Plan: The United States federal government should deploy space based solar power.

jamaicaitalianMechanics

Nov 18, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

376 views

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





1

Plan:
The United States federal government should
deploy space based solar power.


jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





2

Contention 1 is Inherency


Tech barriers to SPS have been resolved


all that remains is government
inaction

Edmonton Journal
, Austin Mardon received an
honorary

doctorate of laws from the University of Alberta on Friday. He is a
member of the Order of Canada and is a full member of the International Academy of
Astronautics.
Pauline Balogun is a U of A
s
tudent who is interested in green technologies for the future, 6/12/
11
, “Solar s
atellites key to green energy”,
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Solar+satellites+green+energy/4933251/story.html//jchen

With gas prices on the rise, the race is on fo
r cheap alternative fuel sources, including solar power, but amid a wash
of criticism, the solar industry may not even be in the running.
The major criticisms against
solar power

facilities
,
such as wind farms,
are unreliability and inefficiency. Solar po
wer depends on environmental factors beyond human
control and that makes investors anxious
. These facilities also require areas with high amounts of sunlight, usually
hundreds if not thousands of acres of valuable farmland and all for relatively little pow
er production.
This is why
, in
the 1960s,
scientists proposed
s
olar
-
p
owered

s
atellites

(SPSs). SPSs
have

about
the most
favourable conditions
imaginable
for solar energy production
,

short of a platform on the sun.
Earth's orbit sees 144 per cent of
the
maximum solar energy

found on the planet's surface
and takes up next to no space

in comparison to land
-
based
facilities.
Satellites would be able to
gather energy 24 hours a day
, rather than the tenuous 12
-
hour maximum that
land
-
based
plants have, and dir
ect the transmitted energy to different locations, depending on where power was needed most. So, with so many points in its
favour, why hasn't anyone built one yet? Obviously, putting anything into outer space takes a lot of money.
Many
governments clai
m there simply isn't any money

in the budget for launching satellites into space,
but in 2010, amid an economic crisis, the U
nited
S
tates
managed to find $426 million for nuclear fusion research

and $18.7 billion for NASA, a five
-
per
-
cent increase from 200
9.
The most recent
projections
, made in the 1980s,
put the cost of launching an SPS at $5 billion,

or around 8
-
10 cents/ kWh.
Nuclear power plants cost a minimum of $3 billion to $6 billion
, not including cost overruns, which can make a plant cost
as much
as $15 billion
. In the U.S.,
nuclear power costs about 4.9
cents/kWh, making SPS power supply only slightly more expensive
. But these estimates are over two decades old and the numbers likely need to be re
-
examined. The idea for space
-
based solar energy h
as been around since the '60s; given the technological advancements since then, surely
governments would have invested in making an SPS power supply more budget
-
friendly. That is not the case
.
Governments

and investors
are rarely willing to
devote
fund
ing

to
something that doesn't have quick cash returns
.

The projected cost of launching these satellites once ranged from $11 billion to $320 billion. These figures have been adjus
ted for
inflation, but the original estimates were made back in the 1970s, whe
n solar technology was in its infancy, and may have since become grossly inaccurate. How long an SPS would survive in orbit
is anybody's guess, given the
maintenance due to possible damage to solar panels from solar winds and radiation. As for adding to t
he ever
-
expanding satellite graveyard in Earth's orbit, most solutions to satellite pollution remain
theoretical. Still, these satellites should
not be so largely dismissed. There is a significant design flaw keeping these satellites from production. One

of the major shortfalls in the design of SPSs is simply in getting the power from point A to point B. This remains the most c
ontroversial aspect of SPSs: the use of microwaves to transmit
power from high orbit to the ground.
Critics often cite the danger
s of microwave radiation
to humans and wildlife,
however, the strength of the radiation
from these beams would be equal to the leakage from a standard microwave oven, which
is only slightly more than a cellphone
. A NASA
report from 1980 reveals that
the m
ajor concern with solarpowered satellites was problems with the amplifier on the satellite itself. Several workable solutions

were proposed

in that same report. The report

also recommended that NASA
develop and invest in SPS technology, so that
by the 2000
s, these satellites would be a viable alternative fuel source
.
This recommendation was ignored.
We
should

already have the tech
nology

and

the
infrastructure

in place
for green
energy,
but

we don't.
Instead
, we are
engaged
in a mad dash for the quickest
,
cheapest alternative
to oil

and
that may
be the source of our downfall
. For the sake of the future, expediency must take a back seat to longevity and
longevity may just be found in outer space.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





3

Contention 2 is
Hegemony

Scenario 1 is Power Projection

SPS i
s key to force mobility



provides the only sustainable power source to the military

Taylor
Dinerman
, senior editor at the Hudson Institute’s New York branch and co
-
author of the forthcoming Towards a
Theory of Spacepower: Selected Essays, from National De
fense University Press, 11/24/
2008
, “Space solar power and the
Khyber Pass”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1255/1

Last year the National Security Space Office released its initial report on space solar power (
SSP
). One of the
prim
ary
justifications

for the project
was the potential

of the system
to

provide power

from space
for remote military bases
.

Electrical power is only part of the story.
If the military

really
wants to

be able to
operate

for long periods of time
without

using
vulnerable

supply lines it

will have to find

a

new
way to get liquid fuel to its forward operating forces
.
This may seem impossible at first glance, but
by combining space solar power with

some of the innovative
alternative fuels

and fuel manufacturing sys
tems that are now in the pipeline, and given enough time and effort,
the
problem could be solved
.
The trick is,
of course,
to have enough raw energy available

so that it is possible
to transform

whatever is available into liquid fuel.
This may mean somethi
ng as easy as making
methanol from sugar cane or making jet fuel from natural gas, or something as exotic as cellulosic ethanol from waste product
s. Afghanistan has coal and natural gas that could be turned into liquid fuels with the right technology.
What

is needed

is
a portable system that can be transported

in standard containers
and set up

anywhere

there are the
resources needed to make fuel. This can be done even before space solar power is available, but
with SSP

it
becomes
much easier
.

In the longer
run Pakistan’s closure of the Khyber Pass supply route justifies investment in SSP as a technology that landlocked nations ca
n use to avoid the pressures and threats that they now have to live with. Without access to the sea, nations such as
Afghanistan ar
e all too vulnerable to machinations from their neighbors. Imagine how different history would be if the Afghans had had a “P
olish Corridor” and their own port. Their access to the world economy might have changed their culture in positive ways. Bang
ladesh

and Indonesia are
both Muslim states whose access to the oceans have helped them adapt to the modern world.

Forward deployment

solves multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict.

Robert
Kagan, 2007
,
senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace [“End of Dreams, Return of
History”, 7/19, web)

Finally, there is
the U
nited
S
tates
itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal an
d conservative, Americans
have insisted
on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, i
ncreasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second
World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the firs
t Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence
eastward
across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predomina
nt global power, it

is

also
engaged in hegemonic
competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and
Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus
.

The United States, too, is

more of a
traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global pla
ce as "No. 1" and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a
region, whether for practical or idealistic
reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own
image. They profess indifference to
the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavi
or of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations
and would
-
be nations is a second defining feature of the new post
-
Cold War international system.
Nationalism in all its forms is back,

if it ever

went
away,
and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American
predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifyin
g
--

its regional as well as its global
predominance.
Were the U
nited
S
tates
to diminish its influence i
n the regions where it is currently
the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes

as great and lesser powers have done in
the past:

sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but
often
through confrontation and
wars

of varying scope, inte
nsity, and destructiveness.
One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is
that most of these powers would possess
nuclear

weapons
. That could make wars between them

less
likely, or it could simply make them more
catastrophic.

It is easy but also dangerous

to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts s
tability. For instance, the United States is the
dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it e
ven in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of
international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the Uni
ted States engages
in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the
waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least i
n their own regions and possibly beyond.
Conflict
between nations would in
volve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the
kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now
impossible
.

Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of pe
oples but on a
foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle,
owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would
jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





4

never have felt secure enough to reintegrate G
ermany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but
even today
Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee
,

however distant and one hopes
unnecessary,
that the U
nited
S
tates
could step in to check any dangerous development on the
continent.

In a genuinely m
ultipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger
of

world war
.

People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a

basic logical fallacy. They believe the
order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in

a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain
in place. But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by conf
igurations of power. T
he international order we know today reflects the
distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuratio
n of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United
States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of th
e powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international
order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and M
oscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe.

The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the worl
d's gre
at powers.

Even under the umbrella of
unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China
and Taiwan

and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt

between Russia and
Georgia,

forcing the Unite
d States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the
consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict

between India and Pakistan

remains possible, as does
conflict

between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, coul
d draw in other great
powers,

including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the
United States pursues.
But they are more likely to erupt if the U
nited
S
tates
weakens or withdraws
from its positions of regional domin
ance
. This is especially true
in East Asia
, where
most nations
agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region
. That is certainly the view of
most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to suppl
ant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an
ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan.

In Europe
, too,
the departure of the U
nited
S
tates from the scene
--

even if it
remained th
e world's most powerful nation
--

could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even
more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its peripher
y.
Although some
realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the
Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West,
and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia

are possible even without
Soviet communis
m
.
If the U
nited
S
tates withdrew from Europe
--

if it
adopted

what some call a strategy of
"offshore balancing"
--

this could

in time
increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its
near neighbors, which could in turn draw the U
nited
S
tates
ba
ck in

under unfavorable circumstances.
It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and
the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to greater stability there
.
The vital interest the Unit
ed
States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely

that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the
powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a

more "even
-
handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, o
bviate the need to
come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American c
ommitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy
American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground.

The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would
simply change the equation.

In
the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has
raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn't change this. It only adds
a new and more threatening
dimension to the competition
, which neither a sudden end to the conflict
between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change.
The alternative to American predominance

in the region
is not balance and peace. It is

further
competition
.
The region and the states within it remain relatively weak.
A diminution of American
influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect
deeper involvement by both China and Russia
,
if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region,
particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take acti
ons that could shift the ba
lance of power in the Middle East further toward
Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "norm
al" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new
instability
, one likely to draw the United States back in again.

