total supply in 2005 to 53 percent in 2025 (Table 2).
Both nuclear and natural gas plants provided 19 percent of total generation in 2005. Nuclear generation is projected to increase over the subsequent 20
years but at a slower rate than total generation, and so the share of generation from nuclear plants in 2025 falls to 16 percent. Natural gas generation is
projected to rise initially but then decline as natural gas prices increase. In 2025, the share of total generation from natural gas plants is projected to be
about 19 percent—about the same share as in 2005. In 2030, nuclear power generation falls slightly from 2025 levels due to some age-related
retirements, and its share of electricity generation falls to 15 percent. Natural gas power generation falls by about 6 percent from 2025 levels as
increasing natural gas prices erode its competitiveness, and its total market share falls to about 16 percent in 2030 (Table 2). Hydroelectric plants are
the largest source of renewable generation, but production from existing facilities is not credited toward the RPS requirement. The share of
hydroelectric generation declines in the Policy Case from about 6.5 percent of total supply in 2005 to 6 percent in 2025. Nonhydropower renewables
remain a small source of electricity in the Reference Case, but the corresponding share of total generation doubles from 2 percent in 2005 to 4 percent
in 2025. Biomass and wind plants represent the primary sources of nonhydropower renewable generation. Production from both these technologies
more than triples between 2005 and 2025, although their share of total generation remains small throughout the projection. Figure Data Figure Data. In
general, biomass and wind electricity supplies are projected to represent the primary options for complying with the RPS. Although total wind capacity
exceeds biomass capacity (Figure 3), biomass generation is considerably higher than the output from wind capacity (Figure 4) because of a higher
biomass capacity factor. Dedicated biomass plants have higher utilization rates than wind plants, which are dependent on an intermittent resource. Also,
biomass can be co-fired with coal in existing fossil steam units. In the Policy Case, biomass generation in 2025 and 2030 provides about one-half of the
renewable generation required by the RPS (Table 2). Considerable increases in biomass electricity generation occur in virtually every region of the
United States. Wind plants account for more than 35 percent of the RPS requirement in 2025 and 2030. Most of the wind capacity additions are
expected to be built in the West and Midwest. More moderate increases are projected for geothermal, municipal solid waste, and hydroelectric
technologies, which together supply about 10 percent of the needed renewable generation. Little change in solar generation is expected as a result of the
RPS (Table 2). The requirement for renewable generation specified in the RPS is expected to reduce electricity production from other fuel types.
Compared to the Reference Case, coal-fired generation is about 24 percent lower in 2025 and 28 percent lower in 2030 in the Policy Case. Natural-gas-
fired generation is 23 percent lower in 2025 and 11 percent lower in 2030 in the Policy Case than in the Reference Case (Table 2). Similarly, nuclear
generation is about 8 percent less in 2025 and 9 percent less in 2030. With biomass expected to be the leading renewable option for satisfying the RPS,
the availability of biomass fuel supplies has a considerable impact on the ability of the electric power sector to comply with the RPS.>
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- RPS
RPS will reduce natural gas and coal use
Dr. Sovacool, & Cooper, 7 – *Senior Research Fellow for the Network for New Energy Choices in New York and Adjunct Assistant
Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA and ** Executive Director of the Network for New
Energy Choices
(Benjamin K. Sovacool, also a Research Fellow at the Centre for Asia and Globalization at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
and Christopher Cooper, Renewing America: The Case for Federal Leadership on a National Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS),
Network for New Energy Choices • Report No. 01-07, June, 2007,
http://www.newenergychoices.org/dev/uploads/RPS%20Report_Cooper_Sovacool_FINAL_HILL.pdf) // JMP
A National RPS Better Conserves Water, Air and Land

• A national RPS would displace coal and natural gas.
In a 2002 assessment of a 10% national RPS, the Department f Energy determined that “the imposition of a national RPS would lead to
lower generation from natural gas and coal facilities.” Analysts have confirmed this trade-off in RPS states like Michigan, New York,
Virginia, and Texas. // pg. 11
A national RPS picks renewables as the winning technology at the expense of nuclear power and clean coal
Josten, 07 - Executive Vice President, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (Bruce, Letter to Rep. John Dingell and
Rick Boucher, 6/15,
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/RSP%20feedback/US%20Chamber%2006%2015%2007.pdf)
One of the major drawbacks to current and RPS bills that have circulated through Congress is the definition of what energy sources are
“renewable.” Clean, safe, and reliable energy sources such as hydropower, nuclear power, and clean coal technology have typically been
excluded from this definition. As a result, the RPS accomplishes precisely what energy legislation should not do: it picks winners and
losers. Should Congress choose to bind all states to a baseline renewable portfolio standard—which, again, the Chamber does not
consider necessary—then it must strive to be as inclusive as possible. If the true policy goal of an RPS is to encourage energy
production, there is no legitimate reason why certain clean, safe energy producers are left standing at the door while others benefit.
A federal RPS will destroy clean coal investment
Montgomery, 07 - CRA International (David, AEI Transcript, “California’s Climate Law: Boon or Boondoggle?”, 6/28,
http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1516/transcript.asp)
So it is a little hard to see what the policy problem is that the Renewable Portfolio Standard is trying to address other than creating a
market for people who produce wind, solar, and a couple of other kinds of energy. The difficulty is that, when that Renewable Portfolio
Standard is binding and forces, for example, a lot of wind in the market and there is also an emission cap, the Renewable Portfolio
Standard drives out in our modeling coal with carbon capture and sequestration. So something that costs 50 percent more is forced into
the market and replaces what would otherwise have been chosen under the motivation of the emission cap, which is a much cheaper
way of getting to exactly the same result for greenhouse gas emissions. And I would be more broad about it; I would say, “We have
sulfur regulations, we have mercury regulations, we have NOx regulations.” And all of those set up the incentive to choose the cost
minimizing fuel and the RPS as kind of looking for a problem to solve, but forcing a particular way of meeting all of our environmental
aspirations.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Carbon Tax

Carbon tax will decrease coal use, consumers will avoid tax in commerce
Rosenblum, 7 -- environmental attorney and cofounder of the Carbon Tax Center in New York City, a group advocating taxing
(Daniel, “Carbon Tax aims to cut greenhouse gas,” 4-11-2007, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-
june07/climatechange_04-11.html) //HBG
One proposal for reducing greenhouse gases is to tax carbon dioxide emissions. It's often referred to as a carbon tax. How would it work? For that, we turn to Daniel
Rosenblum, an environmental attorney and cofounder of the Carbon Tax Center in New York City, a group advocating taxing all CO-2 emissions.And, Daniel Rosenblum,
who would pay it, and how would you imposes it? DANIEL ROSENBLUM, Carbon Tax Center: Everybody would pay it. It would be a tax that's
imposed on carbon, on the carbon content of fuel. So if you have more carbon content of fuel, like coal, you pay a higher per-BTU
price. It will be passed through to the ultimate customers, but it will be imposed at the top of the supply chain. So whenever the refiners
or the oil companies sell oil into the pipeline, there will be a tax imposed there. When you take coal out of the ground, it will be taxed as
it goes into commerce. The cost will then be passed on to the ultimate consumer. So when I buy electricity, when I buy gas for my car,
I'll pay the tax then. RAY SUAREZ: How would that eventually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere?
DANIEL ROSENBLUM: There are costs society incurs when carbon is emitted. And nobody pays for it right now. Because it's free,
nobody cares about it. So we put a price on carbon, and people start to use less. How? Electric generation. Electric generators will use
less coal, more gas, more wind, more solar... RAY SUAREZ: In order to pay less tax? DANIEL ROSENBLUM: In order to avoid the
tax on the coal, individuals will probably get a more-efficient car. They'll drive less. They'll do whatever they can to avoid paying for the
carbon tax on their gasoline.RAY SUAREZ: So how...DANIEL ROSENBLUM: So we're talking about a fairly low starter tax. We're talking about a $37-a-ton-of-
carbon tax, which would equate to roughly 10 cents a gallon of gasoline or, averaged across the country, maybe .72 cents a kilowatt hour, less than a penny of kilowatt
hour. And then we propose increasing the tax each year by that same amount, so it's gradually phased in. One major advantage of that is it gives people time to adapt and
gives people time to plan. We're talking about a very clear trajectory, so businesses trying to decide what to do with their future investments will say, "Well, we know
prices are going up like this, so it makes good sense to invest in a high-efficiency motor," which...
Carbon Tax will decrease the production of coal – large decline in the industry
Metcalf, 4 – Executive director of the World Resource Institute

(GILBERT E., Tax reform, energy and environment, “A GREEN EMPLOYMENT TAX SWAP:
USING A CARBON TAX TO FINANCE PAYROLL TAX RELIEF” 2004, http://pdf.wri.org/Brookings-WRI_GreenTaxSwap.pdf)
//HBG
A carbon tax could best be implemented in an upstream system by taxing the carbon content of fuels at their source. For coal, this would
be the mine mouth for domestic coal and the border for imported coal.11 Natural gas would be taxed at the wellhead. Petroleum products would be taxed
at the refinery on the various products produced from crude oil. Levying the carbon tax on refinery outputs is preferable because crude oil can have different emission
factors (carbon per barrel of crude) for different shipments; for example, a single tanker could have batches of oil with different emission factors. An upstream tax would
require a few simple adjustments. First, electric power plants that sequester carbon should receive a rebate for carbon taxes previously paid on
the sequestered carbon. In addition, non-energy carbon emissions should also be brought into the system. Such emissions come from a
variety of sources. For example, calcinations of limestone to make clinker, an intermediate product in cement production, releases carbon. Applying the carbon tax to
clinker production would address carbon emissions in the cement industry. An upstream carbon tax would be relatively straightforward to administer with a small number
of filers responsible for remitting tax revenues to the government. Ease in administration would help keep administrative and compliance costs down. III. ASSESSING A
SWAP This brief considers a carbon tax set at a rate of $15 per metric ton of carbon dioxide12 ($55 per metric ton of carbon). Emissions of carbon dioxide in 2005 are
estimated to be just over 6,000 million metric tons.13 Had a carbon tax of $15 per ton of CO2 been in place in 2005, the tax would have raised $89.2 billion, assuming no
behavioral response. Because demand for carbon-intensive products will fall in response to a carbon tax, carbon emissions in the short run
would fall by an estimated 700 million metric tons of CO2 in response to the levy (12.1 percent based on price and quantity data from
2005).14 Table 2 presents price and output impacts of the tax once it has been fully phased in. Energy prices for the three fuel sources
are average prices in 2005. A tax of $15 per metric ton of CO2 would nearly double the price of coal, assuming the tax is fully passed
forward. Petroleum products would increase in price by nearly 13 percent and natural gas by just under 7 percent. As a point of
comparison, a carbon tax of this magnitude would raise gasoline prices by approximately 13 cents per gallon, assuming the tax is fully
passed forward into consumer prices. This represents a price increase of less than 7 percent using average gas prices for 2005. The
largest impact would be on the coal industry. Coal consumption would decline by nearly one-third. Successful carbon capture and
sequestration (CCS) will blunt the impact on the coal industry. Pricing carbon is a necessary condition for a financially viable CCS
program. The impact on petroleum and natural gas output is very small. Emissions of CO2 would fall by over 700 million metric tons of
CO2, a decline of 12.1 percent. Most of the decline results from decreased coal use. Allowing for these short-run demand adjustments, the carbon tax
would have collected $78.5 billion if it had been in place in 2005. \
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Cap and Trade
A cap and trade policy will significantly decrease coal use
DOE 6.( Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting of the Energy Information Administration of the DOE, “Energy Market Impacts
of Alternative Greenhouse Gas Intensity Reduction Goals”, March 2006, pg. 7,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/agg/index.html)//TM
Reductions in both energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions in all sectors play a role in the
lower GHG emissions. Reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions are important in all cases, particularly in the less stringent cases
where they account for a large share of the overall GHG emissions reductions. If the market response in the industries that produce these
gases is not as large as represented in the engineering-based abatement curves supplied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
that are used in this analysis, more pressure will be put on energy markets to reduce their emissions raising the GHG permit prices,
unless permit prices are constrained by the safety-valve mechanism. Because the cost of GHG permits under the cap-and-trade program
raises the cost of using fossil fuels, all sectors of the energy economy respond with lower overall energy use and a shift away from fossil
fuels where economical. Because of coal’s relatively high CO2 content per unit of energy content and its relatively low price in the
reference case, GHG permit prices have a larger impact on the cost of using coal than they do on the other fossil fuels. For example,
delivered coal prices including the costs of holding GHG emission permits are between 51.9 percent and 156.8 percent higher in 2020
and between 57.4 percent and 305.6 percent higher in 2030. Motor gasoline prices are $0.06 per gallon to $0.19 per gallon (3.0 percent
to 9.3 percent) higher in 2020 and $0.08 per gallon to $0.41 per gallon (3.7 percent to 18.9 percent) higher in 2030. By far, the largest
changes in GHG emissions and fuel use are projected in the power sector, which accounts for over 90 percent of reference case coal use
and can switch to technologies that can generate electricity using a variety of other energy sources. Relative to the reference case, coal
generation is projected to be between 4.8 percent and 27.2 percent lower in 2020 and between 15.8 percent and 64.5 percent lower in
2030. In the two less stringent program cases, coal generation still grows between 2004 and 2030, though at a slower rate than in the
reference case. In t he two most stringent program cases, coal generation in 2030 is expected to be between 9.5 and 39.2 percent below
the 2004 level. New coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration equipment are added in these two cases, but their generation is
not large enough to offset the impacts of coal plant retirements and lower generation from the remaining coal plants.
Coal Disadvantages
Links – Coal – Tradable Permits
Tradable Permits have negative effects on fossil fuels and reduce coal use - Canada proves
Evans, 04 - Burnet, Duckworth & Palmer LLP, Calgary, Alberta. T (Brian, "PETROLEUM LAW EDITION: Principles of Kyoto and
Emissions Trading Systems: A Primer for Energy Lawyers," July 2004, Lexis)
Further, the United States will enjoy the environmental benefits and GHG emission reductions that will result from the utilization of
natural gas as an alternative to much dirtier coal as an energy source for electrical production. As a result of this dichotomy, Canada is
currently negotiating a credit to its emission levels equal to the CO[2]e of the natural gas it exports. 30 > Throughout the international
climate change negotiations, several major issues resulted in the formation of various negotiating blocks -- each reflecting significant
differences in circumstances among the nations participating, including their geography, climate and political and economic structures
and most notably, the degree of economic dependence upon the extraction, production and intensive use of fossil fuels and their
vulnerability to the effects of climate change. The TPWG Options Report focused on how the initial allocation of permits would impact
issues of jurisdictional, sectoral and corporate inequalities created by the imposition of a tradable permit scheme. The method of initial
allocation of permits will have significant implications for Canadians. Upon the Kyoto Protocol coming into force, Canada's 565 mega
tonnes of CO[2]e emissions for the commitment period will be distributed to Canadians in a manner consistent with a set of GHG
policies that the Government of Canada develops in order to transfer ownership rights in the permits to eligible participants to enable
them to buy and sell the permits. The TWPG Options Report emphasizes that "the approach for permit allocation will affect the
distribution across sectors, regions and income groups of the burden of achieving the overall emissions reduction targeted by the permit
system. It may also influence the pattern of actual emissions reductions." 115 1. DISTRIBUTION BY AUCTION. The TWPG Options
Report notes that a domestic tradeable permits system with distribution by auction to the highest bidder raises the price of emission-
intensive activities and is intended to induce change that will lower emissions. This is achieved by the following process, as outlined in
the TWPG Options Report: [*201] . The requirement to submit permits, which are acquired in the market either at government
auctions or in the secondary market, raises the cost of emission-intensive activities. Consumers face higher prices for fossil fuels and for
goods whose production is emission-intensive, as firms pass on the costs of their permit requirements.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Nuclear Power

Nuclear power will make coal prices uncompetitive
Wall Street Journal 8, (MICHAEL TOTTY, “The Case For and Against Nuclear Power,” June 30, 2008; Page R1
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121432182593500119.html?mod=googlenews_wsj) // CCH
First, economics. Critics argue that the high cost of building and financing a new plant makes nuclear power uneconomical when
compared with other sources of power. But that's misleading on a number of levels. One reason it's so expensive at this point is that no
new plant has been started in the U.S. since the last one to begin construction in 1977. Lenders -- uncertain how long any new plant
would take because of political and regulatory delays -- are wary of financing the first new ones. So financing costs are unusually high.
As we build more, the timing will be more predictable, and financing costs will no doubt come down as lenders become more
comfortable. Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanent subsidies for
uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to reassure investors that regulatory delays
won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to remember that although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a
"mature" industry, as some critics say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an
emerging technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going. It's also true that a shortage of parts and skills is raising the cost of
new plants. But if we start building more plants, the number of companies supplying parts will increase to meet the demand, lowering
the price. Most important, nuclear power appears economically uncompetitive primarily because the price of "cheaper" fossil
fuels, mainly coal, don't reflect the high cost that carbon emissions pose for the environment. Add those costs, and suddenly,
nuclear power will look like a bargain. That's likely to happen soon. Governments are expected to assign a cost to greenhouse gases,
through either a direct tax (based on the carbon content of a fuel) or a so-called cap-and-trade system, which would set a limit on
emissions while allowing companies whose discharges are lower than the cap to sell or trade credits to companies whose pollution
exceeds the cap. Suddenly, big carbon polluters like coal-produced electricity are going to look a lot more expensive compared with
low-carbon sources -- in particular, nuclear, wind and hydropower. It's estimated that a carbon "price" of between $25 and $50 a ton
makes nuclear power economically competitive with coal.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Solar Energy

An increase in solar generation displaces and shifts energy away from coal industries
EIA, 7 (Energy Information Administration, “Impacts of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard,” 6-2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html) //HBG
<Although total solar generation does not reach the level of wind or biomass, it has a higher absolute increase than wind and a higher
percentage increase than either wind or biomass by 2030, when compared to the reference case. Solar generation, including utility-
owned solar thermal and PV and customer-sited PV, increases from 7 billion kilowatthours in 2030 in the reference case to almost 38
billion kilowatthours with the RPS, a five-fold increase. Because customer-sited PV earns 3 credits for every kilowatthour generated,
this generation counts as approximately 110 billion kilowatthours for RPS compliance purposes in 2030. This is twice the compliance
share accounted for by wind and about half of the biomass compliance share. Geothermal and landfill gas facilities also show a slight
increase in generation compared to the reference case. The increase in renewable generation stimulated by the RPS primarily displaces
coal fired generation. By 2030, coal generation is 3,086 billion kilowatthours with the RPS compared with 3,330 billion kilowatthours
in the reference case, a reduction of about 7 percent. Coal generation is still expected to grow significantly from 2,000 billion
kilowatthours in 2005. Nuclear generation is reduced by less than 5 percent, to 856 billion kilowatthours with the RPS from 896 billion
kilowatthours in the reference case. As with coal, this still represents significant growth relative to 2005 generation levels. Natural gas
generation is about 2 percent less than the 2030 reference case level of 932 billion kilowatthours. Energy Prices and Expenditures. The
shift away from coal to renewable fuels, together with the costs of retail electricity sellers holding RPS credits, affects electricity prices.
In 2030, EIA projects the national average electricity price with the RPS to be 2 percent higher than in the reference case, i.e., 8.2 cents
per kilowatthour with the RPS compared to 8.1 cents per kilowatthour in the reference case. By 2030, prices for natural gas and coal,
two key fuels for the electric power sector, are lower with the RPS than in the reference case. Cumulative costs to the electric power
sector, in the form of capital expenses, maintenance costs, fuel expenditures, the purchase of RPS compliance credits from non power-
sector installations, i.e., residential and commercial owners of PV systems6, and the purchase of credit allowances from the government
are about 0.4 percent ($8.5_ billion higher with the RPS than in the reference case7, which total $1,963 billion in the reference case
through 2030. Cumulative capital and other fixed expenditures decrease by almost $3.6 billion compared to the reference case.
Offsetting this is an increase of almost $12 billion in fuel and variable costs, including net impacts of reduced fuel prices, reduced fuel
usage, and new purchases of renewable energy credits from the government and end-use sectors. >
Coal Disadvantages
Links-Coal DA-CEPS
New Energy proposals and CEPS undermines coal initiatives and growth
EIA, 7 (Energy Information Administration, “Energy and Economic Impacts of Implementing Both a 25-Percent RPS and a 25-Percent
RFS by 2025,” 9-2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/eeim/index.html) //HBG
<The proposed CEPS leads to extensive growth in renewable and nuclear generation. Since this proposal calls for a higher share of
clean energy than the earlier proposal4, the new generation mix further deviates from reference projections. Both renewable and
nuclear energy grow more strongly with the new proposal. The expansion of these two technologies slows growth in coal and natural
gas generation. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions are significantly less than in the reference case. The CEPS does raise electricity
prices above those in the reference case, but only slightly (0.3 percent by 2030) Generation and Capacity The proposed CEPS results in
changes to the fuels used for electricity generation and the mix of generating capacity added to meet growth in electricity demand. In
2030, this plan requires nearly a trillion kilowatthours of generation from qualifying sources. This is approximately double the
requirements of the earlier proposal, and represents a 700-billion kilowatthour increase in qualifying generation compared to the
reference case projections in 2030. These new goals, however, are moderated by the allowed 10-percent contribution from biological
sequestration projects and the use of early clean energy credits accumulated in the five-year period before mandatory program
compliance begins. Therefore, after starting out at 250 billion kilowatthours in 2015 (based on the incremental sales growth from the
baseline-period sales), the adjusted targets reach about 880 billion kilowatthours of sales in 2030. The required amount increases the
most in 2020 and 2025, as the milestones become more stringent. figure data Renewable generation grows much more quickly in the
CEPS case than in the reference case. Total annual generation from renewable sources in 2030, including hydropower, reaches 1,026
billion kilowatthours (Figure 2) in the CEPS case, nearly double the 560 kilowatthours projected in the reference case. The earlier
proposal only resulted in 592 billion kilowatthours of renewable generation in 2030. Total non hydropower renewable generating
capacity grows by 759 percent between 2005 and 2030 in the CEPS case. Adding new renewable generating capacity becomes the
compliance option of choice for the majority of the clean energy credits required because renewable technologies receive full credits
and the share targets are higher in the revised CEPS. Renewable generating capacity grows from 97 gigawatts in 2004 to 124 gigawatts
in the reference case and 198 gigawatts in the CEPS case. This is especially notable since hydropower capacity, currently the largest
source of renewable generation, remains essentially flat over the period at 78 gigawatts. Electricity from biomass accounts for a large
component of the growth in renewable generation. Initially, the targets are met through biomass co-firing in fossil fuel plants. In 2015,
55 billion kilowatthours of electricity come from co-firing in the CEPS case. By 2020, generation from biomass co-firing increases to
177 billion kilowatthours and it continues to rise to more than 200 billion kilowatthours over the next 2 years. Gradually, as more
dedicated biomass plants come online, generation from co-firing decreases. By 2030, 126 billion kilowatthours of electricity are
generated from co-firing biomass. Compared to the reference case, electricity from biomass co-firing is higher in all years. Reference
case levels are 35 billion kilowatthours, 36 billion kilowatthours, and 26 billion kilowatthours in 2015, 2020, and 2030, respectively.>
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Carbon Fuel Standard

Low Carbon Fuel Standards will cut coal industries and decrease fuel development
Crane & Prusnek, 8 – *Assistant to the Governor of California and **Lawyer and director of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Organization
(David Crane and Brian Prusnek, Report on the Impacts of LCFS on Fossil Fuels, “The Role of a Low Carbon Fuel Standard in
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Protecting Our Economy” Summer 2008, http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/fact-sheet/5155/) //
HBG
<The LCFS will provide a powerful market signal, from one of the largest markets for gasoline in the world, to help slow and eventually
stop the development of these unclean fuels. In this regard, a low carbon fuel standard for transportation fuels will perform a role similar
to the groundbreaking SB1368 law, signed by the Governor in 2006, to encourage clean power plants and discourage investments in
unclean coal power plants in the West.>
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Wing Energy

Wind generation will force a tradeoff with coal
DOE 7.( Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting of the Energy Information Administration of the DOE, “Analysis of Alternative
Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit for Wind Generator”, April 4 2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/index.html)
In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged. Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces
generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case, the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of generation from
wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is also less electricity generated from dedicated biomass
facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030,
when compared to the reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by 10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect on coal
generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on the fuel mix, most of the additional wind generation is at the
expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power production levels that are above reference case levels result in a
dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional
wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in electricity generated from coal. Even in this case, however, coal
generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels.
(Note—the reference case is the projection of what will occur in the SQ.PTC is a permanent tax credit)
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Wind Energy

Wind Energy trades off with conventional fossil fuels and the production of coal
Zaidi, 7 (Lawyer, “Wind Energy and its impact on future environmental policy planning: Powering Renewable energy in Canada and
Abroad,” 2007, Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal, Lexis Scholastic) // HBG
For example, the Electricity Feed Act of 1990 and the Renewable Energy Sources Act (hereinafter RESA) of 2000 are two pieces of
legislation that have spurned the development of wind energy in Germany. ... Given the tremendous pressure of using finite
conventional sources of energy, many countries are turning to renewable sources of energy to cushion against rising costs and to
diversify the means of delivering energy to their citizens. Wind energy is one example of an innovative strategy to provide energy to
citizens in a clean, abundant, and reliable fashion. As rising electricity costs and environmental damage turn societies away from
conventional electricity sources such as fossil fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, etc.), government sponsored efforts and technological
innovations are pushing wind energy to the forefront of environmental policy planning. More specifically, the Canadian government has
implemented financial incentives to encourage public and private businesses to establish renewable energy sources. This paper examines
the role of wind energy in Canada and abroad in terms of how its emergence is recognized as one of the best examples of implementing
sound environmental regimes to replace expensive conventional methods of energy extraction and utilization. Part I examines the
history and background of wind energy, providing an overview of wind energy use in various cultures and time periods. Part II explains
the role of wind energy in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. As part of this global initiative, wind energy is reviewed in terms of how it
contributes to a "green" economy. Part III discusses the technology behind wind energy generation, more specifically, the functionality
of wind turbines and their role in distributing electricity to surrounding communities. Part IV focuses on the application of wind energy
in the Canadian economy. Here, various wind programs are examined in selected provinces to illustrate modern trends in diversifying
the energy sector. Finally, Part V outlines the trend in global application of wind energy projects in various countries. The discussion
focuses on several nations that are actively participating in the development of wind energy projects to reduce dependence on fossil
fuels, while providing affordable electricity and improving energy output from wind projects. These nations include the United States,
Denmark, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom/Ireland, Australia, China, India, and Japan.
A shift from fossil fuels like coal to wind energy destroy the coal industry
Zaidi, 7 (Lawyer, “Wind Energy and its impact on future environmental policy planning: Powering Renewable energy in Canada and
Abroad,” 2007, Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal Albany Law Environmental Outlook Journal, Lexis Scholastic) // HBG
Wind farms generate large-scale energy that drives electricity to several designated communities and enables residents to purchase wind
energy through various companies at reasonable [*206] rates. 40 The average wind turbine lasts 20-25 years, depending on the design and its functionality. 41 With respect
to wind energy capacity, it is estimated that a 1 megawatt (MW) turbine engine with a 30 percent capacity produces about 2,600 megawatt-hour (MWh) per year, a
process which may power up to 320 homes. 42 However, to achieve wind energy's maximum benefit, a wind farm must be highly integrated into an existing electrical
transmission and distribution grid network. 43 The technology of wind turbines has developed over time. 44 In the 1970s and 1980s, wind turbines operated under classical
control designs to regulate power and speed. 45 However, modern turbines are mounted on tall towers, are larger, and more efficient electricity generators. 46 The following
diagram, Diagram 1, offers a basic illustration of how wind energy production works. III. Wind Energy as "Green" and its Role Under Canada's Commitment to the Kyoto
Protocol Wind energy is regarded as "green" technology because it produces no air pollutants or greenhouse gases, and thus has little impact on the environment. 47
Therefore, wind energy neither uses any source of fuel, nor produces toxic or radioactive waste. 48 Wind farms have had some impact on specific bird and [*208] bat
populations. 49 However, as long as an appropriate site is located, the capture of wind energy also poses little threat to damaging surrounding ecosystems, including
wildlife and fauna and flora. 50 Wind farming is popular among farmers because they can still grow crops and graze livestock on their land with little interference from
wind turbines. 51 Using wind energy instead of conventional fossil fuels to power approximately 200 homes would leave around 900,000
kilograms of coal in the ground and reduce annual greenhouse emissions by 2,000 tonnes. 52 In the context of global environmental reforms like the Kyoto
Protocol (The Protocol), harnessing renewable forms of energy such as wind becomes a crucial step in meeting broad objectives of sustainable resource development. 53
The Protocol was a global agreement ratified in 1997 by developed nations, in response to the increasing demands of renewable energy use and high rates of industrialized
pollution. 54 The Protocol curbs greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and contributes to global climate change. [*209] While Canada signed the Protocol, other
industrialized countries, including many traditional energy producers, were skeptical of the threat posed by global warming. 55 Indeed, commentators debate the costs and
benefits of the Protocol, and whether there is a dramatic shift in climate change. 56 Despite this, searching for renewable energy sources is a high priority for
nations striving to change their methods of extracting and using natural resources, while achieving economic self-sufficiency and price
controls on soaring energy costs. 57 In the past twenty years, researchers in universities, private research labs, and utility companies have
developed or improved upon renewable forms of energy, including wind energy. 58 For instance, physicists and aerodynamic engineers
have been improving upon the technology that is behind wind turbine operations. 59 This work has been using cutting-edge materials and
developing innovative
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Regulations

Any sort of limitation on carbon emissions or switch to renewable will have a significant tradeoff with coal use and production
DOE 98.(Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting of the Energy Information Administration of the DOE, “Impacts of the Kyoto
Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets & Economic Activity”, October 1998, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/fossil.html)
The proposed limitations on carbon emissions will have a significant negative impact on the coal industry. In the carbon reduction cases
analyzed here, the advantages of the low carbon content of natural gas and the zero net carbon emissions that are associated with
renewables offset the relatively low fuel cost of coal for use in electricity generation. Thus, coal markets are projected to be severely
affected, in terms of both overall sales and supply patterns, as the need to reduce carbon emissions results in significant shifts away from
coal consumption to natural gas, renewable energy, efficiency improvements in the demand sectors, and—in some cases— nuclear
energy (see Chapter 4 for a discussion of fuel switching and changes in electricity generating capacity).
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Clean Coal DA- Regulations

Regulations destroy innovations to clean coal and increase business cost
Kellogg, 1994 –partner in the Washington, D.C., firm of Kellogg, Huber & Hansen.
(Michael, Lawyer, "After Environmentalism: Three Approaches to Managing Environmental Regulation" 1994
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-kellogg.html) HG
Second, command-and-control regulation is highly adversarial, which contributes to its slowness. Because our command-and-control
regulations do not change the underlying incentives of firms, but simply impose additional costs upon them, the firms have every
incentive to resist the regulations. The EPA must, therefore, attempt to justify its regulations in painstaking detail, through numerous
internal proceedings, in order to brace itself for the inevitable legal challenges (both from businesses, who think the EPA has gone too
far, and from environmental groups, who think it has not gone far enough). Thus, regulations quickly become mired in the courts. Third,
command-and-control regulation is inefficient and expensive. Uniform national standards take no account of the varying difficulties in
meeting environmental quality goals in different areas. Also, the costs of reducing pollution range widely from industry to industry and
even from plant to plant. Uniform emissions standards require expensive equipment everywhere even though overall ambient quality
goals could be met in much cheaper ways at some facilities. Perhaps even more important, when the EPA mandates emissions
limitations that assume a particular technology, firms have no incentive to develop new, possibly cleaner and more efficient
technologies. Fourth, command-and-control regulations generally hide the costs of pollution control in the cost of a product. New car buyers will rarely know how
much pollution-control equipment contributed to the bottom line. That is even more true for buyers of electricity and energy-intensive products. Thus, intelligent public
debate about how much we are willing to pay for cleanup is made impossible. Political accountability for environmental programs is accordingly minimized. That brings
us to the fifth problem. Command-and-control regulation, because of the vast amounts of money at stake, is inevitably politicized. Every environmental bill causes a
feeding frenzy in Congress, as lobbyists for special interests descend upon the 535 members of the legislative branch who micromanage the EPA through the 100
committees and subcommittees to which the agency is obliged to report. It is not surprising that our environmental laws are riddled with political
compromises that create perverse incentives and hinder any genuine attempts to clean up. Coalitions of polluters and anti-growth
environmentalists-"bootleggers and baptists," to use Bruce Yandle's apt phrase, drawn from the unholy alliance supporting Sunday
closing laws-have so distorted policy that new plants with the latest pollution control [and] technology are often discouraged, while old
plants spewing forth pollutants are protected. Pollution becomes a vested right and a protection against competition at the same time.
Regulations or mandating emissions will lower investments and destroy clean coal technologies
Findsen et. al, 7 – of the APEC Energy Working Group Project

(Jette Findsen, Byron Elmendorf, Sarah Mudd-Simmons, and Alan Cohn, Report for Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC), “How Can Environmental Regulations Promote Clean Coal Technology Adoption in APEC Developing Economies?” 11-3-
2007, http://www.egcfe.ewg.apec.org/projects/EnvRegs_Final_2007.pdf) //HBG
There is evidence that impending legislation mandating GHG emission reductions in the United States may influence decisions on the
part of utility investors regarding the use of advanced coal-fired combustion technologies. As discussed in the subsection on the
European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (Section 3.8), there is substantial evidence that costs imposed on carbon emissions can
significantly drive investments in lower carbon alternatives, including more efficient advanced coal-fired combustion technologies. There
are currently seven economy-wide GHG cap-and-trade proposals under consideration in Congress, all of which address the six “Kyoto” GHGs and include power
generators (See Table 9.4, Appendix 1). There are also four bills which focus solely on the power sector, and include conventional pollutants as well. The growing
attractiveness of investment in more efficient coal-fired combustion technologies is reflected in the profile of proposed new coal-fired capacity in the United States. In
early 2007, of the 159 coal plants (representing approximately 145 GW of capacity) proposed for construction over the next 30 years, 77 are advanced technologies- 23
CFB, 16 supercritical, 4 ultra-supercritical, and 34 IGCC systems However, the emerging GHG regulations in the United States have also led to difficulties
in permitting new coal-fired power plants, including those based on highly efficient technology, such as IGCC and supercritical
technology. In October 2007, a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy indicated that at least 16 of the proposed coal-fired power
plants listed in Figure 2 have been can cancelled or delayed while utilities wait for more certainty on emerging GHG regulations.xx
Other reasons for cancellations of planned coal-plants include rising plant costs due to increased competition for materials and shortage
of skilled labor. Taken together, these recent developments indicate that the emerging regulations may have a parallel affect of leading to
less overall use of coal for power generation. This is particularly the case in the United States where GHG regulations are still emerging
and the regulatory environment remains highly uncertain. It is possible that interest in coal-fired power will remain high, once a
regulatory scheme has been firmly established, as long as the plants use highly efficient technology combined with some form of carbon
capture and storage.
Coal Disadvantages

Regulations and pressure crush clean coal technology

The permitting process for coal-fired power plants is quite lengthy and could take several years. One of the major factors is public
involvement which could have a significant impact on technology choice, because local communities and environmental groups tend to
put pressure on approving agencies to interpret environmental rules conservatively. China is not yet fully open to public review and, as a
result, environmental objectives are sometimes overruled by other priorities such as cost, electricity demand growth, and local
employment goals, resulting in exemptions to some of the environmental regulations during the permitting process. However, Thailand
and the Philippines allow public comment during the permitting process, which has led to significant pressure on applications for new
coal-fired facilities. In fact, several proposed coal-fired power plants, using conventional pulverized coal, in Thailand and the
Philippines have been cancelled owing to opposition by environmental groups and local communities. In addition, the lengthy
permitting process for coal-fired power plants contributes to the inherent lag between when regulations are first put into effect and
become law, and the time required to build new coal fired generation where the technology decisions would be influenced by such
regulations. Thus, any new regulations regarding CO2 will inherently involve a lag time in terms of better assessing/quantifying how
such regulations impact clean coal technology uptake.
Regulations or mandating emissions will lower investments and destroy clean coal technologies

<There is evidence that impending legislation mandating GHG emission reductions in the United States may influence decisions on the
part of utility investors regarding the use of advanced coal-fired combustion technologies. As discussed in the subsection on the
European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (Section 3.8), there is substantial evidence that costs imposed on carbon emissions can
significantly drive investments in lower carbon alternatives, including more efficient advanced coal-fired combustion technologies.
There are currently seven economy-wide GHG cap-and-trade proposals under consideration in Congress, all of which address the six
“Kyoto” GHGs and include power generators (See Table 9.4, Appendix 1). There are also four bills which focus solely on the power
sector, and include conventional pollutants as well. The growing attractiveness of investment in more efficient coal-fired combustion
technologies is reflected in the profile of proposed new coal-fired capacity in the United States. In early 2007, of the 159 coal plants
(representing approximately 145 GW of capacity) proposed for construction over the next 30 years, 77 are advanced technologies- 23
CFB, 16 supercritical, 4 ultra-supercritical, and 34 IGCC systems However, the emerging GHG regulations in the United States have
also led to difficulties in permitting new coal-fired power plants, including those based on highly efficient technology, such as IGCC
and supercritical technology. In October 2007, a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy indicated that at least 16 of the proposed
coal-fired power plants listed in Figure 2 have been can cancelled or delayed while utilities wait for more certainty on emerging GHG
regulations.xx Other reasons for cancellations of planned coal-plants include rising plant costs due to increased competition for
materials and shortage of skilled labor. Taken together, these recent developments indicate that the emerging regulations may have a
parallel affect of leading to less overall use of coal for power generation. This is particularly the case in the United States where GHG
regulations are still emerging and the regulatory environment remains highly uncertain. It is possible that interest in coal-fired power
will remain high, once a regulatory scheme has been firmly established, as long as the plants use highly efficient technology combined
with some form of carbon capture and storage.>
Coal Disadvantages

Regulations and pressure crush clean coal technology

<The permitting process for coal-fired power plants is quite lengthy and could take several years. One of the major factors is public
involvement which could have a significant impact on technology choice, because local communities and environmental groups tend to
put pressure on approving agencies to interpret environmental rules conservatively. China is not yet fully open to public review and, as a
result, environmental objectives are sometimes overruled by other priorities such as cost, electricity demand growth, and local
employment goals, resulting in exemptions to some of the environmental regulations during the permitting process. However, Thailand
and the Philippines allow public comment during the permitting process, which has led to significant pressure on applications for new
coal-fired facilities. In fact, several proposed coal-fired power plants, using conventional pulverized coal, in Thailand and the
Philippines have been cancelled owing to opposition by environmental groups and local communities. In addition, the lengthy
permitting process for coal-fired power plants contributes to the inherent lag between when regulations are first put into effect and
become law, and the time required to build new coal fired generation where the technology decisions would be influenced by such
regulations. Thus, any new regulations regarding CO2 will inherently involve a lag time in terms of better assessing/quantifying how
such regulations impact clean coal technology uptake.>
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-kellogg.html) // HBG
<Second, command-and-control regulation is highly adversarial, which contributes to its slowness. Because our command-and-control
technologies. Fourth, command-and-control regulations generally hide the costs of pollution control in the cost of a product. New car
buyers will rarely know how much pollution-control equipment contributed to the bottom line. That is even more true for buyers of
electricity and energy-intensive products. Thus, intelligent public debate about how much we are willing to pay for cleanup is made
impossible. Political accountability for environmental programs is accordingly minimized. That brings us to the fifth problem.
Command-and-control regulation, because of the vast amounts of money at stake, is inevitably politicized. Every environmental bill
causes a feeding frenzy in Congress, as lobbyists for special interests descend upon the 535 members of the legislative branch who
micromanage the EPA through the 100 committees and subcommittees to which the agency is obliged to report. It is not surprising that
our environmental laws are riddled with political compromises that create perverse incentives and hinder any genuine attempts to clean
up. Coalitions of polluters and anti-growth environmentalists-"bootleggers and baptists," to use Bruce Yandle's apt phrase, drawn from
the unholy alliance supporting Sunday closing laws-have so distorted policy that new plants with the latest pollution control [and]
technology are often discouraged, while old plants spewing forth pollutants are protected. Pollution becomes a vested right and a
protection against competition at the same time.>
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Clean Coal- Regulations

