Download - Minnesota Urban Debate League

EV Negative: Index
EV Neg: Solvency Ans--1NC .............................................................................................................. 2
EV Neg: Solvency Ans--Ext ................................................................................................................ 3
EV Neg: Economy Ans--1NC .............................................................................................................. 4
EV Neg: Economy Ans--Ext ................................................................................................................ 5
EV Neg: Oil Ans--1NC ........................................................................................................................ 6
EV Neg: Oil Ans--Ext .......................................................................................................................... 7
EV Neg: Warming Ans--1NC (1/2) ...................................................................................................... 8
EV Neg: Warming Ans--1NC (2/2) ...................................................................................................... 9
EV Neg: Warming Ans--Ext (1/2) ...................................................................................................... 10
EV Neg: Warming Ans--Ext (2/2) ...................................................................................................... 11
EV Neg: Air Pollution Ans ................................................................................................................. 12
EV Neg: Grid Reliability Ans ............................................................................................................. 13
EV Neg: Solvency Ans--1NC
Range is still too limited for EVs to be effective
Nicholas D. Loris, research associate, “Economic Realities of the Electric Car,” WEBMEMO n. 3116, Heritage
Founation, 1—24—11, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/economic-realities-of-the-electric-car,
accessed 6-3-12.
Limited battery range is at the forefront of concerns. The Chevy Volt, for instance, receives 93 miles-per-gallon equivalent (MPGe) in
electric-only mode, 37 MPG in gasoline-only mode, and a “combined composite” rating of 60 MPG. Advertising 93 MPGe is particularly
questionable, since the car can drive in electric-only mode for only 25–50 miles in temperate conditions. Hills and extreme temperature
conditions reduce even this moderate range as they put additional strain on batteries. Further, it is difficult to design a battery for optimal
performance over a wide range of temperatures. Batteries could be rated for certain climates, but their usefulness across regions would
be minimal. Complete or near-complete battery discharges (using that full range) significantly shorten a battery’s useful life.
EVs are not ready—lagging battery tech
Gayathri Vaidyanathan, “SAFE at Home—Energy Group no Longer a Diamond in the Rough,” GREENWIRE, 1—
13—12, npg.
Some transportation experts say electric cars are not yet ready for prime time. The present batteries are good for creating a surge of
energy when starting or accelerating a car, but they are not efficient at storing a large amount of energy. Research is improving batteries
so they can better create the surges of power needed by hybrids, but the storage issue has not yet been solved. Perhaps a new battery
chemistry will need to be invented, experts say.
Even a concerted push will only result in very slow electrification
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
The Obama Administration has set a goal of having 1 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on the road by 2015. Others have set even
more ambitious goals. J.D. Power and Associates estimate U.S. sales of hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and battery electric
vehicles could reach 1.8 million by 2020.13 However, achieving either goal depends on how fast manufacturers ramp up production,
whether subsidies are maintained, economic conditions, and the price of gasoline. Even if the President’s optimistic projections are
realized, electric vehicles will still comprise only a small percentage of on road cars and light duty vehicles in 2020 and perhaps beyond,
and that achievement will come at a very high cost to the taxpayer.
Consumer cost concerns are real—“break even” point is well beyond the expected lifespan of the
vehicles
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
J.D. Power and Associates has conducted an extensive study of PHEV potential. They concluded that higher vehicle cost and reduced
performance and comfort are a trade off for increased fuel economy. In addition, potential fuel savings have to be reduced by premium
fuel requirements and higher electricity costs. Professor George Hoffer, a transportation expert at Virginia Commonwealth University,
estimates that a Leaf owner would have to drive 150,000 miles to break even at current gasoline prices.19 The Leaf battery is only
guaranteed for 75,000 miles, so a replacement would be needed in addition to other maintenance. When General Motors introduced the
EV-1 to meet California’s zero emission regulation, it got around this problem by leasing vehicles instead of selling them.
EV Neg: Solvency Ans--Ext
Too slow to solve—even rapid adoption will barely displace oil-powered cars in the medium-term
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), ELECTRIFICATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, MIT
Energy Initiative Symposium, 4—8—10, p. 25.
Participants concluded this panel by discussing market projections for EVs. Timescales are extremely important to understanding the
potential for market penetration of EVs or any of the alternatives. Achieving an EV market penetration of 1% by 2020 would entail a 30%
year-over-year growth rate for 10 years. This growth rate would be greater than the fastest growth rate in the automotive industry to date
of 10% year-over-year. Further, a 40% PHEV penetration scenario would only displace 7% of oil consumption. These figures
demonstrate the difficulty of fundamentally changing the LDV fleet.