The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era

of burgeoning
nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified com
petition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no
one should
imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an
easier path.

Scenario 2

is Soft Power

SPS has immense international support


US development key to soft power

NSSO
, National Security Space Office, 10/10/
07
, “Space

Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security”,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi
-
bin/
GetTRDoc?AD=ADA473860&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf//jchen

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





5

FINDING:
The SBSP Study Group found that
no outright policy

or legal showstoppers
exist to prevent the
development of S
B
SP
.

Full

scale SBSP
, however,
will require a permissive international
regime
, and construction of
this new regime is in every way a challenge nearly equal to the construction of the satellite itself. The interim
review did not uncover any hard show

stoppers in the international legal or regulatory regime.
Many nations a
re
actively studying S
pace

Based
S
olar
P
ower. Canada, the UK, France, the E
uropean
S
pace
A
gency,
Japan, Russia,
India, and China
,

as well as several equatorial nations
have all expressed

past or present
interest

in SBSP.
International conferences

such
as the United Nations

connected UNISPACE III
are continually held on the subject

and there is even a UN

affiliated non

governmental organization, the Sunsat Energy Council, that is
dedicated to
promoting

the study and development of
SBSP
. The Internat
ional Union of Radio Science (URSI) has published at
least one document supporting the concept, and a study of the subject by the International Telecommunications
Union (ITU) is presently ongoing.
There seems to be
significant global interest in pro
moting the peaceful use of
space
, sustainable
development
,
and carbon neutral energy

sources
,
indicating that

perhaps
an open avenue
exists for the U
nited
S
tates
to exercise “soft power” via the development of S
B
SP
.

That there are no show

stoppers should in no way imply that an
adequate or supportive regime is in place. Such a regime must address liability, indemnity, licensing, tech transfer, frequ
ency allocations, orbital slot assignment, assembly and parking orbits, and transit corrid
ors. These will likely involve significant increases in Space Situational
Awareness, data

sharing, Space Traffic Control, and might include some significant similarities to the International Civil Aviation Organiz
ation’s (ICAO) role for facilitating sa
fe international air travel. Very likely the construction of a truly adequate regime will take as long as the satellite
technology development itself, and so consideration must be given to beginning work on the construction of such a framework

immediat
ely.


SPS is key to international collaboration in space

Schwab
, Martin Schwab, Professor of Philosophy, Philosophy School of Humanities, English Professor School of Humanities,
Director of Humanities and Law Minor, April 15,
200
2
, “The New Viability of Sp
ace Solar Power: Global Mobilization for a
Common Human Endeavor”,
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=40&q=unilateral+solar+powered+satellites&hl=en&as_sdt=0,30&as_ylo=2000, Date
accessed June 25, 2011

If

a non
-
integrated, decentralized
SSP

system
w
ere to be

a
truly international

effort, perhaps
costs

for such an effort
could be reduced
. It is conceivable that
a sense of global mobilization

(being part of a common human endeavor)
might take hold in an international effort to build thousands of SSP

sp
ace and ground
segments
. The peoples of
poor
nations might

be able to
find employment in digging the foundations
for
and in the
maintenance of SSP

assembly
and launch facilities and ground rectennae. Borrowing from FDR’s New Deal philosophy, these
facilities

could

purposely
be

built around the globe so

that vocational
training in aerospace

technology
could

also
be offered
,
adding to the
human capital in developing countries. This new environment of international cooperation could and should be const
antly verified by UN inspectors to ensure that these new facilities remain true to peaceful purposes. There are of course ris
ks in any new relationship, but
in light of the track
record of

other
attempts to maintain international security,

these
acceptable

risks are
perhaps
worth the effort

to make them work. U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is conscious of making every member of the U.S. Military feel ne
eded in the war on terror. This is the same approach
that could be taken
when building a system

of SSP

for the peoples of Earth
.
Making poor people of the world

actually
feel needed

should be a focal point

of U.S.
foreign policy.
This
would reduce the general sense of marginalization

in many parts of the world, perhaps
making

terrorism

at least
flou
rish less
.

This approach could start by abandoning “diplomatic” terms
such as “periphery” and “international development.” These
terms only reinforce the idea that other countries and other cultures have nothing of inherent value to offer the West. When
Ru
msfeld was a CEO in the pharmaceutical industry, he said that the role of serendipity in developing new products increased wi
th the number of separate areas of
research and development that were funded. This idea should be even more true as human capital i
s developed around the world. Some see involvement in space as a luxury that much of the world cannot afford. This same logic

would also deny golf lessons for inner city youth. Perhaps this
worldview fails to see the value in “teeing up” unknown lessons to

be learned, both by

playing golf and by exploring space.14A
global mobilization for a common human
endeavor via

the common language of
science and technology
,
as it relates to outer space need not be seen as naïve

or
some call for one world government. Ro
nald Reagan for instance, characteristically and perhaps instinctively invoked the rhetorically inclusive phrase, “the people

of this planet” when he attempted to marshal international condemnation against terrorism during his administration.26

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





6

Independen
tly, international space cooperation cements US leadership

CSIS

“National Security and the Commercial Space Sector”,
20
10

CSIS Draft for Comment, April 30th,
http://csis.org/files/publication/100430_berteau_commercial_space.pdf


New opportunities for

partnership and
collaboration with

both
international

and commercial
space actors have the
potential to support future national security

space activities
and enhance U.S. leadership
.”
Forming
alliances

and
encouraging cooperation with foreign entities
cou
ld provide several benefits

to the U
nited
S
tates, including
ensuring
continued U.S. access to space

after a technical failure or a launch facility calamity,
strengthening the

competitive

position of the
U.S. commercial

satellite
sector
, enhancing the U.S.
position in partnerships, an
d reinforcing
collaboration among other space
-
faring nations.
As the Booz, Allen & Hamilton 2000 Defense Industry Viewpoint notes, strategic commercial alliances: (1) provide capabilities

to expand quickly service offerings and
markets in ways not possible under time and resource constraints; (2) earn a rate of return 50 percent higher than base busin
esses

“returns more than double as firms gain experience in alliances”; and (3) are a powerful alternative to acquiring other compa
nies because they “avoid costly
accumulation of debt and buildup of balance sheet goodwill.” In those respects,
international commercial alliances could help U.S. firms access foreign funding
, business systems,
space

expertise
, technology, and intellectual

capital
and increase

U.S.

industry’s
market share overseas
, thus
providing economic benefits to the U
nited
S
tates. Moreover, U.S. experiences with foreign entities in foreign markets could help those entities obtain the requisite app
rovals to operate U.S.

government satellite

systems in other countries,
resolve satellite spectrum and coordination issues, and mitigate risks associated with catastrophic domestic launch
failures by providing for contingency launch capabilities from foreign nations.
Multinatio
nal alliances would

also
signal

U.S. policymakers’
intent to ensure U.S. commercial and military access to space

within a cooperative,
international domain, help
promote international cooperation
,
and build support for U.S. positions

within various
governm
ental and business forums. First,
partnerships could allow the

U
nited
S
tates
to demonstrate
greater
leadership in mitigating

those
shared risks

related to vulnerability of space

assets

through launch facility and data
sharing, offering improved space situa
tional awareness, establishing collective security
agreements for space assets, exploring space deterrence and satellite
security doctrines, and formulating and agreeing to rules of the road on the expected peaceful behavior in the space domain.
Second, pa
rtnerships could also help the United States build consensus on important space
-
related issues in bilateral or multilateral organizations such as the United
Nations, the International Telecommunication Union, and the World Trade Organization; working with
emerging space
-
faring nations is particularly important because of their growing presence in the marketplace and participation in internatio
nal organizations. Third
,
alliances

could
s
erve as a bridge to future collaborative efforts

between U.S. national se
curity for
ces and

U.S.
allies
. For example, civil multinational
alliances such as the International Space Station and the international search and rescue satellite consortium, Cospas
-
Sarsat, involve multiple countries partnering to use space for common pub
lic global purposes. Finally
,
developing

government,
business, and professional
relationships with people in other countries provides opportunities

for the United States
to further
the principles upon which U.S. national security relies

competition
,
econom
ic stability, and democracy
.


Soft power prevents extinction

Joseph
Nye
, Harvard,
US MILITARY PRIMACY IS FACT
-

SO, NOW, WORK ON 'SOFT POWER' OF PERSUASION, April 29,
2004
,
p, http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/nye_soft_power_csm_042904.htm

Soft
power

co
-
opts people rather than coerces them. It
rests on the ability to set the agenda

or shape the preferences
of others
. It is a mistake to discount soft power as just a question of image, public
relations, and ephemeral popularity. It is a form of pow
er
-

a means of pursuing national
interests.
When America discounts the importance of its attractiveness to other countries, it pays a price
. When US policies lose their legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of others
, attitudes of distrust tend to fester

and further reduce its leverage.
The manner with which the US went into
Iraq undercut American soft power. That did not prevent the success of the four
-
week military campaign, but it made others less willing to help in the reconstruction of Iraq and made
the American occupation more costly in the hard
-
power resources of blood and treasure. Because of its
leading edge in the information revolution and its past investment in military power, the US probably will remain the world's

single most powerful country

well into the 21st century.

But
not all the important types of power
come from the barrel of a gun
.
Hard power is relevant to getting desired outcomes, but
transnational issues such as
climate change
, infectious
diseases
, international
crime, and

terroris
m cannot be resolved by military force

alone
.
Soft power is particularly important in dealing with these issues, where military power alone simply cannot produce
success, and can even be counterproductive.
America's success in coping with

the new transnati
onal threats of
terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction will depend on

a deeper understanding of
the role of soft power

and
developing a better balance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





7

Contention 3 is
Warming

SPS is the ideal clean energy to
solve warming


minimal pollution and resource use

Garretson
, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) International Fellow in India, previously the Chief of Future Science and
Technology Exploration for Headquarters Air Force, Directorate of Strategic Plans a
nd Programs,
09

(Peter A., “Sky’s No Limit:
Space
-
Based Solar Power, The Next Major Step In The Indo
-
US Strategic Partnership?”,
http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/papers/OP_SkysNoLimit.pdf)

While no energy source is entirely benign, the SBSP concept has

significant things to recommend it for the
environmentally conscious and those wanting to develop green energy sources.
An ideal energy source will not

add
to global warming
, produce no greenhouse gasses, have short energy payback time,
require little

in
the way of
land
,
require
no water

for cooling
and

have
no adverse effects

on living things.
S
pace

s
olar

p
ower

comes very close

to this
ideal.