Regulations force a tradeoff with clean coal—China proves
Findsen, et. al, 7—of the Greenhouse Gases Expert Network—11/30/07(Jette Findsen, Byron Elmendorf, Sarah Mudd-Simmons, and
Alan Cohn, “How Can Environmental Regulations Promote Clean Coal Technology Adoption in APEC Developing Economies?”,
www.egcfe.ewg.apec.org/projects/EnvRegs_Final_2007.pdf, page 35)//TM
Historically, environmental regulations have had mixed results in promoting clean coal technologies. Despite an extensive regulatory
network, local enforcement efforts have sometimes proven ineffective and, in the past, the central government has had limited success in
enforcing environmental regulations, especially outside the major cities, where funding is limited and most local environmental bureaus
are understaffed. Moreover, environmental protection goals often conflict with local employment and economic goals, reducing the
incentives for local governments to adhere with national pollution control. This trend is exemplified by the SO2 Pollution Levy System.
Throughout the early years of the program (which was expanded to include power generators in 1992) fines on excess SO2 emissions
imposed by the system were significantly lower than the marginal abatement cost of new control technologies.xxvii Recent expansions
to the program to include NOx emissions and increases in levies have generated additional incentives for investment in emissions
controls, particularly FGD systems. China began installing FGD units on coal-fired power generators in 1991, and by 1999, had
installed FGD systems on 2.4 GW of coal-fired power generating capacity.xxviii It is worth noting, however, that most of these projects
were financed as demonstration projects through bilateral funding mechanisms, most notably Japan’s Green Aid Plan.xxix Growth in the
share of FGD-equipped coal-fired capacity has been exceptionally high in recent years, increasing to 200GW by the end of 2005, or
approximately to 20 percent of total coal-fired capacity.xxx The effect of environmental regulations on future FGD development is also
clear, with some 300 new FGD systems scheduled to be installed under the 11th five year plant between 2006 and 2011.xxxi The total
capacity of coal-fired power plants equipped with wet FGD in China is estimated to reach 35 GW by 2010.xxxii As indicated in Table
12, the use of PM control equipment also increased throughout the nineties, with electrostatic precipitators showing the greatest growth
in use. The growth of more effective PM controls is expected to continue rising, as all new coal-fired plants above 200 MW are required
to have ESP systems installed, while smaller capacity plants will utilize Venturi and multi-tube scrubbers.xxxiii
Clean Air regulations of any sort have empirically caused more money to be invested in clean coal
Under the influence of government initiatives prioritizing the development of efficient utilization of indigenous resources, the United States experienced a period of growth in supercritical coal-fired capacity in the 1960s and
1970s. During the subsequent lowering of coal prices, and relatively low demand for additional coal-fired capacity, fewer plants were constructed, the overwhelming majority of which were subcritical units. During this period,
federal regulations on air pollutants proved highly effective in promoting the development and deployment of pollutant controls in most
new coal-fired capacity, as well as in many existing coal-fired plants. Environmental regulations do not appear to have had much
influence on the adoption of more efficient combustion technologies in the past, though there is evidence that the prospect of a federal
mandatory greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program is generating renewed interest in more efficient coal-fired combustion technologies
and CCS. The first stringent requirements for SO2 emissions from power plants were introduced by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977. The most significant response from coal-fired generators was a
dramatic shift to the use of lower sulfur coals from western coal mines. Many of the plants that continued to burn higher sulfur coals were retrofitted with FGD units, and a shift to a technology-based standard in 1977 fostered
the adoption of FGD systems in nearly all new coal-fired capacity. Currently, approximately 90,000 MW of existing coal-fired capacity in the United States utilizes FGD systems, 25,000 MW of which was installed through the
1990s. NOx emissions from coal-fired power generators were minimally regulated until the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Prior to these Amendments, the only significant influence on generators were the 1971 New
Source Performance Standards, which could be met by low-NOx burners, and only affected new capacity. The 1990 Amendments specified emissions-rate limitations for specific abatement technologies for both new and
existing facilities, many of whom also responded by adopting combustion modification devices such as low-NOx burners.xvi Although the first SCR system in the United States was adopted only in 1993,xvii more stringent
NOx requirements for existing power plants established by the EPA in 1994 stimulated a significant growth in SCR utilization throughout the next decade. By 2005, over 100,000 MW of SCR-equipped coal-fired generators had
been built in the United States.xviii Thus far, environmental regulations have had less of a direct impact on the adoption of advanced coal-fired combustion technologies in the United States. Other factors such as cost,
government priorities and technology trends appear to have had an equally important influence on the rate of technology deployment, sometimes slowing the rate of deployment and sometimes increasing it (see Figure 1).
a period of increased fuel costs, high interest rates and inflation, and escalating electricity
Energy supply uncertainties following the 1973 oil embargo contributed to
rates. In this environment, in conjunction with the recently enacted environmental regulations discussed above, the utility industry
renewed its interest in increasing the productivity (efficiency) of coal-fired generating capacity and built more efficient, but generally smaller
plants. There is evidence that impending legislation mandating GHG emission reductions in the United States may influence decisions on the part of utility investors
regarding the use of advanced coal-fired combustion technologies. As discussed in the subsection on the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (Section 3.8), there
is substantial evidence that costs imposed on carbon emissions can significantly drive investments in lower carbon alternatives, including more efficient advanced coal-
fired combustion technologies.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Clean Coal- Regulations
GHG Regulations are going to cause a tradeoff with clean coal research
There are currently seven economy-wide GHG cap-and-trade proposals under consideration in Congress, all of which address the six
“Kyoto” GHGs and include power generators (See Table 9.4, Appendix 1). There are also four bills which focus solely on the power
sector, and include conventional pollutants as well. The growing attractiveness of investment in more efficient coal-fired combustion
technologies is reflected in the profile of proposed new coal-fired capacity in the United States. In early 2007, of the 159 coal plants
(representing approximately 145 GW of capacity) proposed for construction over the next 30 years, 77 are advanced technologies- 23
CFB, 16 supercritical, 4 ultra-supercritical, and 34 IGCC systems (see Figure 2).xix However, the emerging GHG regulations in the
United States have also led to difficulties in permitting new coal-fired power plants, including those based on highly efficient
technology, such as IGCC and supercritical technology. In October 2007, a new report by the U.S. Department of Energy indicated that
at least 16 of the proposed coal-fired power plants listed in Figure 2 have been can cancelled or delayed while utilities wait for more
certainty on emerging GHG regulations.xx Other reasons for cancellations of planned coal-plants include rising plant costs due to
increased competition for materials and shortage of skilled labor. Taken together, these recent developments indicate that the emerging
GHG regulations may have a parallel affect of leading to less overall use of coal for power generation. This is particularly the case in the
United States where GHG regulations are still emerging and the regulatory environment remains highly uncertain. It is possible that
interest in coal-fired power will remain high, once a regulatory scheme has been firmly established, as long as the plants use highly
efficient technology combined with some form of carbon capture and storage.
Coal Disadvantages
Links- Coal DA- Regulations

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n1-kellogg.html) HG
Second, command-and-control regulation is highly adversarial, which contributes to its slowness. Because our command-and-control
technologies. Fourth, command-and-control regulations generally hide the costs of pollution control in the cost of a product. New car
buyers will rarely know how much pollution-control equipment contributed to the bottom line. That is even more true for buyers of
electricity and energy-intensive products. Thus, intelligent public debate about how much we are willing to pay for cleanup is made
impossible. Political accountability for environmental programs is accordingly minimized. That brings us to the fifth problem.
Command-and-control regulation, because of the vast amounts of money at stake, is inevitably politicized. Every environmental bill
causes a feeding frenzy in Congress, as lobbyists for special interests descend upon the 535 members of the legislative branch who
micromanage the EPA through the 100 committees and subcommittees to which the agency is obliged to report. It is not surprising that
our environmental laws are riddled with political compromises that create perverse incentives and hinder any genuine attempts to clean
up. Coalitions of polluters and anti-growth environmentalists-"bootleggers and baptists," to use Bruce Yandle's apt phrase, drawn from
the unholy alliance supporting Sunday closing laws-have so distorted policy that new plants with the latest pollution control [and]
technology are often discouraged, while old plants spewing forth pollutants are protected. Pollution becomes a vested right and a
protection against competition at the same time.
Coal Disadvantages
Link – China DA
China has started importing more coal it exports – it’s looking to major coal producers
RedOrbit, 8 (“China's Coal Demand: As Exporter Turns Importer, Prices Surge All Over Globe”, 2/19.08, http://www.r
edorbit.com/news/science/1259646/chinas_coal_demand_as_exporter_turns_importer_prices_surge_all/index.html) // MDP
China is doing for coal what it once did for oil: helping push prices to new highs, adding more pressure to the creaking global economy.
China has long been a huge supplier of coal to itself and the rest of the world. But in the first half of last year, it imported more than it
exported for the first time, setting off a near- doubling of most coal prices around the world. The capper came Jan. 24, when a winter of
punishing snowstorms and power shortages led Beijing to suspend coal exports for at least two months. Just since then, Asian prices
have shot up a further 34 percent. Last week, coal benchmarks hit all-time highs in the U.S., Europe and Asia. "The velocity of the
change has been remarkable," says Tom Hoffman, senior vice president for external affairs for U.S.-based coal supplier Consol Energy
Inc., which he says is considering holding off on some commitments to supply coal to see if prices rise even further.
No risk of a unique turn – Chinas coal industry is collapsing now because of no government and international support
The society also disclosed plans to build large coal mining centers and big and medium-sized mines equipped with advanced equipment.
China's coal output for this year is estimated at a record 1.6 billion tons, up 14 percent over last year's 1.4 billion tons, industry sources
said on Friday. Nevertheless, coal is in short supply because of rapidly rising demand, shipment costs and coal prices. China's major
coal-fired power plants sent urgent signals that they were urgently needed fuel to generate. Some appealed for state intervention to solve
their acute coal shortages, which disrupted electricity production. A petition filed by China Huadian Group, China Huaneng Enterprise
Group and five other major power generating units said that most power plants in central and north China faced shortages. Coal
reserves at the power plants had dropped below the secure levels, and some plants had to shut down generators, it said. Some people
attributed the power shortage to soaring coal prices, rising transportation costs, and declining coal stocks and quality, but experts cited
the remarkable growth of the Chinese economy as the fundamental reason for the energy shortage. In 2003, China's economic growth
rate is expected to hit 8.5 percent. Some argued the reform pace of China's energy system was lagging behind national economic
development. Electricity pricing was still subject to government regulation, while coal prices floated in line with market demands, said
an official with the China Huaneng Enterprise Group. Thousands of small coal mines were closed for safety inspections following a
series of fatal explosions across the country, but many have since resumed production. Coal had accounted for at least 70 percent of
China's energy supplies, and the ratio would remain unchanged for a long period to come, said the deputy president
Coal Disadvantages
Link – China DA
Renewable development in the US causes a decrease in coal
Ethan, 8 (Political Correspondent, "Renewable Energy likely to overtake oil and coal sooner than you think," 6-17-2008,
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleIenergyandelectricitryd=281474977375141> ) // HBG
future. Indeed, worldwide investment in renewables last year were remarkably widespread. >
And, that decreased demand domestically means we look to export coal to other areas like china
Krauss, 8 (Clifford, New York Times Correspondent, 3/19/08, “An Export in Solid Supply”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/business/19coal.html) // MDP
For coal producers, the new demand abroad is good news at a time when coal is under political attack at home. More than 50 proposed
coal-fired power plants were delayed or canceled over the last year because of concerns over greenhouse gas emissions. “This export
boom right now is the difference between slow growth in our markets and hyper-expansion in our markets,” said Gregory H. Boyce,
chairman and chief executive of Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company. “You have two billion-plus people looking
for a better standard of living. The world is energy-short and the U.S. coal sector is beginning to fill that gap.” Many environmental
groups see the rising global trade as an ominous development, however, since it promises to confound efforts to limit global emissions.
World consumption of coal has increased in recent years by more than 4 percent annually, a major reason that emissions of carbon
dioxide are going up, not down. Carbon dioxide is the principal gas implicated in global warming. “Any rise in coal use around the
world is bad news for the environment,” said Alice McKeown, who works on coal issues for the Sierra Club. “The U.S. needs to be a
leader on global warming, and increasing our coal exports is moving in the wrong direction.” The United States will export 7 or 8
percent of its coal production this year, up from about 5 percent last year, industry leaders predicted in interviews.
Coal Disadvantages
China Coal – WW3 Module

Supply shocks now would be devastating – China’s coal industry can barely keep up with supply now
Huge problems exist in this industry. One of the most prominent is diseconomies of small scale. Among 50,000 coal companies in 1999,
'none of them has a significant market share… and over-competition has caused excessively scattered capital and technical investment
and lack of economies of scale' (Yan Closely connected to the problem with these diseconomies of scale is that the coal industry has
been in over-supply since the mid 1990s because of the rapid unregulated free entry of small TVE coalmines into the market. Failing to
compete with the TVE's low cost of coal, most SOE coal bureaux had to reduce their price and suspend full use of their capacity.
Making losses became unavoidable. However, they still had to keep functioning and fulfilling their social welfare obligations. Because
of these commitments the coal industry has been one of the largest loss-makers for many years.
Strong Chinese growth is key to prevent world war 3
Plate, 3
(Tom, Professor at UCLA, The Straights Times, "Neo-cons a bigger risk to Bush than Chin," 6-28-2003)
But imagine a China disintegrating- on its own, without neo-conservative or Central Intelligence Agency prompting, much less outright
military invasion because the economy (against all predictions) suddenly collapses. That would knock Asia into chaos. A massive flood
of refugees would head for Indonesia and other places with poor border controls, which don't' want them and cant handle them; some in
Japan might lick their lips at the prospect of World War II revisited and look to annex a slice of China. That would send Singapore and
Malaysia- once occupied by Japan- into nervous breakdowns. Meanwhile, India might make a grab for Tibet, and Pakistan for Kashmir.
Then you can say hello to World War III, Asia style. That's why wise policy encourages Chinese stability, security and economic growth
– the very direction the White House now seems to prefer.
Coal Disadvantages
China Coal – WW3 Ext

World coal supply is key to the Chinese economy
Development in China The case of the coal industry”, Pg. xii) // MDP
The Chinese coal industry sounds a boring topic. In fact few topics touch so closely the heart of China's political economy in the early
twenty-first century. Indeed, the coal industry is of central importance in global development in the early twenty-first century. In both
China and the USA, as well as in many smaller countries, coal is the most important source of primary energy for electricity generation.
Managing the environmental consequences of the huge generation of carbon dioxide that results from burning coal in power stations is a
central issue for the world to tackle in the years ahead. However, in the absence of severe penalties for using coal in power stations, coal
remains a highly competitive source of primary energy. Coal is not only still extremely important in China, but its coal output is rising
fast, and shows every sign of continuing to rise steadily. In the absence of countervailing measures, it is likely that China's already huge
coal output will rise to levels far above those of today.
Coal Key to the Chinese Economy
Schafer, 2 (Sarah, Newsweek, “China’s Coal Addiction: Health: It fuels the economy, but the mines also are producing safety problems. What to do?”, 28 October 2002,
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-26413744_ITM?email=halleapy@yahoo.com&library=Acorn%20Public%20Library%20District)
This is the dark side of China's booming economy. The world's most populous nation is undergoing a high-speed industrial revolution,
transforming the country in record time. But this economic engine needs energy to keep it going. And in China, that almost always
means coal. China produces and consumes nearly 1 billion tons of it every year, accounting for a quarter of the world's supply. Coal
fuels the factories that have sprouted along China's coastline, heats the houses being built across its countryside and feeds the power
plants churning out electricity for its expanding cities. China relies on coal--it accounts for as much as three quarters of the country's
energy consumption--because it has a huge supply and low labor costs make it cheap to mine.
Coal Disadvantages
China Coal- Kills the Economy

Coal use is key to the economy of China and India
Pachauri 99, (R.K. director of the Tata Energy Research Institute in New Delhi, India's foremost energy and environmental think tank.
He is also vice chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dr. Pachauri has taught at several universities in India and
the United States, “Living With Coal: India's Energy Policy in the 21st Century” Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 53, 1999) // CCH
India's energy sector has been receiving a great deal of attention in recent years, particularly since the signing of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) in 1992. In almost every forum dealing with the mitigation of emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHGs), reference is inevitably made to the worrisome prospect of China and India burning huge quantities of coal in the future, adding
to the concentration of GHGs in the earth's atmosphere. There are those who feel that these two countries should be persuaded to reduce
their dependence on coal by adopting a set of appropriate policies and harnessing technological developments that would encourage a
shift toward less carbon-intensive energies in the future. Yet developing countries still have very low levels of energy production and
consumption per capita (see Figure 1), and a large percentage of their population still does not have the benefit of the goods and services
that developed countries have been using for decades. A sudden shift from coal to other energy sources, such as renewable energy,
would require extremely costly capital investments and, in the short to medium term, higher outflow of foreign exchange to finance oil
imports. In other words, a reduction in dependence on coal would not favor the economic interests of countries like China and India for
at least the next 15 to 20 years.
Countries like India and China need US clean coal technology

The truth is that it is not feasible for India to drastically reduce its use of coal. India already holds large domestic coal reserves that,
given the country's desperate need for energy, should not be squandered. Also, cleaner coal production technologies are available, while
renewable energy technologies are prohibitively expensive for a developing country. Western pressure in favor of reducing coal use
cannot be justified on ethical grounds either, particularly given the fact that many industrialized countries produce and use much higher
quantities of coal in per capita terms than their developing counterparts. The United States, in fact, is the world's largest producer and
consumer of coal per capita. Developing countries like China and India, however, do have an interest in moving towards cleaner
sources of energy wherever technically feasible and economically viable, and to employ cleaner technologies in their use of coal. This is
a challenge that the international community can help developing countries to effectively meet in the short run. Before examining India's
future energy policy choices in greater depth, some facts need to be put forward and some common myths need to be dispelled. First,
the problem of climate change is not caused by current emissions of GHGs, but is the result of an increase in the concentration of such
gases, which have accumulated through emissions since industrialization began 150 years ago. The burden of mitigating such emissions
should and does rest with those who have caused the overwhelming share of increase in GHG concentration, rather than those who are
still at a very low level of energy consumption and development. This is confirmed by the inclusion of the clause on "common but
differentiated responsibility" in the FCCC. Developing countries need to pursue immediate goals of poverty alleviation--and to do so
inevitably requires substantial increases in levels of per capita energy consumption.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Gas
Gas provides three percent of China’s energy and will only decrease
Roberts, 4 (Paul, “The end of oil on the edge of a perilous new world”, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004, Page 247) // MDP
As in the West, Chinese officials are working hard to build pipelines and LNG terminals in the densely populated coastal cities, but
outside these pockets of affluence, gas is a long-term goal at best in the rest of china. The huge costs of such projects – coupled with
investors’ anxiety over just how much Chinese consumers can afford to pay for energy – leave the prospects for such critical
infrastructure in doubt. Even if China had abundant gas, the country lacks the technology to use gas as fuel. China simply cannot
manufacture or afford to import the small, highly efficient gas turbines that Western utilities now rely on for relatively clean power
generation. As a result, gas, which currently supplies just 3 percent of China’s total energy, is expected to provide only 6 percent by
2010 and perhaps 12 percent by 2020 – compared with a 25 to 30 percent share in the rest of the industrialized world.
And, oil imports are not enough to sustain growth
The per capita reserves of hydropower are 1,603 kwh per year, compared with a global average of 2,909 kwh. By comparison, coal
reserves are large and amount to 95 tons per capita, although still far less than the global average of 209 tons. Oil reserves still remain
uncertain. Currently China produces about 160 Mt of oil and imports 70 Mt each year, but it is estimated that by 2005 China will have a
100 Mt oil shortage when 38 per cent of oil demand will be met by imports. This degree of reliance on imports will be the third highest
in the world, just behind the USA and Japan (CSSA 2000:131). Interestingly, coal liquefaction has been planned as one option to solve
the oil shortage problem and guarantee energy security in China.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Industry
A shift to a more sustainable coal industry is needed – 8 reasons
The strategic importance of coal to China, the history of shortages, and the long distances between coal producers and customers, all
determined that the coal industry had to be tightly controlled by central government and under the terms of the command economy
system. The question as to why this system needed to be transformed was discussed at great length immediately after the reform. At a
coal reform seminar in 1983 attended by all the top officials from the provincial and autonomous region coal administrations and with
participation by key coal companies, eight major weaknesses of the coal administration system at that time were highlighted. These
weaknesses were: 1 The planning administration was over-regulated (guo si). 2 The production distribution was over-regulated. 3 The
price system was irrational. 4 All of a firm's profits were paid to the central government, while all expenditures and subsidies were paid
by the central government (tongshou tongzhi). 5 The labour force was recruited by government and not by the companies themselves. 6
Welfare distribution was equal regardless of contribution. 7 Coal distribution and transportation were blocked by regions, sectors and
departments, restricting easy marketing and export of the coal. 8 Management was divided among many people, with each area of
responsibility being shared by more than one 'leader' resulting in a lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of any one of them.
Constant bickering and arguing (che pi) often resulted (CCCIEC 1989:96). These weaknesses were abundant proof of the need for
transition. The following paragraphs highlight the problems caused by the planning, finance and price administrations in order to show
the need for transition in more detail.
Coal Disadvantages
China Cooperation – Solves Warming

China cooperation solves global warming
The Canberra Times, 8 (“China's rise as a fossil fuel guzzler creates responsibilities”, April 13, 2008) // JRC
Two recent news reports have underscored China's voracious appetite for oil and the impact of unrestrained burning of coal and other
fossil fuels on global climate change. Both confirm the good sense of the Rudd Government's recent agreement with China to hold
annual ministerial talks on climate change and work together to reduce pollution from coal-fired power stations. After all, Australia is
the world's largest coal exporter and China is the world's biggest generator of coal- fired electricity. But there is another worthwhile
step that Australia could take: use its influence to help bring China and India into the leading global organisation for energy research and
cooperation, the International Energy Agency. China's rise as an energy titan was in the spotlight again recently when it reported that oil
imports surged to a record level in March despite sky- high prices. China shipped in an average of just over four million barrels a day,
nearly as much as Japan the world's second-biggest economy. Meanwhile, a research team at the University of California has concluded
that China's global warming emissions have been underestimated and probably passed those of the United States, long the world's top
polluter, in the last two years. The report, to be published next month, warns that unless China radically changes its energy policies, its
increases in greenhouse gases will be several times larger than the cuts in emissions that rich nations are struggling to make under the
Kyoto Protocol by the time it ends in 2012. These are just two bits of an increasingly alarming picture that suggests we may be fighting
a losing battle to combat climate change. Of course, it would be unfair to expect major emerging economies, like those of China and
India, to rein in their emissions unless advanced industrialised nations are prepared to lead the way.
Coal Disadvantages
China Cooperation – Investment

US-China coordination will be key to sustain investments
Bremmer 6 (Ian, president of the Eurasia Group and a contributing editor to The National Interest, “China Goes Global Implications for
the United States” The National Interest, No. 85, September-October 2006) // CCH
When U.S. firms invest in a foreign country, they take a holistic political approach to development there. They try to help improve local
school systems, secure labor rights for women, encourage transparency and anti-corruption efforts, and address environmental
problems, not because they set a premium on democracy and high-mindedness, but because politically active, better-educated citizens
living in communities free of corruption and pollution offer a better environment for sustainable commercial relations. China's state-
owned companies lack experience in establishing such relationships. They are generally intent only on locking up deals, developing
strong relations with local elites and supplying these elites with what they want--often at the expense of local stability. Because Chinese
companies neglect the need to establish footholds in local communities, anti-Chinese sentiment in many of these states is growing. The
same is true for the Chinese government. When the tsunami devastated Indonesia and other Southeast Asian states in 2004, the United
States and Asian/Pacific democracies (Australia, Japan and India) were quick to respond with badly needed help for local populations.
China was nowhere to be found. But the Chinese were not invited to participate. They should have been. If the United States wants
China to adopt this sort of responsible role in the countries in which it is now investing, American companies and the U.S. government
should offer their Chinese counterparts the chance to learn from America's experience investing abroad--its successes and its mistakes.
This process won't be easy. China envisions itself as America's partner, not its student. But Beijing is well aware that Chinese firms are
operating in uncharted foreign waters. If China's leaders had more confidence that Washington understood the need to coordinate their
interests abroad, the relationship might grow much more smoothly. Coordination, not competition, can help both states realize their
shared goal of better relations. And a clearer definition from Washington of where, and under what circumstances, U.S. and Chinese
goals conflict can help Beijing grow its economy in ways that serve the long-term interests of both.
Coal Disadvantages
China Cooperation- AT: Coop Bad
America should not be hostile toward China’s rising economy

Fallows 7 (James, Atlantic national correspondent, “China Makes, the World Takes: A Look Inside the World's Manufacturing Center
Shows That America Should Welcome China's Rise-For Now,” The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 300, July-August 2007) // CCH
Large-scale shifts in economic power have effects beyond the purely economic. Americans need not be hostile toward Chinas rise, but
they should be wary about its eventual effects. The United States is the only nation with the scale and power to try to set the terms of its
interaction with China rather than just succumb. So starting now, Americans need to consider the economic, environmental, political,
and social goals they care about defending as Chinese influence grows. The consideration might best start from the point about which
I've changed my mind: So far, America's economic relationship with China has been successful and beneficial--and beneficial for both
sides. Free trade may not always be good for all participants, and in the long run trade with China may hold perils for the United States.
But based on what I have seen in China, and contrary to what I expected before I came, so far it is working as advertised. Before
thinking about what should be changed, Americans should appreciate what has gone right. A good place to begin that story is Shenzhen.
HOW IT WORKS: THE VIEW FROM THE FOUR POINTS
Each time I went to breakfast at the Sheraton Four Points in Shenzhen, I felt as if I were in a movie. I had a specific scene in mind: the
moments aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier in a typical World War II movie when the flight crews gather in the wardroom to discuss the
mission on which they're about to embark.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Laundry List

Coal is key to survival, hegemony, ending slavery, ending environmental degradation, and stopping power wars
Freese 3 (Consultant for Union of Concerned Scientists and former enforcer of environmental laws, Perseus Publishing, “Coal: A
Human History, p.233-236) // CCH
We’ve made a lot of mistakes over the centuries as we've struggled to understand the nature and impact of coal and its smoke. Some
thought coal grew underground from seeds or in mines guarded by demons or dragons. Some saw in the mines scientific proof of the
biblical flood. Some credited coal with protecting people from the bubonic plague. Others accused it of promoting baldness, tooth
decay, sordid murciers, caustic speech, and fuzzy thinking. More recently, many of us believed we could burn vast amounts of coal
indefinitely without disrupting the natural balance of the planet. No doubt we still have much to learn about coal, but at least we’ve been
able to dispel many of the old myths. There is, though, at least one truth that was more widely understood in the past than it is today—
the critical importance of coal in shaping the fate of nations. and of the world as a whole. Coal transport lured the British to the sea,
promoting the nation's growth from a small rural nation into a world class commercial power. The Royal Navy was kept strong largely
to protect the coal convoys; and in war time, it seized the coal ships and crews to fight its battles, helping Britain rule the seas. Thanks
to coal, London grew into a metropolis large enough to become a vital center of commerce and cultural achievement. With an economic,
military, and cultural influence far out of proportion to its size, this tiny nation began building a global empire of unprecedented reach,
defeating native populations and European rivals such as France and Spain---nations with far more land and people, but far less coal.
And then there was the industrial revolution-fueled by coal, built around coal-smelted iron, and driven by two key innovations first
developed to meet the needs of the coal industry: the steam engine and the railway. Coal alone did not make the industrial revolution
happen any more than coal alone made Britain a global superpower, but neither event could have happened without it. To grasp the
magnitude of coal's global impact, we must try to picture history without the momentous, high-intensity pulse (if industrialization that
started in Britain and then swept the world. The mainly agrarian world would have stayed in place for decades or centuries:, longer, with
slower technological progress, less material wealth, and more gradual social change. Mass-production capitalism would not have soared
to prominence, industrial and places like nineteenth-century Manchester would not have mushroomed, and the Communist Manifesto
would never have been written. The North might have lost the American Civil War, or it might never have started, and the
transformation of the American West would have happened slowly by wagon rather than quickly by rail. The World Wars might never
have exploded without the industrial rise of coal-rich Germany. Colonial conquests would have been far less sweeping, dramatically
altering the history of all the societies that were dominated by foreign industrial powers, including China's (whose ancient history would
have been altered as well). The labor and environmental movements, if they had existed at all, would have taken very different forms. In
short, none of the defining and epic struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would have played out as they did. This is not to
suggest the world would have been necessarily stable and peaceful, as a glance at our planet's violent preindustrial history shows. If
human progress had been more dependent on harnessing surface energy rather than mineral energy, it's possible, for example, that
slavery might have become an even more entrenched evil. And, although our air would have been cleaner and our climate less
threatened, our forests and wilderness areas might have been more widely depleted. The pressure on the land would have been far
greater because it would have been drawn upon for fuel as well as for food. No doubt, eventually, somebody would have figured out
how to turn heat into mechanical motion, inventing the steam engine or something like it, and the pressure on the remaining forests
would have Intensified. In such a world, heavily wooded nations like Sweden might have achieved global prominence. Oil and natural
gas resources would have been tapped, too, but probably much later than they actually were. Coal gave us the technological and
industrial base we needed to exploit widely these harder to find, harder to move, and harder to control fuels. It provided, for example,
the cheap iron and steel we needed for drills, pumps, tankers, railways, and pipelines. In a world Following a flatter trajectory of
technological progress, we might only now be starting to exploit petroleum by burning it in our kerosene lamps. There are, in short, at
least two very different paths civilization might have followed without coal. Humanity's technological and economic progress might
have been so gradual that progress could have been more humane, allowing us to avoid much of the misery of the industrial revolution,
and possibly even to develop environmentally sustainable ways of living. Or, maybe the greater pressure on the limited resources of the
land would have simply led to a different series of wars and injustices, along with lingering poverty and a more complete consumption
of the wilderness. Guessing at which path we would have taken without coal can at this point be little more than a parlor game. It may
help us decide whether we think coal's influence so far has been a net blessing to humanity or a net curse; but ultimately that Judgment
will probably turn more on how we already feel about the glories and tragedies of our history and of our existing, coal-shaped world.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Economy Module

A) Coal is the most important internal link to a stable global economy
Seeking Alpha, 7 (Investment Journal, “Coal: The Black Gold?”, http://seekingalpha.com/article/36244-coal-the-black-gold) //MDP
Coal – that black rock that is pulled from the ground. It's not as sexy as oil, or new like ethanol, but it's a large part of the energy market.
Do you know anything about it? Should you? Maybe. Coal -- a fossil fuel -- was formed from plant matter trapped under rocks and dirt
for millions of years; kind of like oil. The heat and pressure of layer on layer of new dirt compressed that plant matter into what we call
coal (heck, diamonds too). Until the '60s, coal was the main source of energy on planet earth, and it's only been since then that coal has
been outstripped by oil. Even today, we burn more coal than natural gas, more than nuclear, more than anything but the other black gold
made out of dead dinosaurs. It's not sexy, but it's a very, very big business, and to ignore it in favor of uranium trading and oil futures is
simply foolhardy. But for the most part, commodity investors DO ignore it. The coal futures market is still in its infancy, and coal is not
part of any major commodities index. So, if you’re smugly holding a broad-based commodity fund and think you have exposure to the
fast-growing coal market, think again. A Big Player Coal is the world’s second-biggest energy source for two reasons: first, there’s a lot
of it, and second, a lot of it is easily accessible to the industrialized world. A full quarter of the world's coal supply can be found in the
United States. The vast majority of this coal is put right on rail cars and hauled off to the nearest power plant to turn into electricity:
that’s the fate of 92% of all coal in the U.S. The remaining 8 percent is used in higher value applications, mostly turning into ultra pure
“coke” that's used in making steel. China Like so many primary economic inputs these days (copper, oil, zinc, trees), China is the big fat
soot-stained elephant in the coal boiler room. China boasts 35% of the world’s coal reserves, and uses more of the big black rock than
the U.S., EU and Japan combined. In fact, consumption keeps rising -- 14% in each of the past two years. India is right behind China,
and coal plays an increasing role in fueling that economy too. , and with its fast-growing population, it will be eating a lot more coal in
the future. Why coal? Well, for one, it’s dead cheap on a per-BTU basis. In 2005, the average price for a million BTUs of coal was
$1.54. Natural Gas? $8.20. That's an unbelievable gap for the same energy, even if it separates the cleanest fuel and the dirtiest one. The
price gap scared the natural gas industry so much that they launched a sophisticated, Hollywood-run ad campaign to disparage coal’s
image (Face It: Coal Is Filthy.) That’s right – those ads with the beautiful, soot-stained models are not funded by some high-end
environmental group, but by a coalition of natural gas firms. Coal is so cheap that, if you've got a booming economy, it's easy to see
how using anything else can start looking like a luxury. The second reason people love coal is simple abundance. When the President
talks about “America's Energy Security,” the sooty subtext is coal. We've got vast amounts of it. It's easy to get. We don't import it.
Terrorists can't use it as a chokepoint. So what's not to love? Almost everything else. The inconvenient truth (sorry Al) is that coal, as it's
used today, is terrible for the environment. From black lung to the stained buildings of London, coal's legacy is one of pollution and
disease. Just mining the stuff creates sulfuric acid. Burning it makes it worse, and coal fired electric plants are the single largest emitters
of CO2 on the planet. And even if we don't burn it in a plant, it can burn on its own – the Centralia, Pennsylvania mine fire started in
1962 and is STILL burning. Clean Coal A slogan any ad wonk could love, Clean Coal remains a dream more than a reality. The
problem, at the end of the day, is that medieval alchemists never figured out how to turn lead into gold. When people talk about clean
coal, what they really mean is “keep all the bad stuff out of the air.” But the bad stuff has to go somewhere: all that sulfur has to be
disposed of; all that carbon has to be taken care of. This has led most environmental groups to label the “clean coal” movement as
nothing more than greenwash. Are they right? Sort of. There's little question that keeping the bad stuff out of the air and into a tank is a
step in the right direction. And much of the research on how to deal with greenhouse gases is being driven by clean coal research
dollars. The story of coal in 2007 is about the folks working the problem. In fact, when you hear about coal these days, it's almost
always as part of an environmental story (and thus a political story) about the need to reduce greenhouse gases. But the reality is that
we're just at the beginning of a clean coal economy. Black Gold? As ugly as it is, there is money to be made here. 80% of coal is sold on
the long-term market, usually in contracts for delivery over a year or more. The rest is sold between the spot and OTC market. NYMEX started offering coal futures
in July 2001, and now has three different coal futures available, each with a different delivery point. [NYMEX ClearPort: QL, QX, QP] ICE started offering contracts in
2006. None of these feature anything like the volumes you find in the oil market, but they are growing. A more rational approach for most investors is to look at the coal
companies themselves: Consol Energy Inc., Peabody Energy, Yanzhou Coal Mining, Cameco, Arch Coal, Inc., Massey Energy Company, etc. Understand, however, that
for the most part, these are old (old) economy companies, and fundamental value, balance sheets and capital budgets are going to drive your decisions. A third way to “get
in on” coal is to look to the companies that are working to make it a greener fuel. The problem, as is often the case with big-market innovation, is that there are no pure
plays to speak of. General Electric, Bechtel, Siemens – these are not companies one buys for their upstart innovation programs. There's only one newsworthy company
that gets any traction off clean coal, and that's Fuel Tech (NASDAQ: FTEK). They do exactly what you'd want your pure play to do in coal – they clean up emissions and
work on pre-combustion technologies that help coal burn cleaner. The problem is that everybody knows that Fuel Tech is the poster child for coal, so it pops on Cramer
recommendations and politics more than it does on any real focus on fundamentals. Coal remains the most boring, sizzle-less steak on the energy BBQ.
It just happens to be the one we'll be eating until we move to Florida and live off grapefruit. Its main role, most likely, is to keep a check
on the prices of other energy sources: if natural gas and oil get too expensive, folks will turn to coal no matter how many soot-faced
models are splashed onto billboards across America.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Economy Module

B) Economic collapse causes extinction
Bearden, 2K (Tom; Lt. Col. U.S. Army – Retired, “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly” 6/24
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm accessed 8/6/04) // MDP
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have
increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now
possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear
weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-
whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual
treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies
have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries
are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the
MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch
immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies
showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already
on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the
biosphere, at least for many decades.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Economy Ext

Coal is crucial to a functioning us economy
Cameron, 6 (Rob, Writer for BBC News, “Coal keeps US economy burning”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5295922.s tm) //
MDP
The United States is the world's most powerful economy, but much of that power is derived from rather old-fashioned sources. More
than half of the country's electricity is produced by burning coal, and as demand for energy increases, so does the pressure on those who
supply it. Mention to the average American that you're going to Wyoming, and they are as likely as anything to ask you why. It is a fair
question. Wyoming consists mostly of scrubby grassland or arid, tan-coloured mountains, and with just 500,000 people, it is the least
populous state in the US. But the people of America should be thankful to Wyoming, because its colossal treasure trove of natural
resources is helping - literally - to power the US economy. Mineral rich Wyoming's minerals include crude oil, natural gas, uranium,
methane and something called trona. It all boils down to what's cheap and reliable - coal is very cheap Congressman Lee Terry, Omaha
Don't worry if you haven't heard of it - few have. Trona is used in the manufacture of glass, and Wyoming has more of the stuff than
anywhere else in the world. But most of all, Wyoming has coal. Huge, thick, multi-layered seams of coal lie just a few metres below the
surface. Most of it lies in the Powder River Coal Basin, that spans the border with Montana. And the Powder River Basin is providing
America with a staggering one million tonnes of coal each day - about a quarter of all US coal production. "It all boils down to what's
cheap and reliable," says Lee Terry, Republican congressman for the town of Omaha, in neighbouring Nebraska. "That reliability means
cost. Coal is very cheap, and so you're going to see a continued reliance." Power shortages Wyoming landscape Wyoming's mineral-rich
landscape is anything but empty Cheap it is, no doubt about that. Cheaper than natural gas, which is why coal is used to generate 52% of
America's electricity. It is also plentiful. The United States contains the largest coal reserves in the world, enough to last for 250 years or
more.
Coal is key to the world economy
Moen, 6 (Bob, Staff Writer for the Associated Press, “Railroads Struggle to Ship Coal in U.S.”) // JRC
But it will take time because of the enormous task of expanding an industry that until only a few years ago was abandoning track as its
business dwindled. But until the rail system can match rail capacity and demand for service, there will be periods where rail shipments
can't keep up, he said. With plentiful coal reserves and alternative fuels still too costly or years away from becoming reality, coal is seen
by many as the most practical means to meet the nation's and world's growing power needs. "The economy is still rolling along so
everybody expects production and demand to keep increasing," Fred Freme, industry statistician with the U.S. Energy Department's
Energy Information Administration. "It is the cheapest as far as electric generation goes."
Coal Disadvantages
Impacts- Coal DA – Economy Ext
Coal is critical to continued U.S. economic growth for several reasons
National Coal Council, 3 (“The Role of U.S. Coal in Energy, Economy and the Environment – Special Report,” February 2003,
www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/THE%20ROLE%20OF%20U.S.%20COAL%20IN%20ENERGY,%20ECONOMY.PDF) //
JMP
The future of the U.S. coal industry is inextricably bound to public policies concerning energy, the economy and the environment. The
purpose of this paper is to:
· Discuss the status of the U.S. coal industry; and
· Review the implications of coal’s role in U.S. energy, economic, and environmental policies.
The potential of clean coal technology provides an enormous future opportunity for the United States. Energy efficiency can be
improved and the environment protected while coal use expands to generate electricity, promote growth, and improve the nation’s
balance of payments. Coal, the nation’s largest source of domestic energy, contributes both directly and indirectly to the U.S. economy.
Direct Economic Contribution. The $21 billion in current value of annual coal production yields an impact of $81 billion on the
economy. While many U.S. industries have declined over the past two decades, the U.S. coal industry has increased its export position.
The abundant coal resources of the U.S. provide opportunities to improve the nation’s balance of trade in the 1990s, strengthen basic
infrastructure, and employ advanced technologies in the U.S. and overseas.
Indirect Economic Contribution. The U.S. economy and the standard of living it supports depend on coal, primarily in the form of
electricity. Electric power is the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy. Coal is the principal fuel used to generate
electricity. Availability of low-cost coal has enhanced the electrification of the U.S. economy.
FINDINGS
The economic well-being of the United States depends substantially on coal, primarily in the form of electricity. Coal has been the
nation’s largest domestic source of energy for nearly a decade. Electric power, the largest and fastest growing end-use sector in energy,
is the primary market for coal. Accounting for 56% of total generation, low-cost coal contributed to the electrification of the economy
over the past twenty years. If coal had not been available to meet the growth in electric demand, consumers would have incurred over
$190 billion in additional fuel costs since 1971. Coal contributes over $80 billion annually to the economy and stimulates over one
million jobs. Coal also contributes to the economy in terms of tax revenue, exports, and infrastructure and technology development.
Further development of coal production, combustion, and emissions technologies can ensure that coal continues to contribute to energy
security, economic growth, and environmental protection.
Continued coal production is critical to U.S. economic growth – it provides a stable source of energy
Burke, 4 – Vice President, Research & Development of CONSOL Energy, Inc

(Dr. Francis P. Burke, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 4-27-2004, “Sustainable Electricity Generation,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Burke. I am Vice President of Research and Development for CONSOL Energy Inc. (CONSOL). I am
appearing here on behalf of CONSOL and the National Mining Association (NMA) to testify on how technology can permit coal to
provide the fuel to generate low emission electricity that our nation will need to meet our energy demands of the future.
I would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these important hearings. Mr. Chairman, we agree with the statement in your
letter of invitation to testify that "actions should be taken today to prepare the nation for a future time when oil and gas prices and
availability limit their uses to areas other than electricity generation." As emphasized in the Energy Information Administration's (EIA)
latest Annual Energy Outlook published in January of this year, the demand for electricity is expected to increase by nearly 50% by
2025 and we can only assume that this growth will continue beyond that time. Affordable and clean electric energy must be available to
allow our nation to reach its full economic potential. Clean electric energy means economic growth and it means jobs. Coal, which is
over 90% of our nation's domestic energy resource on a Btu basis, and now provides over 50% of the electricity we use, is - and must
continue to be - the source for much of this electricity. Advanced clean coal technologies that are being developed under long-standing
federal/private partnerships will assure that coal can continue to be used in a manner consistent with environmental needs.
Coal Disadvantages
Impacts- Coal DA – Economy Ext

The coal industry creates a number of secondary jobs and economically empowers regions
Murray, 3 – President and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation

(Robert E., FDCH Congressional Testimony, Committee on House Resources, 5-13-2003, “Impact of Kyoto Global Warming Treaty on
Ohio,” Lexis-Nexis Universe) // JMP
Chairman Pombo and Congressman Ney, my name is Robert E. Murray, and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of Murray
Energy Corporation ("Murray Energy"), which employees about 2,500 persons in the most economically depressed areas of the United
States. Our Subsidiaries, American Energy Corporation, Maple Creek Mining, Inc., and The Ohio Valley Coal Company, employ about
1,400 persons in the tri-State Ohio River Valley area, and nearly 1,000 people here in Belmont County.
Studies at The Pennsylvania State University have shown that up to eleven (11) secondary jobs are created for each coal industry
position that we provide, thus making our Companies responsible for almost 17,000 jobs in this tri-State area, and nearly 12,000
positions in Eastern Ohio.
But, this is not where our tremendous beneficial impact on this region stops. Our mining employees typically earn twice the average
household wage in Ohio and two-and-one-half times the median wage for this area. American Energy Corporation's Century Mine here
in Belmont County is the largest single economic development in Ohio in recent years, representing an over $300 million investment in
our area.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – California Economy Module