Electric cars are not ready for widespread adoption
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
As more attention is paid to electric cars and the advocacy promoting them, the evidence is clear that they are not commercially viable
without large subsidies and that the technology to make them viable is still under development. The demand for the current generation
hybrids has dropped as gasoline prices declined from their 2008 highs.14 Analysts have estimated that gasoline would have to increase
to $4 a gallon or more to stimulate demand for hybrid electric vehicles.
People will not want to buy electric cars—range anxiety
Louis Woodhill, “Electric Cars Are an Extraordinarily Bad Idea,” FORBES, 9—14—11,
www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/09/14/electric-cars-are-an-extraordinarily-bad-idea/, accessed 7-14-12.
The short and highly variable range of a BEV, coupled with its very long recharging time, creates the phenomenon of “range anxiety”.
The car takes over your life. You are forced to plan every trip carefully, and to forgo impromptu errands in order to conserve precious
electrons. And, when you are driving your BEV, you are constantly studying the readouts worrying about whether you are going to
make it through the day. Reviews of the Leaf are filled with accounts of drivers turning off the A/C in the summer and the heat in the
winter. Some drivers even decided that they couldn’t risk charging their cell phones, using the radio, or turning on the windshield
wipers. Between subsidies and fuel economy mandates, the federal government may be able to force auto companies to manufacture
1,000,000 electric cars by 2015. However, it won’t be able to force people to buy them. As the economics and operating characteristics
of BEVs become more widely understood, interest in BEVs will wane.
EVs are simply not economical
Louis Woodhill, “Electric Cars Are an Extraordinarily Bad Idea,” FORBES, 9—14—11,
www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/09/14/electric-cars-are-an-extraordinarily-bad-idea/, accessed 7-14-12.
Unfortunately, electric cars are about to do a barrier crash into economic reality, and all the airbags in the world won’t be able to save
them. The taxpayers’ $2.4 billion is destined to join Obama’s $535 million investment in solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra at the
bottom of the crony-capitalism “stimulus” rat hole. The Nissan Leaf is the first mass-produced “battery electric vehicle” (BEV). It uses
state-of-the-art lithium batteries. Despite this, the Leaf makes no sense at all. It costs more than twice as much ($35,430 vs. $17,250)
as a comparable Nissan Versa, but it is much less capable. The Leaf accelerates more slowly than a Versa and has only about 25% of
the range. At $0.11/KWH for electricity and $4.00/gallon for gasoline, you would have to drive the Leaf 164,000 miles to recover its
additional purchase cost. Counting interest, the miles to payback is 197,000 miles. Because it is almost impossible to drive a Leaf more
than 60 miles a day, the payback with interest would take more than nine years.
PHEV’s will be more expensive—difficult to cut cost of the batteries, will not be cost competitive
with gas-powered vehicles until 2030 or 2040
Paul Foley, Global Energy Fellow, Institute for Energy and the Environment, University of Vermont, “The Legal Regime
of Widespread Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Vermont Case Study,” ENERGY LAW JOURNAL v. 32,
2011, p. 107.
Due primarily to battery cost, PHEVs are expected to be significantly more expensive than conventional or hybrid vehicles. n44 In a
recent study, the National Academies of Science (NAS) characterized the potential for technology improvements to markedly reduce the
cost of Li-ion batteries as minimal. n45 According to the NAS study, a PHEV-40 is estimated to cost up to $ 18,000 more than the
conventional vehicle equivalent, while a PHEV-10 is expected to cost up to an additional $ 6,300. n46 Increased manufacturing costs
are anticipated to cause even greater consumer price increases. n47 The NAS therefore concludes [*107] that PHEV-10s will not be
cost-competitive with conventional vehicles until 2030, while PHEV-40s - such as the Volt - will not be cost-competitive until 2040. n48
EV Neg: Economy Ans--1NC
Electric cars won’t spur any meaningful job growth—“green jobs” are expensive, illusory
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
It is asserted that promoting technological innovations like electric cars will spur the creation of “green jobs.” The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has used that for some of its regulatory decisions, but these claims cannot pass the red face test. The
Department of Commerce, in commenting on one rule, concluded that jobs lost would greatly exceed any “green jobs” created. The
“green job” claim has to be looked at in terms of the net effect on employment and whether the investment to create them represents the
highest value use of those investments. While the government is acting to promote so-called “green jobs,” the definition of what they are
is not specific. In September, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its definition.10 Definitional matters aside, the real issue is
not green jobs versus other kind of jobs, it is what investments produce the highest value to the economy. Planting trees could be
considered a green job creating activity, but how those trees are planted is what is important. They could be planted with machines,
shovels, or table spoons. The latter two approaches would create a large number of jobs, but inefficiently and wastefully. Studies of
“green job” creation in Spain and elsewhere in the EU have reached the conclusion that they come at a steep price and at the expense
of a larger number of more productive jobs.11 These are not appealing trade-offs in the face of almost double digit unemployment.