Almost all of the inefficiency in the system is in the space segment and waste heat is rejected to deep space
inst
ead of the biosphere.14
SBSP is, therefore, not expected to impact the atmosphere.
The amount of heat

contributed
by transmission loss

through the atmosphere and reconversion at the 19 receiver
-
end
is

significantly
less

than an equivalent thermal

(fossil f
uel
),
nuclear power plant, or terrestrial solar plant
, which rejects significantly more heat to the biosphere on a per unit (per megawatt) basis.15 The efficiency of a Rectenna

is above 80 per
cent (rejects less than 20 per cent to the biosphere), whereas for the same power into a grid, a concentrating solar plant (t
hermal) is perhaps 15 per cent efficient (rejecting 85 (per cent) while a

fossil

fuel plan is likely to be less than 40 per cent efficient

(rejecting 60 per cent to the biosphere). The high efficiency of the receivers also means that
unlike thermal and nuclear power plants,
t
here is no need for active cooling and

so
no need to

tie the

location of the
receiver to
large amounts of cooling water
,

with the accompanying environmental problems of dumping large
amounts of waste heat into rivers or coastal areas.


ONLY SPS supplies the power needed for a sustainable energy transition

James M.
Snead
, P.E., is a senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) a past chair of the
AIAA’s Space Logistics Technical Committee, and the founder and president of the Spacefaring Institute LLC, 5/4/
200
9
, “The
vital need for A
merica to develop space solar power”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1364/1

A key element of a well
-
reasoned US energy policy is to maintain an adequate surplus of dispatchable electrical
power generation capacity
. Intelligent cont
rol of consumer electrical power use to moderate peak demand and
improved transmission and distribution systems to more broadly share sustainable generation capacity will
certainly help,
but 250 million additional Americans and 5 billion additional electri
cal power consumers worldwide
by 2100 will need substantially more assured generation capacity
.
Three possible energy sources that could achieve
sufficient generation

capacity

to close the 2100 shortfall
are methane hydrates
,
advanced

nuclear

energy,
and
SSP
.
The key planning co
nsideration is: Which of these are now able to enter engineering development and be integrated into an actionable sustainable

energy transition plan? Methane hydrate is a combination of methane and water ice where a methane molecule

is
trapped within water ice crystals. The unique conditions necessary for forming these hydrates exist at the low temperatures a
nd elevated pressures under water, under permafrost, and under cold rock formations. Some experts

estimate that the
undersea me
thane
hydrate resources are immense and may be able to meet world energy needs for a century or more. Why not plan to use methane

hydrates?
The issues are
the
technical feasibility of

recovering
methane

at industrial
-
scale levels (tens to hundreds of billi
ons BOE per year) and doing so
with

acceptable
environmental impact
. While research into practical industrial
-
scale levels of recovery with acceptable environmental impact is underway, acceptable production solutions have not yet emerg
ed. As a result, a ra
tional US energy plan cannot yet include
methane hydrates as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future energy scarcity. Most people would agree that an advan
ced nuclear generator scalable from tens of megawatts to a few gigawatts, with acceptable
environmental impact and adequate security, is a desirable long
-
term
sustainable energy solution. Whether this will be an improved form of enriched uranium nuclear fission; a different fission f
uel cycle, such as thorium; or, the more advanced fusion energ
y is not yet known. Research into all of these options is proceeding with significant research
advancements being achieved. However
,
until

commercialized
reactor designs are

demonstrated and any environmental and security issues
associated with their fueli
ng, operation, and waste disposal are
technically and politically resolved,

a rational
US
energy

plan
cannot

yet
include

advanced
nuclear

energy

as a solution ready to be implemented to avoid future
energy scarcity.
We are left with SSP
. Unless the US fede
ral government is willing to forego addressing the very real
possibility of energy scarcity in dispatchable electrical power generation,
SSP is
the one renewable energy

solution
capable of beginning engineering development and
, as such, being incorporated
into such
a rational sustainable
energy transition plan
. Hence, beginning the engineering development of

SSP now becomes a necessity
. Planning
and executing a rational US energy policy that undertakes the development of
SSP
will jump
-
start America on the
p
ath to acquiring

the
mastery of

industrial
space operations

we need to become a true spacefaring nation
. Of course, rapid
advancements in advanced nuclear energy or methane hydrate recovery or the emergence of a new industrial
-
scale sustainable energy sour
ce may change the
current circumstances favor
ing the start of
the development of SSP
. But not knowing how long affordable easy energy supplies will
remain available and not knowing to what extent terrestrial nuclear fission and renewable energy production
can be practically and politically expanded
, reasonableness dictates that the serious engineering development of SSP be started now.


And, we’re nearing the point of no return

holding the line on current emissions while
transitioning to solar power key to
check feedback cycles

David
Biello
, award winning journalist and associate editor for Scientific American,
9/9
/
10
, Scientific American, “How Much
jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





8

Global Warming Is Guaranteed Even If We Stopped Building Coal
-
Fired Plants Today?”,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=guaranteed
-
global
-
warming
-
with
-
existing
-
fossil
-
fuel
-
infrastructure{jchen}

Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return

when it comes
to catastrophic climate change
, according to new
calculations. If we c
ontent ourselves with
the existing fossil
-
fuel infrastructure

we
can

hold greenhouse gas
concentrations below 450 parts per million

in the atmosphere
and
limit warming to below 2 degrees

Celsius

above
preindustrial levels

both common benchmarks for interna
tional efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing
climate change

according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science.
The bad news is
we are adding
more

fossil
-
fuel infrastructure

oil
-
burning cars, coal
-
fired power plants, industrial factor
ies consuming natural
gas

every day
.
A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil
-
fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to

if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime.
The answer: an a
verage of 496 billion metric tons
more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere

between now and 2060 in "committed emissions". That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal
-
fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car

potentially major under
-

and overestimates, respectively, given that some coal
-
fired
power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer
-
generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less
than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average
temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present levels

and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations.
Still,
we are rapidly
approaching a point of no

return
,
cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution
for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "
There is little doubt that more CO2
-
emitting devices will be built,"

the researche
rs wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure

such as highways, gas stations and refineries

that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower
-
emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.
And s
ince 2000 the world has added 416 gigawatts of coal
-
fired power plants, 449 gigawatts of natural gas

fired power plants and even 47.5 gigawatts of oil
-
fired power plants, according to the study's figures. China alone is already responsible for more than a
third of the global "committed
emissions," including adding 2,000 cars a week to the streets of Beijing as well as 322 gigawatts of coal
-
fired power plants built since 2000. The U.S.

the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, among major c
ountries

has continued a transition to less CO2
-
intensive energy
use that started in the early 20th century. Natural gas

which emits 40 percent less CO2 than coal when burned

now dominates new power plants (nearly 188 gigawatts added since 2000) along with

wind (roughly 28 gigawatts added), a trend broadly similar to other developed nations
such as Japan or Germany.

But
the U.S
. still
generates

half of
its electricity via coal

burning

and what replaces

those power
plants

over the next several decades
will
play a huge role in determining the ultimate degree of global
climate change
.
Coal
-
burning poses other threats as well, including

the toxic coal ash that can spill from the
impoundments where it is kept; other polluting emissions that cause
acid rain and s
mog; and

the soot that causes and
estimated 13,200 extra deaths
and nearly 218,000 asthma attacks per year
, according to a report from the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. "Unfortunately, persistently elevated levels o
f fine particle pollution

are common across wide swaths of the country," reveals the 2010 report, released September 9.
"Most of these pollutants originate from combustion sources such as power

plants, diesel trucks, buses and cars." Of course,
those are the same culprits
contribu
ting the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet
"programs to scale up 'carbon neutral' energy are moving
slowly

a
t best,
" notes physicist Martin Hoffert of New York University in a perspective on the research also published in Science on Septemb
er 10. "The
difficulties posed by generating even [one terawatt] of carbon
-
neutral power led the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley and
colleagues to call it the 'terawatt challenge'." That is because all carbon
-
free sources of energy combined provide a little more t
han two of the 15 terawatts that power modern society

the bulk of that from nuclear and hydroelectric
power plants. At least
10 terawatts each from nuclear; coal with carbon capture and storage; and
renewables, such as solar

and wind,
would be required

by
mid
-
century
to eliminate

CO2
emissions

from energy use
. As Caldeira and his colleagues
wrote: "Satisfying growing demand for energy without producing CO2 emissions will require truly extraordinary
development and deployment of carbon
-
free sources of energy
, perhaps 30 [terawatts] by 2050."


Substantial U.S. action will guarantee spillover

Trevor
Houser
, visiting fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics; Shashank
Mohan
, research analyst
with the Rhodium Group;
--
AND
--

Robert
Heilmayr
, research analyst at the World Resources Institute,
0
9

[“A Green Global Recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International Coordination,”
http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/houser0309.pdf]


The G
-
20 group of developed and dev
eloping countries has emerged as the lead forum for orchestrating an international
response to the economic crisis. At their meeting last November, G
-
20 leaders pledged to work together to combat the global
recession through coordinated fiscal stimulus.
Wa
shington is not alone

in looking to meet long
-
term energy and
environmental goals while bolstering short
-
term economic growth.
Japan

and
South Korea

have both trumpeted their stimulus
plans as “Green New Deals,”
China

has earmarked much of its $586 billion

in spending for energy and environmental projects,
and
the United Kingdom and Germany
have followed

suit
.14 The G
-
20 will meet again in April to compare notes on the
recovery effort and take stock of each country’s plan of attack. Leaders will be
looking
to coordinate their respective stimulus packages to ensure the greatest economic bang for the buck. Given that
this same group of countries will be tackling climate change later in the year

either in a small grouping like the Major Economies Process, or th
rough the UN
-
led negotiations in Copenhagen

they would be wise to assess the cumulative effect of these efforts on global carbon dioxide emissions and work together to
ensure that various green stimulus efforts complement each other as well as longterm emi
ssions reduction goals.
Discussion of the energy and environmental components of national recovery efforts

provides three
benefits: 1
.