Coal is key to California’s economic potential
EIA, 92 (Energy Information Administration, “State Coal Profile: California”, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/st_coal_pd

f/0576h.pdf) // MDP
Although wax production represents the most unusual program to locate domestic deposits with a high wax use of coal in California,
considerably more coal is used as content. The search was prompted by a wartime shortage a fuel. Most of the 3 million short tons of
coal consumed in of montan wax, which had been imported chiefly from 1992 was produced in Utah. Cement plants were the Germany.
The lignite deposit near Ione was one of the few major coal consumers, accounting for more than half of found to have a wax content of
economic potential. In the State's total. More than one-third was used as a source 1947, the deposit, mined initially to produce lignite of
heat for producing sodium carbonate from natural briquettes, was developed as a source of montan wax. Until 1983, coal from Utah and
New Mexico was The Ione lignite bed, 12 to 15 feet thick, is surface mined steel. No coal is used in the State's power plants. selectively
after drilling has located areas with a high wax content. It is mined during the driest summer months and Several ports in California are
shipping points for coal stockpiled at the wax plant for use throughout the year. exports from western mines. Los Angeles is by far the
The level of production is governed by the market for principal coal-exporting district, accounting for most of montan wax. Production
in 1992 was 103,000 short tons. the 3 million short tons of coal exported through Montan wax is extracted California in 1992
That’s key to the global economy
Shatz, 3 (Howard, “Business Without Borders? The Globalization of the California Economy”, The Public Policy Institute of California
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=432) // MDP
Although other states also seek to increase exports and foreign investment, and economic globalization is usually measured at the
national level, the sheer size and complexity of California’s economy make an analysis of its international trade and other forms of eco-
nomic exchange especially useful. In Business Without Borders? The Globalization of the California Economy, Howard J. Shatz
describes California’s global exposure with special emphasis on goods and services trade, foreign direct investment, and port activity.
He finds that California differs from the rest of the United States in many standard measures of economic globalization. Compared to
the rest of the United States, for example, California’s goods exports are proportionately high, but its foreign direct investment is
relatively low. Shatz also finds that California is at the leading edge of several emergent trends in international economic activity.
Compared to the rest of the United States, California exports more services, and its ports ship more exports by air than by land or sea.
Also, California manufacturers are more likely to use production-sharing than other U.S. firms. California’s Global Economic Profile
Compared to firms in the rest of the United States, California businesses engage in proportionately less outward foreign direct
investment. Their foreign investment is particularly strong, however, in two dynamic areas: nonmanufac- turing industries and
manufacturing industries that use production-sharing—that is, the process by which multinational enterprise networks produce and
assemble components in different locations. This form of production is prominent in technology industries, such as industrial machinery
and electric and electronic equipment. California outward foreign direct investment is especially strong in Asia, the site of much
production-sharing.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Mountain Economy Module

Coal is key to mountain states economies
Sweeney, 3 (James L, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, “The California Electricity Crisis”, Hoover
Institution Press) // MDP
The Pacific Northwest relies primarily on hydropower, with some natural gas and coal. The mountain states, expect Colorado, rely
primarily on coal as an energy source for electricity generation. Colorado uses coal, hydropower, and natural gas. California relies on a
diverse mix of energy sources, including natural gas and hydropower.
That’s key to continued growth
Kirchhoff, 7 (Sue, Writer for USA Today, “Growth in Rocky Mountain states outpaces rest of USA”, 2/26/2007,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2007-02-26-rockies-usat_x.htm) // MDP
The Rocky Mountain states are experiencing above-average growth, while Michigan and Ohio are hurting and areas along the coasts are
grappling with a slowdown in home construction and prices. As U.S. economic growth diminishes to a more moderate pace — buffeted
by the slumping domestic auto industry, falling home construction and a business inventory buildup — the impact is playing out
differently across the country. Florida and California, which experienced major run-ups in home sales and prices, are taking a hit as
local housing markets correct. Overall strength is bucking California up, however. Michigan is in recession, because of the woes in the
auto industry, says Steve Cochrane, economist at Moody's Economy.com, while Ohio, also dependent on manufacturing, isn't faring
well. Big bonuses in the financial services industry are helping the Northeast. The Rocky Mountain states, helped by strong demand for
energy and agriculture, now generally have lower unemployment and faster growth than the rest of the country, though areas of Nevada
and Arizona are feeling the impact of a down housing market. "Northern Colorado is going to outpace the U.S.," says Martin Shields, a
regional economist at Colorado State University, adding that area of the state has come back after losing good-paying tech jobs. "Like
the rest of the economy, health care is going to be a driver. The manufacturing sector here has really bottomed out. We can't lose much
more. All of our (negatives) have really gone away," Shields says. Businesses are bullish on the outlook for the mountain region.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Electric Economy Module

Coal is key to electricity worldwide
Coal is also the major fuel used in generating electricity worldwide. Many advanced countries such as Australia and the USA are heavily
dependent on coal for electricity, with 84 per cent and 56 per cent of coal-fired electricity respectively. The International Energy Agency
(IEA) forecasts suggest that the worldwide use of coal for electricity generation will grow significantly over the next 20 years,
particularly in China and many of the developing countries. Coal will remain the most favoured fuel where gas is unavailable or
expensive (e.g. China and India). The US Department of Energy and the UK Department of Trade and Industry have made similar
forecasts.
And electricity is key to the global economy
Cooler Heads Coalition, 98 (“Electricity Consumption is the Key to Economic Growth; Current Federal Funding Has Little Effect on
Emissions”, August 22, 1998
Electricity Consumption is the Key to Economic Growth Electricity has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy over the
last twenty years, according to technology forecaster and consultant Mark P. Mills, president of Mills-McCarthy & Associates, Inc.
Since 56 percent of the nations supply of electricity is provided by burning coal, reductions in coal use under the Kyoto Protocol could
have serious economic consequences, especially since the service sector has grown relative to other economic sectors. The U.S.
economy has become significantly more efficient since 1977, says Mills. In that year, "one dollar spent on energy use supported $9.50
of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today one dollar spent on energy yields $14 of GDP." Most of this improvement has occurred in the
service and manufacturing sectors, which make up 85 percent of GDP. This was accomplished through converting energy use from
combustible fuels to electricity use. "All of the net growth in new energy supply for two decades has come from electricity," according
to Mills. Energy demand in services has increased by 30 percent, but has increased electricity use by 71 percent. Manufacturing has only
increased energy use by 8 percent while increasing electricity use by 25 percent. While the amount of combustible energy required to
support a single dollar of GDP has dropped precipitously, the amount of electricity needed to support a dollar of GDP has remained
constant. This is true despite large gains in the efficiency of many electricity applications. Mills warns that "policies cannot restrict the
supply of electricity, or increase its cost, without endangering the economy." Mills article, which appeared in the World Climate Report
(August 10, 1998), is available at www.nhes.com.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Uniqueness – Railroads Strong

The railroad industry is strong now
Dinsmore, 05 (Christopher, Virginian-Pilot, 1/30, lexis) // JRC
Two of the nation's four largest railroads -- No. 4 Norfolk Southern Corp. and No. 2 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. -- reported
double-digit revenue growth, thanks to a combination of rising traffic and increased shipping rates. Meeting with analysts Wednesday in
New York, Norfolk Southern reported that its 2004 revenue surged 13 percent to $ 7.3 billion. Only Burlington Northern grew faster,
with 16 percent revenue growth last year. Norfolk Southern "showed me revenue growth numbers that in 20 years as a rail analyst I
thought I was never going to see," said Anthony B. Hatch, an independent analyst in New York. A renaissance for the rail industry is
under way, and the railroads that have the capacity are taking advantage of it while others are choking. The nation's railroads are shifting
from being carriers of industrial goods to carriers of a mix of industrial and consumer products. The shift is being driven by the
globalization of manufacturing, a rethinking of supply chains and growing constraints on the nation's highways and trucking industry.
Among the biggest railroads, Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern were well positioned to accommodate the demand. No. 1
Union Pacific Corp. and No. 3 CSX Corp. both struggled and didn't experience the same growth. Hatch and other analysts liken the
difference to the haves and have-nots. Norfolk Southern and Burlington Northern clearly are haves. Suffering from congestion,
accidents and bad weather, Union Pacific is a have-not; CSX is somewhere in between, but improving. Investors are taking notice as
well. Norfolk Southern's stock climbed about 50 percent in the past year. It recently settled somewhat, closing Friday at $ 34.06,
reflecting some wariness of rising costs, particularly for fuel. There's also worry that recent rail accidents, including the deadly Norfolk
Southern train wreck Jan. 6 in Graniteville, S.C., could lead to increased scrutiny and perhaps renewed regulation of the railroad
industry for safety issues. "Clearly part of our growth is attributable to the strong U.S. industrial economy," said Charles W. "Wick"
Moorman IV, Norfolk Southern's president. "However, we believe that shifting international trade patterns in terms of both consumer
products imports and global energy sourcing, along with highway transportation issues, also are key structural drivers of that growth."
Norfolk Southern's cargo volumes last year, as measured by carloads, surged 8.8 percent, about double the anticipated rate for U.S. gross
domestic product in 2004. "The company is clearly benefitting from being the best East Coast rail operator, the supply/demand dynamic
within the tight freight transportation industry, and strong demand for most of its lines of business," said John Larkin, rail analyst at
Legg Mason, a Baltimore-based brokerage house, in a research report written Wednesday.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Railroads - Brink

Railroads are vulnerable now – investments in new tracks
AP, 07 (Associated Press, December 7, 2007) // JRC
This is very much a team sport to get this much coal moved," BNSF spokesman Pat Hiatte said. Railroad officials say they are trying to
meet the rising coal demand. In most places, railroads are reluctant to invest too much money in track too soon because the companies
want to preserve profits and avoid overbuilding, but the record demand for coal has made UP and BNSF confident of profits in the basin
service. The railroads announced plans earlier this year to invest $100 million in the line they share."This is probably about the only
place in America where we're putting in track about as fast as we can build it," said Jim Steamer, who runs UP's railyard in Bill, Wyo.
A decrease in access to coal would hurt railroads
AP, 07 (Associated Press, December 7, 2007) // JRC
(AP) The nation's two largest railroads have hauled record amounts of coal from the mines in northeast Wyoming and
southeast Montana this year, but Union Pacific Corp. and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. still struggle to keep up with utility
demand and existing contracts. If utilities run low on coal during the high demand of winter, they might be forced to buy fuel on the
open market at higher prices that could be passed on to customers, said Jim Owen, with the utility trade group Edison Electric Institute.
"It's been a fairly contentious issue in the last 18 months," said Owen, whose group represents nearly three-quarters of all U.S. utilities.
The problems began in May 2005 when two derailments on the main line leading out of the Powder River Basin revealed that
accumulated coal dust in the rail bed made the line unstable. Repairs disrupted traffic and slowed deliveries for months. Then last
winter, some utilities worried about depleting their onsite stockpiles, and one, Entergy Corp., in April sued UP over the delivery
problems. Entergy says it lost "tens of millions of dollars," and its lawsuit is pending in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas.
"Utilities have made no secret of the fact that deliveries have been a problem," Owen said. Some utilities last winter even imported coal
from overseas to help make up for the Wyoming delivery problems. The U.S. Energy Information Administration said 30.5 million tons
of coal was imported in 2005, and that was up 11.7 percent over the previous year. The delivery problems, spot market purchases and
imports cost the utilities _ "and ultimately their customers" _ more money, Owen said. The problems have eased somewhat this year, but
Owen said utilities were still not getting all the coal they want and contracted for. A mild winter this year could ease concerns, he said.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Railroads – Coal Key

Coal is crucial to US railways
Ficker, 04 (John, President of the National Industrial Transportation League, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 3/31, lexis) // JRC
Moreover, between 1993 and 2002, U.S. Class I railroads' dependence upon a single commodity - coal - grew from 38.2% of all tons
carried to 44.4% of all tons carried, a 16.4% increase.2 Another aspect of this situation is shown in the growth of rail carriage compared
to the growth in U.S. industrial production. According to AAR figures, between 1993 and 2002, the number of carloads originated by
Class I railroads grew by 28.6% and tons originated grew by 26.5%. Yet, in this same period, U.S. industrial production grew by
36.8%.3 In other words, over an entire decade, U.S. industrial 1 Source: "Railroad Ten Year Trends 1993-2002," Volume No. 20, Policy
and Economics Department, Association of American Railroads, p. 26 ("Railroad Ten Year Trends"). 2 Id. p. 51. 3 Id. pp. 43 and 44. 3
production grew about twenty-five percent faster than railroads' traffic.4 Even using ton-miles, the measure of production most
favorable to railroads (which measures not only the number of tons transported but also how far those tons are carried), railroads'
growth still had not kept pace with U.S industrial production.5 In other words, today railroads are carrying things - primarily coal -
farther than they carried those things ten years ago, but the number of carloads they carry is failing to keep pace with the growth in the
U.S. industrial economy.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Railroads - Economy

A) Railroads are key to the economy
Hamberger, 99 (Edward, CEO of the Association of American Railroads, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 3/2, lexis) // JRC
1. North America's economic future and its ability to compete in world markets is best served by a freight railroad industry that provides
excellent service at reasonable rates and a safe working environment for its employees. Railroads have achieved much success since
1980 by reducing costs and becoming more efficient. But further success will require growth in the "top-line." In other words, we have to
"grow the business," and that means we have to provide better service. We are striving to do this. Last year, railroads held a series of customer outreach meetings in which
we discussed a number of issues that would help us serve our customers better. One result of those meetings is that railroads became the first industry to publish weekly
performance measures on the Internet. We are continuing our dialogue with rail customers this year. We will shortly hold another meeting with rail customers - this one in
Chicago - where we will address issues relating to customer communications over the entire cycle of a shipment, from the time a car is ordered until it is delivered,
including problem resolution. Also as a result of our customer outreach efforts. we have agreed to accelerate development of an Interline Service Management business
plan. As much as 40 percent of our revenue involves shipments moving over more than one railroad so anything we can do to improve the handling of these interline moves will have a
direct impact on the quality of service. Nearly two years ago, the industry developed NetREDI - an Internet-based means by which railroad customers can trace their individual shipments. This is now being used on a daily basis
by our customers. Our customer-service centers provide around-the- clock assistance for those who ship by rail. Last year railroads reached a landmark agreement with the National Grain and Feed Association to arbitrate service
issues and mediate rate disputes. We even adopted, in total, NGFA's own century-old arbitration system. Railroads also resolved to work better with each other, including an historic agreement between the Class I railroads and
the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association that will mean better service for the customers we cooperatively serve. Staggers helped us achieve our goal of providing customized, efficient, economical and safe
service. Since 1980, average rates have declined by 55 percent on an inflation-adjusted basis. Just as remarkable has been the improvement in railroad safety. Both train accident and employee injury rates have declined by 70
percent since 1980. (See Chart 3 at the back of this testimony.) Railroad workers have lower injury rates than their counterparts in the truck, aviation and transit industries. Indeed. their injury rate is lower than the average for
manufacturing as a whole. (See Chart 3A at the back of this testimony.) Staggers had everything to do with this as it increased cash flow, providing railroads with the money needed to eliminate deferred maintenance, upgrade
. The present freight rail system in the U.S. works. Indeed, it has become the model
track and purchase new and safer equipment. (Chart is available on hard copy only)
for countries around the world. According to World Bank statistics, U.S. freight railroads move more freight, more efficiently and more
economically than do railroads in Western Europe, in Japan or any other place in the world. I know it is customary for industries faced
with change to come before Congress and predict disaster. But the railroad industry is different in one important respect. Prior to 1980,
we lived through the consequences of what is being proposed and it took an act of Congress and nearly 20 years for this industry to
regain its footing. The health and vitality of our economy depends on the efficiency of our nation's transportation system. Why
jeopardize the future of our nation's economy by reregulating railroads? The railroad industry of two decades ago was a capital-starved
industry. Some twenty percent of the industry sunk into bankruptcy during the 1970s. Return on investment was under two percent.
Accident rates were soaring. Average rates were climbing faster than inflation. Market share was declining. The government was
pouring $1 billion a year in direct subsidy to keep Conrail running, and there was discussion of nationalizing the railroads.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Economy Ext

Railroads create a stable economic foundation
Ficker, 04 (John, President of the National Industrial Transportation League, FDCH Congressional Testimony, 3/31, lexis) // JRCsom
In fact, the ability of American manufacturers to compete in a world economy and the creation of jobs in the United States, depends in
substantial part on the existence of a competitive and efficient rail industry. Rail transportation is thus not simply a matter of private
interest between rail carriers and shippers, but appreciably contributes to our nation's overall economic health. Rail transportation also
helps to alleviate congestion on our highways, and thus adds to the overall efficiency and safety of our nation's entire transportation
system. Moreover, the League well understands the capital-intensive nature of the rail industry and its large capital needs. Rail shippers
depend on those infrastructures for the safe and efficient transportation of their goods. Almost exactly one year ago, the League
appeared before this Subcommittee and urged the Congress to take steps to provide funds to improve the nation's rail infrastructure and
to reduce the amount of taxes that the nation's rail carriers pay so that additional monies can be directed toward improving rail
infrastructure.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Railroads - Hegemony

A) Railroads are key to hegemony
Korpanty, 99 (Robert, Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency, Army Logistician, November-
December, http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec99/MS455.htm) // JRC
Tell any mechanized maneuver commander he has to fight a battle without his Abrams tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles, and you
probably will see a puzzled look on his face that could be interpreted as, "What planet are you from?" or, "What language are you
speaking?" Since it is doubtful that a major conflict will occur just outside the gates of Fort Stewart, Georgia, or Fort Hood, Texas, a key
element of a successful engagement will be getting combat power wherever it is needed on time. Without a reliable commercial rail
infrastructure, it is doubtful the tanks and Bradleys will make it to their place of business. To make sure they do, the Military Traffic
Management Command developed the Railroads for National Defense (RND) Program in 1976. In 1991, the RND Program was
assigned to the Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency (MTMCTEA), which now executes the
program on behalf of the U.S. Transportation Command. This program ensures that the commercial rail infrastructure in the United
States meets Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for deploying a force. The RND Program works to preserve our strategic rail
mobility.
B) Leadership prevents global nuclear war
Khalilzad, 95 (Zalmay; Senior Policy Analyst - RAND corporation, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the
Cold War", Spring Washington Quarterly l/n) // MDP
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not
as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law.
Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the
rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant
dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Hegemony Ext

Railroads are key to military mobilization and hegemony
Korpanty, 99 (Robert, Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency, Army Logistician, November-
December, http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/NovDec99/MS455.htm) // JRC
The commercial rail network was put to the test during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and no significant problems were
noted. It proved to be a crucial link in transporting combat power. The successful use of the commercial rail network helped to ensure a
swift end to the war, which was a real testament to how well the RND Program supports strategic rail mobility.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Railroads – Food Prices

A) Railroads are key to lower food prices
Laur, 98 (Ed, vice president of Attebury Grain, Inc, Federal News Service, 3/31, lexis) // JRC
U.S. agriculture is undergoing a major transition, from being heavily influenced by government to one of less government and more
market freedom. The 1996 farm law that opened the door to greater planting flexibility for producers also phases out the government's
financial support of farmers, challenging agriculture to expand farm income from the marketplace and to aggressively pursue export
markets. To achieve that outcome, reliable transportation services of all kinds are an absolute must. Predictable access to markets --
whether to ports to load oceangoing vessels or to poultry and hog farms or flour mills to keep products growing and moving into
consumer channels -- is highly necessary if this new farm policy is to be successful. If grain and its derivative products cannot be
delivered in a predictable manner, domestic and global customers will go elsewhere as we watch our markets shrink. U.S. farmers
expect and deserve the support of Congress and the federal government in assuring reasonable market access and predictability of
transportation service. How important is predictable rail service to U.S. agriculture? Upwards of 50 percent of all commercial grain
movements to markets are carried by rail. In some western growing areas, it is not unusual to have 75 percent or more of shipments
moving by rail. Railroads link the major production regions of the Midwest with processing, livestock and poultry operations on both
east and west coasts, as well as all the ports. In the long-haul movements required to keep grain flowing reliably from production
regions to points of consumption, rail is often the only viable economic alternative. Many grain shippers are located beyond effective
trucking distances from markets and far from navigable waterway transportation.
B) High food prices kill billions
Power, 96 (Paul R.; Tampa Tribune Staff Writer, "Grain Shortage Growing Problem" 1/20 Tampa Tribune l/n) // MDP
There are more people in this world than ever, but less grain to feed them. That's kindled fears of a world food crisis, a problem
Florida may help prevent. Poor weather, drought, political unrest and economic shifts have decreased planting, pushing world grain
reserves to record lows. Meanwhile, the world's population grew by 100 million, to 5.75 billion in 1995 - a record increase. Now,
miners in West Central Florida are digging out phosphate more quickly, so it can be used to make fertilizer. Analysts are warning
about the increasing possibility of flood or drought in the world's food-producing regions. That can push food prices much higher, both
here and abroad, and even cause famine in the poorest countries. U.S. food prices may rise more than 4 percent this year, ahead of
the rate of inflation. "Conditions today indicate that there is at least some vulnerability in the food supply," said Sara Schwartz, an
agricultural economist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Corn and soybean production plunged last year in the United States,
she said. Wet weather slowed grain planting in the United States and Canada. Elsewhere, drought and civil conflict in sub-Saharan
Africa cut production to 20 percent below normal. The European Union has less than one quarter of the grain reserves it held in 1993.
The amount of corn expected to be available in the United States by summer - when corn is harvested - was trimmed by crop forecasters
this week to 507 million bushels, the lowest in 20 years. On a global scale, food supplies - measured by stockpiles of grain - are not
abundant. In 1995, world production failed to meet demand for the third consecutive year, said Per Pinstrup-Andersen, director of the
International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C. As a result, grain stockpiles fell from an average of 17 percent of
annual consumption in 1994-1995 to 13 percent at the end of the 1995-1996 season, he said. That's troubling, Pinstrup-Andersen
noted, since 13 percent is well below the 17 percent the United Nations considers essential to provide a margin of safety in world food
security. During the food crisis of the early 1970s, world grain stocks were at 15 percent. "Even if they are merely blips, higher
international prices can hurt poor countries that import a significant portion of their food," he said. "Rising prices can also quickly put
food out of reach of the 1.1 billion people in the developing world who live on a dollar a day or less."
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Food Prices Ext

Railroads transport 50% of all us grain
How important is predictable rail service to U.S. agriculture? Upwards of 50 percent of all commercial grain movements to markets are
carried by rail. In some western growing areas, it is not unusual to have 75 percent or more of shipments moving by rail. Railroads link
the major production regions of the Midwest with processing, livestock and poultry operations on both east and west coasts, as well as
all the ports. In the long-haul movements required to keep grain flowing reliably from production regions to points of consumption, rail
is often the only viable economic alternative. Many grain shippers are located beyond effective trucking distances from markets and far
from navigable waterway transportation.
Agricultural shippers are unique in their degree of dependence on rail transportation. Unlike other industries that may have some degree
of freedom in choosing locations for plants or facilities, grain shippers are inextricably linked to areas of fertile ground where
agricultural production is feasible. By its nature, farming and the agricultural shipping industry is decentralized - spread over a wide
geographic region. Thus, the economic alternatives for transportation services are limited, and the performance and predictability of the
railroad that serves a facility plays a critical role in the successful performance of the grain shipper's business. Few facilities have more
than one railroad serving them. A survey the NGFA conducted in the early 1980s demonstrated that more than 90 percent of rail
shippers' facilities were served by only one rail carder.
food prices impact
Disrupting rail service kills local producers and raises prices
It is no secret that the disruptions that have characterized U.S. rail grain service, particularly in the western United States, since last June
have been among the most severe in modem rail history. What is most disconcerting to our industry is that the disruptions have occurred
during a downturn in U.S. raw grain and oilseed exports in the past six months that is the result of large world crops, the Asian currency
crisis and the highervalued dollar. The U.S. Department of Agriculture now projects that both corn and wheat exports for the 1997-98
marketing year will be lower than the average of the 1990s. Yet, despite this downturn in export markets, the lack of predictable, reliable
rail service to move grain to domestic and export markets has further depressed local cash grain prices for farmers, and caused receivers
of grain and grain products to sustain escalating costs and delays when originating grains by alternative modes.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal - Natural Gas Bad

A) Decreased coal supply causes increased natural gas usage
Moen, 6 (Bob, Staff Writer for the Associated Press, “Railroads Struggle to Ship Coal in U.S.”) // JRC
Richard Bower, engineering assistant at the plant, said ideally the plant would have 700,000 to 800,000 tons of coal on hand. But this
winter, the plant's coal supply dwindled as low as 150,000 tons, less than a week's supply, prompting Basin Electric to consider
curtailing power production. "It's not increased generations causing the stockpile to go down," Basin Electric spokesman Robb said. "It's
lack of coal deliveries." Other power companies are having similar supply problems. Entergy Arkansas said its coal shipments declined
up to 20 percent last year, forcing it to reduce operations at two power plants in Arkansas and to buy power on the open market.
Wisconsin utilities incurred nearly $50 million in extra costs last year because of interruptions in coal shipments. Entergy Arkansas has
sued Union Pacific Railroad, claiming the railroad schemed to hold back deliveries of Wyoming coal in an effort to make more money.
UP denied the claim, saying it actually turned down new contracts to ship coal in order to catch up with delayed shipments to existing
customers. Power generating companies are not expecting any improvement this year. David Wilks, president of energy supply for the
Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy, testified before a Senate committee last month that power companies may be forced to buy up to $2
billion worth of natural gas to make up for a coal shortfall.
B) <<NATURAL GAS BAD>>

Coal Disadvantages
Coal - Natural Gas Bad - Hegemony

Dependence on natural gas will collapse US hegemony
Schmitt 6 (Gary, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC, and director of its Program on Advanced
Strategic Studies, “Natural Gas: The Next Energy Crisis? the United States Has Long Been "Addicted" to Foreign Oil. but We Now Risk
Becoming Dependent on Foreign Natural Gas as Well,” Science and Technology, Vol. 22, Summer 2006) // CCH
The implications of the mismatch between stagnant natural gas supplies and growing demand are obvious. If gas prices remain high and
susceptible to large spikes in prices, the cost of producing power will rise, and manufacturing companies that rely on natural gas will
increasingly think about moving out of the country and closer to their supplies. As former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
remarked last year, "Until recently, long-term expectations of oil and gas prices appeared benign. When choosing capital projects,
businesses could mostly look through short-term fluctuations in prices to moderate prices over the longer haul. The recent shift in
expectations, however, has been substantial enough and persistent enough to influence business investment decisions, especially for
facilities that require large quantities of natural gas." Although power companies can pass along the rising costs to consumers,
companies that use natural gas to produce products such as chemicals, fertilizer, and a host of other items will be driven to close plants
in the United States and move overseas in an effort to cut costs and stay competitive in the global market. Another result of the U.S.
supply problem is that the gas needed to meet U.S. demand will, by necessity, increasingly come from overseas sources. As with oil, that
fact has implications that go beyond the economic health of the United States. Almost two-thirds of the world's natural gas reserves can
be found in five countries: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Russia and Iran have almost half of the
world's reserves. The other major sources of reserves are found in West Africa and Latin America. Needless to say, these are not
countries or areas marked with strong democratic credentials or close ties to the United States. Higher demand for gas at today's higher
prices will provide vast new revenues for those states and help sustain some very problematic governments. And as the global
competition for energy resources heats up, it makes energy importers, such as Japan and most of Europe, more hesitant to challenge
those states and their policies. If current trends continue, Russia will be providing more than 50% of Europe's natural gas supplies by
2020. Even today, Germany imports 40% of its gas from Russia; Italy, 30%; and France, 25%. Central and Eastern Europe are in some
cases even more dependent. Slovakia gets all of its gas from Russia; Bulgaria, 94%; Lithuania, 84%; Hungary, 80%; and Austria, 74%.
At a minimum, this situation makes it more difficult for the United States to build an international consensus for taking a tougher line
toward countries such as Iran and Russia. The most immediate obstacle to taking a tougher line with Russia, however, is the growing
power of Gazprom, the Russian energy company in which the Russian government has a controlling interest. The operator of the world's
largest network of gas pipelines and the world's largest producer of natural gas, Gazprom is assiduously working to expand its
preeminence into a position as close to a monopoly as possible. Gazprom's strategy for accomplishing this goal is straightforward. To
obtain the resources to develop its energy reserve holdings in Russia and increase production, it has allowed foreign entities to buy its
shares and is inviting non-Russian companies to help develop untapped or underdeveloped fields. However, it is doing so in ways that
ensure that Moscow still has the controlling interest. Combined with the revenues produced by its pipeline operations and the quasi-
liberalization of its rules on stock holdings, Gazprom's market capitalization stands at approximately $200 billion. Flush with cash,
Gazprom is now in the business of trying to buy pipeline networks outside of Russia. In fact, as the European Union pushes its members
and prospective members to divest themselves of state-controlled energy companies and to liberalize more generally, Gazprom is
moving to buy up pipeline assets or gain a substantial foothold in European energy companies. In short, Brussels's desire to create a
more open market in the energy sector is being used by Moscow as an opportunity to extend its control over the distribution system for
natural gas. Does that matter? Moscow clearly thinks it does. Well before Vladimir Putin appeared on the stage as a possible Russian
president, he was writing that the key to Russia "regaining its former might" was its role as a provider of natural resources to the rest of
the developed and developing world. As president, Putin halted plans by Kremlin liberals to break up Gazprom's monopoly inside
Russia and instead appointed cronies as the company's chief operating officers. If nothing else, Gazprom's profits provide the Kremlin
with an enormous slush fund that is outside the official Russian state budget. This is made even easier by Gazprom's habit of partnering
with shadow companies whose underlying ownership remains opaque but that are suspected of having ties to the Russian mafia and
Russian intelligence. Such arrangements also make it possible to feed funds to Russian and non-Russian politicians and government
officials alike. As the past winter's events have made clear, Putin's use of Gazprom is not always so subtle.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Competitiveness
Clean coal technology will boost U.S. competitiveness and prevent climate change
Roberts, 4 [Paul, Contributor to Harper's Magazine, The End of Oil: on the Edge of a Perilous New World, pg. 232-4]
Even as U.S. policies were undermining the existing energy order, they would be encouraging the development
of a more sustainable one. A U.S. initiative to develop clean-coal technology, for example, would dramatically change the significance
of the Asian economy powered by coal. American companies can bring down the costs of IGCC and carbon capture technology
sufficiently, China and India might find themselves able to burn their coal without dooming the climate to catastrophic warming.
In fact, many experts believe that the United States should not wait until the Chinese and indians can afford
clean-coal technology but should offer the technology as soon as it becomes available and should even subsidize the purchase, simply to
avoid the catastrophe of an Asian energy economy based on dirty coal. Such energy Charity would not be cheap, by one estimate,
subsidies of that kind could run the United States at least ten billion dollars for the first hundred plants - a cost that conservative
policymakers would oppose. But advocates of such clean-technology exports counter with three points. First, because China and India
have little choice but to burn coal, if the United States hopes to avoid climate change it has little choice but to help the Chinese and
Indians adopt clean-coal technology. As one climate expert put it: "America is going to pay for climate, one way or another. It can
either pay now to try to mitigate some of the effects, or it can pay later, when droughts and floods start to decimate the developing
world."
Second, advocates say that the United States could attach strings to technology, making the offer contingent, for
example, on a promise from Beijing to stop undercutting U.S. currency or dumping products on the U.S. market. Third, China and India
will not only be the only market for U.S. built clean-coal technology: many experts believe that the technology once costs have been
driven down, could give rise to a lucrative American export business - and reverse a depressing trend in which the United States lost the
lead in wind technology to the Danes and in solar technology to Japanese. "We have to start looking at this less as a climate policy than
as an economic stimulus for the U.S. industrial sector," argues Detchon. "We should be approaching this at scale, not as one-off R&D
projects, but in a way that will make these units competitive overseas, where the bulk of the growth is. This is going to be a growth
market, and the United States needs to build up a real manufacturing strength."
The global market for clean coal technology is expanding
Wicks, 4 – Chairman, World Coal Institute, London

(Roger, Financial Times, “Developing Better Ways to Get Energy From Coal,” 8-19-2005, p.16)
Sir, It was pleasing to see the FT paying serious attention to coal (Comment & Analysis, August 17), and your coverage of the US
situation was well informed.
What Dan Roberts identifies is the continuing renaissance of coal, not just in the US, and the otherwise ignored advances in coal-
burning technologies. Coal is by far the planet's most abundant fossil fuel, with a reserve life twice that of oil and gas combined. Its
challenge is in its efficient and environmentally responsible use, not in its eradication.
Most economies, and especially the fast-growing economies of Asia, will need all the energy sources at their disposal to meet the
growth in energy demand. However, it is wrong to assume, as the article does, that the attraction to coal in Asia is because
environmental standards are lower there. In fact, clean coal technology has made substantial advances and many Asian countries are
building newer, cleaner plant. China, for instance, is installing mainly "supercritical" plant, with higher efficiencies and lower emissions
than typical power stations in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
All fuels face environmental challenges but there are ways of responding to these challenges without abandoning the traditional energy
objectives of diversity and security of supply. The further development and deployment of clean coal technology, including more
efficient plant, cleaner combustion technologies, the combined use of coal and renewables (biomass) and the future capture and
sequestration of large volumes of CO are key ways forward.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal – Economy Module

A) Clean coal is key to economic prosperity
Strakey, 8 (Joseph P., Chief Technology Officer for the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pittsburg, “Clean coal is vital to
energy outlook”, The Arizona Republican, http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/vie wpoints/articles/0615vip-strakey0615.html) //
MDP
The economic prosperity of the United States has been, and is currently, strongly linked to the abundance and affordability of fossil
fuels. To ensure a future that is both secure and prosperous, we must develop and deploy a mix of technologies to satisfy our growing
need for electric power and other forms of energy. Advanced clean coal technology will be an important part of our future energy
portfolio as we transition to a sustainable energy future with zero emissions. advertisement Managing greenhouse-gas emissions is now
the biggest challenge for coal. The National Energy Technology Laboratory, or NETL, has estimated that using currently available
technologies to capture and store 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO{-2}) produced by pulverized-coal-fired power systems would
raise the cost of electricity by over 80 percent. For integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) systems, the cost of electricity would
increase by about 35 percent. Capturing and storing CO{-2} reduces the efficiency of pulverized-coal systems by 30 percent and IGCC
systems by 20 percent. This results in increased needs for coal and for water, a particularly important issue in arid regions. Clearly,
energy technologies that are capable of economically and efficiently capturing and permanently storing CO{-2} are needed. The path
ahead for advanced coal technology, as with most of the other energy systems of the future, presents many challenges before widespread
deployment can occur. Offsetting rising equipment and construction costs fueled by global competition, mitigating the risks associated
with first-of-a-kind plants, managing the financial liability that accompanies long-term carbon storage, satisfying society's demands for
an ever-cleaner environment, and meeting the rising demand for skilled human resources are some of the key challenges that we must
overcome.
Coal Disadvantages
Ext - Economy
A. Continued research and development of clean coal are fundamental to the future of the coal industry
The European Commission 2001 (12/20, http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy/coal/fostering_en.pdf)
We should keep the coal option open because of the abundance and diversity of resources, and because it is easily available and cost-
competitive. In addition, coal has a stabilising effect on energy markets:it played a leading role in solving previous oil crises and
remains available as a substitution fuel. Coal can contribute to security of supply while also considering climate change, provided
advanced clean coal technology is sufficiently developed and implemented. European industry, with the support of several Community
programmes, has made crucial advances in reducing pollutant emissions;all efforts are now focused on CO2 abatement. Accordingly,
research,development and deployment of clean coal technology are fundamental for the future contribution of coal to security in energy
supply.
B. Decreasing coal supplies will push the economy into a recession and destroys job – Greenspan predicts
State Department 2004,( May 5, Lexis)
Let's assume Congress decides to discourage the production of coal, an energy source fiercely hated by many environmental groups. If
Congress decided to close the nation's oldest coal-fired power plants, located largely in the Ohio River Valley and the Southeast,
electricity prices would soar and local economies would slump into a regional recession. In the mid-term, those plants would be
promptly replaced with plants fired by natural gas, which is the only other near-term option for large-scale electricity production.
But this nation, as Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has warned, is facing a natural gas crisis. Demand is high and
supplies are tight, making natural gas prices more volatile. By closing the coal plants, we exacerbate the pending natural gas crisis, drive
up electricity prices in the southeast, and put thousands of people out of work.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Pollution
Clean coal is key to reduce emissions from inevitable coal use

Coal may be converted into oil or gas through chemical processes. It is reported that China is currently investing $6 billion in
production facilities that will have the capacity to make 14 million barrels of oil a year (Heinberg, 2006: 29). Coal costs about $50 a
tonne and the conversion from coal to oil results in an energy loss of 40% (thus, one tonne of coal may be converted into just under
three barrels of oil). Assuming a plant life of 20 years, then the total production cost of converting coal into oil is about $38 a barrel.
Given the current world oil prices, this is not particularly expensive. However, coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels. If coal is mined and
used on a massive scale to replace oil and natural gas, the emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollution would get out of control.
The world would be on the path towards environmental catastrophe. Pollution problems may be somewhat alleviated if so-called "clean
coal" and carbon sequestration technologies are used to remove some of the pollution elements when coal is being processed.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal – Water Wars

Not only does clean coal prevent future pollution, but it can undo past water pollution freeing up warer supplies
Como, 2004 (John, Oct 1, http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=13049414&BRD=1078&PAG=461&dept_id=151025&rfi=6)
The new plant burns a mixture of coal and limestone in a liquid slurry that enables it to generate electricity while producing 95 percent
less air pollution through the emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere. The burning of waste coal from bony
dumps in seven counties is also helping to rid the region of scars from the early mining industry, which pollute streams with acidic mine
water. The plant also recycles surface water collected in ponds on site and eliminates the previous need to use water from the
Conemaugh River and discharge heated water back into the river during the generation process.
Lack of clean water risks major wars
COLORADO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY, Summer 1995, p. 316.
Water scarcity exacerbates pre-existing tensions and invites new ones. Tensions over water permeate every region of the world, ranging
from clashes between urban and agricultural water users in the western United States to outright warfare in the Middle East. Not all
disputes over water resources lead to violence; many are resolved through peaceful negotiations. But as populations grow and standards
of living rise, raising demand for clean freshwater with them, the intensity of competition over the world's finite and increasingly
degraded water resources is likely to escalate, raising the probability of violent conflict. In the past, water has been used both as a target
and a cause of war. It was used as a target during the Persian Gulf War when Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to dismantle the
desalination plants of Kuwait just as his opponents targeted Baghdad's water and sanitation systems. Similarly, the United States
bombed North Vietnamese irrigation systems in the late 1960s. Although there are usually multiple sources of international conflict,
competition over access to scarce water resources has featured prominently as a cause of conflict between a number of states in the
Middle East.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Indian Pollution Module

A. Indian coal consumption is devastating to the environment
While India consumes a lower quantity of coal in per capita terms than the United States, the quality of its coal has some negative
environmental and health effects. Coal quality is determined by two main factors--sulfur and ash content. India's coal contains low
sulfur levels, resulting in less pollution and acid rain, but its relatively high concentration of ash can cause extensive local pollution.
Moreover, coal production methods in India, such as strip mining or open cast mining, increase the ash content and exacerbate the
harmful effects.(6) So-called fly ash is also created as a by-product when coal is burned in power plants. This type of ash both pollutes
the air and seeps into groundwater sources, causing further environmental damage.(7) If India continues its current policy and maintains
its current mix of dependence on different energy sources, by the year 2047 over 1,300 million metric tons of coal will be used, which
will generate about 450 million tons of fly ash.(8) This would have a severe environmental impact and entail unbearable disposal costs,
unless converted into useful material for construction and other purposes. For instance, some research and demonstration work has been
done using fly ash for road building, but the mechanical properties of this product are still unsatisfactory.
B. US Clean Coal technology is key to Indian emission reductions

For the present, coal production is unlikely to diminish even with a large-scale increase in the use of renewable energy resources. On the
contrary, coal use could receive a major boost with the development and use of coal gasification technologies, which convert coal into
gas.(12) This gas can be transported short distances by pipeline, but for long-distance transport some new technologies will have to be
developed. Despite the obvious attractions coal gasification offers, the government has achieved little in over 40 years of funding and
implementing coal gasification projects--but this situation may soon change.
C. Indian coal use is inevitable, clean coal technology is the last chance
While India is likely to increase its coal consumption over the next 15 to 20 years, the environmental consequences of this can be
mitigated by the adoption of clean-coal technologies. Among new technologies, coal gasification for power generation has considerable
value in terms of energy-use efficiency and the minimization of environmental impact. The international community, including the
private sector and multilateral organizations such as the World Bank and the UNDP, could facilitate India's move towards clean-coal
technologies. India is also making enormous efforts toward increasing the use of renewable energy resources, but international
assistance and partnerships with overseas organizations would be helpful here as well. Some of these opportunities, however, will only
materialize if there is a better global understanding of India's energy dilemma. In the interests of sustainable development, India cannot
blindly follow the development path of the industrialized nations. There are unique opportunities available to India; as a late developer,
it can take advantage of the latest technologies to improve the efficiency of its energy use--if they are affordable. India can follow a very
different path of economic development that minimizes environmental impact while providing energy services to its rural population
through decentralized mechanisms. However, the international community must understand the constraints India faces. Given the
country's low level of energy consumption and its widespread poverty, an increase in the supply of energy at a healthy rate is an
essential prerequisite for economic progress. Given India's relatively abundant coal resources and the tremendous economic benefits of
exploiting them, coal use in India should continue to grow at least through the middle of the next century.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal – Warming Module

A) Clean coal is the best way to limit CO2 emissions
WNA, 8 (World Nuclear Association, “‘Clean Coal’ Technologies,” February 2008, http://www.world-nuclear.or g/info/inf 83.html) //
CCH
New "clean coal" technologies are addressing this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future
generations without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so that coal use
remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving "zero emissions". As many coal-fired power stations approach
retirement, their replacement gives much scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy
sources, one hope for this is via "clean coal" technologies, such as are now starting to receive substantial R&D funding. Managing
wastes from coal Burning coal, such as for power generation, gives rise to a variety of wastes which must be controlled or at least
accounted for. So-called "clean coal" technologies are a variety of evolving responses to late 20th century environmental concerns,
including that of global warming due to carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. However, many of the elements have in fact been
applied for many years, and they will be only briefly mentioned here: Coal cleaning by 'washing' has been standard practice in
developed countries for some time. It reduces emissions of ash and sulfur dioxide when the coal is burned. Electrostatic precipitators
and fabric filters can remove 99% of the fly ash from the flue gases - these technologies are in widespread use.
B) Global warming will cause the earth to explode
Chalko, 01 (Dr. Tom J.; Head of the Geophysics Division of Scientific Engineering Research – Mt. Best, Australia, “No second chance?
Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?” Natural University Journal of Discovery v. 3 May http://nujournal.net/core.pdf) //
MDP
Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not
from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior. Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient
cooling of the planetary interior - a process that is limited primarily by the atmosphere. This cooling is responsible for a thermal balance
between the heat from the core reactor, the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on
Earth’s surface is about 13 degrees Celsius. This article examines the possibility of overheating and the “meltdown” of the solid
planetary core due to the atmospheric pollution trapping progressively more solar heat (the so-called greenhouse effect) and reducing
the cooling rate of the planetary interior. The most serious consequence of such a “meltdown” could be centrifugal segregation of
unstable isotopes in the molten part of the spinning planetary core. Such segregation can “enrich” the nuclear fuel in the core to the
point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Will Earth become another “asteroid belt” in the Solar
system?
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal – Warming Ext

Clean coal solves warming
MIT, 7 ( Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “MIT PANEL PROVIDES POLICY BLUEPRINT FOR FUTURE OF USE OF COAL
AS POLICYMAKERS WORK TO REVERSE GLOBAL WARMING,” March 14, 2007, http://web.mit.edu/coa l/) // CCH
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 of technical, economic, and
institutional features of CCS at commercial scale coal combustion and conversion plants will give policymakers and the public
confidence that a practical carbon mitigation control option exists, will reduce cost of CCS should 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 technology because 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 the technical, economic and environmental performance of an integrated CCS
system. We should proceed with carbon sequestration projects as soon as possible. Several integrated 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 could change 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 plants 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.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Exports solve warming
The U.S. is cooperating with other countries to disperse clean coal technology globally –this will significantly reduce greenhouse
gas emissions
Abraham, 2 – U.S. Energy Secretary

(Spencer, United States Mission to the European Union, “Abraham Says U.S. Pursuing Clean Coal Projects with Other Countries,” 11-
19-2003, www.useu.be/Categories/Energy/Nov1903AbrahamCleanCoal.html) // JMP
U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham says the United States is moving ahead in an unprecedented international effort to make clean
energy the cornerstone of economic growth, improved health and closer ties among nations.
Abraham called clean coal a crucial element of the nation's overall energy policy when he spoke November 17 at the Clean Coal and
Power Conference being held in Washington. The two-day conference -- sponsored in part by the Department of Energy -- includes
representatives from foreign governments and companies that, together with the United States, account for most of the world's coal
production and consumption.
The Washington conference, being attended by, among others, a delegation from China, is being conducted in conjunction with the
Second Joint United States-People's Republic of China Conference on Clean Energy.
Abraham said that many governments, private companies, universities and research laboratories are joining together to tackle the
challenges of clean coal through bilateral agreements such as the recent protocol signed by the United States and China, and a recent
agreement between the United States and India to cooperate on clean coal projects.
Abraham said multilateral agreements are also flourishing, such as the U.S.-initiated Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF).
In June of this year, 14 countries, including China, India and the European Union joined the United States in signing a CSLF charter to
pursue the development of carbon capture and storage technologies, seeking to eventually make the process commercially viable and
environmentally safe.
"Carbon sequestration has rapidly grown in importance to become one of this administration's highest clean coal priorities," Abraham
said. "Current activities include 65 carbon sequestration research projects across the country, funded with $110 million in public and
private funds."
Since about one-third of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions come from power generation, with most of that from coal, Abraham said,
carbon sequestration alone offers the potential to reduce and eventually eliminate nearly one-third of the nation's heat-trapping
greenhouse gas emissions.
In the 30-year period between 1970 and 2000, using current clean coal technologies, the United States has reduced emission rates of
sulfur dioxide from coal-based power generation by over 75 percent and cut emission rates of nitrous oxides nearly in half. Under
President Bush's proposed Clear Skies Initiative, emissions rates for these two pollutants are predicted by the administration to drop
another 70 percent by the year 2018, and mercury emissions from power generation to be controlled for the first time.
( ) Clean coal technology will be exported to other countries – it is critical to reduce pollution
Mieszkowski, 4 – senior writer for Salon Technology

(Katharine, Salon.com, “Coal: Clean, green power machine? Forget about that nasty oil or radioactive nuclear waste: If you want to
breathe fresh air, says the coal industry, burn, baby, burn!” 10-5-2004, www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/10/05/clean_coal/) // JMP
One technology that holds promise for cleaner coal is gasification, or "integrated gasification combined cycle systems," which convert
coal into a gas before generating electricity.
"That enables it to burn more efficiently and more cleanly than traditional coal-burning power plants," explains Environment 2004's
Christensen. Today's coal-fired power plants in the United States are about 30 percent efficient -- which means about 70 percent of the
coal's inherent energy value is wasted as it is burned to create steam -- but the Department of Energy predicts that gasified plants could
be as much as 60 percent efficient.
Environmentalists say that really investing in clean coal technologies will result in benefits beyond just cleaning up our own
environment -- there's also the prospect of exporting them to the rest of the world. "We're expecting globally a tripling of the use of coal
in the next couple of decades," says the Apollo Alliance's Hendricks. "China being a huge piece of it, but also India, Iran, Korea. Many
parts of the developing world are planning to put new coal plants online. It could be a very significant export technology."
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Warming- China/India
U.S. must take the lead in advancing clean coal technology – technology can be transferred to China and India
UPI, 8 (“NCC recommends new coal tech for U.S.,”

www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/05/23/NCC_recommends_new_coal_tech_for_US/UPI-76051211588695/) // JMP
WASHINGTON, May 23 (UPI) -- The National Coal Council presented the U.S. Department of Energy with suggestions on how to
boost clean coal.
The NCC gave the department its recommendations for technology and regulatory frameworks to increase the United States' use of
clean coal.
NCC officials suggest coal used in newer and cleaner ways is needed for energy security, environmental improvement and economic
prosperity.
The study, "The Urgency of Sustainable Coal," was conducted at the request of U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman and is the
fourth major study presented by the NCC in five years.
"Coal is an essential part of the world's energy future," said Georgia Nelson, president and chief executive officer of PTI Resources Inc.
and NCC chairwoman. "The United States has a unique opportunity to advance clean energy solutions from coal that will alleviate
energy poverty and address concerns about climate."
The study recommends an advanced portfolio of technology options for the electric power industry, more research on coal-based
electricity generation and carbon capture and storage technologies, incentives to deploy advanced coal-based electricity technologies
coordinated with plug-in vehicles, congressional funding for large demonstration projects, and transferring technology to emerging
nations such as China and India.
Clean coal leadership by the U.S. key to greenhouse reductions in China and India
The view that coal will continue to play a significant role in meeting the world’s energy needs was recently confirmed in a report
released by MIT. The report acknowledged that while carbon-free technologies such as nuclear and renewable energy will play an
increasing role, “absent a technological breakthrough that we do not foresee, coal, in significant quantities, will remain indispensable.”
In light of these conclusions, the report recommended that much more be done to develop and implement technologies for decreasing
the adverse impacts of coal on the global environment. The report calls on the United States, which sits on what may be the largest coal
deposits in the world, to take the leading role in clean coal technologies. The report states that China and India will only agree to
binding limits on carbon dioxide emissions if the United States does as well. The report acknowledges that coal will continue to play a
large and indispensable role in the future, but that governments and industry must develop technologies to mitigate environmental
impacts associated with coal consumption.
While it is clear that the demand for coal will continue to grow in the foreseeable future, developing pollution-reduction technologies
appear to have the potential to significantly reduce the environmental impacts of coal consumption. One promising avenue is the
integrated combined-cycle (IGCC) process, which chemically turns coal into synthetic gas that can then be burned in a turbine. This
method permits the segregation and capture of most of the pollutants, including carbon, before combustion. It also results in improved
efficiency compared to conventional pulverized coal. In the form of carbon dioxide, carbon can be injected underground for permanent
storage in geological formations, without harming the environment. IGCC, however, remains a developing technology and has not been
shown to work reliably at the scale of a large utility power plant. However, with increasing gas prices, IGCC has become increasingly
cost competitive and ongoing improvements are lowering the cost further and improving reliability.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Warming- China/India Impact- Extinction
Chinese pollution leads to extinction

What should we make of this? The evidence suggests what I hadn't expected: that the interaction has been good for most participants--so
far. Has the factory boom been good for China? Of course it has. Yes, it creates environmental pressures that, if not controlled, could
pollute China and the world out of existence. The national government's current Five Year Plan--the 11th, running through 2010--has as
its central theme Chinas development as a "harmonious society," or hexie shehui, a phrase heard about as often from China's leadership
as "global war on terror" has been heard from America's. In China, the phrase is code for attempting to deal with income inequalities,
especially the hardships of farmers and millions of migrant laborers. But it is also code for at least talking about protecting the
environment.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal- Warming- China/India Impact- 70%
70% of China’s contribution to global warming comes from coal

Yanli & Min 7 (Hou and Hu, program associates with the China Sustainable Energy Program, an NGO with offices in Beijing and San
Francisco, “China and Her Coal: China Has Coal to Burn-And Plans To” World Watch, Vol. 20, January-February 2007)
Coal-related statistics on China make for sobering reading. China is the world's largest coal producer (2.2 billion short tons in 2004) and
consumer (2.1 billion tons). China's production in 2004 roughly equaled the combined production of the next four top producers (the
United States, India, Australia, and Russia). The country also produced 243 million tons of coking coal last year, accounting for 53
percent of the world's total production. Underlying this huge output are vast reserves--according to the Ministry of Land and Resources,
China had "proven" coal reserves of over 1 trillion tons in 2003, nearly 12 percent of the world total--and 26,000 coal mines employing
nearly 8 million workers. Given this abundance, it's perhaps not surprising that China has an unbalanced energy structure dominated by
coal. Coal accounted for 69 percent of the country's primary energy consumption in 2005 (while oil accounted for 21 percent, natural
gas 3 percent, and hydropower 7 percent), and for 75 percent of total electricity generation. Coal-fired powerplants accounted for 83
percent of new generating capacity installed in 2005. In addition, the country's roughly 410,000 industrial furnaces and 180,000 kilns
that burn coal as fuel account for almost half of China's coal consumption. Most Chinese cities get their heat from coal-fired furnaces.
This heavy reliance on coal comes at great cost. To begin with, 3,306 accidents occurred at coal mines nationwide last year, killing
5,938 workers. Nearly three-quarters of the deaths occurred in county--or town-owned mines (as opposed to the relatively safer state-
owned mines), and in fact statistics over the years show that accidents mostly happen in midsize, small, and very small coal mines,
where the production safety challenges remain grim. Coal use also puts daunting pressure on the environment. Energy-related pollution
not only increases economic costs but also seriously threatens public health, and is one of the biggest social and economic challenges
the country faces. Last year, for instance, nearly 26 million metric tons of sulfur dioxide were discharged into the air in China, of which
90 percent came from coal burning. The country also emitted nearly 20 million tons of particulate matter and other smog-forming
pollutants, 70 percent of it from coal. In addition, coal contributed to 67 percent of total national nitrogen oxide (N[O.sub.x]) emissions
and 70 percent of China's 4.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions. (Largely because of rising coal combustion, the International
Energy Agency forecasts that China will become the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in 2009, surpassing the United States.) Coal-fired
power plants and other coal-burning facilities also discharge roughly 495 tons of mercury each year, a total that is expected to increase
by 20 to 30 tons annually for the next several years. Currently the air pollution index in one-third of all monitored cities in China is
above 100 (the worst it can be and still be considered "good"), while 30 percent of the country suffers from acid rain. Air pollution
harms health--chronic respiratory disease caused by air pollution is a major cause of death in China--and has also caused severe
economic damage. According to the China Green National Accounting Study Report 2004, jointly released in September 2006 by the
State Environmental Protection Administration and National Bureau of Statistics, environmental pollution in general cost China 512
billion yuan (US$63 billion) in economic losses in 2004, a loss of over 3 percent of GDP. The share caused by air pollution was 220
billion yuan, 43 percent of the total. These figures are incomplete due to data constraints. Pollutants from coal are also major
contributors to climate change, the biggest challenge that the world faces this century. Its consequences will be too big to manage. China
will experience more severe droughts and floods, shrinking and retreating glaciers, increases in agricultural production costs, and
reductions in agricultural output. Global warming will also affect China's permafrost, marshes, wetlands, and deserts, and will lead to
sea level increase and degradation of freshwater supplies and quality--all changes that are likely to be irreversible.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: China won’t use clean coal
Lack of incentives is the reason behind China’s overwhelming pollution and lack of clean coal technology
Yanli & Min 7 (Hou and Hu, program associates with the China Sustainable Energy Program, an NGO with offices in Beijing and San
Francisco, “China and Her Coal: China Has Coal to Burn-And Plans To” World Watch, Vol. 20, January-February 2007)
As in most other places, a major reason behind the widespread extraction and use of coal in China is that its production costs and prices
do not take into account its actual environmental and social costs. The distorted costs lead to low efficiency and huge waste, and hinder
the development and adoption of clean coal technology. The average recovery rate of coal resources (the share of a deposit that can be
economically extracted) at Chinese coal enterprises is only 40 percent, and small mines see a meager recovery rate of 15 percent on
average, compared with the international average rate of over 60 percent. The lack of policy incentives contributes strongly to these low
efficiencies; the government has been requiring compensation fees for mineral resources from coal producers, but the current average
rate (ratio of compensation fees to sale prices) in China is only 1.2 percent, far lower than the foreign standard of between 2 percent and
8 percent.
Coal Disadvantages
Impacts- Clean Coal- Foreign Oil Dependence
Expanding clean coal use is necessary to solve dependence on foreign oil
Mann, 1 – professor emeritus of geology at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

(C. John, Chicago Sun-Times, “Attacks Should Fuel New Energy Policy,” 11-30-2001, p.55)
Time is running out on an effort to lessen U.S. dependence on Middle East petroleum.
As a petroleum geologist, I am disturbed by the tepid response in Congress to President Bush's call for a more balanced energy policy.
Though the House has passed a long overdue comprehensive energy bill, the Senate has shown little interest in reducing our nation's
dependence on foreign suppliers. That should be high on its agenda in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Today America is
importing 60 percent of its oil--roughly one-fourth of this coming from the Persian Gulf, with Saudi Arabia providing 14.5 percent and
Iraq about 8 percent. We were importing only 33 percent of our daily oil needs in 1973 when the Arab embargo sent our economy into a
tailspin. We've known for six decades that the Middle East, with the vast majority of the world's proven oil reserves, would remain the
primary source after other regions had been tapped. But we gambled that oil producers would act in their own interest and not allow
Islamic extremists to emerge from their very backyards. Now we see the results of the same Faustian bargain that caused the energy and
economic debacle in the 1970s: using cheap Middle East oil to drive our economy without implementing any policies to prevent oil
revenues from reaching the wrong hands. Simply put, terrorists are able to use wealth acquired from America to strike Americans. This
is public policy crafted in the theater of the absurd. One lesson we should have learned years ago is that major OPEC oil-producing
countries have us over a barrel, because of their ability to keep oil prices cheap to promote increasing use but not great enough to justify
development of alternative energy strategies. It's precisely why programs to develop synthetic fuels have failed. And it's why solar
energy has virtually vanished from the scene. More to the point, U.S. automotive fuel economy has been essentially constant since 1991,
at about 21 miles per gallon, thanks in large part to the false reassurance of cheap gasoline. Even if we avoid trouble from oil suppliers
now, the danger will remain and increase with time. The fundamental problem is that proven worldwide reserves of oil are finite and, at
the present rate of consumption, are expected to run out in approximately 40 years. Of course, discoveries of more oil resources are
likely, and new technologies are making drilling more economic and effective, but in recent years we have begun to see diminishing
returns. As a result, global production of oil seems likely to peak sometime in this decade. When that happens, the effects will be felt
around the world, in sharply greater oil prices and economic losses. Before it's too late, we should take action to prevent our dependence
on foreign oil from rising much greater than it already is. No halfway measures can be tolerated. Strong medicine--a balanced program
of developing domestic energy sources, while investing heavily in energy efficiency--would produce positive results. So what is to be done?
Straightforward arithmetic shows that doubling the average fuel economy in gasoline-burning vehicles would save 4 million barrels per day. Comparable efforts to
improve the fuel economy of trucks could save another 1.5 million barrels. That's more than double the 2.5 million barrels of petroleum that we import daily from the
Middle East. Further gains are possible if we introduce hybrid and possibly fuel cell-powered cars that would get 80 to 100 miles per gallon and could be on the market
before 2010. A government initiative to bring this about was launched two years ago. Although improvements in energy efficiency can help reduce oil dependency, we
also need to boost domestic oil production. Technology exists for tapping large amounts of oil in the Arctic and in deep water offshore. Greater priority should be
given to developing alternative energy sources, especially coal. The United States possesses more than 240 billion tons of recoverable
coal reserves, or about one-fourth of the world's total. We have a greater share of the world's coal than Saudi Arabia does of the world's
oil, and the supply could last as long as 300 years at current usage levels. Together with nuclear, solar, and wind power, the use of clean-coal technology
can provide energy to reduce the dependency on oil in industry and transportation, at the same time it is improving our environment. In this regard, Bush and his energy
team deserve credit for taking some important steps to re-establish the basics of a national energy strategy. Many aspects of the administration's energy plan
are controversial, such as earmarking $2 billion over the next decade for clean-coal technology and speeding the renewal of operating
licenses for commercial reactors and licensing a new generation of nuclear power plants. But initiatives such as these are crucial if we
are to increase domestic energy production and gain energy independence. America's best interests lie in breaking our foreign oil habit.
It is not too late to achieve energy independence.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal – Hydrogen Production

Clean coal is key to hydrogen testing
Science Daily, 6 (“Experiments Examine Hydrogen-production Benefits Of Clean Coal Burning”, 4/10/06,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060510094138.htm) // MDP
Sandia National Laboratories researchers here are studying the burning characteristics of coal to prepare the way for the coming of a
hydrogen economy. That’s because while there are many long-term options for providing hydrogen as a fuel of the future, coal is the
leading contender to provide a hydrogen source in the near term. “While some day we may be able to produce hydrogen by breaking up
water molecules in association with the high-temperature heat from nuclear power reactors, or through renewable energy technologies,
right now the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is with coal,” says Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal
combustion at Sandia’s Combustion Research Facility. Sandia is a Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security
Administration laboratory. Shaddix and his colleagues are involved in a number of experiments to optimize the combustion of coal to
produce the most energy and the least possible pollution. While traditional coal combustion produces harmful emissions, modern plants
can meet environmental regulations for burning coal cleanly, Shaddix says. As the cost of competing fuels — particularly natural gas —
climb, burning clean coal becomes cost competitive. Add in the possible benefits of separating and storing carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from the power plant stacks and coal looks very promising for generating both electricity and hydrogen to provide a bridge to
that future technology. “Utilities are starting to invest in coal,” says Shaddix.
Clean coal is key to hydrogen production
WNA, 8 (World Nuclear Association, “‘Clean Coal’ Technologies,” February 2008, http://www.world-nuclear.or g/info/inf 83.html) //
CCH
"Clean Coal" Technologies (February 2008) Coal is a vital fuel in most parts of the world. Burning coal without adding to global carbon
dioxide levels is a major technological challenge which is being addressed. The most promising "clean coal" technology involves using
the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen. The greatest
challenge is bringing the cost of this down sufficiently for "clean coal" to compete with nuclear power on the basis of near-zero
emissions for base-load power. Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by
coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal feedstock. Coal is the world's
most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International Energy Agency expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000
to 2020. However, burning coal produces about 9 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which is released to the atmosphere, about
70% of this being from power generation. Other estimates put carbon dioxide emissions from power generation at one third of the world
total of over 25 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.
Coal Disadvantages

Clean coal is key to a hydrogen economy
Business Wire 5, (“Clean Coal Technology Will Aid Energy Security, Hydrogen Economy and Slow Climate Change, says The
Thinking Companies” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2005_Dec_7/ai_n15924840, 12-7-08) // CCH
FALMOUTH, Maine -- The seeds of the hydrogen economy lie buried in the coal beds of North America. "Wise companies will get in
on the ground floor of clean coal technology in order to be best positioned for the hydrogen economy of the future," says Peter R.
Savage, CEO of The Thinking Companies, an energy think tank. "We applaud the Bush Administration's launch of the FutureGen
project. The companies who will profit from a coal-based hydrogen economy are those who are willing to invest in today's and
tomorrow's clean coal technologies," notes Savage, the co-author of "Back To Coal: Why Utilities Must Reconsider This Cheap,
Plentiful Fuel." More Articles of Interest Clouds over Kwinana clean coal ambitions. Rio, BP ponder clean coal power plant. Peabody
Energy joins China's "GreenGen" clean coal plant "Back to Coal" is a highly readable, comprehensive report that tells you in detail: --
How coal combustion has progressed, detailing many new efficiency improvements --Why coal gasification is now a realistic contender
for electricity generation --What's emerging in the way of efficient clean-up techniques to solve SOx, NOx and mercury problems --
How gasification-based IGCCs will help utilities be the founders of a hydrogen economy, if they choose --How we've made progress in
CO2 sequestration --How coal will beat the path to energy independence, long before renewables can hope to contribute "Clean coal
technology can provide energy that doesn't pollute, uses cheap, domestically available fuel, and supports the US workforce," says co-
author Shirley Strzelecki Savage. "You can't outsource energy production," she notes, "so why would you want to import a fuel source
like LNG? It doesn't make sense." The $250 plus S&H, 238-page techno-economic study, which includes a detailed appraisal of current
and future clean coal technologies and their economics, is available now.
Clean coal is key to hydrogen separation
Science Daily, 6 (“Experiments Examine Hydrogen-production Benefits Of Clean Coal Burning,” http://www.scienceda
ily.com/releases/2006/05/060510094138.htm, 5-10-06) // CCH
Sandia National Laboratories researchers here are studying the burning characteristics of coal to prepare the way for the coming of a
hydrogen economy. “While some say we may be able to produce hydrogen by breaking up water molecules in association with the high-
temperature heat from nuclear power reactors, or through renewable energy technologies, right now the most cost-effective way to
produce hydrogen is with coal,” says Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal combustion at Sandia’s Combustion Research
Facility. Sandia is a Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory. Shaddix and his colleagues are
involved in a number of experiments to optimize the combustion of coal to produce the most energy and the least possible pollution.
While traditional coal combustion produces harmful emissions, modern plants can meet environmental regulations for burning coal
cleanly, Shaddix says. As the cost of competing fuels — particularly natural gas — climb, burning clean coal becomes cost competitive.
Add in the possible benefits of separating and storing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power plant stacks and coal looks very
promising for generating both electricity and hydrogen to provide a bridge to that future technology. “Utilities are starting to invest in
coal,” says Shaddix. Two approaches Two different approaches to burning coal are now under study: * The first, called oxy-combustion,
combines coal with pure oxygen. * The second, called gasification, burns coal only partially to create a fuel-gas. The first approach is
driven by concern over emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. The burning of coal in oxygen is a near-term solution that with current
knowledge can produce exhaust streams that are close to pure CO2, says Shaddix. Harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur
compounds, and mercury are virtually eliminated. The oxy-combustion approach is favored by companies in Japan, Canada, Germany,
and elsewhere, where pilot plants are under construction. U.S. companies tend to favor gasification technologies, which offer higher
efficiency and low pollution formation. One of these technologies, called steam reformation, combines the coal with steam in a hot
environment to produce a “syngas,” composed mostly of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. Once the syngas is produced it can be
burned directly in a turbine to produce power. Or the syngas can be further reacted with more steam to shift the remaining CO to CO2
and produce more hydrogen. The CO2 can be stored in oil and gas fields and the hydrogen can be used in many potential applications:
to power a car in an engine or fuel cell, to power a turbine to produce electricity, or to fly an airplane.
Coal Disadvantages

Clean coal is key to hydrogen fuel cells
CARE, 6 (Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy, “Clean Coal Technology” ttp://www.careenergy.com/cleaner_en
vironment/clean-coal-technology.asp) // CCH
Clean Coal Technologies—the products of research and development conducted over the past 20 years—have resulted in more than 20
new, lower-cost, more efficient and environmentally compatible technologies for electric utilities, steel mills, cement plants and other
industries.Source: U.S. DOE, Office of Fossil Energy Clean coal technologies helped make it possible for U.S. utilities to meet more
stringent Clean Air Act requirements while continuing to utilize America’s most plentiful domestic energy resource—coal. The original
Clean Coal Technology Program, which began in 1986, focused on commercializing processes that helped reduce sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide emissions and demonstrating more efficient and environmentally friendly alternatives to traditional pulverized coal
boilers. New programs in clean coal technology—such as the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI)—are essential for building on the
progress of the original Clean Coal Technology Program, finding solutions for reducing trace emissions of mercury; reducing or
eliminating carbon dioxide emissions; and increasing fuel efficiencies. Over the longer term, research in clean coal technology will be
directed toward developing coal-based hydrogen fuels. If coupled with sequestration, this will allow greater use of coal with zero
emissions. The U.S. Department of Energy has announced a Presidential initiative to build "FutureGen," a $1 billion project that will
lead to the world's first emission-free plant to produce electricity and hydrogen from coal while capturing greenhouse gases.
Coal is the most effective way to produce hydrogen
Physorg, 6 (www.physorg.com, “Coal for hydrogen: Experiments examine hydrogen-production benefits of clean coal burning,”
http://www.physorg.com/news63382590.html, 4-4-06) // CCH
Sandia National Laboratories researchers are studying the burning characteristics of coal to prepare the way for the coming of a
hydrogen economy. That’s because while there are many long-term options for providing hydrogen as a fuel of the future, coal is the
leading contender to provide a hydrogen source in the near term. “While some day we may be able to produce hydrogen by breaking up
water molecules in association with the high-temperature heat from nuclear power reactors, or through renewable energy technologies,
right now the most cost-effective way to produce hydrogen is with coal,” says Chris Shaddix, principal investigator for clean coal
combustion at Sandia’s Combustion Research Facility. Shaddix and his colleagues are involved in a number of experiments to optimize
the combustion of coal to produce the most energy and the least possible pollution. While traditional coal combustion produces harmful
emissions, modern plants can meet environmental regulations for burning coal cleanly, Shaddix says. As the cost of competing fuels —
particularly natural gas — climb, burning clean coal becomes cost competitive. Add in the possible benefits of separating and storing
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power plant stacks and coal looks very promising for generating both electricity and hydrogen
to provide a bridge to that future technology. “Utilities are starting to invest in coal,” says Shaddix. Two different approaches to burning
coal are now under study: -- The first, called oxy-combustion, combines coal with pure oxygen. -- The second, called gasification, burns
coal only partially to create a fuel-gas. The first approach is driven by concern over emissions of CO2 and other pollutants. The burning
of coal in oxygen is a near-term solution that with current knowledge can produce exhaust streams that are close to pure CO2, says
Shaddix. Harmful pollutants like nitrogen oxides, sulfur compounds, and mercury are virtually eliminated. The oxy-combustion
approach is favored by companies in Japan, Canada, Germany, and elsewhere, where pilot plants are under construction. U.S.
companies tend to favor gasification technologies, which offer higher efficiency and low pollution formation. One of these technologies,
called steam reformation, combines the coal with steam in a hot environment to produce a “syngas,” composed mostly of carbon
monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. Once the syngas is produced it can be burned directly in a turbine to produce power. Or the syngas can
be further reacted with more steam to shift the remaining CO to CO2 and produce more hydrogen. The CO2 can be stored in oil and gas
fields and the hydrogen can be used in many potential applications: to power a car in an engine or fuel cell, to power a turbine to
produce electricity, or to fly an airplane.
Coal Disadvantages
Hydrogen Good – Oil Dependency

A. Hydrogen is key to cutting oil dependence
Rifkin, 3 (Jeremy, President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, “The Hydrogen Economy”, http://www.ema
gazine.com/view/?171) // MDP
More than a year after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon, the world is a more dangerous place
than ever before. And, at the heart of our collective fear is the struggle to control oil, the one critical resource without which our global
economy and modern society could not exist. Can a combination of technological innovation, global cooperation and strategic thinking
take oil off the international chessboard of power politics and replace it with the ultimate energy carrier, lighter-than-air, and potentially
non-polluting hydrogen? We heat our homes and businesses, run our factories, power our transportation and light our cities with fossil
fuels. We communicate over distances with electricity derived from fossil fuels, grow our food with the help of fossil fuels and produce
our clothes and home appliances with petrochemicals. Indeed, virtually every aspect of modern existence is made from, powered with,
or affected by fossil fuels. In recent months U.S. government concern over the availability of oil in the Middle East has intensified
because of the escalating violence between Israel and the Palestinians, the prospect of war with Iraq, and the likelihood of more terrorist
attacks by the Al Qaeda network. Now, an even deeper worry is beginning to surface.
B. <<DEPENDENCY BAD>>
Coal Disadvantages
Hydrogen Good – Peak Oil

A) Hydrogen stops a peak oil disaster
Experts have been saying that we have another 40 or so years of cheap recoverable crude oil left. Now, however, some of the world’s
leading petroleum geologists are suggesting that global oil production could peak and begin a steep decline much sooner, as early as the
end of this decade, sending oil prices through the roof. Non-OPEC oil-producing countries are already nearing their peak production,
leaving most of the remaining reserves in the politically unstable Middle East. Increasing tensions between Islam and the West are likely
to further threaten our access to affordable oil. Rising oil prices will assuredly plunge developing countries even further into debt,
locking much of the Third World in the throes of poverty for years to come. In desperation, the U.S. and other nations could turn to
dirtier fossil fuels—coal, tar sand and heavy oil—which will only worsen global warming and imperil the Earth’s already-beleaguered
ecosystems. Rethinking Homeland Security As horrible as the attacks of September 11, 2001 were, they were symbolic acts on the parts
of the perpetrators, designed to destroy the icons of American economic and military power. What has government officials and business
leaders in the U.S. and the European Union really worried is the prospect that, next time, Al Qaeda terrorists will strike at the heart of
the system, the power grid itself, crippling a large swath of the economy and paralyzing urban society. How justified are the fears?
Unfortunately the power grids in North America and Europe are increasingly vulnerable to disruption by terrorists. Even before the
September 11 attacks, government officials worried that American power plants, transmission lines and the telecommunications
infrastructure could be targets for terrorists. In 1997, the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection issued a warning
that cyber-terrorists’ next target might be the computer programs at the power switching centers that move electricity around the
country. Disrupting the electrical grid could wreak havoc on the nation’s economic and social infrastructures. Richard A. Clarke, who
heads the cyber-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration, warns of an “Electronic Pearl Harbor.” A combination of cyber-attacks and
physical attacks could lay waste to the nation’s oil and gas pipelines, power stations and transmission lines with devastating effects on
the economy. Government officials are well aware of the vulnerabilities, but not sure if a system so complex and expansive and so
centralized in its command and control mechanisms can ever really be completely secured against terrorist attacks. Because of all these
factors, many, including Christopher Flavin, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute, believe that the future
belongs to decentralized, renewable energy. Although they acknowledge that fossil fuels will continue to provide energy, and that a
transmission and distribution infrastructure will still be necessary to get hydrogen to retail customers, these experts see a renewable
future. Flavin points out that the market for oil is growing at less than 1.5 percent per year, while the wind and photovoltaic (PV)
markets are now doubling in size every three years. The “Forever Fuel” While the fossil-fuel era is entering its sunset years, a new
energy regime is being born that has the potential to remake civilization along radical new lines. Hydrogen is the most basic and
ubiquitous element in the universe. It is the stuff of stars and, when properly harnessed and made from renewable sources, it is the
“forever fuel,” notes author and alternative energy proponent Peter Hoffman. It produces no harmful CO2 emissions when burned; the
only byproducts are heat and pure water. We are at the dawn of a new economy, using hydrogen as the energy carrier, which will
fundamentally change the nature of our financial markets, political and social institutions, just as coal and steam power did at the
beginning of the Industrial Age. As Hoffman writes in his book, Tomorrow’s Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and the Prospects for a
Cleaner Planet (MIT Press), hydrogen can “propel airplanes, cars, trains and ships, run plants, and heat homes, offices, hospitals and
schools….As a gas, hydrogen can transport energy over long distances, in pipelines, as cheaply as electricity (under some
circumstances, perhaps even more efficiently), driving fuel cells or other power-generating machinery at the consumer end to make
electricity and water. As a chemical fuel, hydrogen can be used in a much wider range of energy applications than electricity.”
Chemically bound hydrogen is found everywhere on Earth: in water, fossil fuels and all living things. Yet, it rarely exists free floating in
nature. Instead, it has to be extracted from water or from hydrocarbons. Today, nearly half the hydrogen produced in the world is
derived from natural gas via a steam reforming process.
B) <<PEAK OIL BAD>>

Coal Disadvantages
Hydrogen Good – Cyber Terrorism

A) Hydrogen prevents cyber terrorism and the ensuing economic collapse
Unfortunately the power grids in North America and Europe are increasingly vulnerable to disruption by terrorists. Even before the
September 11 attacks, government officials worried that American power plants, transmission lines and the telecommunications
infrastructure could be targets for terrorists. In 1997, the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection issued a warning
that cyber-terrorists’ next target might be the computer programs at the power switching centers that move electricity around the
country. Disrupting the electrical grid could wreak havoc on the nation’s economic and social infrastructures. Richard A. Clarke, who
heads the cyber-terrorism efforts of the Bush administration, warns of an “Electronic Pearl Harbor.” A combination of cyber-attacks and
physical attacks could lay waste to the nation’s oil and gas pipelines, power stations and transmission lines with devastating effects on
the economy. Government officials are well aware of the vulnerabilities, but not sure if a system so complex and expansive and so
centralized in its command and control mechanisms can ever really be completely secured against terrorist attacks. Because of all these
factors, many, including Christopher Flavin, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute, believe that the future
belongs to decentralized, renewable energy. Although they acknowledge that fossil fuels will continue to provide energy, and that a
transmission and distribution infrastructure will still be necessary to get hydrogen to retail customers, these experts see a renewable
future. Flavin points out that the market for oil is growing at less than 1.5 percent per year, while the wind and photovoltaic (PV)
markets are now doubling in size every three years. The “Forever Fuel” While the fossil-fuel era is entering its sunset years, a new
energy regime is being born that has the potential to remake civilization along radical new lines. Hydrogen is the most basic and
ubiquitous element in the universe. It is the stuff of stars and, when properly harnessed and made from renewable sources, it is the
“forever fuel,” notes author and alternative energy proponent Peter Hoffman. It produces no harmful CO2 emissions when burned; the
only byproducts are heat and pure water. We are at the dawn of a new economy, using hydrogen as the energy carrier, which will
fundamentally change the nature of our financial markets, political and social institutions, just as coal and steam power did at the
beginning of the Industrial Age. As Hoffman writes in his book, Tomorrow’s Energy: Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and the Prospects for a
Cleaner Planet (MIT Press), hydrogen can “propel airplanes, cars, trains and ships, run plants, and heat homes, offices, hospitals and
schools….As a gas, hydrogen can transport energy over long distances, in pipelines, as cheaply as electricity (under some
circumstances, perhaps even more efficiently), driving fuel cells or other power-generating machinery at the consumer end to make
electricity and water. As a chemical fuel, hydrogen can be used in a much wider range of energy applications than electricity.”
Chemically bound hydrogen is found everywhere on Earth: in water, fossil fuels and all living things. Yet, it rarely exists free floating in
nature. Instead, it has to be extracted from water or from hydrocarbons. Today, nearly half the hydrogen produced in the world is
derived from natural gas via a steam reforming process.
Coal Disadvantages
Hydrogen Good - Electricity

A) Hydrogen leads to six times the generation of the current electric grid
Peer-to-Peer Energy Sharing Commercial fuel cells powered by hydrogen are just now being introduced into the market for home, office
and industrial use. The major automakers have spent over $2 billion developing hydrogen cars, buses and trucks, and the first mass-
produced vehicles are expected to be on the road beginning in 2003. The hydrogen economy makes possible a vast redistribution of
electricity, with far-reaching consequences for society. Today’s centralized, top-down flow of energy, controlled by global oil companies
and utilities, can become obsolete. In the new era, every human being with access to renewable energy sources could become a producer
as well as a consumer—using so-called “distributed generation.” When millions of end-users connect their fuel cells powered by
renewables into local, regional and national publicly owned hydrogen energy webs (HEWs), they can begin to share energy—peer-to-
peer—creating a new decentralized form of energy generation and use. In the new hydrogen fuel-cell era, even the automobile itself is a
“power station on wheels” with a generating capacity of 20 kilowatts. Since the average car is parked about 96 percent of the time, it can
be plugged in, during non-use hours, to the home, office or the main interactive electricity network, providing premium electricity back
to the grid. As hydrogen visionary Amory Lovins explains, “Once you put a fuel cell in an ultralight car, you then have a 20- to 25-
kilowatt power station on wheels. So why not lease those fuel-cell cars to people who work in buildings where you’ve installed fuel
cells?” It would work like this: Commuters drive their cars to work, then plug them into the hydrogen line coming out of the natural gas
reformer installed as part of the building’s fuel cell. While they worked, their cars would produce electricity, which they could then sell
back to the grid. The car, instead of simply occupying space, would become a profit center. “It does not take many people doing this to
put the rest of the coal and nuclear plants out of business,” says Lovins, who’s been trying to do just that for decades. “The hypercar
fleet will eventually have five to six times the generating capacity of the national grid.”
B) That is key to the global economy
Cooler Heads Coalition, 98 (“Electricity Consumption is the Key to Economic Growth; Current Federal Funding Has Little Effect on
Emissions”, August 22, 1998
Electricity Consumption is the Key to Economic Growth Electricity has become increasingly important to the U.S. economy over the
last twenty years, according to technology forecaster and consultant Mark P. Mills, president of Mills-McCarthy & Associates, Inc.
Since 56 percent of the nations supply of electricity is provided by burning coal, reductions in coal use under the Kyoto Protocol could
have serious economic consequences, especially since the service sector has grown relative to other economic sectors. The U.S.
economy has become significantly more efficient since 1977, says Mills. In that year, "one dollar spent on energy use supported $9.50
of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Today one dollar spent on energy yields $14 of GDP." Most of this improvement has occurred in the
service and manufacturing sectors, which make up 85 percent of GDP. This was accomplished through converting energy use from
combustible fuels to electricity use. "All of the net growth in new energy supply for two decades has come from electricity," according
to Mills. Energy demand in services has increased by 30 percent, but has increased electricity use by 71 percent. Manufacturing has only
increased energy use by 8 percent while increasing electricity use by 25 percent. While the amount of combustible energy required to
support a single dollar of GDP has dropped precipitously, the amount of electricity needed to support a dollar of GDP has remained
constant. This is true despite large gains in the efficiency of many electricity applications. Mills warns that "policies cannot restrict the
supply of electricity, or increase its cost, without endangering the economy." Mills article, which appeared in the World Climate Report
(August 10, 1998), is available at www.nhes.com.
Coal Disadvantages
Hydrogen Good - Electricity

C) Economic collapse causes extinction
Coal Disadvantages
Hydrogen Good - Poverty

A) Hydrogen empowers the poor ending poverty
Empowering the Poor Incredibly, 65 percent of the human population has never made a telephone call, and a third of the human race has
no access to electricity or any other form of commercial energy. The global average per capita energy use for all countries is only one
fifth that of the U.S. The disparity between the connected and the unconnected is deep and threatens to become even more pronounced
over the next half century with world population expected to rise from the current 6.2 billion to nine billion people. Most of the
population increase is going to take place in the developing world, where the poverty is concentrated. Lack of access to energy, and
especially electricity, is a key factor in perpetuating poverty around the world. Conversely, access to energy means more economic
opportunity. In South Africa, for example, for every 100 households electrified, 10 to 20 new businesses are created. Electricity frees
human labor from day-to-day survival tasks. Simply finding enough firewood or dung to warm a house or cook meals in resource poor
countries can take hours out of each day. Electricity provides power to run farm equipment, operate small factories and craft shops, and
light homes, schools and businesses. Making the shift to a hydrogen energy regime, using renewable resources and technologies to
produce the hydrogen, and creating distributed generation energy webs that can connect communities all over the world, holds great
promise for helping to lift billions of people out of poverty. Narrowing the gap between the haves and have-nots requires, among other
things, narrowing the gap between the connected and the unconnected. It also presents a significant challenge: developing and
harnessing renewable energy sources for hydrogen in countries with no current infrastructure. As the price of fuel cells and
accompanying appliances continues to plummet with new innovations and economies of scale, they will become far more broadly
available, just as was the case with transistor radios, computers and cellular phones. The goal ought to be to provide stationary fuel cells
for every neighborhood and village in the developing world.
B) <<POVERTY BAD>>
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal DA – AT: Renewables Solve
Regulations will destroy the competitiveness of the U.S. coal industry – there is no feasible alternative to coal
Bowles, 98 – President of Charolais Corporation

(Donald E., Federal News Service, “Energy Security and the Future of Energy in the United States,” 10-2-1998, Lexis-Nexis Universe)
// JMP
Once workable regulations are developed, then other nations should also be encouraged to follow them. In our global economy, U.S.
industries should not be forced to compete on an uneven playing field. Moreover, if the regulation of the U.S. coal industry becomes
cost- prohibitive, then that industry will simply relocate or disappear -- leaving us without a sound, reliable domestically based energy
source and the environment without an assured protector. Strict environmental regulation of the United States coal industry, while
appealing in theory, will not have any positive practical effect once that industry dies and other energy generation methods, perhaps in
countries without any environmental regulation, take over. And no real viable, economically and technologically feasible alternative to
coal power generation currently exists. While certain other energy generation methods, such as solar, contain promise, they cannot
reasonably be expected to provide a substantial portion of the nation's electric energy needs in the next twenty-five to fifty years. Coal
power generation, although not perfect, is the nation's best hope.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal DA – AT: Increases Energy Costs
Greater energy costs is not an excuse to not build clean coal plants
Sargent, 8 (Sara Sargent, “Duke Energy Corp.’s new plant will allow coal to remain king in Indiana but keep emissions low,” 6-3-2008,
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=92169) // JMP
Although the increased cost to everyday consumers was a concern, the effect on the manufacturing industry—a major player in
Indiana’s economy—was also on Gentry’s mind when the Knox County Development Corp. weighed the pros and cons of the IGCC.
“The rate increase is not easy on our manufacturing industries that are competing globally, but it’s only one of many factors they have to
take into consideration,” Gentry said. “Not to do this project because it raises the cost of electricity production by 18 percent would not
be a good choice.”
Coal Disadvantages
Coal DA- AT: Alternative Energy will fill in the gap

There is no alternative to Coal use
Tucker 6, (Patrick, “Coal and Oil's Competitors” The Futurist, Vol. 40, September-October 2006) // CCH
Nuclear energy comprises roughly 20% of the electricity generated in the United States. Despite its obvious drawbacks (safety, large
amounts of toxic waste), nuclear power is getting a second look from some environmentalists. In April 2005, Patrick Moore, one of the
founders of the environmental group Greenpeace, testified before the U.S. Congress that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse
gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand." According to the U.S. Energy
Information Administration (EIA), nuclear power plants--by producing emissions-free electricity to meet soaring U.S. energy needs--
prevent the emission of 697 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in a given year. That's equal to all the carbon dioxide released from all
U.S. passenger cars combined. The EIA classifies solar in the "other renewables" category, along with biomass and wind, which
together comprise 2.3% of total U.S. power generation. The cost of the photovoltaic (PV) panels required to convert solar power into
energy has declined by 90% since the 1970s, and the outlook for the solar PV market remains (appropriately) bright, with expected
growth from $11.2 billion in 2005 to $50 billion in 2015. Solar power remains an irregular energy source, subject to vagaries in
atmospheric conditions. Also, according to the Wall Street Journal, solar manufacturers face increasing competition for silicon and
polysilicon--a chief component in many types of PV panels--from computer-chip manufacturers who use the material in chip
production. Many energy experts hope that, in the years ahead, breakthroughs in nanotechnology will lead to similar breakthroughs in
photovoltaic electricity generation. Germany and Spain lead the world in wind-energy production, with the United States coming in
third. While the amount of wind power produced yearly in the United States is sizable--enough to serve 1.6 million households--it
remains a relatively small portion of total U.S. power generation, approximately 0.4%. Hydrogen energy still faces numerous hurdles
before it can replace less clean, nonrenewable fuels such as coal and oil. There are safety concerns associated with hydrogen, and there
exists no real infrastructure to allow for widespread use of this energy source.
Source: The United States Energy Information Administration, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585. Telephone
202-586-8959; Web site www.eia.gov.
Coal Disadvantages
**AFFIRMATIVE ANSWERS**
Coal Disadvantages
Non- Unique- No Clean Coal
The push for clean coal has come to a halt.