Investments by one
country in

an emerging
low
-
carbon tec
hnology

reduce the cost

of that technology
for everyone
.

Coordinating government
-
driven R&D and governmentfunded demonstration projects can maximize the energy and environmental benefits of every
public dollar
spent. 2.
Efficiency investments that reduce energy demand in one country impact

energy
prices around t
he
world

and thus

14. Michael Casey, “UN welcomes Korea, Japan green stimulus plans,” Associated Press, January 22, 2009; Li
Jing, “NDRC: 350b yuan to pour into environment industry,” China Daily, November 27, 2008, available at www.
chinadaily.com.cn (acc
essed on February 2, 2009).
the cost
-
benefit analysis used by national policymakers when evaluating
domestic programs.
3.
The cumulative effects of green recovery programs

on national emissions will
shape international
climate negotiations

and

the type of
commitments

that are
made as part of a multilateral climate agreement
.



jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





9

Runaway warming causes extinction

Deibel ‘7

(Terry L. Professor of IR @ National War College, 2007. “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic for American Statecraft”,
Conclusion: American For
eign Affairs Strategy Today)

Finally,
there is one major existential threat

to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature,
which
,
though far in the future,
demands urgent action. It is the threat of
global warming to the stability of
the climate upon
which all
earthly
life depends
. Scientists

worldwide have
been observing

the gathering of this threat
for three decades
now, and
what was once

a

mere
possibility has passed

through probability
to

near
certainty
. Indeed
not one of

more than
900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals

from 1993 to 2003
doubted

that
anthropogenic
warming

is occurring. “
In legitimate scientific circles
,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “
it is virtually impossible to find evidenc
e
of disagreement over

the fundamentals of global
warming
.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring
effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal
droughts, floods and v
iolent storms across the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean
currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the
Antarctic and in Greenland are melting muc
h faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days
earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most
destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from di
rect temperature measurements that 2005 was the
hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “
Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than
150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads
; “widespread bleaching
from Texas to
Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2
-
degree rise in sea temperatures. “
The world is slowly disintegrating
,”
concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just
c
all it breaking up.” From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial
revolution, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At
present they are

accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre
-
industrial levels.
Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their
increase, we are thus in for si
gnificant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be
.
As the newspaper stories quoted above show,
we are already experiencing

the effects of 1
-
2 degree warming in more
violent storms,

spread of
disease, mass die offs

of
plants and animals,
species extinction, and

threatened
inundation of
low
-
lying countries

like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less
the Greenland
and West Antarctic
ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to

a
sea level of rise of 20 feet

that would cover North Carolina’s
outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village.
Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline ci
rculation

that keeps the winter weather
in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow
. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the
United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1
-
6 percent of GDP annually; severe warmin
g could cost 13
-
26
percent of GDP. But
the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback

from the
buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures
. Past ice age
tra
nsitions, associated with only 5
-
10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even
though no one was then pouring ever
-
increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the
best one can conclude is
that “humankind’s
continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing
Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system
. At worst, says physics professor Marty
Hoffert of New York University, “
we’re just go
ing to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse
.” During
the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclea
r winter to describe how a thermonuclear war
between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this
planet.
Global warming is the

post
-
Cold War era’s
equivalent of nuclear winter

at least as serio
us
and
considerably
better
supported scientifically
. Over the long run
it puts dangers form

terrorism and traditional
military challenges to shame.
It
is a threat

not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially
to the continue
d existence of life on
this planet
.

And, there’s no question about warming

it’s real and anthropogenic

Stefan
Rahmstorf
,
Professor of Physics @ Potsdam University, Member of the German Advisory Council on Climate Change,
200
8

(Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, ed. Ernesto Zedillo, Prof. IR @ Yale, p. 42
-
49)

It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into two parts.
The

first is as
follows:
global climate is
warming.

This
is

by now a generally
undisputed

point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we
deal with it only briefly.
The two
leading compilations

of data measured with thermometers

are shown in figure 3
-
3, that of
jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





10

the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis
tration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change. Although
they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different data sets and use of different spatial averaging and quality co
ntrol
procedures, they both
show a consistent

pic
ture, with a global mean
warming

of 0.8°C

since the late nineteenth
century.
Temperatures over the past
ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available
. The year 19
98 sticks out

well above the longterm trend
due to

the occurr
ence of a major
El Nino

event that year (the last El Nino so far and one of the strongest on record). These events are examples of the largest natura
l climate
variations on multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean, generally cause positi
ve anomalies in global mean temperature. It is remarkable that the year
2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred

that year. (A bizarre curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that several
prominent "climate skeptics" recently used the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lind
zen's words, "Indeed, the absence of any record breaker
s during the past seven years is statistical evidence that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In addition to the surface
measurements, the more recent portion of the global
warming

trend (since 1979)
is

also
documented by satellite data
. It is not strai
ghtforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend from satellites, as they measure radiation coming from throughout t
he atmosphere (not just near the surface), including the
stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneo
us' due to the short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different times of day
, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these

satellite data

show
trends that
are

fully
consistent with surfac
e measurements

and model simulations
." If no reliable temperature measurements
existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries in the coal mine" of climate change (as glaciologist Lon
nie
Thompson puts it) ~are mountain glaciers. We kn
ow, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal
moraines heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain
glaciers have been in retreat all over the world

during the past century.
There are precious few exceptions, and they
are associated wi
th a strong increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself in field tri
ps to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As glaciers respond
sensitively to temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers
have been used to reconstruct a history of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3
-
4).
Cores drilled

in tropical glaciers
show signs of

recent
melting that is unprecedented

at least
throughout

t
he Holocene
-
the past
10,000

years
. Another powerful sign of warming, visible clearly from satellites, is the
shrinking Arctic sea ice

cover (figure 3
-
5), which
has declined 20 percent since

satellite observations began in 19
79.

While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth c
entury, much discussion particularly in the popular media
has focused on the question of how "unusual" this warming is in a longer
-
term context. While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed incorrectly with the question of causation. Scie
ntifically, how unusual recent warming is
-
say, compared to the past millennium
-
in itself contains little information about
its cause. Even a highly unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional increase in solar activity).

And eve
n a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a predominantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the questi
on of causation shortly, after briefly visiting the evidence
for past natural climate variations. Records from the time before sys
tematic temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice cores, corals, and oth
er sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local temperatures in some way, but they may be influenced by other
parameters

as well (for example, precipitation), they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree rings), and high
-
quality long records are difficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage. Therefore, there is still s
ubst
antial uncertainty in the evolution of past global or
hemispheric temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for our purposes,'

as regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many

regional causes, unrelated to global
-
scale forcing and climate change.) The first quantitative reconstruction for
the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an error estimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, an
d Hughes and ri
ghtly highlighted in the 2001 IPCC report as one of the major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.3
9 The analysis suggests that, despite the large
error bars, twentieth
-
century warming is indeed highly unusual and probably was unp
recedented during the past millennium. This result, presumably because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, t
o some extent in scientific journals, but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick
-
shaped
curve became a symbol for the
IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the credibility of the IPCC. Thre
e important things have been overlooked in much of the media coverage. First, even if the scientific critics had been right,
this w
ould not have called into question
the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy d
ata for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the twentieth centu
ry is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years." This
conclusion has since been supported further by every single one of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are sho
wn in figure 3
-
6). Second, by far the most
serious scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a mistake. 40 The prominent paper o
f von Storch and
others, which claimed (based on a model test) that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes systematically underest
imated variability, "was [itself] based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure."41 With correct implemen
tation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one used by
Mann, Bradley, and Hughes have been shown to perform well i
n similar model tests. Third, whether their reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis und
erestimated past natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus a les
ser co
ncern
about the consequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it would point to a larger climate sensitivity.
While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply in practice to the climate sensitivity estimates discussed herein

or to the range given by IPCC, since these did not use the reconstruction of
Mann, Hughes, and Bradley or any other proxy records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protoco
l" had been called into question were therefore misin
formed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in 1997, before the reconstruction in question even existed. The overheated pub
lic debate
on this topic has, at least, helped to attract more researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its method
ology has advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been presented in recent years. While the science
has moved forward, the first seminal reconstruction by Mann, Hughes,
and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main feature
s reproduced by more recent work. Further progress probably will require substantial amounts of new proxy data, rather than f
urther refinement of the statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley. Developing these data sets will
require tim
e and substantial effort. It is time to address the final statement: most of
the observed warming

over the past fifty years
is anthropogenic
. A large number of studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is generally ca
lled the "attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact
share of the anthropogenic contribution (although this is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50 perc
ent.” The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the ma
gnitude of the warming is what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so
anthropogenic
forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise.