NYT, 8 (“Mounting Costs Slow the Push for Clean Coal”, 30 May 2008,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30coal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
<For years, scientists have had a straightforward idea for taming global warming. They want to take the carbon dioxide that spews from
coal-burning power plants and pump it back into the ground. President Bush is for it, and indeed has spent years talking up the virtues of
“clean coal.” All three candidates to succeed him favor the approach. So do many other members of Congress. Coal companies are for
it. Many environmentalists favor it. Utility executives are practically begging for the technology. But it has become clear in recent
months that the nation’s effort to develop the technique is lagging badly. In January, the government canceled its support for what was
supposed to be a showcase project, a plant at a carefully chosen site in Illinois where there was coal, access to the power grid, and soil
underfoot that backers said could hold the carbon dioxide for eons. Perhaps worse, in the last few months, utility projects in Florida,
West Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota and Washington State that would have made it easier to capture carbon dioxide have all been canceled
or thrown into regulatory limbo.>
The DOE and the government neither support nor have a coherent plan dealing with clean coal.
The Indianapolis Star, 8 (“Nation needs clear policy for clean power”, 30 May 2008,
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080530/OPINION08/805300305/1291/OPINION08)
<The federal government appeared to be ready to help launch an expensive but potentially lucrative experiment last year in building a
"clean coal'' power plant called FutureGen near Mattoon, Ill. The plant was touted as nearly emissions free, including reducing carbon
output to about 10 percent of current levels. The Department of Energy, however, withdrew its support a month later, and plans for the
plant are now in doubt.
On their own, Indiana and the Indianapolis metro area need to bolster a now woefully inadequate mass transit system. That's especially
true with gas prices at nearly $4 a gallon. The state also can strongly encourage development of wind and solar programs.
But it's incumbent upon the federal government to finally develop a clear and consistent policy that encourages alternatives, decreases
reliance on Middle Eastern oil and promotes technology that allows for cleaner use of current energy sources, including coal.>
The DOE has cancelled plans for clean coal.

Ashely, 8 (Steven, Scientific American, “U.S. Cancels Clean Coal Plant”, 4 February 2008, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=us-
cancels-clean-coal-plant)
<So much for clean coal—at least for now. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it has canceled plans to build a
prototype 275-megawatt power plant, its first so-called FutureGen facility, in Mattoon, Ill., which was designed to burn coal to produce
electricity, and then sock away 90 percent of the resulting climate change–causing carbon dioxide safely underground.
Amid spiraling costs due to rising prices for concrete and steel, among other factors, the DOE said it was pulling the plug to save money
and to restructure the agency's clean coal effort to be less centralized and more effective.>
Coal Disadvantages
Environmental and health concerns make the collapse of the coal industry inevitable
Brown 4, (Lester, president of the Earth Policy Institute, author of Plan B: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble,
and the American Humanist Association's 1991 Humanist of the Year, “Coal: The United States Promotes While Canada and Europe
Move Beyond,” The Humanist, Vol. 64, March-April 2004) // CCH
The goal is to dean up air locally and help stabilize climate globally. In terms of cutting carbon emissions, shutting down just the huge
Nanticoke power station on the shore of Lake Erie would be the equivalent to taking four million cars off Canadian roads. Ontario is the
first Canadian province to turn its back on coal. Its political leaders simply concluded that the health and environmental costs of coal
burning are too high. Jack Gibbons, director of the Ontario Clear Air Alliance, calls coal "a nineteenth century fuel that has no place in
twenty-first century Ontario." Other East Canadian provinces including Nova Scotia and New Brunswick may soon follow its lead.
Several leading industrial countries are also turning away from coal, including the United Kingdom and Germany. The United Kingdom,
which used coal to launch the Industrial Revolution more than two centuries ago, cut coal use by 40 percent between 1990 and 2001,
mainly by substituting natural gas. Germany--Europe's largest industrial economy--cut coal use by a comparable 41 percent from 1990
to 2001. Reduced subsidies, gains in energy productivity, and the massive harnessing of wind energy means coal use may be on its way
out in Germany as well. Although some major industrial countries--such as the United States and Japan--are still increasing their use of
coal, world use has changed little in the last rive years. And the movement to phase out coal is gaining momentum. Britain's business-
oriented Economist magazine, which surprised many readers in July 2002 with a cover story entitled "Coal: Environmental Enemy
Number 1." is urging adoption of a carbon tax to discourage coal use. If global temperatures continue to rise and the world experiences
more crop-withering heat waves of the sort that shrunk the grain harvests of India and the United States in 2002 and Europe in 2003--
not to mention the life-threatening heat wave that claimed thirty-five thousand European lives in August 2003--the pressure to move
away from coal will intensify. There are two primary ways of reducing coal use. One is raising energy productivity. The other is shifting
to less carbon-intensive sources of energy. A quick example of the latter is that, if a world increasingly concerned about climate change
were to decide that over the next three years all incandescent light bulbs would be replaced with the compact fluorescent bulbs--which
use less than a third as much electricity--hundreds of coal-fired power plants could be closed. On the renewable side, wind power, now
expanding by over 30 percent a year, is on its way to becoming one of the world's leading sources of electricity. Europe is the leader
with twenty-four thousand megawatts of generation capacity. In early October 2003, the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA)
updated its projections for wind electric generation, raising them by one-fourth to 75,000 megawatts by 2010 and to 180,000 megawatts
by 2020. In 2020, EWEA projects that wind-generated electricity will satisfy the residential electricity needs of 194 million Europeans,
half the region's population. As if on cue, two weeks later the United Kingdom approved construction of four new massive offshore
wind farms. Western Europe, with enough offshore wind (out to a depth of forty meters) to satisfy most of its electricity needs, is fast
turning to this new source. The North Sea is rich in both oil and wind. And while its oil is being depleted, its wind isn't. Solar cell use
worldwide also is expanding by over 30 percent a year. The cost of solar- cell-generated electricity is falling steadily but lags the fall in
the cost of wind power by roughly a decade. Unfortunately, the United States is falling behind in development of alternative energy
sources, particularly wind and solar energy. Once a leader in wind electricity generation, it has ceded leadership to Europe. And in solar
cell production it recently has been eclipsed by Japan. If Congress resuscitates the energy bill in 2004, it should consider the global
environmental consequences of its actions, the job-creating potential of these new energy sources, and the long term costs of lagging in
the development of these new energy industries.
Coal Disadvantages
China is cooperating and no longer a threat in the status quo

Harding 6 (Harry, director, Research and Analysis, at the Eurasia Group, and University Professor of International Affairs at The
George Washington University, “China Goes Global Implications for the United States” The National Interest, No. 85, September-
October 2006) // CCH
CHINA IS increasingly "going global." As part of a state policy to secure markets, technology and resources abroad, Chinese firms--
primarily its largest state-owned enterprises--are making direct investments overseas and signing long-term contracts to acquire key
natural resources from foreign producers. The numbers are still relatively small (a total of stock of less than $40 billion by the end of
2004) but they are expected to grow rapidly. China's outbound foreign investment represents the beginning of a second stage in China's
strategy of relying on integration with the global economy to promote its economic development. The earlier stage was one of "bringing
in"--what the Chinese called kaifang, or "opening." Foreign investors were invited to establish operations in China while Beijing sought
to create the international environment that would facilitate its access to foreign markets, capital and technology. This meant China
adopted an omnidirectional foreign policy, in which it sought to reduce tensions with virtually every potential trade and investment
partner; it also meant Beijing was willing to join existing international institutions (such as the World Bank and the World Trade
Organization) and to accept "rules of the game" written primarily by the United States. Now, Chinese firms are "going out" (a literal
translation of the Chinese phrase zou chuqu). Increasingly, the Chinese want to capture a greater portion of the "value chain" in the
production of goods, no longer concentrating on providing low-cost labor (what the Chinese call jiagong or "adding labor") to assemble
products.
China seems largely intent on what some describe as a mercantilist, as opposed to a purely market-oriented, strategy.
Coal Disadvantages
Non-Unique- No Clean Coal
Clean coal technology wont be available for up to 10 years.

Cramer. 6/23/08. (“Cramer’s Mad Money recap: The Fiction of Clean Coal”). http://www.thestreet.com/story/10422155/2/cramers-mad-
money-recap-the-fiction-of-clean-coal.html// DMS
"Coal cannot be clean," Jim Cramer told viewers of his "Mad Money" TV show Thursday. When both presidential candidates tout
"clean coal" as an answer to the nation's energy problems, they are indulging in "magical thinking," he said. He said the true promise of
"clean coal" is to remove or at least reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but no company has that technology yet. He said such technology
is anywhere from three to 10 years away. Meanwhile, he said, the smarter, more pragmatic approach would be to focus on incremental
solutions to make coal cleaner. Specifically, he noted current technologies such as scrubbers and boilers, which can remove much of the
sulfur, nitrogen and mercury from coal. He said the best play on cleaner coal technology is Foster Wheeler (FWLT - Cramer's Take -
Stockpickr), a stock which he owns for his charitable trust, Action Alerts PLUS. The company is a leader in coal fluidization boilers that
can remove 95% of the sulfur from coal.
Clean Coal technology won’t be available for years.

Brennen, Tom. 6/19/08. (Jim's charitable trust owns FWLT. Does Clean Coal Exist?). http://www.cnbc.com/id/25263898//DMS
Politicians may pontificate on the virtues of clean coal, but don't expect that to be a reality any time soon. Such was Cramer's message
to viewers during Thursday's show. While we have the technology necessary to strip coal of its sulfur, nitrogen and mercury, we're not
yet capable of reducing the carbon-dioxide emissions. And, as Cramer said, any cost-effective means of doing so looks to be years and
years away. Duke Energy [DUK 17.72 0.16 (+0.91%) ... ] is working on carbon sequestration and says it won't be ready until 2012.
Oxy-coal combustion, another
way to getting rid of CO2 emissions, is still in deep development. The closest we get to cleaner coal is through flue gas
desulphurization (FGD), a scrubbing process that removes about 95% of s ulfur dioxide, or circulating fluidized bed (CFB) technology,
which uses boiling to take out about 90% of sulfur dioxide and a lot of the nitrogen oxide. (Don't let the chemistry talk put you to sleep.
We're almost to the good part -- the stocks.) So Cramer's focus is on not on clean coal, but this cleaner coal. We're going to use coal, so
why not focus ont he companies that make the best scrubbers and boilers until the time comes when we actually get to true clean coal.
Foster Wheeler [FWLT 72.20 -1.61 (-2.18%) ], one of Cramer's favorite infrastructure plays, has sold more than 300 of those CFB
boilers,
and the company's working on an even more efficient one that could actually reduce CO2 emissions. Plus, Foster has an alliance with
Praxair [PX 97.22 0.50 (+0.52%) ......................................................... ] to develop that oxy-coal cumbustion tech discussed earlier.
Foster's down a bit because of delays in its North American boiler orders, giving investors a great entry point. Cramer said he wasn't all
that concerned with the delays because management isn't. In fact, the C-suite at Foster Wheeler said the delays won't affect the
company's 2008-2009 earnings. Add to this Foster's already-burgeoning energy infrastructure business and you have a stock that Cramer
thinks is worth owning. Need proof? Foster Wheeler expects the liquified natural gas market to grow from $8.7 billion in 2006 to $25.4
billion in 2011. That alone is good news for the company -- and the stock -- because Foster builds LNG facilities.
Coal Disadvantages
Non-Unique- No Funding
Clean coal is far from being adequately funded.

Morton, Adam. 5/27/08 (The Age.Com. “Flannery Backs Clean Coal Investment”).
http://www.theage.com.au/news/environment/flannery-backs-clean-coal-investment/2008/05/26/1211653938538.html// DMS
SCIENTIST and climate commentator Tim Flannery has waded into the debate about "clean coal" technology, calling on the Rudd
Government to boost research funding from $500 million to $5 billion in a bid to halt global warming. Professor Flannery yesterday said
the Government should ramp up spending on the experimental research — capturing greenhouse gas emitted from power plants and
burying it kilometres underground — tenfold to make it viable much sooner. Researchers estimate it is at least a decade away from
being commercially available. Speaking at a Gold Coast conference, Professor Flannery called for more funding and "real timelines for
the industry to start developing this in the next two or three years". The 2007 Australian of the Year was scathing of the coal industry,
saying it relied on public money to develop new technology despite reaping huge windfalls from skyrocketing global coal prices. He
said power producers faced heavy penalties under an emissions trading scheme, to be introduced in 2010. "They have never been in a
better position to invest in these technologies and at the moment they are just ignoring the issue," he told The Age. "They need to get off
their bloody backsides and start investing and start lobbying for really substantial funding because otherwise we are not going to deal
with the climate problem and their industry is going to fall in a heap." A rift opened in the environment sector last month after lobby
groups WWF Australia and the Climate Institute joined the Australian Coal Association and the miner's union, the CFMEU, in calling
for further backing for "clean coal". Critics argue public money should be devoted to renewable energy research. Professor Flannery
said he doubted storing carbon underground would prove safe, but there was no choice but to back it. China builds a new coal-fired
power station a week.
Clean Coal Funding Cut – governmental devotion reluctant
Morton & Hammer, 8 -- *Professor at the University of Alberta, author of the philosophy of mind and ethics, and in the fusion of
epistemology **Professor, author
(Adam, Chris, “Clean energy must wait for money; BUDGET 08 - NATION BUILDING – CLIMATE,” 5/14/2008, http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=2d49b2456bd61d7baf09ac4c1a7ccfef&_docnum=17&wchp=dGLbVtz-
zSkVk&_md5=0828fd4ff08731c14ae75810dc689bd4) // HBG
CLEAN energy industries such as solar, wind and hot rocks will have to wait for a promised $500 million renewable energy fund, with
none of it to be spent next financial year and less than half before 2012. But a fund for "clean coal" technology - experimental work that
captures carbon dioxide as it is emitted and then pumped kilometres underground - starts slowly but immediately. Despite scientists
warning that action on climate change is needed now, the Government will have spent just $158.4 million of a promised $500 million on
"clean coal" research, and even less ($55.5 million) of the clean energy fund before the 2010 election. The comparative funding rates
will anger sections of the environmental lobby, some of which turned on the WWF and Climate Institute last month when the two
groups joined the coal industry and the miners' union, the CFMEU, in supporting "clean coal" funding. Critics argue that carbon capture
and storage is speculative and should be funded by heavy-polluting power companies. Calls by the WWF/Climate Institute/coal alliance
for a national taskforce into "clean coal" went unanswered. The budget devotes $2.3 billion to tackling climate change - the most ever.
Nearly all of it has been announced previously and much of the spending has been pushed back. Money for "clean coal" and renewable
energy extends well into the next decade. Critics will argue that the slow rollout of money for renewable energy puts a greater onus on
business to take the lead on the Government's ambitious pre-election target of making one-fifth of all energy come from renewable
sources by 2020. As expected, hardly any of the money goes to what will be the centrepiece of the Government's bid to cut greenhouse
emissions, and the biggest shake-up of the economy in 20 years: the introduction from 2010 of an emissions trading scheme, forcing
business to pay for the right to generate greenhouse pollution. Details of the scheme will come after veteran economist Ross Garnaut
and Treasury report back later this year. Other promises fulfilled in the budget include: $240· million over four years to help businesses
cut emissions and save water. $150· million over three years to help countries in Australia's region adapt to climate change. $130·
million over four years to help farmers deal with climate change. Low-interest "green loans" of up to $10,000 for up to 200,000
households to install solar, water and energy efficient products, costing $300 million over five years. Rebates of up to $500 for landlords
to install insulation to cut renters' energy bills, costing $150 million over five years. A green car innovation fund worth $500 million,
starting in 2011. -- With DARREN GRAY AT A GLANCE BUDGET 2008 $2.3 billion of programs to tackle climate change, nearly all
Coal Disadvantages
pre-election promises. Funding promises back-ended. Only $55.5 million of a promised $500 million renewable energy fund and $158.4
million of a $500 million "clean coal" fund to be spent before the next election.
Coal Disadvantages
Uniqueness overwhelms link- Clean Coal
Clean coal regulations were introduced in the Bush Administration, no risk of impact.
DOE, 4/23/2008. (“Clean Coal Technology & The President’s Clean Coal Power Initiative”)
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal// DMS
During his campaign for the Presidency, George W. Bush pledged to commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology -
a pledge he has subsequently carried out in the National Energy Policy and in budget requests to Congress.
"Clean coal technology" describes a new generation of energy processes that sharply reduce air emissions and other pollutants from
coal-burning power plants.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the U.S. Department of Energy conducted a joint program with industry and State agencies to
demonstrate the best of these new technologies at scales large enough for companies to make commercial decisions. More than 20 of the
technologies tested in the original program achieved commercial success.
The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time - primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain
on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged - the potential health impacts of trace
emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering
impact of greenhouse gases.
With coal likely to remain one of the nation's lowest-cost electric power sources for the foreseeable future, President Bush has pledged a
new commitment to even more advanced clean coal technologies.
As the President said in presenting his National Energy Policy to the American public on May 17, 2001, "More than half of the
electricity generated in America today comes from coal. If we weren't blessed with this natural resource, we would face even greater
[energy] shortages and higher prices today. Yet, coal presents an environmental challenge. So our plan funds research into new, clean
coal technologies."
Building on the successes of the original program, the new clean coal initiative encompasses a broad spectrum of research and large-
scale projects that target today's most pressing environmental challenges.
The Clean Coal Power Initiative is providing government co-financing for new coal technologies that can help utilities meet the
President's Clear Skies Initiative to cut sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollutants from power plants by nearly 70 percent by the year 2018.
Also, some of the early projects are showing ways to reduce greenhouse emissions by boosting the efficiency by which coal plants
convert coal to electricity or other energy forms.
In January of 2003, eight projects were selected under the first round CCPI solicitation, of which two were withdrawn. Of the remaining
six projects supported by the first round of the CCPI, three projects are currently in the operational phase, two are in the construction
phase, and one is still in the pre-award phase.
In October of 2004, four projects were selected from the second round CCPI solicitation. One project has since been withdrawn. The
remaining three projects are in various stages of development. Two of these projects will demonstrate advanced IGCC technology, while
the third will demonstrate a neural-network control process for advanced multi-pollutant controls by means of plant optimization.
A third round CCPI solicitation will focus on developing projects that utilize carbon sequestration technologies and/or beneficial reuse
of carbon dioxide.
Coal Disadvantages
China Coal - Inevitable
Non UNQ – China Coal Economy decline inevitable
Yanping, 6/27/2008 – professional profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest business network
(Li Yanping, “China's Industrial-Profit Growth Halves on Fuel Costs,” June 27, 2008,
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=allJEIahzojQ&refer=home)
June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Chinese industrial companies' profits grew at half the pace of a year earlier on record oil and coal prices,
increasing the likelihood that economic growth will continue to slow. Combined net income rose 20.9 percent to 1.09 trillion yuan ($160
billion) through May, the statistics bureau said today. That was less than the 42.1 percent gain in the first five months of last year. China
Petroleum & Chemical Corp., Asia's largest refiner, reported a record first-quarter profit drop and today's figures show a loss for oil
refiners and processors of coking coal. Slower profit gains may cool investment, one of the main drivers of the world's fastest-growing
major economy, as weakening global growth also dims the outlook for exports. ``Profits will be squeezed by higher raw-material and
fuel costs throughout this year,'' said Xing Ziqiang, an economist at China International Capital Corp. in Beijing. He forecasts economic
growth will slow to 10.3 percent this year from 11.9 percent in 2007. The CSI 300 Index of stocks has tumbled 47 percent this year on
concern that weaker export demand and measures to tame inflation will also cut profits. It fell 4.7 percent as of 11:30 a.m. in Shanghai.
Oil refiners and the coking industry had a loss of 44.3 billion yuan over the five months, compared with a profit of 35.2 billion yuan a
year earlier, the statistics bureau said. Power generators' profits fell 74 percent. Fuel Prices Rise Industrial companies' sales rose 29.3
percent to 18.4 trillion yuan through May from a year earlier. That's more than Italy's economic output for a year. China last week
raised state-controlled fuel and electricity prices, easing the burden on refiners and power generators. Thermal coal at Australia's
Newcastle port, a benchmark for Asia, rose last week to a record for the fourth week. The government has handed billions of dollars in
subsidies to refiners, with China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, getting $1 billion for April alone, according to a company
official. Its shares were down 6.9 percent in Shanghai today after crude oil reached a record yesterday. China's economy expanded 10.6
percent in the first quarter as export growth cooled and blizzards disrupted production by businesses such as Aluminum Corp. of China
Ltd., the nation's largest producer of the metal. Chalco, as the company is known, says first-half profit will more than halve.
Snowstorms, Wages. Industrial profits rose 16.5 percent in the first two months from a year earlier. Faster growth for the five months
through May partly reflected the recovery after the snowstorms, said Shen Minggao, an economist at Citigroup Inc. in Beijing. Raw-
material and wage costs ``will be a greater drag on profits in the second half,'' he said. Coal-extraction industry profits climbed 98
percent. For oil and gas extraction, the gain was 54 percent. Iron and steel industry profits rose 26 percent. China's demand for coal is
increasing more quickly than its ability to produce it, ``resulting in a tight coal market and constantly rising prices,'' Macquarie Group
Ltd. analysts led by Jim Lennon said in a report on June 23. Eight cities in central Henan province are having blackouts to limit power
use because of coal shortages, the state-run Xinhua News Agency said today. Earthquake Reconstruction Reconstruction work after the
May 12 earthquake that devastated parts of Sichuan province will increase demand for cement, steel, copper, aluminum and other
materials, according to the central bank. ``Energy and raw-material prices have risen too fast and inflation pressures are continuing to
build,'' it said in a report released this week. Baosteel Group Corp., China's largest steelmaker, has agreed to a record price increase for
iron ore and will pay at least 80 percent more for the steelmaking ingredient, Australia's Rio Tinto Group said this week. Producer-price
inflation accelerated to 8.2 percent last month, the fastest pace in more than three years, even as consumer-price inflation eased to 7.7
percent. The average urban wage was up 18.3 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier.
Coal Disadvantages
China Cooperation – Inevitable
US- Sino Cooperation over energy inevitable
ChinaView, 6/13/8 (Published China News Globally)

(www.chinaview.cn, “U.S. official urges more cooperation with China on climate change,” 6/13/2008,
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/13/content_8363644.htm) //HBG
BEIJING, June 13 (Xinhua) -- The United States and China have no choice but to cooperate closely on combating global warming to
work out long-term solutions that could be shared by the world, said a visiting U.S. senior environmental official here on Friday. "We
share a lot in common in terms of challenges ... our two countries have no choice but to cooperate more aggressively on clean energy
technologies, because we face the same challenges and we need similar solutions," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality. "Seventy percent of power generation in China is still based on coal, and in the United States
it is fifty percent ... We have to work together on technologies for alternative fuels, biofuel and nuclear energy," he said. Connaughton is
on a China tour talking with officials on climate change issues ahead of a U.S.-sponsored conference on energy and climate change that
is to open in Seoul on June 22. It will be attended by representatives from the world's major economies like the United States, the
European Union, France, Germany, India, Britain and China. Describing the tone of the Chinese side as "very constructive,"
Connaughton said China has set very aggressive goals especially in energy efficiency and has made significant strides like shutting
down old power plants and inefficient industrial plants. Connaughton also hailed the Chinese government's efforts to reduce carbon
emission and increase energy efficiency. "There has been very significant and positive direction in China in recognizing the urgency of
fighting against climate change and designing strategies that will help meaningful progress in China," said Connaughton, adding that the
U.S. government "welcomed that." As the only developed nation outside the Kyoto Protocol, the United States initiated climate change
talks involving major economies in May 2007, when the United States was under growing pressure to contribute more to solving the
problem of greenhouse-gas emissions. In their previous meeting in Paris in April, the major economies made progress in defining the
building blocks of a new UN deal to fight climate change but with splits about whether to set a goal of halving greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050.
Coal Disadvantages
No Link – Renewable Energy

No Link – Renewable Energy doesn’t tradeoff t with coal. Fossil fuels will continue increasing despite growth
Herbert, 8 – director of Foreign Relations on Environmental Issues, Associated Press writer

(H. Josef Herbert, AP, “No end seen on reliance on oil, fossil fuels,” 6-26-08,
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gUMV8UJoaN5q_kTW2qE60EkyYQZQD91H98CG4)//HBG
<World energy demand will grow 50 percent over the next two decades, oil prices could rise to $186 a barrel and coal will remain the
biggest source of electricity despite its effect on global warming, government experts predict. The Energy Information Administration's
long-range forecast to 2030 said the world is not close to abandoning fossil fuels. They will continue to be at the core of energy
production in transportation and electricity generation, according to the report released Wednesday. It said the steepest increases in
energy use will come in China and other developing economies, including some in the Middle East and Africa, where energy demand is
expected to be 85 percent greater in 2030 than it is today. "What jumps out is the very strong growth in the emerging economies," said
Guy Caruso, the head of the agency that serves as the government statistical and forecasting arm on energy. The outlook largely assumes
no mandatory international agreements on capping greenhouse gases, especially heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which comes from
burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use "could be altered substantially" by such deals, the report said. Without such limits, the annual
amount of carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere would be 51 percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago, the study said. It
said fossil fuels are expected to continue supplying much of the energy used worldwide despite the growth of renewable energy sources,
including wind and biofuels. The report assumes oil prices ranging from a low of $113 a barrel to as high as $186 a barrel by 2030; a
barrel was trading above $133 on Wednesday. Adjusted for inflation, the $113 price would be about $70 in 2006 dollars, the report said.
"We're not going back to the historically low prices we saw in the '80s and '90s," Caruso said, while acknowledging the uncertainty of
trying to peg prices so far into the future. Global demand for liquid fuels — mostly oil — will grow to 113 million barrels a day by
2030, nearly one-third more than is consumed today, the report said. But high prices could have an impact, shaving demand by as much
as 13 million barrels a day. China and other developing countries that are powering the anticipated rise in energy demand should see
sustained economic growth over the next two decades. Coal use is expected to jump by nearly two-thirds by 2030; China alone will
account for nearly three-fourths of that increase, the report said. Despite coal's effect on climate change, Caruso said "it's the fuel of
choice for electricity production in the emerging economies, especially China." Petroleum products such as oil sands, biofuels and
ethanol should grow to nearly 10 percent of total liquid fuels. Yet with the demand for conventional crude oil, the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries is expected to increase production at a pace that will keep its 40 percent market share, the report
predicts. It said OPEC would accept a decline in market share only if prices are high.>
Coal Disadvantages
No Link – CEPS
CEPS only slightly decreases coal industry, not enough to trigger impact
EIA, 7 (Energy Information Administration, “Impacts of Clean Energy Portfolio Standard,” 6-2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/rps.html) //HBG
<The imposition of the proposed CEPS leads to increased reliance on qualifying renewable and nuclear generation. However, because
60 percent of the required qualifying generation needed in 2030 is achieved in the reference case, projected shifts in fuel use are not
dramatic. The increase in nuclear and renewable generation stimulated by the CEPS is offset by lower coal and natural gas generation.
While the CEPS does lead to slightly higher resource costs for electricity producers, the clean energy credit price is projected to remain
below the credit price cap and the impacts on consumer electricity prices are small. Generation and Capacity The proposed CEPS
results in changes to the fuels used for electricity generation and the generation capacity added to meet growth in the electricity demand.
To comply with the CEPS, approximately 500 billion kilowatthours of generation from qualifying sources is needed in 2030. In the
reference case, about 300 billion kilowatthours of generation from qualifying resources is projected in 2030, so an additional 200 billion
kilowatthours are needed for CEPS compliance. While coal generation still increases under the CEPS, annual generation in 2030 is
projected to be 3,206 billion kilowatthours compared to 3,381 billion kilowatthours in the reference case (Figure 1 and Table 2). Both
of these values are well above the 1,977 billion kilowatthours of electricity generated from coal in 2004. However, the coal generation
in the CEPS case is 5.2 percent lower by 2030 than in the reference case. Total coal generating capacity is about 20 gigawatts (GW)
lower in 2030 in the CEPS case than in the reference case. In the reference case forecast, coal capacity is expected to rise from 310
GW in 2004 to 457 GW in 2030. With the CEPS legislation, coal capacity grows more slowly, achieving 437 GW at the end of the
forecast period. This is 4.4 percent less capacity than that of the reference case. No integrated gasification combined-cycle plants with
carbon sequestration are added under the legislation. Nuclear and renewable facilities have lower costs than advanced coal with
sequestration and are therefore used to meet the legislative requirements. Renewable generation grows more quickly under the CEPS
case than in the reference case. Total annual generation from renewable sources in 2030, including hydropower, reaches 592 billion
kilowatthours in the CEPS case, compared to 560 billion kilowatthours in the reference case (Figure 2). This represents a 5.7-percent
increase in renewable generation over the reference case level in 2030, and a 64-percent increase over the 2004 generation level of 360
billion kilowatthours. As in the reference case, nearly all of the renewable generation growth in the CEPS case can be attributed to
increases in wind and biomass generation. Annual wind generation, which was 14.2 billion kilowatthours in 2004, grows to 65 billion
kilowatthours by 2030 in the reference case and to 90 billion kilowatthours in the CEPS case. Biomass generation is also projected to
be stimulated by the CEPS, but the increase comes from greater co-firing of biomass with coal rather than the addition of new dedicated
biomass plants. The amount of dedicated biomass capacity added in the CEPS case is actually lower than in the reference case. This
occurs because the CEPS credit improves the economics of using biomass to displace some coal use in existing coal plants, leading to
higher biomass prices. This makes the addition of dedicated biomass plants less economically attractive. By 2030, total biomass
generation is projected to be 117.8 billion kilowatthours, 14.9 billion kilowatthours greater than in the reference case.>
Coal Disadvantages
No Link – Wind Energy

Wind energy won’t tradeoff with coal industries, expenditures not sufficient to trigger impact
Conti,7 – Director, Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting

(John J., “Analysis of Alternative Extensions of the Existing Production Tax Credit for Wind Generator,” May 2007,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ptc/index.html)// HBG
<Compared to the reference case, a five-year extension of the full PTC for wind facilities increases their generation in 2030 by almost
40 percent. The 1.5 cent tax credit has a nearly identical effect. In these cases, the share of total generation from wind is approximately
1.2 percent by 2030. A five-year extension with a reduced PTC of 1 cent per kilowatthour is not expected to result in additional wind
power than what is projected under business-as-usual conditions. A permanent extension of the PTC increases wind generation in each
of the credit amount cases. Compared to the reference case, a permanent extension of the current 1.9 cents per kilowatthour credit would
more than triple 2030 generation from wind plants. With a similar extension and a lower PTC amount of 1.5 cents per kilowatthour,
wind generation in 2030 would still more than double relative to the reference case, whereas the permanent extension of a PTC of 1.0
cent per kilowatthour would increase wind generation by about 40 percent over the reference case level in 2030. In this lowest credit
amount extension case, wind generation at the end of the period is five-fold the 2005 level. The share of total electricity generation
projected to come from wind facilities in 2030 with a permanent PTC extension ranges from 1 percent with a 1.0 cent per kilowatthour
PTC to 3 percent with a 1.9 cent per kilowatthour credit. In each of the PTC extension cases, total electricity sales are unchanged.
Therefore, the additional generation from wind displaces generation from other technologies. In the 1.9 cent five-year extension case,
the 20 additional billion kilowatthours of generation from wind facilities slightly slows nuclear and coal expansions, although there is
also less electricity generated from dedicated biomass facilities. This wind expansion results in 500 fewer megawatts of biomass
capacity relative to the business-as-usual forecast. In 2030, when compared to the reference case results, nuclear generation is lesser by
10 billion kilowatthours, and there is a similar effect on coal generation. In the permanent extension cases, which have greater effects on
the fuel mix, most of the additional wind generation is at the expense of coal generation growth. Nearly all of the 2030 wind power
production levels that are above reference case levels result in a dampening of coal generation of the same magnitude. In the 1.9 cent
permanent extension case, 122 billion kilowatthours of additional wind generation is balanced by a drop of 122 billion kilowatthours in
electricity generated from coal. Even in this case, however, coal generation in 2030 is 59 percent above 2005 levels. Electricity Prices.
The increase in wind generation from an extension of the PTC results in little change in electricity prices. Capital costs for wind turbines
are generally higher per unit of output than capital costs for fossil technologies such as coal or natural gas. However, the availability of
the PTC offsets this increase in cost. The resulting decreases in fuel expenditures are not sufficient to have much impact on electricity
prices with either a five-year or permanent extension of the PTC. >
Coal Disadvantages
Link Turn- Generic
Clean Coal industries benefit from alternative energy
Australian Financial Review 8, (Ayesha de Kretser, “Coal sector cleans up as oil becomes a dirty word,” 6-14-08, p.41, Lexis) / /CCH
The coal-gas technology attracts a lot of attention from investors. The technology is instrumental in developing clean energy.
Australian-listed coal seam gas companies have recently been rerated, following big foreign investments. Shares in Origin Energy,
Sunshine Gas, Queensland Gas Company, Arrow Energy, and Santos have experienced significant rise in recent months. Underground
coal gasification companies are also benefiting from an increasing interest in clean energy. Linc Energy's share price has risen 533 per
cent in the past 12 months.
Coal Disadvantages
Link Turn- Regulation

Turn – Regulations on emissions have empirically promoted technology and will spark investments in the clean-coal industries
Findsen, et. al, 7 – of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

(Jette Findsen, Byron Elmendorf, Sarah Mudd-Simmons, and Alan Cohn, Report on the APEC Energy Working Group Project, “How
Can Environmental Regulations Promote Clean Coal Technology Adoption in APEC Developing Economies?” 11-30-07,
http://www.egcfe.ewg.apec.org/projects/EnvRegs_Final_2007.pdf) //HBG
<Environmental regulations have fostered the uptake of clean coal technologies at different rates and to differing extents in a number of
APEC economies. Regulations on conventional air pollutants - generally SO2, NOx, and particulate matter – have proven effective in
stimulating the deployment of environmental controls, both pre and post-combustion. This trend is has been evidenced most clearly by
coal-fired generators’ responses to government regulations on SO2 and NOx emissions in Japan in the 1960s and 1970s, in the United
States in the 1970s and 1990s, and in China in the 1990s through the present. In general, the adoption of abatement technologies is a
direct response to the development and enforcement of national regulations as these regulations, over time, appear to have lowered the
cost of compliance by encouraging development of new low-cost technologies for meeting the standards. Thus far, environmental
regulations have had less direct influence on the adoption of coal-fired combustion technologies that focus on improving efficiency and
thus reduce CO2 emissions, including supercritical, ultra-supercritical, PFBC, and IGCC technology. Adoption of these technologies
appear to be more influenced by national energy policies that promote the efficient use of coal as a means to achieve greater energy
security or as a response to volatile prices for natural gas and petroleum products. This trend is evidenced in the United States during the
1960s and 1970s, in Japan from the 1980s through the present, and in current day China. Government funded demonstration projects
have also contributed significantly to the growth of more efficient coal-fired combustion and carbon capture and storage projects.
Another trend which has contributed to the slow adoption of more efficient combustion technologies is the perceived lack of commercial
readiness of individual high efficiency technologies. Some technologies, like IGCC, were not widely adopted in the last 5-10 years not
because of environmental regulations, but rather due to the higher perceived risk and cost relative to other combustion technologies.
Regulations mandating GHG emission reductions through cap-and-trade programs are still in their early stages, and their overall
influence on clean coal technologies is therefore still uncertain. Experience from the EU ETS suggests that regulations on GHG
emissions, while carbon allowance prices have historically been too low to encourage more efficient coal combustion technologies, they
have significant potential to stimulate major investment in more efficient combustion systems and carbon capture and storage projects.
There is also some early evidence that the emerging regional and federal climate change regulations in the Australia, Canada, United
States and other economies are beginning to have an influence on planning decisions for future coal-based capacity expansion projects
by increasing investment in high-efficiency combustion systems and/or carbon capture and storage.>
Coal Disadvantages
Link Turn- Air regulations increase clean coal
Clean Air regulations of any sort have empirically caused more money to be invested in clean coal
Under the influence of government initiatives prioritizing the development of efficient utilization of indigenous resources, the United
States experienced a period of growth in supercritical coal-fired capacity in the 1960s and 1970s. During the subsequent lowering of
coal prices, and relatively low demand for additional coal-fired capacity, fewer plants were constructed, the overwhelming majority of
which were subcritical units. During this period, federal regulations on air pollutants proved highly effective in promoting the
development and deployment of pollutant controls in most new coal-fired capacity, as well as in many existing coal-fired plants.
Environmental regulations do not appear to have had much influence on the adoption of more efficient combustion technologies in the
past, though there is evidence that the prospect of a federal mandatory greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program is generating renewed
interest in more efficient coal-fired combustion technologies and CCS. The first stringent requirements for SO2 emissions from power
plants were introduced by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and 1977. The most significant response from coal-fired generators
was a dramatic shift to the use of lower sulfur coals from western coal mines. Many of the plants that continued to burn higher sulfur
coals were retrofitted with FGD units, and a shift to a technology-based standard in 1977 fostered the adoption of FGD systems in
nearly all new coal-fired capacity. Currently, approximately 90,000 MW of existing coal-fired capacity in the United States utilizes FGD
systems, 25,000 MW of which was installed through the 1990s. NOx emissions from coal-fired power generators were minimally
regulated until the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Prior to these Amendments, the only significant influence on generators were
the 1971 New Source Performance Standards, which could be met by low-NOx burners, and only affected new capacity. The 1990
Amendments specified emissions-rate limitations for specific abatement technologies for both new and existing facilities, many of
whom also responded by adopting combustion modification devices such as low-NOx burners.xvi Although the first SCR system in the
United States was adopted only in 1993,xvii more stringent NOx requirements for existing power plants established by the EPA in 1994
stimulated a significant growth in SCR utilization throughout the next decade. By 2005, over 100,000 MW of SCR-equipped coal-fired
generators had been built in the United States.xviii Thus far, environmental regulations have had less of a direct impact on the adoption
of advanced coal-fired combustion technologies in the United States. Other factors such as cost, government priorities and technology
trends appear to have had an equally important influence on the rate of technology deployment, sometimes slowing the rate of
deployment and sometimes increasing it (see Figure 1). Energy supply uncertainties following the 1973 oil embargo contributed to a
period of increased fuel costs, high interest rates and inflation, and escalating electricity rates. In this environment, in conjunction with
the recently enacted environmental regulations discussed above, the utility industry renewed its interest in increasing the productivity
(efficiency) of coal-fired generating capacity and built more efficient, but generally smaller plants. There is evidence that impending
legislation mandating GHG emission reductions in the United States may influence decisions on the part of utility investors regarding
the use of advanced coal-fired combustion technologies. As discussed in the subsection on the European Union’s Emissions Trading
Scheme (Section 3.8), there is substantial evidence that costs imposed on carbon emissions can significantly drive investments in lower
carbon alternatives, including more efficient advanced coal-fired combustion technologies.
Coal Disadvantages
Link Turn- RPS will bring clean coal
Senior Senators intend to include clean coal in a national RPS.
Domenici 5—Senate Energy & Natural Resources Chairman—3/8/05(Pete, US Fed news, "SEN. DOMENICI AFFIRMS STRONG
INTEREST IN CLEAN, RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD IN ENERGY BILL”, Lexis-Nexis Universe)\\TM
Senate Energy & Natural Resources Chairman Pete V. Domenici today affirmed his interest in including a clean and renewable portfolio
standard in the bipartisan energy bill the committee will mark-up later this spring. The committee today held a hearing on RPS efforts
among states and the costs and benefits of a federal RPS standard. The senators also heard testimony regarding new approaches to
promoting clean power resources, including wind, nuclear, solar and clean coal energies. Chairman Domenici made the following
statement during the hearing: has long been an advocate of a federally-mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard that requires retail
suppliers of electricity to obtain up to 10% of their electricity from renewable resources like wind, solar, geothermal and other
traditional renewable energies. While that kind of RPS has received over 50 votes on the Senate floor in the past, it does not fly on the
House side. Assistant Secretary Garman's written testimony makes it clear that the Administration opposes this kind of RPS. I think it's
time to explore an expanded portfolio standard that would mandate a broader array of clean fuels. I think a portfolio standard should go
beyond wind, solar and geothermal energy to include renewable energy like hydropower and clean alternatives such as coal gasification,
clean coal, nuclear energy and, finally, credits for achieving new levels of efficiency and conservation. Today, 19 states, including
Senator Bingaman's and my home state of New Mexico, have their own unique versions of a portfolio program tailored to the resources
available in these states. For example, wind resources are scarce and costly in the southeast according to witnesses today. A mandate that
heavily favors wind could sharply drive up energy costs in that region. I consider unacceptable any federal program that forces
ratepayers in one region to subsidize specially-favored resources from another region. I expect my energy bill to increase and diversify
supply and stabilize energy prices - not drive up energy costs in one part of the country to subsidize energy in another region. I also
want to see a portfolio standard that balances fuel diversification and states' rights. As part of the effort to develop a bipartisan energy
bill, I hope that Senator Bingaman and I - as well as all the Members - will work together on a new approach to the old RPS. A National
Generation Resource Diversity Standard should go beyond a special subset of traditional renewable energies. I want to aim higher. Let's
capture the benefits of fuel diversification, technology development, climate change mitigation, energy independence, and overall
energy savings because these benefits do not belong only to an RPS.
Coal Disadvantages
1AR Link Wall