As discussed here, the rise in greenhouse gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2

of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed 0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6°C of warming si
nce preindustrial times for medium climate sensitivity (3"C).
With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the expected

warming is O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed number
-
this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is still very' uncertain
-
but that the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt

that the anthropogenic forcing is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on aerosol forcing and climate sensi
tivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming than has been observed (leaving
room
for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The
second important piece of evidence is clea
r:
there is no viable alternative explanation
. In the scientific literature,

no serious alternative hypothesis has
been proposed to explain the observe
d global warming. Other possible causes, such as
solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic
rays, or orbital cycles,

are well observed, but they
do not
show trends capable of
explain
ing the observed
warming
. Since
1978, solar
irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and shows the well
-
known eleven
-
year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers,
solar cycle length, the geomagnet
ic AA index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon
-
14 data. These indicate
that solar activity probably increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous centu
ries, different authors agree that solar activity did not si
gnificantly increase during the last sixty
-
five years. Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other
factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only, leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside, show a cooling in the sec
ond half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2
-
2, panel a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is downward. The only way out would be eit
her
some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend tha
t arises by chance from an unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be completely ruled out, bu
t has to be considered highly unlikely.

No evidence in the observed record, proxy data, or current models suggest that such
interna
l variability could cause a sustained trend of global warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed
twentieth century warming is
unprecedented over the past

1,000 years, (or even
2,000 years
, as the few longer reconstructions available now suggest), whic
h does not 'support the idea of large internal
fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic activity) and thus ap
pear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability." And ind
eed, it would be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the fundamental physical law of
energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat around different parts of the climate system
-
for example, the large

El Nino event of 1998, which warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies that the oc
ean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms.
For past decades, as discussed, we observed the atmosphere warming and the ocean h
eat content increasing, which rules out heat release from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the wh
ole climate system is increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped
by greenhouse gases. '

A completely different approach to attribution is to analyze the spatial patterns of climate change. This is done in so
-
called fingerprint studies, which associate particular patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible t
hat the pa
ttern of a solar
-
forced climate change differs from
the pattern of a change caused by
greenhouse gases. For example, a characteristic of greenhouse

gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that,
unlike solar variability, greenhouse g
ases tend to warm more in winter, and at night. Such
studies

have used
different data sets

and have been performed by
different

groups of
researchers

with different statistical methods. They
consistently conclude
that

the observed spatial pattern of
warmin
g can only be explained by greenhouse gases.
49 Overall, it has to be considered,
highly likely' that the observed warming is indeed predominantly due to the human
-
caused increase in greenhouse gases. '
This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogen
ic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on
climate, finding that
this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and

that
a mass of evidence points to a
CO2 effect on

climate of 3C ± 1.59C global
-
warming

for a doubl
ing of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC range; my personal assessment is that, in
-
the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the uncertainty range
can now be narrowed somewhat to 3°C ± 1.0C)
This is based on consistent result
s from theory, models, and data analysis
, and, even in the absence
-
of any computer models, the same result would still hold based on
physics and

on data from
climate history

alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence
, the
chance that these conc
lusions are wrong has to be considered minute.

If the preceding is accepted, then it follows
logically and incontrovertibly

that

a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming
. The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior
, but the climatic response to various
emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the famous range of future global temp
erature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computa
tions: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2 (for example, other
greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here,
although they are important to get quantitati
vely accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning concentrations, the scenarios shown basicall
y assume that
ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an optimisti
c assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source ra
ther than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in the
more optimistic of the shown (non
-
mitigation) scenario
s, global temperature would rise by 2
-
3°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an extraordi
narily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 year
s. As far as
the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable temperatures. The rate of this

warming (which is important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably
for an even longer time. The last major global warming trend occurred
when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and 10,000 years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that

is, a rate of only 0.1 °C per century. 52 The expected magn
itude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise (Pliocene

sea
level was 25
-
35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets), extreme events (for example, hurric
ane activity is expected to increase in a warmer
climate), and ecosystem loss. The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and

discussed what is known about its causes. This part
showed that global

warming is

already
a

measured and
well
-
established fact
, not a theory. Many
different lines of evidence
consistently show that

most of the observed
warming

of the past fifty years
was caused by human activity
. Above all, this
warming is exactly what would be expecte
d given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative
explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken together.,
the very strong evidence
accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has

ove
r the past decades
convinced
virtually

every climatologist
around
the world
(many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself)
that anthropogenic global warming is a reality

with
which we need to deal.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





11

Contention
4

is
Aerospace

Uncertain Space

Policy is damaging the Aerospace Industry
-

Government action is key

Maser 11

[Jim, Chair of the Corporate Membership Committee


American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and President


Pratt &
Whitney Rocketdyne, “A Review of NASA’s Exploratio
n Program in Transition:

Issues for Congress and Industry”, U.S. House
Science, Space, and Technology Committee Hearing, 3
-
30,
http://www.prattwhitney.com/
media_center/executive_speeches/jim_maser_03
-
30
-
2011.asp
]

Access to space plays a significant part in the Department of Defense’s ability to secure our nation.
The
lack of a unified national strategy
brings uncertainty

in volume, meaning that
fixed costs
will
go up

in the short term across all customers until actual
demand levels are understood
. Furthermore,
the
lack of space policy will have ripple effects in the defense budget

and elsewhere,
raising costs

when it is in everyone’s interests to contain cos
ts.
Now, it is of course true that there are
uncertainties about the best way to move forward. This was true in the early days of space exploration and in the Apollo and
Shuttle
eras.Unfortunately,

we do not have the luxury of waiting

until we have all the
answers
.
We must not “let the best be the enemy of
the good.” In other words
,
selecting a configuration that we are absolutely certain is the optimum configuration is not as
important as expeditiously selecting one of the many workable configurations, so t
hat we can move forward.
This
industry has smart people with excellent judgment, and we will figure the details out, but not if we don’t get moving soon. N
ASA must initiate SLS
and MPCV efforts without gapping the program efforts already in place intended t
o support Constellation.
The time for industry and
government to work together to define

future
space policy is now
.
We must establish an overarching policy that recognizes the synergy among all government space
launch customers to determine the right susta
inable industry size, and plan on funding it accordingly.The need to move with clear velocity is imperative if we are to sust
ain our endangered U.S. space industrial base, to protect our
national security, and to retain our position as the world leader in
human spaceflight and space exploration. I believe that if we work together we can achieve these goals.We are ready to help i
n any way that we can. But
the clock is
ticking
.

Infrastructure advances of SPS ensures the US remains the aerospace leader.

NSSO
,

National Space Security Organization, joint office to support the Executive Agent for Space and the newly formed
Defense Space Council, 10/10/
2007
, Space

Based Solar Power As an Opportunity For Strategic Security, Phase 0 Architecture
Feasibility Study, h
ttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final
-
sbsp
-
interim
-
assessment
-
release
-
01.pdf

F
INDING: The SBSP Study Group found that
SBSP directly addresses the concerns of the

Presidential Aerospace Commission which called on the
US to become a true spacefaring

civilization and to pay closer attention to

our
aerospace

technical and industrial base, our “national jewel”
which has enhanced our security, wealth, travel, and
lifestyle
. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the findi
ngs of this commission,
which stated:
The U
nited
S
tates
must maintain its preeminence in aerospace research

and innovation
to be the
global aerospace leader

in the 21st century.
This can

only
be achieved through proactive government policies and

sustained
public investments

in long

term research and RDT&E infrastructure
that

will
result in
new
breakthrough

aerospace
capabilities
. Over the last several decades, the
U.S. aerospace

sector
has been living off

the research
investments made

primarily for defense
during the Cold War

Government policies and investments in long

term research have not kept pace with the changing world.
Our nation does not have bold national aerospace technology goals to focus and sustain federal

research and related infrastructure inv
estments. The nation needs
to capitalize on these opportunities, and
the federal government

needs to lead the effort
. Specifically, it
needs to
invest in

long

term enabling
research and

related RDT&E
infrastructure
,
establish national aerospace technology demonstration goals, and create an
environment that fosters innovation and provide the incentives necessary to encourage risk taking and rapid introduction of n
ew products and services.
The Aerospace Commission recog
nized that Global
U.S. aerospace leadership
can only be achieved through investments in our future
, including our industrial base, workforce, long term research and national infrastructure, and that government must commit t
o increased and sustained investm
ent and must
facilitate private investment in our national aerospace sector. The Commission concluded
that the nation will have to be a space

faring nation in order to be the global leader in the 21st century

that our freedom, mobility, and quality
of life

will depend on it, and therefore, recommended that the United States boldly pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, co
mmerce and exploration.
They explicitly recommended hat the United States create a space
imperative and that NASA and DoD need to
make the investments
-

15
-

necessary for developing and supporting future launch capabilities to revitalize U.S. space launch infrastructure, as well as

provide Incentives to Commercial
Space. The report called on government and the investment community m
ust become more sensitive to commercial opportunities and problems in space. Recognizing the new realities of a highly dynami
c, competitive and global
marketplace, the report noted that the federal government is dysfunctional when addressing 21st century i
ssues from a long term, national and global perspective. It suggested an increase in public funding for long term research an
d
supporting infrastructure and an acceleration of transition of government research to the aerospace sector, recognizing that
gove
rnment must assist industry by providing insight into its long

term research programs, and industry
needs to provide to government on its research priorities. It urged the federal government must remove unnecessary barriers t
o international sales of defens
e products, and implement other initiatives that strengthen transnational
partnerships to enhance national security, noting that
U.S. national security and procurement policies represent some of the most burdensome restrictions affecting U.S. industry co
mp
etitiveness
. Private

public partnerships were also
to be encouraged. It also noted that without constant vigilance and investment, vital capabilities in our defense industrial
base will be lost, and so recommended a fenced amount of research and developmen
t budget, and significantly
increase in the investment in basic aerospace research to increase opportunities to gain experience in the workforce by enabl
ing breakthrough aerospace capabilities through continuous development of new experimental systems
with

or without a requirement for production. Such experimentation was deemed to be essential to sustain the critical skills to co
nceive, develop, manufacture and maintain advanced systems and potentially

provide
expanded capability to the warfighter.
A top pr
iority was increased investment in

basic aerospace research which
fosters
an

efficient
, secure, and safe aerospace
transportation system
, and suggested the establishment of national
technology demonstration goals,

which included reducing the cost and time
to space by 50%. It concluded that,
“America must exploit and explore space to assure national and planetary security, economic benefit and scientific
discovery
. At the same time, the United States must overcome the obstacles that jeopardize its ability to

sustain
leadership in space.”
An SBSP program would be a powerful expression of this imperative
.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





12

Aerospace is
integral

to the American competitiveness and economy

direct market and
spinoff tech

AIA 09

[Aerospace Industries Association of America.