Chinese alternative energy development hurts the traditional coal energy sector
Ethan, 8 (Political Correspondent, "Renewable Energy likely to overtake oil and coal sooner than you think," 6-17-2008,
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleIenergyandelectricitryd=281474977375141> ) // HBG
future. Indeed, worldwide investment in renewables last year were remarkably widespread. China is the main new investor, moving into
a market long dominated by Europe. Chinese use of wind power is zooming, while China is about to become the largest producer of
solar technology, according to Martinot. Upon reflection, given its tremendous pollution problems, it's not so surprising that China is
working so hard to use renewable energy. >
Coal Disadvantages
1AR Link Wall
China needs US alternative energy technologies, key to keep China in check

Hale 6 (David, Chairman of Hale Advisors LLC in Chicago. “Commodities, China, and American Foreign Policy: How All Are
Linked,” The International Economy, Vol. 20, Summer 2006) // CCH
President Bush should have discussed energy policy with Hu Jintao because China has an insatiable demand for oil and other
commodities which could have profound implications for the American economy. China's demand for commodities is now so great that
it is increasingly the price setter in global markets. If the United States does not collaborate with China in promoting more conservation
and energy efficiency, her demand for oil could drive the price over $100 per barrel during the next five years. The decision of the U.S.
Congress to block the Chinese bid for Unocal last summer has also increased the risk that China will turn to rogue states such as Iran, the Sudan, and Venezuela in a
search for energy supplies. The debate about the Unocal bid last summer was so myopic Americans did not recognize that it was only a minor chapter in a much larger
story. We passed a great threshold in world economic history during 2003 and 2004. China displaced the United States to become the world's leading consumer of copper,
nickel, iron ore, lead, and other base metals. It also displaced Japan to become the world's second largest oil consumer. China now consumes 22 percent of global copper
output compared to 16 percent for the United States. It consumes 22 percent of global aluminum output compared to 20 percent for the United States. China's steel
production will soon approach 400 million tonnes or a level twice as large as that of the United States and Japan combined. China's oil consumption is now approaching
seven million barrels per day compared to 5.5 million for Japan and 21 million for the United States. China accounted for one-third of the growth in global oil
consumption during 2004 and played a major role driving prices over $40 per barrel. China's need for raw materials has already had a major impact on her foreign policy.
She is now attempting to negotiate free trade agreements with important commodity-producing countries such as Australia, South Africa, Chile, and Saudi Arabia. China
has deployed four thousand military police in the Sudan to protect an oil pipeline which it built there six years ago with Petronas of Malaysia. Beijing has recently offered
to give Nigeria arms in order to contain an insurgency by rebels in its oil producing provinces. In November 2004, President Hu Jintao traveled to Brazil and Argentina in
order to announce $30 billion worth of infrastructure investment to facilitate trade with China. A few months later Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez traveled to Beijing
to seek Chinese investment in his country's oil fields. Mr. Chavez is very hostile to the Bush Administration and wants to promote China as an alternative to the American
market. China's oil companies have become important investors in many oil producing countries. Between 1990 and 2005, that made for $7 billion worth of foreign
investments. After the collapse of the $18 billion Unocal bid, they announced nearly $12 billion worth of new investments and corporate takeovers in Kazakhstan,
Ecuador, Syria, and Nigeria. As a result of Hu Jintao's visit to Nigeria, China will invest $4 billion in that country's infrastructure and refineries in return for access to new
oil deposits. In March, China's oil companies also announced plans for new investments in Iran after committing to a $75 billion plan to purchase Iranian oil and gas two
years ago. The National Security Council is concerned about China's potential relationship with rogue states such as Iran and Sudan. It fears that China will offer such
countries access to weapons and military technology in return for access to oil and gas reserves. China has signed a treaty that prevents her from selling nuclear
technology but she has supplied a great deal of military equipment to the Sudanese government and threatened to veto United Nations sanctions against Sudan. These
concerns were not discussed during the Unocal bid but the political obstacles to the bid were a de facto encouragement of China to pursue alternative energy supplies from
potential enemies of the United States. The United States signed an energy cooperation agreement with China during the mid-1990s. The goal
of the agreement was to share technology and promote energy efficiency in China. It was allowed to expire despite the fact that the
United States has a clear interest in helping China to reduce her demand for oil. President Bush should also have discussed the security
implications of China's rapidly growing dependence upon commodity imports from places as far away as Latin America and Africa.
There is speculation that China could feel compelled to develop a blue water navy to protect her commodity supplies. Bush should have
promised that the United States would use its navy to guarantee the security of China's commodity imports. Bush should have also
stressed that the United States would welcome Chinese investment in the oil industry despite the opposition to the Unocal bid. Many in
Washington are alarmed about the re-emergence of China as a great economic power. They fear China could be heading down the same
path as Germany before 1914 or Japan during the 1930s. What they fail to appreciate is that China has become too integrated in the
global economy to play the role of a rogue state or militant super power. China's export share of GDP is now 38 percent, or three times
as large as that of the United States, Japan, or the European Union. China is also becoming increasingly dependent upon imported raw
materials to sustain her economic boom. China's per capita endowment of energy makes her especially vulnerable--her per capita
reserves of oil are less than 11 percent of the global average while natural gas reserves are only 5 percent. Despite an abundance of coal,
China's per capita reserves of coal are half the global average. Nuclear power and hydro power play only a small role in China's
economy. China's new role in the global commodity markets is both a challenge and an opportunity for the United States. It is a
challenge because China could be competing with the United States for oil, copper, iron ore, and other commodities in the future.
Goldman Sachs, for example, is forecasting that China's car population could rise from 14 million today to 500 million in the year 2050.
The United States currently has only 140 million autos and consumes a quarter of the world's oil. In 2010, automobiles could account
for 43 percent of China's oil consumption compared to less than 10 percent during the early 1990s. If China has even 300 million autos,
it will drive oil prices to levels which will compel the world to switch from petroleum to fuel cells. The opportunity is for the United
States to collaborate with China on projects to guarantee the security of global sea lanes, promote new forms of energy development,
and create an energy consumer lobby to hold OPEC in check.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: China Cooperation

Chinese threats are only speculative
Someday China may matter internationally mainly for the nature of its political system or for its strategic ambitions. Those are
significant even now, of course, but China's success in manufacturing is what has determined its place in the world. Most of what has
been good about China over the past generation has come directly or indirectly from its factories. The country has public money with which
to build roads, houses, and schools--especially roads. The vast population in the countryside has what their forebears acutely lacked, and peasants
elsewhere today still do: a chance at paying jobs, which means a chance to escape rural poverty. Americans complain about cheap junk pouring out of
Chinese mills, but they rely on China for a lot that is not junk, and whose cheap price is important to American industrial and domestic life. Modern
consumer culture rests on the assumption that the nicest, most advanced goods--computers, audio systems, wall-sized TVs--will get cheaper year by
year. Moore's Law, which in one version says that the price of computing power will be cut in half every 18 months or so, is part of the reason, but
China's factories are a big part too. Much of what is threatening about today's China also comes from its factories. Many people inside China, and
nearly everyone outside, can avoid the direct effects of the country's political controls. It is much harder to avoid its pollution. The air in Chinese cities
is worse than I expected, and because the pollution affects so many people in such a wide range of places, it is more damaging than London's,
Manchester's, or Pittsburgh's in their worst, rapidly industrializing days. The air pollution comes directly from the steel works, cement plants, and other
heavy-industry facilities that are helping the country prosper, and indirectly from the electric power plants that keep everything running. (Plus more and
more cars, though China still has barely one-thirtieth as many per capita as the United States.) The sheer speed and volume with which factories and
power plants across China increase their output of soot and gases make the country's air-pollution problems the world's. The heightened competition for
oil, ore, and other commodities to feed the factories affects other nations, as do slapdash standards of food purity and safety, which may have led to
tainted worldwide supplies of animal food. The ultimate fear in the developed world, of course, is that as China creates millions of new factory jobs
unknown millions will lose such jobs in America, Canada, Germany, even Japan. But these factories are both surprising and important in a less
obvious, though also fundamental, way. Almost nothing about the way they work corresponds to the way they are discussed in the
United States. America's political debates about the "China opportunity" and, even more, the "China threat" seem distant, theoretical,
and imprecise from the perspective of the factories where the outsourcing and exporting occur.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: China Cooperation

“Clean Coal” isn’t clean at all
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 8 (DANIEL MALLOY, PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, “COAL MAY HOLD SOLUTION TO GAS
PRICES; LIQUIFICATION IDEAS GAIN POPULARITY AS RESEARCHERS SEEK; ALTERNATIVES TO WEAN NATION
FROM ITS RELIANCE ON IMPORTS” 6-23-08, p. A1, Lexis) // CCH
Still, coal-to-liquid plants would cost several billion dollars to build, and if the whims of OPEC were to drive down oil prices, there
would be little market for a more expensive domestic product. That's why the coal industry has taken its case to Washington. Luke
Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association, said the industry would push for government backing, as Wall Street has
been timid to provide capital. Coal companies, such as Bethel Park-based Consol Energy, are seeking startup capital and government
bailouts for investors if oil prices drop too far. But a bigger hurdle than funding is the environmental lobby, which is vigorously
attacking the technology for its greenhouse gas production. From the time it's hauled out of the mine until it leaves the tailpipe, coal-to-
liquid produces about twice as much carbon dioxide as petroleum."It's just not an intelligent way to use coal," said Joseph Minot,
director of the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council."It's environmentally a disaster, economically a disaster. It doesn't make any
sense."
Coal Disadvantages
AT: China Impact
No risk of a Chinese coal export economy- measures are being made to cap coal exports.
WSJ 6/23 China's Cap on Coal Counters Its Market-Driven Energy Plan 6/23/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121416996733295099.html?mod=googlenews_wsj //WLT
To ensure adequate coal supply at home, China already limits exports by a quota system. But to make the new cap stick, and prevent
coal producers from seeking better deals abroad, many analysts expect China to halt coal exports entirely for the rest of this year. Still,
global coal markets didn't react much on Friday to the Chinese move -- in part, traders said, because of an already widespread belief that
such exports would be limited. For more than a week, there have been "rumors that China may have difficulties in coal exports," said
Richard Richardson, a trader at Global Coal Ltd., a London-based coal broker. By imposing a coal-price cap and boosting electricity
tariffs, Chinese policy makers are aiming to ease pressure on strapped power producers ahead of the peak summer electricity-demand
season. Producers have been squeezed between soaring prices for the coal needed to make electricity and government limits on the
prices they can charge for that electricity. As a result, power shortages have spread. The government also said that electricity tariffs --
with some exceptions -- will rise 4.7% beginning July 1. And the authorities' determination not to let power prices rise too rapidly is
likely to mute coal-price increases beyond the end of 2008. In a report Friday, Sarah Mak, a coal analyst at HSBC in Hong Kong who
earlier this year warned of possible state intervention to damp coal-price increases, said the previous day's action was "quite mild," as it
capped the price for thermal coal at its current relatively high level.
Governmental action decreases the relevance of the Chinese coal industry
WSJ 6/23 China's Cap on Coal Counters Its Market-Driven Energy Plan 6/23/08
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121416996733295099.html?mod=googlenews_wsj //WLT
The decision to reimpose price caps on coal also risks discouraging production by domestic coal miners. They are already facing rising
production costs, and might decide they can make more money shifting some of their production to 2009, after the price caps end. That
could worsen the problems facing the very power producers the government is trying to help. The caps on prices for thermal coal could
also encourage companies to shift to producing coking coal, used in steel production, which isn't subject to price limits. But the supply
damping effect of the new rules might be limited in the short term by the relatively high price at which the cap has been set, as well as
by the government's ability to use regulatory power to encourage greater production. On May 30, China's cabinet, the State Council,
called for the reopening of small mines that had been closed -- in some cases for safety reasons -- and urged larger miners to step up
production in order to ensure adequate supplies and ease rising prices. After that cabinet pronouncement, three provincial governments
in coal-mining areas moved in early June to restrict coal-price increases until September. Last week's measures by the central
government extend price controls nationwide and lengthen their duration.
Coal Disadvantages
China Not A Threat
CHINA’S NOT A MILITARY THREAT TO THE US
A) DEFENSE SPENDING IS OVER HYPED – NOT IN AREAS VITAL TO FIGHTING THE US AND STILL SMALLER
THEN OUR SPENDING IN IRAQ PER YEAR.
Rosemont, 2/9/08
[Contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), is distinguished professor emeritus at St. Mary's College of Maryland and a
visiting scholar in the Religious Studies department at Brown University, http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=14304]
On the military question, the answer is much clearer. China is not a military threat to the United States. Only those who believe that Fu
Manchu is alive and well in the Middle Kingdom and fulfilling his dreams of world domination through a large and aggressive army, air
force, and navy still subscribe to a notion that China poses a global military threat. Several recent books on the Chinese military
perpetuate this myth. Their titles reveal everything: Imagined Enemies: China Prepares for Uncertain War, for instance, or Showdown:
Why China Wants War with the United States. These and numerous similar narratives share an alarmist tone combined with a dearth of
relevant facts in support of their claims. These books suffer from such flaws for good reason. The facts belie the claims, especially when
placed in comparative perspective. When it comes to the putative Chinese military threat, the numbers simply don’t add up. Much has
been made of the double-digit increase in Chinese defense spending over the last three years. China has indeed increased its spending.
But much of the additional expenditures have been devoted to upgrading information, weapons, and communications systems. At the
same, China has cut troop strength to almost half of what it was in 1990.1 Moreover, the estimate of military expenditures for 2006 is
$35 billion. That is about 7% of the U.S. defense budget, once the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are factored in. Even before
including these latter expenditures the U.S. military budget is now larger than the defense budgets of all other nations combined. Almost
surely China’s actual military expenditures are larger than the 2006 estimate. But even if the military budget is twice as large, $70
billion is still less than 15% of the U.S. total and less than what was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan last year alone.2
B) GROUND FORCES ARE LESS WELL EQUIPPED, LACK AIR SUPPORT AND ARE FOCUSED ON PROTECTING
CHINESE BORDERS
Rosemont, 2/9/08
In terms of ground forces, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has an active duty component of 2.3 million personnel. That’s a lot of
soldiers, but the United States has 1.4 million, with less than one-fourth of the population. True, the Chinese have reserve forces of
another million plus. But they are responsible, among other things, for patrolling more than 8,000 miles of borders with India and
Russia – not always the friendliest of neighbors in the past – functions the U.S. military does not perform at the Canadian and Mexican
borders. Moreover, despite the supply breakdown scandal in Iraq, the 1.4 million U.S. troops are much better equipped overall than their
Chinese counterparts, few of whom have state-of-the-art support materiel or personal safety equipment.3
Coal Disadvantages
China Not A Threat
C) US NAVAL SUPERIORITY IS HUGE FOR LOTS OF REASONS
Rosemont, 2/9/08
China’s weakest link is naval. It has no blue ocean navy,6 and it is difficult to imagine how it could dream of building one. Of the 21
large aircraft carriers operational in the world right now, 12 are American, with a total landing space of 75 acres.7 The carriers
belonging to the rest of the world have 15 acres altogether. None of the other aircraft carriers belongs to China. So, the score is rather
lopsided on the naval front: the United States 12, China 0. The picture is similar for submarines. In a 2005 Atlantic Monthly article
Robert Kaplan issued the dire warning that “The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific will
define the 21st century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was.” Kaplan cites as one important piece of
“evidence” supporting his doom and gloom scenarios the fact that “ The Chinese are investing in both diesel-powered and nuclear-
powered submarines – a clear signal that they intend not only to protect their coasts but also to expand their influence far out into the
Pacific.” [italics added] In the first place, the Chinese might have a hard time “expanding their influence far out into the Pacific”
because so many U.S. soldiers, sailors, marines, and air force personnel are already stationed in the region. There are 18,000 troops
stationed in Alaska, 60,000 in Hawai’i, 37,000 in Japan, 5,000 on Guam, and 30,000 in South Korea. Again, the Chinese number is zero.
The United States has over 700 military installations outside its borders overall, while the Chinese have none at present.8 Kaplan’s
supposedly “clear signal” of expansion rests on the fact that the Chinese already have 55 submarines, and have a few more under
construction. But 50 of these are diesel-powered9 and hence must surface or near-surface every few days to take in oxygen. This makes
them more vulnerable to detection and destruction (by U.S. reconnaissance satellites and missile launchers) than nuclear submarines.
Although formidable vessels, these diesel submarines are in the end not even a secure defense against the highly sophisticated
technology of the world’s sole superpower, let alone a military threat to it. Strictly in terms of deterrence, then, it is unsurprising that the
Chinese would like more nuclear-powered submarines than the five that are currently operational for protecting their shores.10 On the
other hand, the United States currently has 72 submarines, all of which are nuclear-powered. And more are on the way, including the
Virginia-class attack submarine, not a vessel designed for defense. Perhaps most frightening for the Chinese are the U.S. underwater
capabilities in the Pacific, where the Navy maintains two-thirds of its strategic submarine forces. “At least 2 of these submarines are
kept on “hard alert” in the Pacific at all times, meaning they’re ready to fire within 15 minutes of a launch order,” write Keir Lieber and
Daryl Press. “Since each submarine carries 24 nuclear-tipped missiles with an average of six warheads per missile, commanders have
almost 300 warheads ready for immediate use. This is more than enough to assign multiple warheads to each of the 18 silos in which the
Chinese have nuclear missiles capable of reaching the US. Chinese leaders would have little or no warning of the attack.”
D) CHINA DOESN’T HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Rosemont, 2/9/08
Finally, China has 100-400 nuclear weapons. But only the 18 in the silos mentioned above are capable of striking the western
continental United States and these cannot be launched quickly. Unless fired as a first-strike weapon, they could easily be destroyed.
The United States, on the other hand, has almost 10,000 nuclear warheads and sufficient delivery capabilities to obliterate every Chinese
city with a population of a half-million or more, and still have more than enough of a stockpile to hold the rest of the world at bay.11
Coal Disadvantages
No China War
NO CHINA CONFLICT- ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE, RISK OF UNRAVELING THE CCP, POTENTIAL US

RESPONSE, AND THE DEFENSES ARE TOO STRONG
Hickey, 2/14/08
[Professor of Political Science at Missouri State University and a Fulbright Exchange Scholar at the China Foreign Affairs University in
Beijing, China, http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/OPINIONS02/802140353/1006/OPINIONS]
China's primary goal is economic modernization and its leaders realize that a war with Taiwan would severely retard economic
development. Taiwanese businesses have invested over $100 billion in China and the island remains as the country's single largest
source of foreign direct investment. Any protracted conflict would destroy Taiwan's economic infrastructure and lead to enormous
reconstruction costs. Taiwan might even respond to an attack by launching retaliatory strikes against China's prosperous coastal
provinces and metropolitan areas. Military officials in Taipei have long hinted that they possess the capability to take out Shanghai and
Hong Kong. An attack on Taiwan holds the potential to destabilize Chinese society. If a conflict leads to an economic crisis, the Chinese
Communist Party might be confronted with turmoil or rebellion. The party's grasp on power would also be undermined if a war with
Taiwan did not go well. Despite popular impressions, this is a distinct possibility as Taiwan has a modern military armed to the teeth
with American weapons. A war with Taiwan would hurt China's international image. It is likely that foreign governments would impose
economic sanctions. Investors would pull out of the country. And a boycott of this summer's Olympic games in Beijing could be
expected. One of the greatest deterrents to a Chinese attack is the prospect of American (and conceivably Japanese) military
intervention. Although the U.S. is not formally committed to Taiwan's defense, the law that outlines Washington's military ties to Taipei
comes very close to that. President Bush has pledged to do whatever it takes to help defend Taiwan. Tokyo has also declared its
commitment to the maintenance of peace in the Taiwan Strait.
No china taiwan war- january legislative election results means good cross-straight relations
Times Online 2/14/08
[http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3364880.ece]
If, as many now predict, China and Taiwan do not go to war but become significant investment partners, it is Kaohsiung and its rich
industrial and services base that stands to reap the most spectacular rewards.The lunar new year visit of the mainland Chinese tourists
was the latest in a number of signs to have generated considerable excitement among investors, signs that the simmering animosity
between Beijing and Taipei may, finally, be cooling.January's legislative elections in Taiwan, which dealt a crushing defeat to the ruling
party, have, according to analysts at CLSA Securities, “swung the balance of probability in Taiwan's unpredictable landscape firmly in
favour of breakthroughs on cross-strait relationships”. If the momentum towards rapprochement continues through presidential elections
in March, business leaders say, the transformation will follow quickly.
Coal Disadvantages
A/T: Australia Impact
No Link- China is looking to Australian exports which ensures the viability of both countries.
VOA News 6/25 China to Pay Record Prices for Australian Minerals, 6/25/08 http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-06-25-voa17.cfm
//WLT
Australia's resources boom shows no sign of slowing down, thanks largely to demand from Asia.
This week Anglo-Australian minerals company Rio Tinto has been negotiating with China's biggest steel maker, Baosteel, which has
traditionally set the international iron ore price for China's other steel producers. In 2007, the Chinese imported 383 million tons of iron
ore, up 17 percent from the previous year. In the past, China has paid Brazilian and Australian exporters the same amount for minerals.
But this year Australian miners demanded more, insisting their iron ore is higher quality and - because Australia is closer to China - is
costing less to transport. Rio has secured an 80 percent price increase for the iron ore known as Pilbara fine and a 97 percent increase
for iron ore lumps from its operations in northwestern Australia - 10 times last year's percentage increase. The scale of the deal has
surprised many analysts. A spokesman for Rio Tinto said the deal was "very significant," as iron ore is one of the company's key
commodities, along with copper and aluminum. Rio Tinto chief executive Tom Albanese believes more good times lie ahead for his
company. "Overall, Rio Tinto believes that this global shift will see the size of our key markets double over the next 15 years, as
demand balloons in line with rising urbanization in developing countries. And, that is also very good news for Australia," said
Albanese. Australia's mining boom has fueled a decade-and-a-half of unprecedented economic growth. It is driven by soaring demand
for iron ore and coal from China and India. The bonanza has the potential to end Australia's long-term current account deficit and push
the country's international trade balance into surplus.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Railroads Impact

Railroads are collapsing now – massive flooding
Hannon, 6/30/08 (Dave, “Floods slow rail shipments, could hit GDP hard Market experts debate economic impact of floods”,
http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA6574412.html)
The devastating floods in the Midwest continue to wreak havoc with logistics lanes and have market watchers concerned about broader
impacts on the U.S. economy. The Association of American Railroads said freight carried on railroads for the week ending June 21
totaled 318,275 carloads, down 5.7% year-over-year. Union Pacific said last week its crews have worked off the backlog of trains and
all trains are moving over normal routes in the flood-impacted Midwest area. BNSF said in a service advisory this morning that BNSF’s
main lines between Chicago and Kansas City via Fort Madison, Iowa, and Marceline, Mo., and via Quincy, Ill., are open, as floodwaters
receded and track was re-opened over the weekend. But there are still major lines not open due to flooding or damaged track. Beyond
service impacts, the floods and resulting lower volumes are expected to hit the already-struggling transportation companies’ revenues
and could put more trucking and rail-related companies out of the market. “We expect the flooding that hit the Midwest to impact most
transportation companies by a couple pennies (per share), mainly because of the increased costs associated with rerouted traffic," said
Lee Klaskow, senior transportation and logistics analyst at Longbow Research in New York in a recent Reuters report. "An
unprecedented run in fuel prices and a slowing economy were already limiting rails' second-quarter earnings growth, but historic
flooding in the Midwest should only add to the near-term troubles," Morgan Stanley analyst William Green wrote in a recent report.
The overall impact of the floods on the U.S. economy is a topic of debate right now. "It's just another thorn in the side," said Douglas
Porter, an economist at BMO Capital Markets, in a recent Associated Press report. Porter predicted the floods would shave a few tenths
of a percent off the country's annual gross domestic product, a measurement of all goods and services produced in the U.S. But a recent
report out from risk management firm Storm Exchange says approximately one-third of total U.S. corn crop and 30% of the total U.S.
soybean crop were impacted by flood conditions. But Paul Walsh, Chief Strategy Officer at Storm Exchange, says, “While crop yields
are sure to be impacted, the ramifications are much more far-reaching. In the current economy, agriculture production has become a
lynchpin to hold back inflation; a supply interruption of this scale will create ripples throughout the economy.” Overall, Storm
Exchange projects that 12% of U.S. GDP and 14% of corporate profits will be negatively affected by the Midwest floods, citing data
from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and Storm Exchange's proprietary risk analytics.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: California Impact
1. California is not key to the global economy – there evidence is not in the context of economic but exports that are not
economically dependent
2. Coal is not key to californias economy
Milford at el, 03 (Jana Milford, John Nielsen, Vickie Patton, Nancy Ryan, V. John White, Cindy Copeland,
“Clearing California’s Coal Shadow from the American West”, http://www.edf.org/documents/4890_CAcoalShadow.pdf) // MDP
Today California is at a crossroads. Policymakers have an opportunity to confront the state’s coal dependence and lead the way to a new
energy future for the entire region. Thousands of megawatts of new coal-fired power generation are being promoted across the interior
West, with a sharp focus on the growing California market. At the same time, progressive policymakers at the Cali- fornia Public
Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission have proposed protective new emissions standards for imported
power.Their actions, coupled with deliberations over how to meet Governor Schwarzenegger’s historic June 2005 directive to reduce
Executive summary global warming pollution, have spawned a vigorous debate about the future of coal in meeting California’s
electricity needs. This report seeks to inform that debate and to ensure California addresses its reliance on distant coal plants. It docu-
ments California’s long dependence on high-polluting coal plants in the interior West and describes the environmental threat posed by
new coal projects in the region. It also lays out policy recommendations for California and for states in the interior West to chart a new
path to a cleaner electricity supply throughout the western United States. California has a long tradition of leading the way to cleaner
air. It has been bold in harnessing the forces of Amer- ican ingenuity to combat urban air pollution and in adopting the nation's first law
to regulate global warming pollution from motor vehicle tailpipes. Industry opponents have repeatedly met Cali- fornia’s initiatives with
arguments that the technological and economic obstacles to progress were insurmountable. But California has pushed forward, and
viable solutions have repeatedly been found.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Mountain Impact
1. Alt causality – downturn in other sectors of the economy hurts the mountain sector.
2. Mountain economies are collapsing now
Barone, 8 (Michael, “A Political Reality Check On The Economy”, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/02/usnews/ma

in4147086.shtml) // MDP
Polls suggest votes are not moving in response to local economic conditions. Recent polls in Michigan, the No. 1 state in
unemployment, show John McCain running even with Barack Obama, even though George W. Bush lost the state by 3 percent in 2004.
And Obama is running much stronger than John Kerry did in Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states with very low unemployment.
But then Obama is advocating fiscal and trade policies - higher taxes on high earners, more protectionism - which are the opposite of
John F. Kennedy's and the same as Herbert Hoover's. Yes, the economy matters in politics but not in the way it used to.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Hydrogen impact (offense)
Hydrogen will decrease the use of other renewable energy

Boulard 4 (Garry, “The Great Hydrogen Hope: Clean Burning Hydrogen Has a Great Deal of Potential to Help Reduce U.S. Reliance
on Fossil Fuels. but There Are Significant Barriers to Surmount-Cost, Technology and Safety” State Legislatures, Vol. 30, February
2004)
Although few people today will defend the wisdom of basing an economy entirely upon the use of fossil fuels, many experts think that
the states should be cautious before embracing hydrogen as the single and only solution to the nation's pressing energy needs. "If you
pick just one new technology in advance and say 'it's going to be the hydrogen car' or something like that, you may end up surprised if
later we see that hybrids make more sense and are more cost effective," warns MacLeod. "I think the states should do all they can to
provide research and development dollars for these emerging technologies," says MacLeod. "But it would be a major mistake, in my
opinion, to get behind only one approach." In fact, not all experts are even in agreement that the hydrogen economy--especially with its
promise of a cleaner environment--can really work. Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley,
counts himself among the skeptics who doubt that hydrogen really is, as its supporters claim, the "clean fuel" of the future. "The
primary downside to the hydrogen economy is the possibility that its value will be incorrectly perceived," Muller says, "and therefore
competing technologies such as renewable energy technologies will not get sufficient attention."
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Hydrogen impact (offense)
TURN: Hydrogen would destroy the oil industry

Rider 99, (“Art, Ethics and Economics,” Journal article by Christine Rider; Review of Social Economy, Vol. 57, 1999) // CCH
The hero of Gridlock is a Stephen Hawking-like physicist (Geoffrey Peason) who has invented a cheap, efficient, non-polluting
hydrogen-powered car, which, if it were to be produced, would be an example of Schumpeter's creative destruction forces at work in
modern capitalism. This car would cost almost nothing to run (its energy is produced by electrolysis of water), and would be
environmentally harmless. There are several interesting, and conflicting, issues illustrated here. If the car industry does produce a
hydrogen-powered car, it would destroy the oil industry (which in the novel opens up the rewarding potential of a deal with the oil
industry by which the car manufacturers agree not to produce it, for a satisfyingly large amount of monetary compensation). A hydrogen
car would give inexpensive freedom to car owners, but would also reinforce the already existing pressures to cut public transportation,
hurting those dependent on it. An increase in the number of hydrogen cars, while not polluting, would be disastrously congesting, thus
increasing demands for more roads (and if there ever were a system of roads which never experienced any traffic tie-ups, then there
would be no excuse to build more, which would start a recession)
Coal Disadvantages
Ext: Hydrogen Impact Turn
“Hydrogen Economy” increases the need for fossil fuels and is not a form of energy
Zubrin, 6 – an aerospace engineer, is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a research and development firm.
(Robert, Energy Victory: Winning the war on terror by breaking free of oil, p.21-22) // HBG
The energy panacea of the moment is a concept called the “hydrogen economy.” Theorists propose to transition US energy usage to
hydrogen – a common element that, when combined with oxygen, releases energy with only water as a waste product. With hydrogen, it
is claimed, we can achieve not only energy independence but also end to pollution and global warming at the same time. As we shall
discuss at greater length in chapter 6, this concept is entire false. Hydrogen is not a source of energy. In order to be obtained, it must be
made – either through the use of electrolysis to split water or through the chemical breakdown of petroleum, natural gas, or coal. Either
process necessarily consumes more energy than will be released by the hydrogen it produces. When hydrogen is made by electrolysis,
the process yields 85 units of hydrogen energy for every 100 units of electrical energy used to break down the water. That is 85 percent
efficiency. If the hydrogen is then used in a fuel cell in an electric car, only about 55 percent of its energy will be used the rest is wasted
as heat and so forth. The net result of these two processes: the amount of usable energy yielded by the hydrogen will be only about 47
percent as much as went into producing it in the first place. And is the hydrogen is burned in an internal combustion engine to avoid the
high production costs of fuel cell, the net efficiency of this vehicle is 25 percent. Hydrogen produced from hydrocarbons instead of
water also throws away 30 to 50 percent of the total energy in the feedstock. That method actually increases the nation’s need for
fossil fuels, and thus greenhouse gases increase as well. While hydrogen could also be produced by nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, or
wind power, the process would continue to be dragged down by the fundamental inefficiency of hydrogen production. Such power
supplies could always do more to reduce fossil fuel requirements simply by sending their electric power directly to the public grid. The
bottom line is that hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a carrier of energy. And one of the least practical carriers of energy we know
of. In short, from the point of view of production, distribution, environmental impacts, and utility of use the hydrogen economy makes
no sense whatsoever. Their fundamental premise is at variance with the most basic laws of physics. The people who have foisted the
hoax on the American political class are charlatans, and they have done the nation an immense disservice.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Hydrogen impact (defense)

Hydrogen is too expensive and increases our energy demand
NEATHER 7, (ANDREW, “Talk of Hydrogen Cell Vehicles Is Just Hot Air” The Evening Standard (London, England), November 15,
2007) // CCH
KEN LIVINGSTONE'S announcement that he is to spend [pounds sterling]9.65 million on afleet of 10 buses powered by hydrogen is a
sign of how fast it is gaining ground as a future fuel. Some may question the Mayor's decision before the technology is better
established. The bigger question is whether hydrogen is really the solution that its proponents claim. It sounds too good to be true:
hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles themselves produce no pollution or carbon dioxide. It's thought that mass production of hydrogen
vehicles is 20 years away asthere are huge problems involved in transporting and storing it safely. But in California talk of a "hydrogen
economy" is now commonplace. The statealready has two dozen hydrogen refuelling stations. Costs are high. Ken's new buses will be at
least five times as expensive as conventional dieselones but will fall as the technology is reproduced more widely. The problem is that
you need a lot of electricity to manufacture hydrogen in any quantity. If that electricity is created in conventional power stationsfired by
gas, oil or coal, then moving to hydrogen just shifts the carbon emissions upstream , even if London's air does end up cleaner. Exact
comparisons of the emissions produced by hydrogen vehicles and those fromdiesel buses are very hard, given that we're nowhere near
mass use of hydrogenvehicles. But any large-scale switch to hydrogen-powered vehicles would massivelyincrease our energy use and
the generating industry's carbon emissions. Using energy from renewables such as wind power really is emission-free. But with
renewable energy currently providing just four per cent of ourelectricity, that's a very long way off. In the meantime, it's important not
to see hydrogen as the silver bullet forour energy problems and climate change.
Even if hydrogen is a good idea, there's a huge time tradeoff

Boulard 4 (Garry, “The Great Hydrogen Hope: Clean Burning Hydrogen Has a Great Deal of Potential to Help Reduce U.S. Reliance
on Fossil Fuels. but There Are Significant Barriers to Surmount-Cost, Technology and Safety” State Legislatures, Vol. 30, February
2004)
When Connecticut Representative Terry Backer heard President Bush call for up to $1.2 billion in funding for research and development
of hydrogen as an affordable and safe alternative to fossil fuel for the nation's drivers, his response was tempered by his years as one of
the most vocal advocates of what is called the hydrogen economy. "I thought the president's proposal was great," remarks Backer, "but
not enough and somewhat late." Backer, instead, wants to see Connecticut, as well as the 49 other states, embrace a more activist
approach to the hydrogen economy. He calls for tax credits both for the companies in his state that might someday produce hydrogen
fuel and the drivers who will use it. But more than that, Backer wants to help build a "working infrastructure that will make it possible
to actually deliver hydrogen to the vehicles," a series of pumps located at a variety of gas stations that will supply the fuel to cars. "I am
not talking about every station," Backer continues, "only a percentage of them.
Coal Disadvantages

Hydrogen fuel is not a reality- process releases just as much CO2
Hiserodt 7, (Ed, aerospace engineer and has been president of Controls & Power, Inc. since 1983, “The "Hydrogen Economy": Many
Environmentalists Are Pushing Hydrogen Fuel as an Energy Source Because of Hydrogen's Abundance. but Though Hydrogen Is
Abundant, It Is Also Mainly Impractical.” The New American, Vol. 23, August 20, 2007) // CCH
Water, water, every where, And all the boards did shrink; Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink.--Samuel Taylor Coleridge
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner The "hydrogen economy" is a Green dream. Environmentalists looking for a source of energy to
replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy rightly note that over 99.9 percent of the visible matter in the universe is hydrogen and that our
oceans have an inexhaustible supply of hydrogen atoms. Moreover, they point out, hydrogen bums, and when it is burned in internal
combustion engines or combined with oxygen in fuel cells, the only by-product is water. All that is true and wonderful and makes it
seem as if hydrogen is the solution to the world's power needs. However, it ignores an important factor that diminishes the role
hydrogen could otherwise play in solving our energy woes. Conveniently ignored in far too many cases is a problem similar to that
besetting the ancient mariner in Coleridge's poem: there is indeed hydrogen everywhere, but not in a form that can be used as a fuel.
Unlike petroleum, natural gas, and even helium, there are no hydrogen deposits that can be drilled and tapped for energyproduction
purposes. Because hydrogen readily combines with other molecules, to get usable hydrogen for energy-production purposes, we always
have to separate it from its already chosen dance partner. A common process to commercially produce hydrogen is to use very high
temperature steam to react with coke (almost pure carbon) to form hydrogen and carbon monoxide to produce what is known as
"syngas" A second commercially viable method of hydrogen production begins with natural gas, which is usually about 75 percent
methane--a molecule with one carbon and four hydrogen atoms. The process to release those hydrogen atoms is also completed with
high-temperature steam, as in the case of coke conversion. Ironically, after using large amounts of energy to free the hydrogen, the
resultant hydrogen has a much lower energy content than the natural gas it was freed from. But both of these methods produce dreaded
carbon dioxide (horrors), which was the enviro motivation for hydrogen fuel in the first place.
Coal Disadvantages

A hydrogen economy is cost-prohibitive
Then there are the other hydrogen engines, driven by fuel cells. In and of themselves, fuel cells are an almost ideal machine in that they
have no major moving parts and are therefore incredibly reliable. When compressed hydrogen is used in them as a fuel, there are three
outputs from the cell: electricity, heat, and water. With an efficiency of about 50 percent, half the energy from the hydrogen fuel is
converted into electricity without the need for a generator. However, while there is great enthusiasm for the hydrogen fuel cell for use in
automobiles, this technology has been rightly called "the miracle that is always 10 years over the horizon." There are numerous
problems, with cost being among the most serious. GM Vice President Larry Burns opined that the cost of fuel-cell vehicles must be
reduced 90 percent to compete with internal combustion engines. One of the major cost factors is the significant amounts of platinum
required as a catalyst for fuel-cell operation. Another negative is the lack of an infrastructure to provide hydrogen. The "hydrogen fuel
station" of the future would be more akin to docking at the International Space Station than today's pump-it-yourself and pay-at-the-
pump operation. The hydrogen fuel station would have to have either an on-site electrolysis plant to produce the hydrogen--which
would require major utility service--or giant high-pressure and/or cryogenic vessels to store the compressed or liquefied hydrogen. If
stored at 13,000 psi, the volume required would be the same as for LH2--3.4 times the space for the equivalent amount of gasoline. Any
fuel-cell-powered automobile would resemble today's battery-gasoline hybrids in terms of drivability, as the fuel cells do not come up to
power instantaneously and don't have the output needed for bursts of power when accelerating to enter freeway traffic. But if the fuel-
cell-powered plug-in car does not provide better drivability, why buy it? No less an unexpected critic than the Clinton administration's
Department of Energy program manager Joseph Romm comments: "If you're going to the trouble of building a plug-in [car] and
therefore have an electric drive train and a battery capable of stor ing a charge, then you could have a cheap gasoline engine along with
you or an expensive fuel cell." Dr. Romm, whose Ph.D. in physics is from MIT, thinks that consumers will opt for the cheaper vehicle.
Though energy required to produce hydrogen disqualifies it as a bona fide energy source, hydrogen could be produced for the purpose
of storing energy. In this scenario, utility companies would store energy in the form of compressed hydrogen during times when their
nuclear plants have excess generating capacity, and then use the gas to fuel turbine generators during peak periods when the plant's
generating capacity is strained. This is a function now only accomplished on a large scale by "pumped storage," where hydroelectric
generators are run as pumps to lift water to an elevated reservoir. When additional power is needed, the flow is reversed and the pump
becomes a turbine generator. Stationary fuel cells for standby power are already commercially viable and used across the world. These
are not limited to hydrogen as a fuel, but use methanol, diesel, or other hydrocarbons. Stationary plants can serve the same function as
batteries for storing electrical energy, but instead of having to add more batteries to increase stand-by capacity, only additional storage
facilities for fuel are required. Other than this mundane ap plication, the impetus for a "hydrogen economy" rests on two shaky stilt legs:
"We're running out of oil" and alleged anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. Regarding the former, this warning has been
voiced for over 100 years with doomsday a moving target always decades ahead. At present there are more known petroleum reserves
than ever in history.
Coal Disadvantages