“Aerospace and Defense: The Strength to Lift
America”. 2009. http://www.aia
-
aerospace.org/assets/wp_strength_aug09.pdf.]

As the U.S. economy moves through uncertain times,
America’s aerospace industry remains a powerful, reliable
engine of employment, inn
ovation, and export income
.
Aerospace contributed $95.1billion in
export sales to America’s economy last year.

Conservatively
, U.S. aerospace sales alone account for 3
-
5
percent of our country’s gross domestic product, and every aerospace dollar yields an
extra $1.50
to $3 in further economic activity.
Aerospace products and services are pillars of our nation’s
security and competitiveness
. In these challenging times,
the aerospace industry is solidly and reliably
contributing strongly to the national econo
my

and the lives of millions of Americans. We strongly believe that keeping this
economic workhorse on track is in America’s best interest, To accomplish this, our government must develop policies that stre
ngthen the positions of all
workers in all industr
ies, especially economic producers like aerospace and defense. This paper explains what’s at stake, and ways to ensure that a

proven
economic success continues to endure and thrive. A High
-
Skilled People
Business
The aerospace

and defense
industry

directly

employs 844,000 Americans, located in every state of the union


and
supports more than
two million jobs

in related fields
. 3 Our people bring a diverse set of skills and capabilities to their jobs: engineers on the cutting edge of
advanced materials, str
uctures and information technology; machinists fabricating complex shapes and structures; and technicians from almost every d
egree
field, testing, applying and integrating the latest technologies. Most of these positions are high
-
skill, quality jobs, payin
g above average wages. Production
workers average $29.93 an hour; 4 entry
-
level engineers average more than $74,000 a year, with more senior engineers well into six figures. 5 And that
employment has grown steadily for years.
Many of these jobs are unique,

and require skills that take time to
develop
. It takes ten years for a degreed aerospace engineer to master the intricacies of aerospace vehicle designs. Technicians ski
lled in applying stealth
coatings, programmers fluent in satellite
-
control algorithms,

metallurgists expert in high
-
temperature jet engine design
--

these skills and many more are very
hard to replace. Because many of our programs involve national security, America’s aerospace and defense industry relies on h
ome
-
grown talent. Of the more
th
an 32,000 jobs open in the industry last April, 53 percent required U.S. citizenship. 6 These jobs can’t be sent overseas. Th
at’s why we are increasingly
working with educators at federal, state, and local levels in many ways ─ adopting schools, sponsoring

competitions, providing internships and scholarships
and other measures. We are also advocating national education and R&D policies that will advance American innovation and tech
nological leadership in all
sectors of the economy. A Good Trade Government p
olicies that advance free and fair trade in global markets are vital to our industry and our country
.
Aerospace brings in the biggest foreign trade surplus of any manufacturing sector
. 7 The
industry’s $57 billion surplus in 2008 came from exporting nearly

40 percent of all aerospace
production and, during some economic quarters, nearly 70 percent of civil aircraft and
components. 8 That’s American economic growth being paid for by other countries’ money.

And it can
only happen when government policies allo
w the things American workers build to compete fairly in international markets. Securing the Nation America’s
battle against terrorism is a fundamentally new kind of conflict, in timely information and rapid, coordinated threat respons
es are critical to su
ccess.
Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, along with the tools necessary to integrate and disseminate critical informati
on, are key to anticipating and
preventing terrorist attacks. America’s aerospace and defense companies provide the advanced

systems that make this new kind of threat response possible.
When specific targets are identified, more traditional means can be used to neutralize a threat. But America’s military hardw
are urgently needs
modernization. The 1980s defense build
-
up is now 2
5 years old, and systems acquired then are in need of replacement. The decade of 2010
-
19 is the crucial
time to reset, recapitalize and modernize our military forces. Not only are many of our systems reaching the end of their des
igned lives, but America’s
military
forces are using their equipment at many times the programmed rates in the harsh conditions of combat, wearing out equipment
prematurely. Delaying
modernization will make it even harder to address and effectively address global threats in the futu
re. Defense modernization is not optional. To defend
America’s global interests in 2018 and beyond, our military must be able to project its power globally, around the clock, in
any weather. We must be able, for
example, to ensure energy supplies can pass
through the Straits of Hormuz unimpeded. Our free trade must not be blocked on the open seas, and our economy
not be must not be impeded by foreign aggression. When a natural disaster strikes a friendly nation, we must be able to respo
nd quickly. America’s

armed
forces must be able to meet any and all challenges to our security, safety, freedom and prosperity, as they always have in th
e past. America has deferred
defense and aerospace modernization to the point that modernization and recapitalization are in
creasingly lengthy and expensive. The bill is now due. If we
want to be able to influence events and protect our interests overseas, we must revitalize the “arsenal of democracy” through

consistent defense investment.
At the same time, America must adapt i
ts defenses to new kinds of threats. A large
-
scale attack on information networks could pose a serious economic threat,
impeding or preventing commerce conducted electronically. This would affect not only ATM transactions, but commercial and gov
ernmental f
und transfers
and the just
-
in
-
time orders on which the manufacturing sector depends. It could even pose threats to Americans’ lives, interrupting the trans
fer of medical
data, disrupting power grids, even disabling emergency communications links. In partne
rship with the government, our industry is on the forefront of
securing these networks and combating cyber attack. The American people also demand better security for the U.S. homeland, fr
om gaining control of our
borders to more effective law enforcement
and disaster response. The aerospace industry provides the tools that help different forces and jurisdictions
communicate with each other; monitor critical facilities and unpatrolled borders; and give advance warning of natural disaste
rs, among other capab
ilities. In
many cases, government is the only market for these technologies. Therefore, sound government policy is essential not only to

maintain current capabilities,
but to ensure that a technology and manufacturing base exists to develop new ones. Civi
l Aviation: The World Standard Commercial aviation is a vital engine
for the American economy. The U.S. civil aviation industry (which includes aircraft, engines and parts manufacturers, airline
s, airports, and general aviation)
directly or indirectly gene
rates over ten million jobs and $1.1 trillion in economic activity. 9 All of that economic activity is funneled through the n
ation’s air
traffic system. As long as the system can accommodate the demand for air travel and just
-
in
-
time express delivery, the
growth of jobs and economic activity
jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





13

associated with civil aviation will continue. That system is safe, but antiquated and highly inefficient. ATC modernization i
s essential to helping airlines return
to profitability. It is essential to reducing fuel cons
umption and airplane emissions. If, however, the national airspace is not modernized to handle demand, the
stimulating effect of America’s commercial aviation industry is at risk. The key to sustainable growth in the aviation sector

is the timely implement
ation of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen, the 21 st century, satellite
-
based air traffic management system designed to replace the current
1960s era infrastructure. The Federal 9 Federal Aviation Administration, The Economic Impac
t of Civil Aviation on the U.S. Economy, 2007. 2009 Aerospace
Industries Association of America, Inc. Aviation Administration reports that without the funding necessary to research, devel
op and build NextGen, gridlock at
our airports and in our skies will
cost the United States $22 billion in lost economic activity in the near term and over $40 billion annually by 2033. 10
Already, the Air Transport Association estimates flight delays in 2007 cost the traveling public more than $4 billion in lost

productivi
ty and wages. 11 All
forecasts point to robust growth in commercial air traffic in the coming years. As it develops, the nation’s air traffic syst
em must be ready to handle twice the
traffic it handles today. The aerospace industry knows it has an obligati
on to grow responsibly, and it understands that environmentally sustainable growth is
not only good for the planet, but also good for the economic health of the industry and the nation as a whole. As Rep. Jerry
Costello, Chairman of the House
Transportatio
n and Infrastructure Aviation Subcommittee, wrote, “Airlines, airports, manufacturers and the Air Force are at the forefront
of developing better
planes, technology and operating procedures to conserve fuel and reduce emissions. They are a perfect example
of how innovation is driven by necessity, as
fuel costs are the largest single expenditure for the airlines. Moreover, the industry is leading the way in research on alte
rnative fuels. Besides the positive
impact on the bottom line, there are obvious posit
ive environmental impacts from these efforts, with lessons for the rest of the country.” 12 A 10
-
year, $20
billion investment in NextGen, in time to meet future demand, will mean millions of new high
-
paying jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars in econo
mic
activity. Moreover, this growth will come from an industry with a proven track record in improving fuel efficiency and overal
l environmental stewardship.
These are two of the nation’s top priorities: economic growth and recovery, and a cleaner environm
ent. Very few government investments have the potential
to positively influence two policy objectives at the same time. This is an investment we cannot afford to postpone. Space Tec
hnology is an Investment in Our
Economy
What do farmers, banks, and the fir
e department all have in common? They all rely on a
space infrastructure in orbit above the Earth.
Everyday activities
, taken for granted by many
Americans,
are supported or even driven by space systems
.

These systems are hidden to us, and rarely noticed u
nless the
services they provide are interrupted. However, the lack of visibility of space systems doesn’t diminish their
importance


both our nation’s
economy and national security are tied directly to this critical infrastructure
. Communications
drives t
oday’s commerce, and space systems are a chief global conduit of our nation’s commercial
and national security communications. The Internet, email, cell phones, and PDAs have all become
the standard for businesses and recreation. Direct
-
to
-
home television
and satellite radio have
become standard in many American homes and automobiles.
These all depend on our satellite
communications systems
. Similarly, the Global Positioning System, originally designed for
military use, is now relied on for banking transact
ions,

ATMs, improved agriculture, air traffic and ground transportation
systems and by emergency responders.
All of these applications add up to substantial economic activity.

Of
$202.6 billion in aerospace industry sales in 2007, direct space system indus
try sales topped $39
billion.

13 Total direct and indirect global space activity for 2007 was $251 billion. 14 Even harder to quantify


but no less valuable


is
the
impact that technology spin
-
offs from space activities bring to our economy
. In 2007 alon
e, NASA
reported 143 opportunities for technology transfer to commercial applications, ranging from
applications such as high
-
temperature composites, water vapor sensing systems, fire
-
resistant
steel reinforcement, and flexible solar cells
. 15 Space is cer
tainly becoming more crowded and contested. Using systems developed
by America’s aerospace industry, the Defense Department currently tracks over 18,000 man
-
made objects in the Earth’s orbit


many of which could threaten
civil, commercial, and national se
curity space systems. In such an environment, investments in sensors, tracking, threat assessment, and other space
protection and situational awareness capabilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of an unexpected catastrophic space syst
em failure. The
cost and
difficulty involved in developing and deploying space systems alone necessitates this infrastructure be adequately protected.

America’s space systems also
need to be replaced and updated routinely. We take the ability to refuel our automobiles and

lawnmowers for granted, but for space systems, it is highly
problematic


if not infeasible


to perform maintenance or even refuel them. Space systems have limited life spans and, at today’s pace of technology, quickly

become obsolete. The average age of

the 15 GPS IIA satellites in orbit is nearly 14 years, despite an original design life span of 7 ½ years. 16 Other critical
space systems are similarly in need of upgrade at a time when other nations are rapidly modernizing their own space infrastru
cture.

Space systems often go
unnoticed in our daily lives, but their impact is very real. It is imperative that we plan and budget for the routine replace
ment, modernization, and protection
of these systems, and their supporting Earth
-
based infrastructure, to e
nsure the services upon which we depend on a daily basis are there when we need
them. The Strength to Lift America
Every dollar invested in the aerospace industry has a triple effect. It helps
keep good jobs in the United States; creates the products that
bring enormous revenues from
other countries
; and yields the security and economic benefits that flow uniquely from America’s civil aviation, space, and defense leadersh
ip. It is a
privilege to contribute to our nation’s success, and we must continue doing

what we have shown we do best


k
eep America strong and working.

The US is key to the global economy.

David
McCormick, 2008

(former under secretary for International Affairs in the U. S. Treasury
Department, May 12, 2008, Newsweek. Online. Lexis/Nexis.

Accessed, May 4, 2009).

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





14

Our friends around
the world should gain confidence from the fact that U.S
. policymakers and
their international counterparts are
taking aggressive, targeted actions to stabilize the financial
markets
,

to reduce their impact on the economy and the individuals negatively affected by the turmoil and to protect against the same
mistakes' being
repeated. There are already some early indicators that these actions are beginning to have the desired effect, as
markets appear to be gaining confidence and
the availability of credit has improved modestly. Flexibility and resilience in the face of such unexpected financial
-
market turmoil and economic hardship are
among America's greatest strengths. Our objective is

to help individuals and markets recover as quickly as possible, while avoiding actions that cause new
problems that would hurt our economy in the long run.
This storm, too, shall pass,
and the United States will emerge, as
it always has, as a
driver of gr
owth and innovation for the global economy
.

Economic collapse causes nuclear war
-

extinction

Broward 9

((Member of Triond) http://newsflavor.com/opinions/will
-
an
-
economic
-
collapse
-
kill
-
you/)

Now its time to
look at the consequences of a failing world econo
my
. With five offical nations having nuclear weapons, and
four more likely to have them
there could be major consequences of another world war
.
The first thing that will happen
after an economic collapse will be war over resources
.

The United States curren
cy will become useless and will have no way of securing reserves.
The United States has little to no capacity to produce oil, it is totatlly dependent on foreign oil.
If the United States stopped getting foreign oil, the
government would go to no ends to s
ecure more,
if there were a war with any other major power over oil
, like Russia or
China,
these wars would most likely involve nuclear weapons.

Once one nation launches a nuclear weapon,
there would of
course be retaliation
, and with five or more countrie
s with nuclear weapons there would most likely be a world nuclear
war.
The risk is so high that acting to save the economy is the most important issue

facing us in the 21st century
.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





15

Contention
5

is Solvency

Solar Power Satellites are sustainable, cheap, an
d technologically feasible

Lior
, Noam Lior,
University of Pennsylvania, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, Philadelphia,
PA, April
20
11

“Solar orbital power: Sustainability analysis”,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005931, Date accessed June 24, 2011

We have analyzed some economic, environmental and social aspects of sustainability for electricity production in
solar space power plants using current technology. While space solar power is still way too expensive for launches
from the Earth, there are se
veral technological possibilities to reduce this price.
For a
large scale application

of
orbital power stations both
environmental impact and costs can be significantly reduced
.
The first option is to build and employ reusable space
vehicles for launching
the satellites, instead of rockets, which is the main recommendation by NASA, and the second option is to build the satellite
s and rockets in space (e.g. on the Moon). An old NASA estimate shows that this would
be economical for as few as 30 orbital satell
ites with 300

GWe of total power [17].
The costs could be even further reduced, if the first satellite is launched into the low Earth orbit, and then uses its produ
ced energy to lift itself into a
higher GEO orbit or even to the Moon [35]
. If the satellite
s and rockets are then built on the Moon in robotic factories, we estimate that:
-

The environmental impact of the orbital solar power plants would become significantly lower
than for any Earth
-
based power plant except perhaps nuclear fusion
. Measured by CO
2 emissions, it would be about 0.5

kg per W of useful power, and
this number would even decrease with improved technology and larger scope;
-

The
production cost of the orbital
solar

power plants
could

also
become significantly lower than

for
any Earth
-
base
d power plant

except perhaps
nuclear fusion.

It
is estimated as about US $1 per W of useful power, and would also decrease with improved technology and larger scope;
-

The social impact of cheap and clean energy from space is more difficult to estimate, bec
ause space power

satellites seem to be connected to a significant loss of jobs.
It is however difficult to estimate the benefits of a large
amount of cheap clean energy, which would most likely more than offset the negative effects of lost jobs, and we
estimate that about 3 jobs would be created in the economy per 1

MW of installed useful power.
One could

therefore
expect a net positive effect of solar

power
satellites on sustainability
. These effects seem to be the most positive, if
thermal power satell
ites are used, which
are built in a robotic factory on the Moon and then launched into the GEO orbit.
The concept presented in this paper has some significant advantages
over many other proposed concepts for large scale energy production on Earth. For exam
ple, nuclear fusion promises to become a clean and cheap source of energy, however

even in the best case
scenario it can’t become operational before 2040.
Solar
orbital power concept can become operational
in less than
a decade

and produce large amounts of

energy in two

decades. It is also important that
the price as well

as
environmental impact of solar orbital power are
expected to decrease with scale
. In addition to expected increase in
employment this makes solar orbital power an important alternative t
o other sustainable energy sources.


Earth orbit, and it would take many thousands of years before the SPS's orbit could possibly decay to cause atmospheric entry
. Notably, large scale space development using asteroid
-
derived fuel propellants will insure
that dead satellites in low orbit do not crash to Earth, even old satellites

Funding isn’t enough
-

government R&D is key to successful SPS

George
Friedman,

is an American political scientist and author. He is the founder, chief intelligence officer, financial
overseer, and CEO of the private intelligence corporation Stratfor,
201
1

“The Next Decade: Where We’ve Been and Where
We’re
Going”,http://books.google.c
om/books?id=y5plTzPTw8YC&pg=PA235&dq=Space+based+solar+power&hl=en&ei=99cDTq3b
HIfEgAfTypSODg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Space%20based%20sol
ar%20power&f=false, Date accessed June 23, 2011

At the same time
we must pre
pare for long
-
term increases in energy generation

from nonhydrocarbon sources
-
sources that are cheaper and located in areas that the United States will not need to control by send
-
ing in armies. In
my view,
this is space
-
based solar power.

Therefore, what
should be under way and what is under way is private
-
sector development of inexpensive booster rockets. Mitsubishi has invested
inspace
-
based solar power to the tune of about $21 billion. Eutope's EAB is also investing, and California`s Pacific Gas and Ele
ctric has signed a con
-
tract to purchase solar energy from space by 2016, although I think ful
-
fillment of that
contract on that schedule is unlikely. However, whether the source is space
-
based solar power or some other technology, the president must make
certain that development along several axes is under way and that the potential for
building them is realistic. Enormous amounts of increased energy are needed, and the likely source of the technology, based o
n history
, is the U.S. Department of Defense. T
hus the
government will absorb the cost of early develop
-
ment and private investment will reap the rewards. The
We are in
a period in which t
he state is more powerful than the mar
-
ket, and

in which the state
has more resources
.
Markets
are superb at exploi
ting existing science

and early technology,
but

they are
not nearly as good in basic
research
.

From aircraft to nuclear power to moon Hightsto the Internet to global positioning satellites,
the state is
much better at investing in long
-
term innovation
.

Gov
ernment is inefficient, but that inefficiency and the ability to absorb the cost of inefficiency are at the heart of basic re
search. When
we look at the projects we need to undertake in the coming decade, the organization most likely to execute them succes
sfully is the Department of Defense. There is nothing particularly new in this intertwining of technology,
geopolitics, and economic well
-
being. The Philistines dominated the Levantine coast because they were great at making armor. To connect and control t
heir empire, the Roman army built roads and bridges that are still in use. During a
war aimed at global domination, the German military created the foundation of modern rocketry; in countering, the British cam
e up with radar. Lending powers and those conte
nding for power constantly find themselves under
military and economic pressure. They respond to it by inventing extraordinary new technologies. The United States is obviousl
y that sort of power. It is currently under economic pressure but declining milita
ry pressure. Such a time is
not usually when the United States undertakes dramatic new ventures
.
The government is heavily Funding one area we have discussed, finding cures
for degenerative diseases. The Department of Defense is funding a great deal of res
earch into robotics. But

the
fundamental problem, energy, has not had

its due
. For this decade, the choices are pedestrian. The danger is that the
president will fritter away his authority on proj
-
ects such as conservation, wind power, and terrestrial sola
r power,
which can’t yield the magnitude of results required.