Hydrogen is not cost-efficient
The equivalent of a gallon of gas (in terms of hydrogen) would require an energy cost of about 55 kWh of electrical power to produce.
With the industrial cost of electricity in the range of six cents per kWh, then compressed hydrogen would cost in the neighborhood of
$3.30 per gallon of gasoline. And this is the cost without any of the possible prodigious shipping and handling costs generated by
transporting the hydrogen to a fuel station near you. The amount of energy needed to pro duce enough hydrogen fuel to sustain the
economy would be immense. One normalsized nuclear power plant, capable of producing 24,000 megawatt-hours of power per day,
could produce about 450,000 gallon-equivalents of hydrogen per day. This would serve the automotive needs of a city of a million
people. But Wait... But what about using wind or solar power as sources to produce hydrogen? Let us examine the latter, as the former
is so rare and unreliable in most of the United States as to be beneath consideration. The sun produces an energy flux of about one
kilowatt per square meter at the outer boundary of the atmosphere. This energy is not uniformly distributed across the face of the planet.
Solar radiation is reflected or absorbed in the atmosphere and, except for the equator, is always at an angle from the perpendicular. And
then we have what is called "night." Obviously, the length of the daylight hours varies. As a result, the average incident solar energy is
generously estimated at about 300 watts per square meter. As there are about 10 square feet in a square meter, we receive an average of
30 watts per square foot at the surface. State-of-the-art photovoltaic cells that have enhanced coverage of the ultraviolet spectrum are
expected to have an efficiency of 10 percent--or are capable of producing some three watts per square foot. Say that each day you use
hydrogen fuel the equivalent of three gallons of gasoline going to and from work, shopping, soccer practice, etc. Given the normal 50
percent of what could be considered waste area in a solar collection grid for spacing so the solar panels can be turned toward the sun and
be cleaned regularly, a total of 4,600 square feet of collector area would be needed to electrolyze enough water for your daily
automobile needs. And for that city of one million mentioned earlier, about 44 square miles would need to be covered with silicon cells.
It is not going to happen, and the enviro left knows it. But once we obtain the liquid hydrogen for use in our cars, we're set then, right?
Well, yes and no. Almost all existing gasoline engines can be easily converted to either natural gas or hydrogen fuels, and hydrogen-
specific engines are easily engineered.
Coal Disadvantages
Ext: Hydrogen No Impact
No Impact – Hydrogen will never sustain an energy economy, inefficiencies and infrastructure proves
Trainer, 7 – Author, the University of New South Wales
(Ted, Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain A consumer Society, p. 93) // HBG
Even if there was no doubt that the required quantity of hydrogen could be produced, a hydrogen economy would probably be
prohibited by the physical nature of hydrogen. Because it is a very light and small atom, a large volume is needed to carry such energy,
and it easily leaks through joints, valves and seals. Consequently, converting energy to hydrogen, storing and transporting it involved
formidable difficulties, energy loses, infrastructure requirements, and costs. These multiply the number of windmills etc. that a system
would need to cover the losses. For example, to convert wind-generated electricity to hydrogen, compress it for storage, pump it a long way, then convert it
back to electricity would mean that about four times as many windmills would be needed to supply an amount of energy via storage compared with supplying it direct.
Bossel (2003) points out that there are several easily overlooked steps in going from electricity via hydrogen to electricity again, or motor vehicle power, such as AC/DC
inversion, and he argues that when all losses are included the electricity-to-wheels efficiency of hydrogen powered vehicles would be only 22%, and less via a liquid
hydrogen path. It therefore seems quite unlikely that we will ever have a large-scale “hydrogen economy”. To the extent that it does
eventuate it will probably involve high losses, cost, and inefficiencies. As Bossel (2004, p.58) says, “…it appears that hydrogen will not
play an important role in a sustainable energy economy…” “the conversion of electrical energy into hydrogen is not wise at this time,
not will it ever be.”
No impact – Hydrogen not the base for the economy, waste, cost, and expense proves
Zubrin, 7 -- an aerospace engineer, is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a research and development firm.
(Robert Zubrin, The New Atlantis, p. 9-20)
The problem with this expenditure is not simply the waste; the government throws away vaster sums on any number of other useless
programs all the time. Rather, the real issue is that the myth of the hydrogen economy has masked the administration’s total failure to
address the nation’s vulnerability to energy blackmail. In consequence, despite the obvious relationship between oil dependence and the
war with Islamist terrorism, no competent policy for achieving energy security has been put forth. If we are to achieve any progress on
this most critical issue, the myth of the hydrogen economy needs to be debunked. It is bad science, bad economics, and bad public
policy. The Real Science of Hydrogen. Hydrogen is only a source of energy if it can be taken in its pure form and reacted with another
chemical, such as oxygen. But all the hydrogen on Earth, except that in hydrocarbons, has already been oxidized, so none of it is
available as fuel. If you want to get plentiful unbound hydrogen, the closest place it can be found is on the surface of the Sun; mining this hydrogen supply would be
quite a trick. After the Sun, the next closest source of free hydrogen would be the atmosphere of Jupiter. Jupiter is surrounded by radiation belts so intense that they are
deadly to humans and electronics. It also has a massive gravity field that would severely impair hydrogen export operations. These would also be complicated by the 2.5-
year Jupiter-to-Earth flight transit time (during which any liquid hydrogen launched would probably boil away), and the fact that upon re-entry at Earth, the imagined
hydrogen shipping capsule would face heat loads about eight times higher than those withstood by a space shuttle returning from orbit. So if we put aside the spectacularly
improbable prospect of fueling our planet with extraterrestrial hydrogen imports, the only way to get free hydrogen on Earth is to make it. The trouble is that
making hydrogen requires more energy than the hydrogen so produced can provide. Hydrogen, therefore, is not a source of energy. It
simply is a carrier of energy. And it is, as we shall see, an extremely poor one. The spokesmen for the hydrogen hoax claim that
hydrogen will be manufactured from water via electrolysis. It is certainly possible to make hydrogen this way, but it is very expensive—
so much so, that only four percent of all hydrogen currently produced in the United States is produced in this manner. The rest is made
by breaking down hydrocarbons, through processes like pyrolysis of natural gas or steam reforming of coal. Neither type of hydrogen is
even remotely economical as fuel. The wholesale cost of commercial grade liquid hydrogen (made the cheap way, from hydrocarbons) shipped to large customers
in the United States is about $6 per kilogram. High purity hydrogen made from electrolysis for scientific applications costs considerably more. Dispensed in compressed
gas cylinders to retail customers, the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per kilogram. For comparison, a kilogram of hydrogen contains about the
same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. This means that even if hydrogen cars were available and hydrogen stations existed to fuel them,
no one with the power to choose otherwise would ever buy such vehicles. This fact alone makes the hydrogen economy a non-starter in
a free society.
Coal Disadvantages
A2: Pollution Bad
Turn: Pollution is key to solve Global Warming
Dray, 7 – Communication Director, Political Director

(Stephanie H. Dray, “Global Dimming: Why Pollution is Good, Up is Down and China is Our Best Friend,” 9/13/2007,
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/371363/global_dimming_why_pollution_is_good.html?cat=9) //HBG
Global dimming is a new scientific theory that will warm every gas guzzling, toxin dumping, and smog-eating heart in America; in
short, some climatologists now believe that pollution is saving our lives. For a long time, we debated whether or not global
warming was real. When the science couldn't be denied and even America's Oil Exec-In-Chief pronounced that global climate change
was not a hoax, the debate shifted to whether or not human beings had anything to do with it. As it turns out, not only do we have
something to do with global warming-our complete lack of respect for the environment may also be saving us from it. The idea of global
dimming is simple-human beings are throwing so much filth into the air that we're blocking out the sunlight that would otherwise reach
us and accelerate the already run-away process of global warming. Because we're trashing our planet and blotting out the sun, scientists
calculate that we may actually be preventing about two degrees of planetary heat. Those two degrees may be the difference between our
glib dismissal of an unprecedented number of category five storms as part of "the natural climate cycle" and our having to suffer the
cataclysmic effects of global warming that a certain former Vice President has been warning about. In the first week of September,
NOVA aired an investigative program entitled "The Dimming of the Sun." In it, scientists discussed their findings that only a few days
of suspended air travel in the aftermath of September 11th resulted in a marked temperature change in the atmosphere, indicating that
the effects of American atmospheric pollution have been vastly underestimated to date. Scientists also have a wealth of evidence
showing that smog and air pollution have reduced the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth's surface. This global dimming,
brought about by the same air pollution that has caused rampant respiratory ailments in human beings, is also thought to have caused
droughts and famines around the world.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Economy
Turn: RPS benefits the economy by creating jobs, new technology, and stabilizes prices
USC, 7 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Cashing In on Clean Energy

A National Renewable Electricity Standard Will Benefit the Economy and the Environment,” 11-02-07,
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/cashing-in.html) //HBG
America’s current energy system is dominated by fossil fuels, which pose serious threats to our health and environment and leave us
vulnerable to price spikes and supply shortages. With the threat of global warming becoming increasingly urgent, we must make
responsible energy choices today that ensure a safe, reliable power supply and a healthy environment for future generations. Fortunately,
there are practical and affordable ways to achieve this goal. Homegrown renewable energy resources—such as wind, solar, bioenergy,
and geothermal—can help reduce our dependence on polluting fossil fuels. These clean energy sources can also help stabilize energy
prices, stimulate the development of innovative new technology, and create high-quality jobs and other economic benefits. Strong
national policies can ensure these benefits are fully realized. The policy that has proven most effective and popular at the state level is
the renewable electricity standard (also known as the renewable portfolio standard or RPS), which requires electricity providers to
supply a minimum percentage of their power from clean energy sources. As of June 2007, renewable electricity standards have been
adopted in 23 states and Washington, DC. At the national level, the U.S. Senate has passed a 10 percent by 2020 national renewable
electricity standard three times since 2002—most recently in June 2005—only to be rejected by the House conferees each time.
Momentum continues to grow for a strong national standard. A 20 percent by 2020 standard was introduced in the House in February
2007, and a 15 percent by 2020 standard is under consideration in the Senate. Using a model from the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examined the long-term effects that a national 20 percent by 2020
standard would have on the economy and the environment. 20 Percent by 2020: The Benefits of a National Renewable Electricity
Standard. Job Creation 185,000 new jobs from renewable energy development. Economic Development $66.7 billion in new capital
investment, $25.6 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $2 billion in new local tax revenues. Consumer
Savings. $10.5 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $31.8 billion by 2030). Climate Solutions
Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking 36.4 million cars off the road. The UCS analysis was conducted at the national
level and an additional breakout of state benefits was completed for 20 states.
Turn: Clean Energy creates more job opportunities and boosts economy
Hartzell, 6/29/08 – Energy Field Organizer

(Margaret, “Clean energy will help planet, create jobs,” 6/29/08, http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=297885 ) //HBG
Clean energy will help planet, create jobs. Emerging clean energy industries, such as wind and solar power, are not only taking steps
toward solving global warming and America’s energy problem, they’re creating good jobs that help the economy and our environment.
We should be making investments in clean energy so green innovations can make an even bigger difference in stopping global warming,
cleaning up our air and building the kind of economy that future generations can rely on. Yet Congress has to act now to deliver on the
promise of a new energy future. Big Oil and its friends on Capitol Hill have been blocking the extension of critical clean energy
incentives. If these expire, an estimated $19 billion in clean energy projects will be canceled, and America would lose more than
116,000 clean energy jobs. With today’s economy, threats to the environment and dependence on foreign oil, the worst thing we could
do would be to impose a crippling tax increase on the fast-growing clean energy industry.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Economy
Turn: Renewable Energy would increase and stabilize the economy – Gamesa Proves
MSR, 6/30/08 – Mercury Staff Report, conservation and labor groups states that working toward a clean energy economy, “Report:
Growth of 'Green Economy' would create jobs,” 6/30/08,
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19816301&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=6354
84&rfi=6) //HBG
A report by a coalition of conservation and labor groups states that working toward a clean energy economy would boost jobs and job
security in Pennsylvania. "Job Opportunities for the Green Economy," takes a state-by-state look at existing jobs skills across a wide
range of occupations and income levels that would benefit from a transition toward a clean energy economy. The report, released earlier
this month, quantifies the number of workers who can apply their skills to six categories of green industries - building retrofitting, mass
transit, fuel-efficient automobiles, wind power, solar power, and cellulosic biomass fuels. "Achieving a clean energy economy through
green investments like wind and solar are just part of the story. This report is also about job security. Making homes and offices more
energy efficient not only saves money and energy, but also represents growth opportunities for workers who build our communities and
keep them running," said Peter Altman, climate center campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "We're talking
about jobs at every skill level from construction to research, already available here at home." According to Michael Peck, director of
Media, Institutional and Labor Relations for Gamesa USA, "Gamesa is proof that clean energy development and environmental
protection can drive economic growth. "In just three years of operation in Pennsylvania, Gamesa has invested over $175 million and
created more than 1,160 jobs statewide, including 955 good-paying, 'green collar' manufacturing jobs where employees are represented
by the United States Steelworkers of America," Peck said. "Gamesa is a leading example of how we can create a stronger and more
sustainable economy, a safer world and a cleaner environment by making energy less polluting. Renewable energy is the new
patriotism." Many workers in the U.S. already possess the vast majority of skills and occupations necessary to reduce global warming
and make the shift to a clean energy economy. For instance, constructing wind farms creates jobs for sheet metal workers, machinists
and truck drivers, among many others. Increasing the energy efficiency of buildings through retrofitting relies on roofers, insulators and
electricians, to name a few. "Job Opportunities for the Green Economy" studies employment conditions in 12 states: Florida, Indiana,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. While the report focuses
on specific states, it shows that the vast majority of green jobs are in the same areas of employment that people already work in today, in
every region and state of the country. In Pennsylvania, there are roughly 553,517 jobs in a representative group of job areas that could
see job growth or wage increases by putting global warming solutions to work and creating a green economy. The benefits of pursuing
green investment strategies would spread to a much wider selection of occupations. "Green jobs" are defined in the report as
occupations that contribute toward building or producing goods to achieve a 'green' marketplace. At the same time, the report links the
idea that green jobs should be sustainable employment opportunities - that is, jobs that pay at least a living wage, offer training and
promotional opportunities and some measure of security.
Turn: Renewable Energy key to the economy and boost jobs, UK and South West prove
Exeter, 8 (Exeter.co.uk, “Energy Plan Boost for Jobs,” 6-30-08,

http://www.thisisexeter.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=142329&command=displayContent&sourceNode=14
2324&contentPK=20979050&folderPk=79879&pNodeId=142334) //HBG
Thousands more jobs could be created in the South West's growing renewable energy sector thanks to proposals outlined by the
Government. This is the view of the South West Regional Development Agency, which is committed to developing a low-carbon
economy, and is trying to achieve this by making all of its investments net zero-carbon by 2013.The newly published Renewable Energy
Strategy consultation is designed to help the UK meet the EU target of generating 15 per cent of energy from renewables by 2020. The
proposals include the potential for new incentives for businesses and households to install microgeneration technologies, at least a 15-
fold increase in offshore wind power generation and a greater role for biomass energy from trees and crops. The Government's
consultation document also pays tribute to the South West's growing renewable energy sector. It is now worth £215 million a year to the
regional economy and has seen a massive 37 per cent year-on-year growth in employment over the last three years. While the
renewables sector in the South West is dominated by small businesses, 90 per cent of them expect their firms to grow over the next few
years and more than 60 per cent expect to expand existing markets, or develop new ones, in the UK. Jonny Boston, energy manager at
the South West RDA, said: "Renewable energy is not only vital for the future of a low-carbon economy but also a great economic
Coal Disadvantages
opportunity for the South West. "We are blessed with abundant natural resources in the South West which make us well placed to make
use of our own indigenous sources of energy."
AT: Economy
Turn: Renewable Energy drives the economy, creating jobs, and breaks fuel dependency
Cox, 6/29/08 -- executive director of the Interwest Energy Alliance, a Conifer-based trade association
(Craig, “Tax policies must catch up to renewable revolution,” 6/29/08, http://www.denverpost.com/renewable/ci_9738108)
//HBG
Proponents of increased drilling and expensive oil-shale development in our nation's wilderness, offshore and other protected areas may
be fighting the last war. The future of our nation's energy infrastructure is increasingly electric, fueled by inexhaustible, domestic clean
energy resources like the wind and the sun. U.S. electricity demand is expected to grow by at least a third by 2020. Likewise, our
nation's transportation infrastructure is becoming increasingly electrified. Already, commuter trains, subways and buses run on
electricity in many cities, and the world's major automakers are racing to build affordable, practical plug-in hybrid and all-electric
vehicles. The electrical equivalent of a gallon of gasoline is only 95 cents. With its abundant, inexhaustible and clean renewable energy
resources such as wind and solar, the West can provide the electric power our economy will need to overcome our reliance on costly
fossil fuels. Renewable energy is ready: In May, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that wind energy can meet 20 percent of the
nation's electricity requirements by 2030 in a cost-effective, economically beneficial manner. The department also reports that the
nation's power requirements could be met through solar with a plot of land 100 miles on each side. One of the biggest factors slowing
new renewable projects is lack of transmission to bring the resources to cities. New transmission can take five years or more to be built,
compared with short construction time for renewable projects. Happily, state policymakers throughout the West are addressing this issue
by passing laws enabling transmission to be built more quickly. Renewable energy benefits consumers: With wind and solar energy, the
"fuel" is free, and the cost of electricity from these projects is stable over decades. Wind energy has already saved consumers millions of
dollars in several states while creating new, important economic-development opportunities in rural areas. Renewable energy is
environmentally sensible: With no pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions, renewable energy technologies offer a beneficial solution to
the increasing threat posed by global warming, which is particularly worrisome to the West. Properly sited, large renewable energy
projects create win-win opportunities with minimal environmental impacts. And many renewable energy projects consume little or no
water for power generation. Renewable energy is popular with voters and policymakers: Colorado's voters passed a renewable energy
standard in 2004, requiring increasing percentages of electricity to be generated from renewable sources of energy. This standard was so
popular — and feasible — that it was doubled to 20 percent last year with leadership from Gov. Bill Ritter and bipartisan legislative
support. Voters and policymakers alike understand that renewable energy creates jobs, stabilizes consumers' costs, provides economic
benefits and protects the environment. However, unlike fossil and nuclear fuels, which enjoy long-term or permanent tax subsidies,
federal tax incentives for renewable technologies are of short duration and often lapse before being renewed. Critically important
renewable-energy tax credits are being treated like a political football and expire at the end of this year. These tax incentives must
immediately be extended on a long- term basis to restore much-needed certainty to renewable energy markets. Record-high oil prices
and dwindling supplies of fossil energy resources are compelling our economy and transportation infrastructure to become increasingly
reliant on electricity. Looking toward the future, we must make sure this electricity comes from clean, affordable and domestic
renewable energy resources. With proper state and federal policies in place, renewable energy technologies will power a clean,
prosperous and bright economy for America and the world.
Coal Disadvantages
AT: Economy
Turn: Renewable Energy key to solve “economic darkness” and have empirically provided jobs
Dorner, 8 – Deputy of the Sierra Club, Director of the Environmental Organization for Renewable Energy
(Josh, “Senate Stimulus Plan to Include Green Jobs, Energy Provisions,” 1-30-08,
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2008-01-30.asp) //HBG
Washington, D.C.--After a bipartisan push by more than 40 Senators, the Senate Finance Committee has included key green jobs and
renewable energy incentives in its version of the economic stimulus package.* The $5.5 billion package includes short-term extensions
of key renewable energy tax incentives due to expire at the end of 2008--including the Production Tax Credit (PTC), Investment Tax
Credit (ITC) for solar, clean energy bonds, and other measures designed to promote energy efficiency. After being approved 14 to 7 in
today’s Finance Committee markup, the package is headed for a final vote on the Senate floor as soon as possible. A recent study by the
Blue-Green Alliance shows that a strong investment in renewable energy could create over 820,000 new jobs and bring billions in
economic growth. Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "Senators from both sides of the aisle have lined up in
support of this measure because they understand that a strong renewable energy industry is essential to a strong economy and a clean
environment. This industry is running white hot and provides a beacon of hope in these times of growing economic darkness.
These incentives have already helped to create tens of thousands of green collar jobs, revitalized communities, and stand to create
hundreds of thousands more. "These incentives put us on the road toward the clean energy future by jumpstarting the renewable energy
industry but we will soon run out of gas if these incentives are allowed to expire."As recent history demonstrates in sharp relief, failing
to extend these key incentives immediately will stifle this important industry, result in the cancellation of clean energy projects
nationwide, throw thousands of hardworking Americans out of work, and stop the march of clean energy as the need to fight global
warming becomes increasingly urgent. Letting these incentives expire will also put America further behind foreign competitors at a time
when we are just starting to see the power of the new energy economy as it takes hold and brings jobs and clean energy to communities
across the country. "Similar renewable energy incentives have been included in past economic stimulus bills and the specific
provisions included in this package more than meet the test of timely, targeted, and temporary. "
Coal Disadvantages
A/T: Natural Gas (1/2)
New discoveries overwhelm the risk of a link.
The Buffalo News 6/30 Huge natural gas deposit stirs talk of boom in Southern Tier 6/30/08
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/381598.html //WLT
Soaring oil and natural gas prices have the industry turning over every rock in search of promising new deposits. But what’s really
captured the imagination is a giant natural gas reservoir running beneath four states, including New York’s Southern Tier. The potential
is huge. And some lucky landowners are striking it rich. “It’s extremely significant as far as the natural gas that’s expected to be
recovered,” said Brad Gill, executive director of the Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York. “It’s put New York State on the
map with the very large independent oil and natural gas companies from around the country.” Company land men are swooping into
counties, like Broome and Tioga, to lease property for drilling. Along the way, they’re doling out tens of millions of dollars for the
mineral rights to thousands of acres of farmland throughout south central New York and across the border in Pennsylvania. “This is one
of the biggest booms New York has ever seen,” said Arthur Van Tyne, an oil and natural gas consultant from Wellsville in Allegany
County. “It’s amazing the amount of money being spent here, and the amount of acreage being taken.” Landowners in these parts have
yet to hit it big. But they’re watching closely, hoping they’ll be the next Jed Clampett, now that gas companies are sniffing around parts of Erie,
Cattaraugus and Allegany counties looking to make a deal. “It’s going on, on a daily basis,” said Robert Christman, the Allegany County clerk. At least a half dozen land men, from
places such as Texas and Oklahoma, file into the clerk’s office in Belmont each day to pore over county maps, land deeds and old lease agreements. “It’s exciting,” Christman said.
The commotion is over a geological formation known as the Marcellus shale. And among those stirring the excitement is Gary Lash, a Fredonia State College professor of
geosciences. Hard to drill into shale Marcellus shale, Lash explained, is a black sedimentary rock formed 385 million years ago from the organic-rich mud of shallow seaways. As
the organic material decayed, natural gas formed and dispersed through its pores. Geologists have known about it for years. Companies would run into the shale while drilling, but
thought little of it, because it’s relatively impermeable. In recent years, though, companies have had success capturing gas from shale in Texas by drilling down, then taking a
horizontal path through the rock. It’s a much more costly technique. But now that natural gas prices are up over $13 per 1,000 cubic feet — nearly 2z times what it was just last
August — it’s financially viable. Attention shifted to the Appalachia region’s Marcellus, the largest known shale deposit in the United States. It covers some 34 million acres across
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, eastern Ohio and New York’s Southern Tier. At its thickest, it’s 200 feet, and at its deepest, more than a mile underground. “There’s no doubt there’s gas
in there,” Lash said. “The problem is extracting it.” Lash and Terry Engelder, professor of geosciences at Penn State University, recently released new research on the potential of
the Marcellus. Using horizontal drilling to penetrate the rock’s natural vertical fractures, they estimate enough natural gas could be
recovered from the Marcellus to supply the entire United States for about two years. The potential value: upwards of a trillion dollars.
“This is big for the industry,” Gill said. “There is quite an oil-and gas-leasing frenzy going on right now with a lot of positioning by
some of the larger oil and natural gas operators.” Engelder and Lash have had a lot to do with that, said Van Tyne, the industry
consultant from Wellsville. “They told us a lot more . . . about the shale that we didn’t know,” Van Tyne said, “and that there was a lot
more gas in it than we ever thought.” But the hype has surprised even Lash.
Coal Disadvantages
A/T: Natural Gas (2/2)
Uniqueness overwhelms the link- huge natural gas companies are making new discoveries and laying the ground work for
permanency
CNN 2k8 CEO: Chesapeake to be largest US natural gas maker 6/6/08

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/apwire/9980c9da395ed169ade89b0615c6f28e.htm //WLT
NEW YORK (Associated Press) - Chesapeake Energy Corp. is poised to soon become the largest producer of U.S. natural gas, the
company's chairman and chief executive officer said Friday. Speaking at the company's annual shareholders meeting, Aubrey McClendon said he expects the company's gas
production to surpass that of the top two producers, BP PLC and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., within the next two months. McClendon said Chesapeake's daily gas production during
the first quarter of this year was only 86 million cubic feet, or MMcf, behind that of BP PLC. Chesapeake's average daily production in 2007 was 1,957 MMcf per day, a 23 percent
increase over the previous year. McClendon said the company has its largest-ever backlog of drilling opportunities at about 33,700, which he said is an inventory of 10 years. Last
year, the company's production rose for the 18th straight year. Chesapeake's primary focus on natural gas exploration and drilling should position the
company well within the industry during coming years, he said, noting that natural gas produces fewer carbon emissions than other
fossil fuels. He predicted that as oil was considered the fuel of the 20th century, that natural gas will receive that title in this millennium.
"In the debate about who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the energy world today, as that extends over time, we think that
increasingly Chesapeake will be seen as one of the good guys," he said. "We're here trying to produce more clean-burning, American-
produced natural gas to meet America's demand for a fuel that can allow us to import less oil from unfriendly places around the world,
hopefully burn a little less coal, have a better environment and at the same time, create jobs and wealth right here in the U.S."
Chesapeake's story long has been one of steady and sometimes spectacular growth. McClendon noted that if someone invested $1,000
with the company during its initial public offering in 1993, than that person would have more than $50,000 now. That is one of the best
returns among energy companies, he said. The company now employs about 6,500 people, with about 2,500 of those in Oklahoma City.
It has operations in 20 states. McClendon also gave an update on what he called the company's "significant" discovery of natural gas in
the Haynesville Shale, located in northwestern Louisiana and eastern Texas. In the last month, Chesapeake _ which already had four
horizontal wells in the area _ has completed two more, with two more to be finished by the end of the month. Chesapeake is using five
operated rigs to further develop its Haynesville Shale leasehold and anticipates operating at least 12 rigs by the end of this year and at
least 30 rigs by the end of next year. McClendon declined to reveal how much natural gas company officials project might be produced
from the field, but he said it "will end up being the most significant play in the company's history." In company business, McClendon
and former U.S. Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma were overwhelming re-elected to serve three-year terms on Chesapeake's board of
directors.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal will run out
No Impact to coal, collapse inevitable

EIA, 7 (Energy Information Administration, “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of a Proposal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Intensity
with a Cap and Trade System,” 1-2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/bllmss/index.html) //HBG
<To reduce its CO2 emissions, the power industry, including generators in the industrial and commercial sectors, is expected to shift
away from its historical reliance on coal generation (Figure 6). Total coal generation in 2020 is projected to be 135 billion kilowatthours
(5.4 percent) below the reference case level in the Phased Auction case. By 2030, coal generation relative to the reference case is 851
billion kilowatthours (25 percent) less in the Phased Auction case. In the reference case, coal accounts for 57 percent of total generation
in 2030, but its share falls to 44 percent in the Phased Auction case. While coal generation in 2030 in the Phased Auction case is well
below the reference case projection it would still be substantially above the current level, increasing by 28 percent between 2004 and
2030. The higher coal costs in the Phased Auction case greatly influence the relative economics of new plant alternatives. In the
reference case, 174 gigawatts of new coal capacity is projected to be added between 2004 and 2030. In the Phased Auction case, the
amount added over the same period is 51 gigawatts. The plant choice results are very sensitive to the allowance price, as indicated by
the projections of coal generation across the cases (Figure 7). In the $5 Phased Auction case, projected coal generation in 2030 is 14
percent below the reference case level, compared to 25 percent below in the original Phased Auction case and 31 percent below in the
$9 Phased Auction case. Projected coal generation in 2030 grows from its current level in all of the cases analyzed. While successful
development of carbon capture and storage technologies might allow coal-fired plants to remain competitive under a GHG allowance
program, the allowance prices in this analysis are not sufficiently high to compensate for the increased capital and operating costs. As a
result, power plants using carbon capture and storage are not projected to be commercially viable within the 2030 time frame in the
analysis cases>
Coal will run out

Among the fossil fuels, coal is relatively abundant. The world's total identified coal resource is said to be 35 trillion tonnes (Cui, 2006:
16). Much of it, however, may never be recovered due to declining net energy returns (the net energy output that can be produced for
each unit of energy input) and environmental constraints (Heinberg, 2003: 129-32). The world's economically recoverable coal is
estimated to be about 750 billion tonnes of coal equivalent. At the current rate of production, it is sufficient to last more than 200 years
(Boyle et al., 2003: 167). Trainer (2006a) used a high estimate of the world's potentially recoverable coal, at two trillion tonnes of coal
equivalent. At the current rate of production, this would be sufficient to last more than 600 years. However, with economic growth, coal
could be depleted much faster. If coal consumption grows at 2% a year, then the world's total recoverable coal would be completely
depleted before the end of this century (based on the lower estimate) or by the mid-twenty-second century (based on the higher
estimate).
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal Fails
Clean coal is as futile as a healthy cigarette – its cost prohibitive, ineffective, and technologically impossible
Elgin, 8 (Ben, Writer for Business Week, “The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal”, 5/19/08, Energy Section,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090055452749.htm) // MDP
Get ready for the selling of "clean coal." A $40 million industry-sponsored marketing and lobbying campaign has launched, with one
national television spot featuring a farmer, a teacher, and a woman in a white lab coat declaring: "I believe"—while a voiceover
describes how coal can be burned in an environmentally friendly manner. With coal-rich swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
West Virginia critical to the Presidential race, both Barack Obama and John McCain have endorsed the idea that coal is well on its way
to becoming a benign energy source. Obama's primary campaign in Kentucky sent out flyers in May showing the smiling Democratic
candidate, a coal barge, and the message "Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal." The catch is that for now—and for years to
come—"clean coal" will remain more a catchphrase than a reality. Despite the eagerness of the coal and power industries to sanitize
their image and the desire of U.S. politicians to push a healthy-sounding alternative to expensive foreign oil and natural gas, clean coal
is still a misnomer. Environmental legislation enacted in 1990 forced the operators of coal-fired power plants to reduce pollutants that
cause acid-rain. But such plants, which provide half of U.S. electricity, are the country's biggest source of greenhouse-gas emissions
linked to global warming. No coal plant can control its emissions of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. "Clean coal' is like a healthy
cigarette,'" says Blan Holman, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charleston, S.C. "It doesn't exist." CARBON
CAPTURE That fact won't mute the marketing bluster. All the talk relates to the idea of separating CO2 from the coal-burning process
and burying it in liquid form so it won't contribute to climate change. "When [Obama] says clean coal,' he's talking about coming up
with a system to put carbon back into the ground from whence it came," says Jason Grumet, the candidate's principal adviser on energy
and the environment. Corporations and the federal government have tried for years to accomplish "carbon capture and sequestration."
So far they haven't had much luck. The method is widely viewed as being decades away from commercial viability. Even then, the cost
could be prohibitive: by a conservative estimate, several trillion dollars to switch to clean coal in the U.S. alone.
Coal Disadvantages
Clean Coal Fails

Geosequestration fails
-won’t be ready for at least 10yrs
-cost billions of dollars preventing the electricity from being economically competitive
-efficiency of coal plants dramatically decreased
-no place to store the CO2 underground
Dixon, 2004 (Norm, Green Left Weekly, Oct 6, http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/601/601p24.htm)
Contrary to the impression being spread by the champions of geosequestration, this technology is not yet viable for use in coal-fired
power stations and, even if it does eventually work, it will only be applicable to new-generations of stations built 10 years from now. It
offers no solution to the CO2 released by Australia’s existing stations, many of which will continue to operate for another 30-50 years.
Retrofitting existing plants, if the technology can be successfully developed at the cost of billions of dollars, would be prohibitively
expensive.
Even for new power plants, according to the pro-industry International Energy Agency Greenhouse Research and Development
Program’s estimates, the cost of capturing, transporting and storing CO2 underground would be at least US$45-50 per tonne. This would
bring the cost of electricity generated with hypothetical “clean coal” to around 10 Australian cents or more per kilowatt hour, much
more expensive than many currently available forms of electricity produced with renewable energy. Not only that, power stations that
could remove CO2 emissions would be 6-12% less efficient.
Leaving aside the great uncertainty of whether the CO2 would remain below the surface for thousands of years, and not escape slowly
or in one great deadly belch, there are limited practical storage sites in Australia. According the GEODISC project of the industry-
controlled Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (which has swallowed millions in federal government funds
to conduct its research), most suitable sites are far from where current power stations operate, especially NSW, which produces 37% of
the country’s emissions. Liquid CO2 would have to be piped from the Newcastle-Lithgow-Wollongong triangle to sites beneath WA or
offshore Victoria, adding significantly to costs.
The federal government’s chasing of the big-business-driven geosequestration dream is diverting scarce government research funds
from the necessary development of renewable energy sources.
Clean coal will never be viable
Dixon, 2004 (Norm, Green Left Weekly, Oct 6, http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/601/601p24.htm)
Even with the hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate welfare being plunged into geosequestration research (as well as a US$1
billion handout in the US), federal industry minister Ian McFarlane candidly told the March 24 Melbourne Age that, “Certainly 2015
would be optimistic in terms of a significant [geosequestration] pilot plant. If we can get to the stage were 20% of the electricity is being
generated by zero emissions technology in coal-fired power stations by 2030, we will have done well”.
Macfarlane gives the game away. By 2030, when Australia should be well on the way to slashing its greenhouse gas emissions by at
least 60% if it is playing its part in halting the global warming danger, the Coalition government will be satisfied if 80% of the country’s
coal-fired power stations are churning out CO2 as usual. Meanwhile, the economy will have been locked into its dependence on coal for
another 50 years and the federal Coalition’s corporate backers’ source of continued profits firmly secured. It’s a shame we won’t be able
to say the same for humanity’s future on this planet.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal Bad – Laundry List
Coal usage causes environmental destruction, dependency, and a peak of coal.

Borozitz, 99 (Sidney, Emeritus Professor at NYU, “Farewell Fossil Fuels”, Plenum Press, Pg 70) // MDP
Coal presents us with a dilemma. It is the most plentiful fossil fuel, It is versatile, and the technologies for extracting it from the ground
and using it are well developed. It is prudent, as a public policy, to try to limit the harm extracting and using it causes to the
environment, and to try to make it last as long as possible. However, it remains a nonrenewable energy course that is not likely to last as
long as we anticipate because there are tens of millions of Earth’s inhabitants who are waiting to achieve the standard of living of the
industrialized countries; they would have to become coal consumers for this to be realized. There is also a serious problem of the
greenhouse effect, which no amount of sanitizing coal can eliminate. Perhaps the greatest concern we should have is that we have
become utterly dependent on communities, coal and oil, that are bound to be in short supply in the relatively near future.
Coal Disadvantages
Earthquakes Turn
A) Clean coal causes earthquakes

Elgin, 8 (Ben, Writer for Business Week, “The Dirty Truth About Clean Coal”, 5/19/08, Energy Section,
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090055452749.htm) // MDP
Then there are the safety questions. One large, coal-fired plant generates the equivalent of 3 billion barrels of CO2 over a 60-year
lifetime. That would require a space the size of a major oil field to contain. The pressure could cause leaks or earthquakes, says Curt M.
White, who ran the U.S. Energy Dept.'s carbon sequestration group until 2005 and served as an adviser until earlier this year. "Red flags
should be going up everywhere when you talk about this amount of liquid being put underground." The obstacles don't trouble Joe
Lucas, marketing chief at the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a Washington-area group funded by coal and power
companies, which is responsible for the $40 million campaign. "We feel it's a false choice that Americans need to pick between
affordable electricity and a clean environment," Lucas says. The industry marketing offensive has included advertisements on CNN
during the primary debates as well as newspaper and billboard promotions. In one television ad, folksy guitar strumming accompanies
images of families waving. "We have to continue to advance new clean coal technologies," the narrator says. "If we don't, we may have
to say goodbye to the American way of life we all know and love." Companies seeking to build dozens of coal-fueled power plants
across the country use the term "clean coal" liberally in trying to persuade regulators and voters. Power giant Dominion (D) describes a
proposed plant near St. Paul, Va., expected to generate electricity by 2012, as having "the very latest in clean-coal technology." What the
unbuilt facility actually possesses to address global warming is a plot of land set aside for CO2-removal technology—once it is invented
and becomes commercially feasible. The plant design will accommodate the technology, says Jim Martin, a Dominion vice-president.
These steps, he says, "may actually spur more research on carbon capture and sequestration." The Presidential candidates will walk a
fine line on the issue. Senators Obama and McCain support legislation to address global warming. But "coal is rich in some strategic
states that are key to winning the Presidency," notes Eric Burgeson, an energy lobbyist and former McCain adviser. In all, some 118
electoral votes are in play in the top 10 coal-producing states—44% of the 270 needed to win the election. That likely will fuel plenty of
speechifying.
B) Earthquakes cause extinction

Al-Ahram Weekly, 5 (Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, “The post-earthquake world”, Issue #724, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm)
// MDP
The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia
is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our
natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a
result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human
civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things
seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life. Today,
human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about
the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more
important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself. Until recently, the threat Nature
represented was perceived as likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our
planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed following the devastating
earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26 December. This cataclysmic
event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief that the end of the world
is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not
occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any way. We are now forced
to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.
Coal Disadvantages
Warming Turn (1/2)

A) Clean coal doubles co2 emissions increasing warming
Matavalli, 4 (Jim, Writer for E-Magazine, The Living Green Handbook, “The Myth of Clean Coal”,
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3948) // MDP
But even with a very effective lobby, getting this legislation through Congress has so far proven difficult. What’s going on? The money
would be well spent if it helps us achieve clean energy independence, right? Alas, the dirty secret is that “clean coal” is anything but.
The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into
diesel fuel. Although the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that CO2 emissions from the entire production cycle of
liquid coal are “equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels,” its claims are based on a single federal
study, now six years old. Nick Rahall is all for coal-to-liquid. Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC) says, “Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels.” He
says that even if CO2 emissions are sequestered as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline
equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer. The Washington Post
editorialized, “To wean the U.S. off of just one million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120
million tons of coal would need to be mined each year. The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched
West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion.” Jim Preswood, NRDC and Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth are not. The
technology to sequester carbon is largely theoretical, and the plants to liquefy it are mostly in South Africa. But even if the process was
perfected and burning coal produced zero emissions, liquid coal would still be far from clean. There are many coal states, however, and
their politicians will continue to advance their cause. Erich Pica, director of domestic campaigns at Friends of the Earth, says that
several amendments that would have subsidized coal-to-liquid technology were stripped out of the Senate version of the energy bill, but
supporters from both parties are very determined to put them back on the table. “It’s an uphill fight for us,” Pica says. “Supporters of
coal-to-liquid have an aggressive, proactive agenda and many opportunities to get things done.” The flipside of the coal lobby’s empty
promises and ready cash (the Bush campaign secured $530,560 from coal companies and electric utilities in the 2000 cycle, reports
EarthJustice) is the harsh reality of mountaintop removal mining (see main story). This now-standard practice in the Southeast coalfields
is efficient only in delivering coal companies windfall profits. It has left an incalculable toll in shattered lives, permanently destroyed
environments and polluted groundwater.
B) That causes the explosion of the earth

Chalko, 1 (Dr. Tom J.; Head of the Geophysics Division of Scientific Engineering Research – Mt. Best, Australia, “No second chance?
Can Earth explode as a result of Global Warming?” Natural University Journal of Discovery v. 3 May http://nujournal.net/core.pdf ) //
MDP
Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not
from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior. Life on Earth is possible only because of the efficient
cooling of the planetary interior - a process that is limited primarily by the atmosphere. This cooling is responsible for a thermal balance
between the heat from the core reactor, the heat from the Sun and the radiation of heat into space, so that the average temperature on
Earth’s surface is about 13 degrees Celsius. This article examines the possibility of overheating and the “meltdown” of the solid
planetary core due to the atmospheric pollution trapping progressively more solar heat (the so-called greenhouse effect) and reducing
the cooling rate of the planetary interior. The most serious consequence of such a “meltdown” could be centrifugal segregation of
unstable isotopes in the molten part of the spinning planetary core. Such segregation can “enrich” the nuclear fuel in the core to the
point of creating conditions for a chain reaction and a gigantic atomic explosion. Will Earth become another “asteroid belt” in the Solar
system?
Coal Disadvantages
Ext – Warming Turn
Prefer our evidence – NASA director Jim Hanson agree

Couric, 8 (Katie, Correspondent for CBS Evening News, “Clean Coal - Pipe Dream Or Next Big Thing?”, 5/20/08,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/20/eveningnews/main4199506.shtml?source=mostpop_story00) //MDP
(CBS) Much has been made about the skyrocketing price of oil lately, with some saying that drilling in environmentally sensitive areas
is a possible solution. But, as CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports, utilities are testing technology to make one of
America's most abundant fuel source - coal - a cleaner alternative. Coal is, by far, the dirtiest way America makes its electric power, but
a new ad campaign funded by the industry promises a future where clean coal is a viable option. And it's not just the industry. Both
presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, are pushing clean coal. But exactly what is the technology? The cleanest
coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don't burn coal
exactly - they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas. According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal
allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain. "And you can do it much
cleaner than with the conventional coal technology," says Ramil. That's the good news. But here's the problem. "There is no such thing
as clean coal," says James Hansen, NASA's expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO's, still emit millions of tons
of carbon dioxide - the most threatening greenhouse gas. "There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that's the major
long-term pollutant," says Hansen. But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a
solution. They believe it's possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground. The idea is called "capture and
sequester," and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves
beneath the North Sea. America's efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled
all funding when the price grew too high. "They took seven years just to decide where they were going to make a pilot plant - and then
they decided to cancel it," says Hansen. And now, the failure to solve the carbon dioxide problem is a threat to coal itself. In the last
five years, at least 63 coal-fired power plants have been scrapped or defeated by public opposition. Florida Governor Charlie Crist
helped pull the plug on the two clean coal plants because he says without a carbon solution, clean coal is not an option. "Until that time
comes, we want to develop more solar, more nuclear, more wind," says Crist. Which is why the industry needs an ad campaign. Until
the federal government funds the research on carbon dioxide, America's reliance on coal is in long-term trouble.
Coal Disadvantages
2AC China Coal Disadvantage

Uniqueness – Chinas coal industry will collapse absent government restructuring
That the force of development presented a major challenge to the coal industry in China was typically demonstrated by the consistently
severe shortages over decades and the consequent incalculable losses. It is no exaggeration to say that China's coal industry has a very
troubled history. It seemed that the coal industry, during most of the period from 1949 to the present day, was like a dog chasing its own
tail - the demands of an expanding economy and growing population chasing the never-adequate supply. The industry has never had the
time to catch up with that demand, to repair and renew its infrastructure, to update its methods and equipment, to adjust to expanding
markets and generally to improve itself. The vicious circle was one of ambitious economic development chasing ever-higher coal
outputs, and this was followed by a consequent imbalance between extraction and coalface preparation, which was, in turn, followed by
unsophisticated new mines being put into production, whilst at the same time economies imposed to meet ever-increasing demand led to
skimping on investment in general and safety in particular. At first production increased, but rapidly declined later as the result of
inadequate coalface preparation and the problems of trying to regain a balance between demand and production in order to meet ever
higher targets for economic growth. And so the circle turned, supply never adequately meeting demand in an industry that needed time
to reorganize itself from top to bottom. Since 1957, when economic development started on a large scale, the demand for coal increased
considerably. The Second Five-year Plan (1958-1962) had previously set the production target for 1962 at 190-210 Mt, and this already
exceeded capacity. However in 1958 - the first year of the 'Great Leap Forward' - as the coal industry was ordered to exceed UK
production in five years and to catch up with that of the USA within fifteen years, the original plan was revised, setting a target of 200
Mt by 1962, 500 Mt by 1967, and 800 Mt by 1972. This was revised again with targets of 300 Mt by 1962, 600 Mt by 1967 and 900 Mt
by 1972. To meet these targets, numerous small and unsophisticated mines were opened up, causing many of the problems endemic to
this type of mine. This sort of revision did not end until those imposed between 1963 and 1965. Again, after the Cultural Revolution, as
all other industries were recovered, demand for coal rose dramatically. In response, seven long-term plans were proposed for the
industry between December 1976 and August 1978. The The demand of the economy, a shortage of coke and coking coal is still the
cause of fluctuation in steel output. That the force of development presented a major challenge to the coal industry in China was
typically demonstrated by the consistently severe shortages over decades and the consequent incalculable losses. It is no exaggeration to
say that China's coal industry has a very troubled history. It seemed that the coal industry, during most of the period from 1949 to the
present day, was like a dog chasing its own tail - the demands of an expanding economy and growing population chasing the never-
adequate supply. The industry has never had the time to catch up with that demand, to repair and renew its infrastructure, to update its
methods and equipment, to adjust to expanding markets and generally to improve itself. The vicious circle was one of ambitious
economic development chasing ever-higher coal outputs, and this was followed by a consequent imbalance between extraction and
coalface preparation, which was, in turn, followed by unsophisticated new mines being put into production, whilst at the same time
economies imposed to meet ever-increasing demand led to skimping on investment in general and safety in particular. At first
production increased, but rapidly declined later as the result of inadequate coalface preparation and the problems of trying to regain a
balance between demand and production in order to meet ever higher targets for economic growth. And so the circle turned, supply
never adequately meeting demand in an industry that needed time to reorganize itself from top to bottom.
Coal Disadvantages
2AC China CP- Coal Disadvantage