The problem with natural gas in particular is that it is
jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





16

pedestrian. But like so much of what will take place in this decade, accepting the ordinary and obvious is called for
Hrs t
-
followed by g
reat dreams quietly expressed.


The USfg is key to aerospace competition
-

export controls and mergers have weakened
the private sector

ICAF
, the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, a senior service school providing graduate level educationto sernior

members of the US armed forces, Spring
200
7
,

“The Final Report: The Space Industry” Industrial College of the Armed Forces,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi
-
bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA475093&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

The U.S
. government
has
long understood that access
to space

and space capabilities
are essential to

U.S.
economic

prosperity and national security
. U.S.
space policy from 1962 to 2006 served to ensure national leadership in space and governance of space activities, including sc
ience, exploration, and inter
national cooperation. The current
Administration has issued five space
-
specific policies to provide goals and objectives for the U.S. Space Program. In addition to the National Space Policy, these

policies are Space Exploration; Commercial Remote Sensing;
Space Transportation; and Space
-
Based Positioning, Navigation, and
Timing.
Each policy endeavors to maintain U.S. space supremacy
, reserving the right to defend assets in space, and to continue to

exploit space for national security and economic prosperity
. 9
America’s success in space is dependent on government involvement
, motivation, and inspiration
. It is
significant that the Bush Administration has taken the time and effort to update all of the U.S. space policies.
The
consolidation of the major space
industry players and

a general
down
-
turn in

the
commercial space market demand,
coupled with export restrictions
, has
left

the U.S. space industry reliant on the government for revenue and
technology development
.


Federal development is key to spur the pri
vate sector

MORRING

0
7
, Frank: Senior Space Technology Editor, Aerospace Daily and Defense Report

[“NSSO backs space solar power,” http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/solar101107.x
ml]


As a clean source of energy

that would be independent of foreign supplies in the strife
-
torn Middle East and elsewhere, space solar power (SSP) could
ease America's longstanding strategic energy vulnerability, according to the "interim assessment" released at a press confere
nce and
on the Web site
spacesolarpower.wordpress.com. And the U.S. military could meet tactical energy needs for forward
-
deployed forces with a demonstration system,
eliminating the need for a long logistical tail to deliver fuel for terrestrial generators while

reducing risk for eventual large
-
scale commercial
development of the technology, the report says. "
The business case
still doesn't close, but
it's closer than ever
," said
Marine Corps Lt.
Col. Paul E.
Damphousse of the NSSO
, in presenting his office's re
port.
That could change if

the Pentagon were to act as
an anchor tenant

for a
demonstration

SSP system,
paying above
-
market rates

for power generated with a collection plant in geostationary
orbit beaming power to U.S. forces abroad or in the continental
U.S., according to

Charles
Miller
, CEO of Constellation Services
International and
director of the Space Frontier Foundation. By buying down the risk with a demonstration at the tactical
level,
the U.S. government could spark a new industry

able to meet n
ot just U.S. energy needs, but those of its allies and
the developing world as well.
The technology

essentially
exists
, and needs only to be matured.
A risk buy
-
down by
government could make that happen
, 4

experiments on materials that might be used in bui
lding the large structures needed to collect sunlight
in meaningful amounts. The Internet
-
based group of
experts

who prepared the report for the NSSO
recommended that the U.S. government
organize itself to

tackle the problem of
develop
ing
SSP
; use its resources
to "retire

a major portion of the
technical risk

for
business development; establish tax and other policies to
encourage private development

of SSP,
and "become an early
demonstrator
/adopter/customer" of SSP to spur its development. Th
at
, in turn,
could spur development of space launch
and other industries
. Damphousse said
a functioning reusable launch vehicle

-

preferably single
-
stage
-
to
-
orbit
-

probably would be
required to develop a full
-
scale SSP infrastructure

in geostationary orbi
t.
That
, in turn,
could enable utilization of the moon and
exploration of Mars under NASA's vision for space exploration
.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





17

A/T Obama Will Not Pass/Support

Obama will push alt energy inevitably

Geman 11


[Ben Geman, Writer for “The Hill”, 7/6/11,
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2
-
wire/677
-
e2
-
wire/169941
-
obama
-
congress
-
lacks
-
urgency
-
on
-
energy
-
bill
, Caplan]

President
Obama

on Wednesday
knocked Capitol Hill inaction
on legislation
to curb oil use and called on lawmakers
to send him a “robust” plan
.

House Republicans


with limited Democratic backing


have passed several bills to
speed up and expand offshore drilling, and Senate GOP lawma
kers have called for similar measures.
But
Obama

c
riticized

what he called
a lack of focus on weaning the nation off oil.

“Unfortunately
we have not seen a sense of
urgency coming out of Congress

over the last several months on this issue.
Most of the
rhetoric has been about, ‘let’s
produce more,’” Obama said

during the White House’s “Twitter Town Hall” event. “Well, we can produce more, and I
am committed to that, but the fact is we only have 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, we use 25 percen
t of the
world’s oil.
We can’t drill our way out of this problem,” Obama said

at the White House social media event.
Obama
touted increased fuel economy standards

and other steps the administration has
taken using its existing authorities.

But
the White Ho
use is also seeking Capitol Hill
action on several measure
s, even though a major energy bill faces tough odds in a divided Congress. Administration energy goals include $7,500 rebates

for purchasing electric vehicles. More broadly,
a top White House energy

adviser recently suggested that legislation aimed at spurring
deployment of electric cars could form the basis for a bipartisan energy compromise.


I’d like to see robust legislation in Congress that actually took some steps to reduce oil dependency,” Oba
ma said
, although he did not provide specifics. He said oil will remain a major energy source for
some time even with a “full throttle” push for clean energy, but added that reducing reliance will have major benefits. “
If we had a goal, or we are just redu
cing our dependence on oil each year in a staggered set of steps, it would save consumers in their pocketbook, it would make
our
businesses more efficient and less subject to the whims of the spot oil

market, it would make us less vulnerable to the kinds o
f disruptions that have occurred
because of what happened in the Middle East this spring, and it would drastically cut down on our carbon
resources,” Obama said.
The White House is

also
pushing for expanded green energy

R&D funding, a
nd a “clean
energy sta
ndard” that would mandate a major increase in low
-
carbon power supplies from utilities (a measure that
f
aces especially steep hurdles).

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





18

A/T
Space Mil

No perception of military threat

it’s an undesirable weapon

NSSO
, Report to the National Security Space O
ffice, October 10,
200
7
, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm//ZY

When first confronted with the idea of

gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a space
-

based solar power
(
SBSP
) satellite,
people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a

powerful weapon?
” Depending on their bias that
could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating
weapons to space.
But the NSSO is
not interested in space
-

based solar

power
as a weapon.
The DoD is not looking

to
SBSP
for new armaments

capabilities
. Its motivation for study
-

ing SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a
reasonable cost any
-

where in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of infrastructure needed to
supp
ort military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become increas
-

ingly
costly.
SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist

in much less
-

expensive options.

For example, the nation alread
y has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy
large enemy targets.
SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The
peak intensity

of the microwave beam
that reaches the ground is less than

a quarter of noon
-
sun
-

l
ight
; a worker could safely walk in the center of the
beam
. The physics of microwave trans
-

mission and deliberate safe
-
design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre
-
determined maximum inten
-

sity level.
Additionally, by coupl
ing the transmitting beam to a unique ground
-
based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted
.
SBSP would not be a
precision weapon
. Today’s militaries are looking for more precise and low
er collateral
-
damage weapons.

At several kilometers
across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot indi
-

vidual targets

even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm. SBSP is an anti
-
war capability. America can use the exis
ting technical expertise in its
military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over energy scarci
ty, lessens the need to inter
-

vene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the

world climb
from poverty to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change
.
Solving the long
-
term energy scar
-

city problem is too
vital to the world’s future to have it derailed by a miscon
-

cept
ion that space solar power might somehow be used as
a weapon.

That is why it is so important to educate people about this technol
-

ogy and to continue to conduct the
r
esearch in an open environment.

jamaicaitalian_013370fe
-
6e64
-
4341
-
bb4f
-
184ad3004979.docx



DDW 2011

1

Last printed
11/18/2013 7:33:00 AM





19

A/T Private Development

Private Development unsustainable



Solyndra proves

Reuters
,
Energy loans official leaves in wake of Solyndra
, 10/6/
11
,
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/energy
-
loans
-
official
-
leaves
-
wake
-
solyndra
-
01
0504758.html

The Obama administration said on Thursday its
top energy loans official

was
step
ping
down, following

a widening
probe into the embarrassing
collapse of a solar panel company that got $535 million

in federal support
. Jonathan Silver,
a venture capitalist who had also worked for the Clinton administration, was leaving because the loan program had allocated a
ll its funding, Energy
Secretary Steven Chu said.
Silver's resignation comes, however, as Republicans in Congres
s probe the White House's role
in backing government
loans given to Solyndra
, a California solar panel maker,
in 2009.

Solyndra
filed for
bankruptcy in August
, and is
under investigation by the FBI
.

President Barack Obama, who spoke at a news conference be
fore Silver's
resignation was announced, defended the Energy Department's handling of the loans program and said the government should not
back down from its
support for clean energy
. Silver joined the Energy Department after the Solyndra guarantee was awa
rded, but he was in
charge in February when the government agreed to restructure the debt as
the company ran out of cash
. In that
restructuring, some $75 million in private investment was ranked ahead of the government in the event of
bankruptcy. That priv
ate fund was backed by a prominent Obama fundraiser.

Silver, under grilling by House of
Representatives Republicans last month in a hearing, told them the decision was carefully weighed by lawyers and analysts. "S
o you're saying no one
should be fired?" as
ked Cliff Stearns, the lawmaker leading the probe. "I'm saying that we are doing the best job we know how to do," Silver said
.
Silver's resignation "
does not solve the problem
," Stearns and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred
Upton said in a statem
ent, vowing to continue their investigation.

Silver did not return a phone call to his home on Thursday evening.