And, this government intervention is coming now – it’s just a question of time and capital
Peoples Daily, 3 (“Chinese government unveils plans to form big coal firms”, December 21, 2001)
The Chinese government unveiled plans Saturday to form eight to 10 large coal mining firms capable of each producing more than 50
million tons of coal annually to ensure supplies meet China's rising demand. The Chinese Society of the Coal Industry, formerly the
Ministry of the Coal Industry, announced at the ongoing national reform and development conference for the coal sector that four or five
of the planned firms will be expected to turn out 100 million tons each on a yearly basis. Those large merged firms are expected to
control 60 percent of the domestic coal market. The plan was formed after the government found that a lack of large coal firms made it
hard to relieve serious coal shortages earlier this year. Only four companies are capable of producing 30 million tons or more annually,
accounting for only 14 percent of the domestic market demand, while major coal producers in the United States can control up to 40
percent of the American coal market. Shenhua Group, the country's biggest coal producer with a coal output this year, is expected to
surpass a record 100 million tons, making it the sixth biggest coal producer in the world. Officials with the society noted that the
insufficient number of major State-owned coal mining enterprises in China affected the central government's recent intervention in coal
supplies as the country's power sector suffered coal shortages for thermal-power generation. China boasts 28,000 mines with a
production capacity of approximately 50,000 tons each, explained the officials.
Link – The cp hurts the Chinese coal industry by shifting from coal to renewable
Taylor, 6 (John, Reporter, “China looks to renewable resources to fuel energy demand”, 1/11/06,
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1545923.htm) // MDP
JOHN TAYLOR: But as China has currently faced growing demands for energy, it's turned to its more traditional sources to meet that
demand - coal, for instance, is at record production levels. Is that an indicator that change is going to be very, very slow here? WANG
WANXING: I think it would need time, but we see the commitment is already there. For example, in the latest sort of (inaudible) five-
year plans, China has committed to reduce its GDP energy consumption by 20 per cent to 2010. And also in latest government long-
term annual development strategies, they have put energy efficiency, or energy consumption, in the first priority, taking that as equal to
energy supply. And you may be aware in the last year China has passed its renewable energy law, committing China to have 10 per cent
of all energy consumption to come from renewables by 2010, and 15 per cent of all energy consumption from renewables by 2020.
Now, currently it's less than five per cent. So let's… you know, those are very big commitments. KAREN PERCY: Dr Wang Wanxing
from the Energy Foundation in China, with our Correspondent, John Taylor.
Impact – A failure of a transition to a state run coal industry devastates all sectors of the Chinese economy
The Chinese coal industry has been consistently facing the challenge posed by the country's development. This is reflected in three
aspects: 1 As an irreplaceable energy source, coal holds specific obligation to fuel China's economy, from the period of severe shortage
before 1990s, to meeting the demands of the present day high GDP growth, and to ensuring sustainable development in the future. 2 As
a major channel to develop non-agricultural business and increase income in most coal-rich areas, coal plays a significant role in
absorbing the surplus labour force, in improving living standards, and in promoting local development. However, as a major source of
environment pollution impeding China's - and even the world's - sustainable environment, the use of coal has to be constrained and
improved. Fuelling and forging the economy When Chairman Mao stated that the China when it was taken over by the Communist
Party in 1949 was 'blank and poor', the new regime desperately wanted to find a way to improve the situation. Industrialization and
catching up lost ground became priorities at the time. Coal was the key in realizing this ambition, basically because the nation's huge
energy demand had to be met mainly by coal as there is no other a viable alternative, and coal is both an input and fuel for steel
production. Frequent shortages also reinforced the significance of coal. Coal has to meet China's huge energy demand and there are few
alternatives. The country is relatively rich in coal, but poor in oil and gas. Coal accounted for 95 per cent of the primary energy
consumption from 1952 to 1960; 80 per cent from 1961-70; about 70 per cent from the 1970s to the 1990s mainly due to the increased
oil use after the discovery of the Daqing oilfield, and it still accounted for 69 per cent by 2002 (Table 2.1). Coal as a prominent fuel
source generates around 80 per cent of the country's electricity at all times (Figure 2.1). The ratio of coal used in electricity generation to
total coal output had increased from 17.98 per cent in 1980 to 60.85 in 2000 and 58.20 in 2001 (CEPY 2002:642). The positive
relationship between electricity generation and coal used in power generation is shown in Figure 2.2. Coal is not only fuelling but also
forging the economy, as it is also an important input of steel production and many chemical productions. Coal, because of its close
relationship with steel production, was especially important for the Soviet Model which was adopted by the PRC in 1949 as the means
of fulfilling its industrialization ambitions.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Russian Hegmeony

Russian railroads cause adventurism
Blank, 3 (Stephen, Professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College, “Benign Hegemony? Russia’s Grand
Delusion”, Volume XIV Number 1, October-November 2003)
Geopolitically Russia aims at unilaterally securing Central Asia against any American presence lest Central Asia’s westward energy
orientation precede a similar defense orientation. Then, alliance with and bases for the United States and NATO will be deemed by
Moscow to threaten Russia’s vital security, political, and commercial interests. As Yevgeni Verlin writes, a greater threat to the Russian
establishment is that if the United States is successful in democratizing the Middle East, this will lead to the democratic restructuring of
Central Asia and the whole of the southern periphery of the post-Soviet space. And this challenges Russia’s national interests. This is
why it has sought to hinder democratization and the creation of open economies, since under such conditions it would not be
competitive. (11) Moscow sought to prevent Central Asian states from building corridors to the Indian Ocean (the Tedjen-Serakhs railway) and any transportation axis connecting Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan via
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Likewise it has aimed, with mixed success, to obstruct the E.U.’s new "silk road" or TRACECA and INOGATE projects, which plan trade and pipeline routes directly from Europe to Central Asia,
bypassing Russia. Moscow also obstructed Azerbaijan’s drive for energy and political independence, strongly opposing the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline project with a proposed extension to Kazakhstan and possibly Turkmenistan
which entailed building pipelines under or across the Caspian Sea that would give all those states options other than Russia and Iran. Likewise, Moscow helped facilitate the abortive coup in Turkmenistan in late 2002 to sideline
. Moscow has few options since it cannot offer these states tangible
a planned gas pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean and Pakistan, and possibly India
alternatives to U.S. economic and strategic benefits, either for development or against terrorism. This has suggested a policy of attempted coercion without the necessary means either to coerce
or to reward adherents. Since infrastructure issues are strategically vital, Russia’s Central Asian policies are also conceived strategically to overcome past economic failure throughout Russia’s energy producing regions
including the Far East. Infrastructural issues unite Russian interests in Central and East Asia. Local and central leaders understand that Russia can overcome Siberian and Far Eastern afflictions only by robust cooperation with
both Central Asia and East Asian states. Foreign observers also share this outlook. In 1998, the Kazakh political scientist Nurbulat Masanov wrote that, U.S. and Western trans-national corporations are active in the exploration
of Central Asian resources and are particularly interested in reducing Russia’s influence in the region. When new transport routes, such as the Trans-Caucasus corridor, become operational, Russia is expected to experience
serious negative consequences. The point is that the flow of export goods from Central Asia across Russia, unites the Urals, the Volga region, Western Siberia, and the Far East into a single complex. If this flow takes alternative
routes it is quite possible that the territorial integrity of Russia will be endangered. And with China playing a larger role in the eastern part of Russia, this process is fraught with even greater unpleasantness. (12) (Italics author)
Moscow fully grasps the
Therefore competitive failure in East Asia seriously weakens Moscow domestically and in Central Asia. Thus, Russia tries strenuously to revive cross-regional trade between these areas.
threat posed by its economic failures in these regions and by a resurgent China. For, if Russia cannot become "a worthy economic
partner" for Asia and the Pacific rim, Deputy Prime Minister Aleksei Kudrin warned that, "China and the Southeast Asian countries will
steamroll Siberia and the Far East." That would also happen in Central Asia. Consequently, Russian energy policy betrays a definite
reserve, if not suspicion, towards giving China too much influence in Russia or Central Asia. Not surprisingly Putin outlined in 2000 a
comprehensive plan to connect Europe and Asia through projected transformation of Russia’s infrastructure. He stressed Russia’s
"natural" role as a bridge and hub linking Asia, Eurasia, and Europe through joint development of major projects that transcend energy,
electricity, and power engineering, to include rail, sea, air, and space satellites and communications. Putin warned that failure to develop Russian Asia meant Chinese, Korean, or Japanese hegemony there. Moreover, this
transportation network must be unified because "a single transportation backbone should span Russia if it wants to develop as a unified, strong, and independent state." He also announced that problems of the development of
Siberia on the state agenda were, "key, pressing, [and] strategic ones." (13) But the importance of Moscow’s programs transcends their significance for Russia’s East Asian position to comprise part of the grander design to
exploit its geographic location to tie together commerce with Europe, Central, South, and East Asia. Ultimately these projects also connect with Russian ambitions for North-South corridors linking Russia, Iran, India and Central
Asia. This grand design can materialize only with massive foreign investment and support to make Russia the hub of a vast network of Eurasian inland trade and transportation and materially stimulate the growth of inner and
Russian Asia, greatly strengthening Moscow’s international political standing. Russian officials see its railroad net as a key link in future East-West transcontinental trade routes, claiming that deliveries through the projected
North-South Corridor from Asia to Europe, which would intersect with the East-West routes would take 20 days, as opposed to shipments through the Suez Canal that take 45 days. Allegedly the cost per container will fall by
$400-500, giving Moscow hundreds of millions of dollars from transit charges, taxes, and customs revenues while also effectively competing with the Suez Canal and the EU’s TRACECA and Silk Road projects that bypass
Russia. One assessment of this projected corridor claimed in 2000 that it would tie together Finland, the Baltics, Russia, several Gulf states, and India. But while the vision is grandiose, policymakers must confront the real
problems that hinder completion of this project and realization of the other partners’ interests: cash shortages, deficient policymaking structures and lack of infrastructure. Equally, if not more, consequential are the motives
. Gazprom and the government’s recent deal with Turkmenistan exemplifies this fact.
stemming from considerations relating to Russia’s domestic political economy
Russia’s efforts to restrict and control Turkmenistan’s gas exports and obstruct competition with Gazprom are long-standing. Meanwhile
Gazprom overtly and successfully refused to reform itself, undoubtedly exploiting and justifying its utility as an instrument of state
policy. To evade reform while serving the state’s interests it has made deals to monopolize gas distribution and pipelines for virtually
every CIS member. Thus it exploits and seeks to perpetuate Central Asian regimes’ dependence on Russian pipelines. Moreover, it continues the post-1998 pattern of Russian industry to maintain its predatory position in the
Russian economy by continuous redistribution of former Soviet property outside Russia, a system that depends on nonmarket state interventions on behalf of Russian corporations. The Turkmenistan deal reflects both these
issues and the larger linkages of Russian domestic and foreign policy. After facilitating an abortive coup in November 2002 to impede Turkmenistan’s energy independence by means of exports through Pakistan to the Indian
Ocean, Moscow displayed its power to Turkmenistan and successfully gained the right to sell Turkmen gas, which now lacked other pipeline options, at concessionary terms in return for the strengthening of Sapirmurad
Niyazov’s dictatorship. (14) While Turkmenistan thus sold its gas at concessionary terms to Russia through Gazprom and Trans-Ural, Gazprom then sold it back to other Central Asian states. This procedure offers Gazprom and
Russia multiple advantages. Russia can buy Turkmen gas at half price giving it 100% profit before expenses. Gazprom also can continue to sell gas in the Russian domestic market for $21.50 per cubic meter, giving Russian
industry a subsidy of about $60 per cubic meter of gas consumed. Since domestic oil costs $6-8 a barrel, Russia is using its energy reserves not to develop industry, but to subsidize its obsolescent industries. The Turkmen deal
further allows Gazprom to delay multi-million dollar investments in northern Russian gas fields while cost gas. Turkmen gas thus ensures subsidization of cheap Russian gas to Central Asian states, which cannot pay full cost in
cash, so Ashkabad loses billions in revenues as well. Moscow, not Western firms or Turkmenistan, now controls the marketing and transport of Turkmenistan’s gas abroad. This, and subsequent arrangements with other CIS
Russia’s domestic pathologies drive policy to maintain anti-liberal and anti-
governments, mark a giant step towards Putin’s vision of a Russian-dominated gas cartel.15 Thus
democratic regimes and policies in Central Asia and the CIS and to insinuate organized crime into energy policy. These sinister policies
cannot but cause alarm about Russia and the future of the CIS, especially in light of Russian analysts’ claims that, at the recent G-8
meetings in Evian, "Russia received responsibility for the post-Soviet space." Moscow now supposedly is responsible for ensuring no
CIS government becomes a failed state. Sadly, if the Russian claim is true, the G-8 made the wrong move. Russia’s current policies
cannot but lead to failed, anti-liberal, and backward states throughout the CIS. While this may be hegemony, it is hardly benign.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal - Systemic Death
Coal consumption is a major health issue and leads to millions of deaths every year
The solid blackish substance called coal is vegetation that has, over millions of years, accumulated in wetlands and been partially
decomposed, suffocated, moisturized, compressed, and baked by the Earth's inner heat underground. During this process, unfathomable
quantities of organic matter have been slowly broken down and stored. The act of extracting coal from the Earth's crust and burning it is
an experiment without geological precedent, and it is altering the environment in profound, yet poorly understood, ways. Coal has long
been linked to air pollution and its effects on health. In medieval London, an official proclamation banned coal burning as early as 1306
A.D. in an unsuccessful effort to curb the smog and sulfurous smell hanging over the city. Even today particulate matter (dust, soot, and
other solid airborne pollutants) and sulfur are two of the most unhealthy by-products of coal combustion. Particulates penetrate deep
into lungs. Prolonged inhalation causes a range of respiratory and cardiovascular problems, such as emphysema, asthma, bronchitis,
lung cancer, and heart disease. It is also linked to higher infant mortality rates. The smallest particles can stay in an individual's lungs for
a lifetime, potentially increasing the risk of cancer. Sulfur dioxide ([SO.sub.2]) exposure is associated with increased hospitalization and
death from pulmonary and heart disease, particularly among asthmatics and those with existing breathing problems. These pollutants
made up the "coal smogs" that killed 2,200 Londoners in 1880; the "killer fog" that caused 50 deaths in Donora, Pennsylvania in 1948;
and the "London fog" that took 4,000 lives in 1952. Today, several coal-dependent cities - including Beijing and Delhi - are approaching
the pollution levels of the Donora and London disasters, and the world's ten most air-polluted cities - nine in China, one in India - are all
heavy coal users. Worldwide, particulate and [SO.sub.2] pollution cause at least 500,000 premature deaths, 4 to 5 million new cases of
bronchitis, and millions of other respiratory illnesses per year. Such smogs have become transcontinental travelers: large dust clouds of
particulates and sulfur from Asian coal now reach the U.S. West Coast. Coal burning also releases nitrogen oxides, which react in
sunlight to form ground-level ozone. In the United States and Europe, more than 100 cities are exposed to unhealthy ozone levels.
Beijing, Calcutta, and Shanghai - all heavily coal dependent - expose millions of children to deadly mixes of particulates, sulfur dioxide,
and nitrogen oxides. Coal smoke contains potent carcinogens, affecting the more than i billion rural poor who rely on the fuel for
cooking. Rural indoor air pollution from such cooking accounts for 1.8 of 2.7 million global annual deaths from air pollution, with
women and children most at risk. In rural China, exposure to coal smoke increases lung cancer risks by a factor of nine or more. Coal
can also contain arsenic, lead, mercury, and fluorine - toxic heavy metals that can impair the development of fetuses and infants and
cause open sores and bone decay. In rural China, where 800 million people use coal in their homes for cooking and heating, thousands
of cases of arsenic poisoning, and millions of cases of fluorine poisoning have been reported. Millions of rural poor in other developing
countries face similar risks. Coal mining and extraction pose health hazards, as well. Explosions, falls, and hauling accidents injure or
kill several thousand coal miners in China, Russia, and Ukraine each year. In China, more than five miners die for every million tons of
coal mined. Perhaps the most serious and chronic threat to miners is pneumoconiosis, or "black lung" - a condition caused by continued
inhalation of coal dust, which inflames, scars, and discolors lungs, and leads to a debilitating decline in lung function. In the United
States, enough was known at the turn of the twentieth century about black lung to have spurred preventive action to remove or lessen the
effects of the disorder, writes Alan Derickson, author of Black Lung: Anatomy of a Public Health Disaster. But company doctors
misdiagnosed or concealed the illness for more than 50 years, until medical community mavericks and the largest strike in U.S. history
forced lawmakers to enact compensatory and preventive measures. By then, the lives of hundreds of thousands of coal miners had
been shortened. U.S. taxpayers have since paid more than $30 billion to compensate mining families.Despite these advances, coal dust
continues to plague miners. In Russia and Ukraine, official estimates range from 200 to 500 deaths per year. In China, where 2.5 million
coal miners are exposed to dust diseases, the current annual death toll of 2,500 is expected to increase by 10 percent each year. Even in
the United States, 1,500 miners died of black lung in 1994, and under-reporting is still prevalent.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Acid Rain
Coal use causes acid rain and destroys the ozone

The coal smogs in Donora and London sparked public outrage, leading to the enactment of the first major clean-air laws. Setting local
air quality standards, these acts prompted industries to install high smokestacks that would spread the pollutants over larger areas and to
more distant regions. In parts of the United States, some smokestacks shot up higher than the top floor of the Empire State Building. But
this simple solution for local pollution had an unintended consequence. Carried aloft, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide react in the
atmosphere to form acids that fall as rain, snow, or fog or turn to acid on direct contact - corroding buildings and monuments and
damaging vegetation, soils, rivers, lakes, and crops. The problems of acid rain and deposition surfaced first in Norwegian fish kills in
the 1960s, and later in the "forest death" of Germany, the "Black Triangle" of dead trees in Central Europe, and the dying lakes and
streams of the U.S. Adirondacks - all traced to coal burning hundreds of miles away. Under pressure from environmental groups,
industrial nations have addressed acid rain through an array of agreements focusing on sulfur emissions, which have been significantly
reduced. But nitrogen emissions, which initially escaped regulation, have been slower to drop. In fact, in many regions they have risen,
offsetting reductions made in sulfur emissions. In Europe, forest decline continues and hundreds of acid-stressed lakes face a long
recovery time, as nitrogen persists well above tolerable levels. High-elevation forests in West Virginia, Tennessee, and Southern
California are near saturation level for nitrogen, and high-elevation lakes in the Rocky Mountain, Cascade, and Sierra Nevada mountain
ranges arc on the verge of chronic acidity. In the Adirondacks, many waterways are becoming more acid even as sulfur deposits drop: by
2040, as many as half the region's 2,800 lakes and ponds may be too acid to support much life. The West's acid deposition debacle is
now replicating with potentially greater repercussions in Asia. A haze the size of the United States covers the Indian Ocean in winter,
and in summer is blown inland and falls as acid rain, reportedly reducing Indian wheat yields. Acid rain falls on over 40 percent of
China, and in 1995 caused $13 billion in damage to its forests and crops. Widening areas of China, India, South Korea, Thailand,
Cambodia, and Vietnam are above critical levels of sulfur. Buildings, forests, and farmland close to or downwind from large urban and
industrial centers are being hardest hit. Thousand-year-old sculptures from China's Song Dynasty have been corroded. And some
scientists believe the Taj Mahal is in similar danger. A fifth of India's farmland faces acidification. China's sulfur emissions may
overwhelm fertile soils across China, Japan, and South Korea by 2020. Other types of ecosystem overload, too, are linked to coal.
Nitrogen overfertilizes waterways, causing deadly algal blooms. Ground-level ozone damages forests and crops. Each year, ozone costs
the United States between $5 and 10 billion in crop losses alone, and cuts wheat yields in parts of China by 10 percent. The formation and
burning of massive slag heaps - piles of cinder left over from combustion - degrades land and emits carbon monoxide. Acidic or highly saline runoff from mines
contaminate ground and surface water. Air pollution regulations have prompted a hunt for low-sulfur coal, with companies turning from underground to surface - also
known as strip, or open-pit - mining. In Canada, open-pit mines lie at the foot of Alberta's Jasper National Park, a World Heritage Site; in India's Bihar province, they
endanger huge tracts of forest. These mines have uprooted hundreds of thousands of indigenous and poor people - aborigines in Australia, Native Americans in Arizona,
villagers in northern Germany, tribals in Raniganj, India - from land they have inhabited for centuries, often with little advance notice or compensation. In West Virginia,
huge machines engage in "mountain-top removal" - stripping away dozens of rolling hills, burying streams, and bulldozing mining communities. As many
developing countries follow the path of industrial nations, they too seem unable to steer clear of the pitfalls of a simplistic response to
coal pollution. But the folly of focusing solely on coal's air pollutants proves most perverse in the developing world, where the added
mining and processing requirements exacerbate severe land and water constraints. Chinese enterprises commonly violate emissions
standards and burn high-sulfur coal rather than pay for precious water use to wash coal. In India, citizens' groups criticize the
government's coal-washing mandate, arguing that it will waste energy, use up large quantities of scarce water and land, and increase
pollution at mines.
Coal Disadvantages
Impact Turn- Economy and Environment
Stopping the use of coal is key to the environment and world economy
The current, emergency-room approach to coping with coal has proved so expensive, yielded such limited results, and contributed to so
many environmental and health problems, that shifting to cleaner alternatives will help solve these problems at a much lower cost.
Treating coal's symptoms in isolation has proved insufficient for improving human and planetary health. Fortunately, remedies are
available that will allow the world to rapidly reduce the use of coal and accelerate the transition to cleaner energy sources. Among the
keys to cutting coal reliance are blocking mining and power projects through community activism, closing legislative loopholes, and
reorienting coal-centric bilateral, multilateral, and multinational investment flows. But two policies are central to the "decoalonization"
process: subsidy removal and energy taxation. Without them, the market will continue to deceive us into thinking coal is cheap,
abundant, and irreplaceable, just when countries like China are beginning to realize how costly, limited, and unnecessary dependence on
this fuel is. Simply put, removing subsidies cuts coal consumption. Belgium, France, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom have
collectively halved coal use since slashing or ending supports over the last fifteen years. Russia, India, and China have also made
progress: China's coal subsidy rates have been more than halved since 1984, contributing to a slowing - and 5.2 percent drop in 1998 -
in consumption. Opportunities exist for further reductions. Total world coal subsidies are estimated to be $63 billion, including $30
billion in industrial nations, $27 billion in the former Eastern bloc, and $6 billion in China and India. In Germany, the total is $21 billion
- including direct production supports of more than $70,000 per miner. The experience of Germany highlights the opportunities for -
and obstacles to - taxing coal. A European Commission study shows that internalizing the external costs of coal from a German power
plant would raise the price of power by 50 percent. Yet the government's 1998 ecological tax reform excluded coal due to industry
opposition. As Ed Cohen-Rosenthal of Cornell University writes, "The question for coal miners is whether to dig in and fight or use the
concern about global warming to negotiate the best deal for current members and retirees as one means of paving the way to a cleaner
environment. This is a decision that only they can make and outsiders should respect their feelings. But their leverage for a negotiated
outcome will never be higher than it is right now." Digging in has predominated to date - coal labor groups underwrite skeptical
"scientists" and oppose the Kyoto Protocol - though signs of reconciliation exist. In Australia, an Earthworker caucus of trade union and
environmental groups is developing a plan for building solar and wind power industries. The AFL-CIO and U.S. environmental groups
are crafting "worker-friendly" climate policies, like employing former miners in remediating abandoned mines. But while labor groups
stress the need for "just transitions" to aid adversely affected workers, those representing coal miners appear less likely to become
advocates of coal subsidy and tax reform, which could help fund such a transition, than to defend these endangered jobs to the bitter end
- and at the expense of society at large. Bold initiatives in coal taxation, meanwhile, can be found in China. The government has
introduced a tax on high-sulfur coal to encourage a switch to plentiful natural gas and renewable-energy resources. Like cigarette taxes
in the West, the coal levy may spread in the East; as with smoking in public places, coal use might also be banned outright where it is
deemed too great a public burden to bear. Back in Beijing, high-sulfur coal has been banned, 40 "coal-free zones" are planned, and
natural-gas pipelines are under discussion. Hundreds of residents in Beijing are mobilizing through citizens' groups, such as the Global
Village, to supervise implementation of the policies and raise public consciousness of the problem. The idea is catching on: four more
Chinese cities - Shanghai, Lanzhou, Xian, and Shenyang - have followed suit with plans to phase out coal. The challenge is to turn
these local gains into a worldwide movement over the coming century, just as coal's negative consequences have risen from local to
global during this one. A global coal phaseout has become as environmentally necessary and economically feasible as it might seem
politically radical. Thirty years ago, few could have predicted the nascent anti-smoking effort would ever "go global," but it has. Coal
now poses as serious a risk to our collective well-being, if not greater. If China's smoky cities can mobilize to begin eradicating the
tobacco of our energy system, it is conceivable that the rest of the world's governments can as well. Like sustainable development more
broadly, achieving independence from King Coal will be no overnight coup, but a lengthy revolution. Yet the social, economic, and
environmental rewards of a coal phaseout promise to be enormous. In the third millennium, societies will find themselves - to
paraphrase Henry David Thoreau - rich in proportion to the coal they can afford to leave in the ground.
Coal Disadvantages
Coal – Warming
Coal causes global warming

2006) // CCH
The Chinese economic boom is also fueled largely by this highly polluting but abundant fuel. The ill effects of that boom are making
themselves known. Poor air quality is already creating health and agricultural problems throughout the region. In China and South
Korea, roughly 355,000 people a year die from the effects of urban outdoor air pollution, according to the World Health Organization.
Coal burning is also a leading source of mercury pollution and, of course, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Ironically, global
warming, to which coal consumption is a major contributor, is itself a driver of coal use. In his book, Goodell relates a conversation he
had with a Chinese man in a recently drought-plagued province: "'People are very concerned about [global warming]. Seven or eight
years ago, no one needed an air conditioner in Urumqui. Now it is necessary. It is of course expensive, and it means burning more coal
to create the electricity to power those air conditioners. It is a difficult situation. More power, more pollution, more power."
Coal Disadvantages
Coal- Oil Dependency
Clean coal increases the use of fossil fuels, the case turns your disad
The second generation of coal-related pollution laws, motivated by public concern over acid rain, led companies to install another
technological quick-fix. This time "clean-coal" technologies were the promised solution, namely flue-gas desulfurization and nitrogen-
control equipment. While the equipment lowered emissions of the targeted pollutants, they, like higher smokestacks, had unforeseen
side-effects. Clean coal creates added water demands, produces large amounts of sludge and other solid wastes, and decreases energy
efficiency, thereby increasing emissions of other compounds - including carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]). Ranging from less than 20 to
more than 98 percent in carbon content, coal is the most carbon-rich fossil fuel. The industrial era's heavy combustion of these fuels is
short-circuiting the global carbon cycle, building up atmospheric C[O.sub.2] concentrations to their highest point in 420,000 years. The
thickening blanket of these and other greenhouse gases has already trapped enough radiative heat to make the planet's surface its
warmest in 1,200 years. Many expected climatic dislocations are appearing: sea level rise; accelerating glacier retreat and ice shelf
breakup; migrations and declines of forests, coral reefs, and other temperature-sensitive species; changes in the timing and duration of
seasons; greater frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. Climate scenarios for the year 2050 from the Hadley Centre for
Climate Prediction and Research show tropical forests turning to desert, adding more carbon to the atmosphere; malaria spreading to
currently unaffected populations; an additional 30 million people at risk of hunger; another 66 million in danger of water stress; and 20
million more susceptible to flooding. Heat stress will have increased by 70 to 100 percent by then - adding several thousand deaths each
year in large urban areas like New York, New Delhi, and Shanghai, according to Laurence Kalkstein of the University of Delaware.
Carbon emissions are not the only means by which coal changes climate: mining annually releases 25 million tons of methane, equal in
warming potential to the United Kingdom's entire carbon output. But C[O.sub.2] is the most important contributor to climate change -
and coal releases 29 percent more carbon [TABULAR DATA OMITTED] per unit of energy than oil, and 80 percent more than natural
gas. The climatic impact of coal burning is disproportionate to its importance as an energy source: with a 26 percent share of world
energy, it accounts for 43 percent of annual global carbon emissions - approximately 2.7 billion tons. Climate instability also
compounds other coal-related problems: heat stress exacerbates urban air pollution, and higher temperatures make natural systems more
vulnerable to acid rain impacts. Stabilizing atmospheric C[O.sub.2] levels at 450 parts per million during the next century, which some
scientists believe necessary to avoid far more dangerous disruptions of climate, would constrain coal use to somewhere between 200 and
300 billion tons - less than 7 percent of the total resource base. Burning the entire coal resource, on the other hand, would release 3
trillion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, five times the safe limit. Thus, while energy analysts point to the apparent size of the fuel's
reserves, the amount that could be safely used is far smaller. From the perspective of balancing the carbon budget, coal is a highly
limited energy source. Despite studies showing the economic feasibility of switching from coal, several governments and industries are
pursuing another end-of-pipe solution: carbon sequestration. Firms and agencies in the United States, Norway, and elsewhere are
devoting millions of dollars to test technologies for separating and capturing C[O.sub.2] from fossil fuels. The C[O.sub.2] would then be
locked up by injecting it into oceans, terrestrial ecosystems, and geological formations. But the potential impacts on ocean chemistry
and deep-sea ecosystems have not been explored, and injected emissions could be re-released due to geological activity. And if sites
subject to slow release are used, carbon management could reduce atmospheric C[O.sub.2] concentrations in the near term but increase
them in the long term - adding to the climate problem. Meanwhile, some industrial nations seeking developing-country action on
climate change are, contradictorily, redirecting clean coal programs overseas. In a novel form of trade "dumping," clean-coal equipment
features prominently in bilateral energy missions, with firms and officials from the United States, Japan, and Australia proselytizing to
poor nations that they "need clean-coal technologies." The World Bank and European Commission have aimed clean-coal technology
initiatives at developing and former Eastern bloc nations, where the technologies remain unproven. Indeed, clean-coal equipment has
failed to demonstrate financial viability in the West (its high capital investment costs make it less attractive than natural-gas-fired
combined-cycle turbines), linking its peddling less to economics than to the political clout of the industry.
Coal Disadvantages
Impact- prevent use of fossil fuels

Coal is our last chance at preventing the use of fossil fuels
Washington Post 8 (Dana Milbank, “Burned up about the other Fossil Fuel,” 6-24-08, p.A03, Lexis) // CCH
Here's something to ponder as you park your Prius: What if gas guzzling isn't the problem?That rather counterintuitive theme emerged
yesterday from a visit to Washington by James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute and one of the first to sound the alarm
about global warming in a congressional hearing 20 years ago yesterday. As he undertook a commemorative, I-told-you-so tour, from
Diane Rehm's radio show to ABC News to the National Press Club to the House of Representatives, he made a point of saying the
biggest worry isn't what we put in our cars, but what we put in our power plants."Practically, I don't see how we can stop putting the oil
in the atmosphere, because that's owned by Russia and Saudi Arabia," he advised the House committee on global warming. "We can
make our vehicles more efficient, but that oil is going to get used and it's going to get in the atmosphere . . . and it doesn't really matter
much how fast we burn it. But what we could do is stop the coal." The theme was much the same at the press club, where he gave a
luncheon speech. "CO2 from oil is going to get into the atmosphere," he said, because "you're not going to be able to tell Saudi Arabia
and Russia, the countries that have oil, not to sell their oil." Hansen's solution: "Phase out coal as promptly as is practical."The message
from the celebrated scientist was somewhat at odds with a popular culture that has equated global warming with miles per gallon. And
while Hansen wasn't discouraging fuel economy -- he called it "very important," because it could discourage drilling for "every last drop
of oil" -- he said there's hope of preventing the world from burning through the rest of the world's major oil reserves. If we don't put it in
our Hummers, the Chinese will eventually put it in theirs. "We can't prevent [using] the big, easily available oil in these superdeposits
that Saudi Arabia have," he said. "That's going to end up in the atmosphere. I don't see any way to avoid it." But what we could do,
Hansen said, is phase out all coal use by 2030 except at those power plants that could capture the carbon dioxide. With the help of a
carbon tax, coal would be replaced by solar, wind and other renewable energy, he said. That, and improved forestry and agriculture,
could return carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to safe-for-the-planet levels, even if we burn through the half of Earth's oil that we
haven't already used.
Use of fossil fuels will collapse ecosystems

Washington Post 8 (Dana Milbank, “Burned up about the other Fossil Fuel,” 6-24-08, p.A03, Lexis) // CCH
But Hansen was too dour about the condition of the Earth to enjoy such praise. "We have limited time," he complained when the
audience at the press club gave him an extended standing ovation. "Actually, it's not a time to celebrate. Although the issue has become
popular, the fact of the matter is that the emissions are continuing, basically unfettered." Likewise, the first sentence out of his mouth
after Markey's effusive introduction was this: "It's probably also worth pointing out that our actions to deal with climate change over the
past 20 years have really been minuscule and we're really running out of time."Hansen's stature was raised substantially -- if
accidentally -- when Bush administration political appointees a few years ago tried to silence him by ordering him to make his public
statements consistent with official policy. Because of the public embarrassment the administration suffered from that episode, Hansen is
now untouchable. In addition to his duties at Goddard, he has an adjunct professorship at Columbia and takes "vacation" time to speak
as a "private citizen" on the issue of global warming. Yesterday was one such vacation day -- and Hansen showed no fear of his
administration superiors as he sounded new and better alarms: "a disaster of almost unimaginable proportions. . . . We've passed the
tipping point. . . . We are going to lose all of the arctic sea ice within the next five to 10 years. . . . We are in the process of pushing off
the planet polar and alpine species. . . . There's the potential for ecosystems to begin to collapse."
Coal Disadvantages
Extra Cards that can become useful
IGCC technology is key to the environment

2006) // CCH
Goodell refers to this circular phenomenon of higher-temperatures and greater coal use as the greenhouse spiral. One of the most
effective and practical solutions to the energy dilemma, according to Goodell, would be for coal-burning countries such as China and
the United States to mandate that all new coal-powered plants use integrated gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, technology. Regular
coal plants simply burn coal and release most of the pollution into the atmosphere, while IGCC plants convert the coal into a synthetic
gas to burn in a turbine. Unlike other supposedly "clean coal" initiatives, IGCC, in combination with new technologies like scrubbers,
could make coal virtually emissions free. IGCC plants "are 10% more efficient than conventional coal plants, consume 40% less water,
produce half as much ash and solid waste, and are nearly as clean burning as natural gas plants. But more important, it is far easier and
cheaper to capture C[O.sub.2] from coal at an IGCC plant than at a conventional coal plant," Goodell writes. He estimates that, on a
straight cost basis, an IGCC plant is 10% to 20% more expensive to build than a conventional plant, but added efficiency (and perhaps
taxpayer subsidies) could mitigate most of those costs. To make IGCC the industry standard, Goodell recommends legislation to limit
C[O.sub.2] emissions from coal plants, with tax subsidies acting as positive reinforcement for the industry to develop IGCC facilities.
When it comes to other nations with different infrastructure needs, Goodell sees a separate set of solutions coming into play. For
instance, in the case of China, more free-market competition and good regulations could help the nation bankroll cleaner energy
initiatives. According to one Chinese dissident he spoke with, "I believe if anything is going to save China from an environmental
catastrophe, it's capitalism." While governments and the free market can play important roles in the public's response to coal pollution,
Goodell reminds readers that it's up to them to examine their own consumption habits and demand better, both of industry and of
themselves. "We have to educate ourselves about the price of power and realize that there is nothing natural about the monopoly that
the electric power companies--and by extension Big Coal--have over our lives," he writes. The cost of implementing these and other
proposals may seem high, but the price of not acting on coal pollution, particularly as we use more of it, may be far greater. In addition
to the already high human costs from air pollution are the economic dangers posed by global warming--which threatens to drive up the
price of disaster insurance and which may create drought conditions in the world's most economically vulnerable countries. On the
surface, the problem is nothing if not daunting: The human race needs more energy to fuel development, but the only fuel abundant
enough to meet our growing needs is poisonous, both for humans and for the climate. Despite these challenges, Goodell sees cause for
optimism: "The most valuable fuel for the future is not coal or oil, but imagination and ingenuity. We have reinvented our world before.
Why can't we do it again?" Just as our attitude toward coal runs both hot and cold, so future generations will surely question our
continued reliance on a patently obsolete source of energy. After all, the mixed legacy of coal--progress, pollution, industrial capacity,
and smog-filled skies--is our legacy as well. In the end, the best we can hope for is that our posterity regards our infatuation with coal as
a necessary phase, rather than as a disaster in the making.
Energy demand in China is allowing illegal coal mines that harvest fires
Hilsum 7, (China correspondent for Channel 4 News, Lindsey, “Deadly Coal Fires That Threaten the Globe” Statesman, Vol. 136,
December 3, 2007) // CCH
China relies on coal for two-thirds of its energy. Such is the pace of economic growth, that its carbon emissions now exceed those of the
US. Professor Li believes that extinguishing coal fires will reduce emissions far more rapidly than trying to save energy. But his images
tell him that the fires are spreading. "In the Fifties and Sixties, coal mines were owned and operated by the state. Safety and fire
prevention were a big part of a strict management regime, and there weren't many coal fires," he said. "But in the last few decades,
many private mine businesses appeared, which ignore safety and fire prevention. As a result, we see fires everywhere now." In the Wuda
coalfield in Inner Mongolia, most fires did not erupt spontaneously but were sparked by careless mining. At a typical opencast mine,
diggers scrape away the soil to expose the seam. In the scooped-out section below, where coal has already been removed, smoke and
flames escape from fissures; the soil has not been pushed back to prevent fire. Government inspectors visit once a year, but reportedly
make only half-hearted attempts to close unsafe or illegal mines. Most stop operations for just a few weeks. Mine bosses, in league with
local officials, flout environmental laws with impunity. China's demand for coal is so high that power stations may not ask the
provenance of supplies. Running a small mine is an easy way to get rich, and private mine owners either do not know or do not care
about fires.

Coal Disadvantages: 7 Week Juniors Heidt, Peterson, Silber, Clark Coal Disadvantages

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Coal Disadvantages: 7 Week Juniors Heidt, Peterson, Silber, Clark Coal Disadvantages

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

7 Week Juniors Heidt, Peterson, Silber, Clark

Uniqueness – Coal – More Coal Coming Now..............................................................................................39

Links- Clean Coal DA- Regulations...............................................................................................................74

Coal - Natural Gas Bad - Hegemony ...........................................................................................................109

China Cooperation – Inevitable....................................................................................................................145

Coal Bad – Laundry List...............................................................................................................................183

<<Insert Specific Link>>

Burke, 4 – Vice President, Research & Development of CONSOL Energy, Inc

D. Economic collapse turns the aff and causes extinction

1NC- China Cooperation DA

A) The US and china are looking to cooperate on energy

B) Chinas focus is clean coal

Matthews, 7 (Stuart, Writer for Arabian Business, 6/5/07, http://www.arabianbusiness.com/energy/energy/497329-the-burning-issue-of-

1NC- China Cooperation DA

D) Conflict over Taiwan risks economic collapse and nuclear war

1NC China Coal DA

1NC China Coal DA

1NC China Coal DA

2NC/1NR Clean Coal

Clean coal is key to reduce emissions from inevitable coal use

More clean coal impacts in the Impact portion of the file

Uniqueness – China Clean Coal Coop – China Seeks Investments

China seeks energy investments in the US

Uniqueness – China Coal – Structure, Infrastructure, mines inefficiency

Absent reform china’s coal industry will collapse

B) Development, transition infrastructure, and globalization

C) State owned mines inefficiency

Uniqueness – China Coal – Globalization

Uniqueness – China Coal – Collapsing now

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Obama/McCain

CBS, 6/24/08. (“Clean Coal- Pipe Dream, Or Next Big Thing?”)

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE

RTT News, 6/24/08. (“DOE announces funding opportunity for coal”.)

DOE is developing clean coal tech now

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – DOE

Uniqueness- Clean Coal- Advancements now

Clean coal tech continues to advance

The News-Herald, 8 (“Invest in technology for cleaner coal plants,” 5-28-2008,

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Funding/Laws Now

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Funding/Laws Now

Clean Coal laws being enacted now.

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bush Pledged

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Legislators Pledge

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Futuregen

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bipartisan/McCain Pledge

McCain, John .(The Hotline> “On Luxury and Virtue”. ).

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – Bipartisan

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – New York

Uniqueness – Clean Coal – New York

Uniqueness – Coal – Use inevitable

Uniqueness – Coal – Use Inevitable

Increase in Coal consumption is inevitable

Uniqueness – Coal – Use increasing Now

Coal is abundant and cheap to use

Uniqueness – Coal - Use increasing Now

Uniqueness – Coal – Electricity Demand

Electricity demand is driving greater coal use

Uniqueness – Coal – Wyoming

AP December 7, 2007 JRC

Uniqueness – Coal – More Coal Coming Now

Uniqueness – Coal – Industry Success

Uniqueness – Coal – Industry Success