Infrastructure spending does not stimulate the economy, only makes things worse—multiple
reasons
Veronique de Rugy, “Why Infrastructur Spending is a Bad Bet,” NATIONAL REVIEW, 9—8—11,
www.nationalreview.com/corner/276636/why-infrastructure-spending-bad-bet-veronique-de-rugy, accessed 4-6-12.
As we know, one of the things the president will call for tonight is more infrastructure spending. We have heard many times that
infrastructure spending, in one form or another, is the key to growth and job creation — and, in the president’s defense, he certainly isn’t
the only one who refers to stimulus and government spending as “investing” in infrastructure. No one disputes that American public
works need improving, and economists have long recognized the value of infrastructure. Roads, bridges, airports, and canals are the
conduits through which goods are exchanged. However, whatever its merits, infrastructure spending is unlikely to provide much of a
stimulus — and it certainly won’t provide the boost that the president will promise the American people tonight. For one thing, even
though Mark Zandi claims that the bang for the buck is significant when the government spends $1 on infrastructure ($1.44 in growth),
that’s just his opinion. The reality is that economists are far from having reached a consensus on what the actual return on infrastructure
spending is. As economists Eric Leeper, Todd Walker, and Shu-Chum Yang put it in a recent paper for the IMF: “Economists have
offered an embarrassingly wide range of estimated multipliers.” Among respected economists, some find larger multipliers and some
find negative ones. (Thanks Matt Mitchell for this great paper). Second, according to Keynesian economists, for spending to be
stimulative, it has to be timely, targeted, and temporary. Infrastructure spending isn’t any of that. That’s because infrastructure projects
involve planning, bidding, contracting, construction, and evaluation. Only $28 billion of the $45 billion in DOT money included in the
stimulus has been spent so far. We know that the stimulus money wasn’t targeted toward the areas that were hit the most by the
recession, but even if the funding were targeted, it still might not be stimulative. First, the same level of job poaching from existing jobs
would have happened; construction workers tend to be highly specialized, and skilled workers rarely suffer from high unemployment.
Many of the areas that were hardest hit by the recession are in decline because they have been producing goods and services that are
not, and will never be, in great demand. The overall value added by improving their roads is probably a lot less than that of new
infrastructure in growing areas that might have relatively little unemployment but do have great demand for more roads, schools, and
other types of long-term infrastructure. As for being temporary — which stimulus spending needs to be to work — what the president
will propose tonight is likely to cost the American people money for a very long time. Infrastructure spending tends to suffer from
massive cost overruns, waste, fraud, and abuse. A comprehensive study examining 20 nations on five continents (“Underestimating
Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?” by Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette K. Skamris Holm, and Søren L. Buhl) found that nine out of ten
public-works projects come in over budget. Cost overruns routinely range from 50 to 100 percent of the original estimate. For rail, the
average cost is 44.7 percent greater than the estimated cost at the time the decision was made. For bridges and tunnels, the equivalent
figure is 33.8 percent, for roads 20.4 percent. I should also add that I think it’s a mistake to assume that it is the role of the federal
government to pay for roads and highway expansions. With very few exceptions, most roads, bridges, and even highways are local
projects (state projects at most) by nature. The federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with them.
EV Neg: Economy Ans--Ext
Gas stations will lose out economically, even accounting for the potential of conversion to charging
stations
Danielle Changala, Research Associate, Institute for Energy and the Environment, University of Vermont and paul
Foley, Global Energy Fellow, Institute for Energy and the Environment, University of Vermont, “The Legal Regime of
Widespread Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Adoption: A Vermont Case Study,” ENERGY LAW JOURNAL v. 32, 2011,
p. 117.
Gasoline station owners will be impacted by PHEVs. PHEVs lessen the need for conventional, gas-powered automobiles; this is not in
the gas station owner's long-term interest. However, to the extent that gasoline stations become co-existent with public charging
facilities, gas station owners can be expected to derive at least some benefit from PHEVs. Nonetheless, because electricity at charging
stations is anticipated to be much cheaper than gasoline, these charging stations are not anticipated to be as profitable as gas pumps.
Moreover, the capital cost of charging stations can be high: a rapid charging station that provides 50 kW of electricity to charge the Leaf
battery to 80% capacity will cost $ 45,000 per unit. n129 A gas station owner will likely insist that the cost of such a unit be paid for by
the vehicle manufacturer or the electric utility. PHEVs will produce greater societal and environmental benefits in Vermont if the smart
grid is developed. In order to successfully integrate both PHEVs and the smart grid, however, there must be some consideration of the
legal standards needed for the synergistic benefits of PHEVs and the smart grid to be realized. A model and readily adaptable
framework for regulating PHEVs is the VT PSB's net metering regulations. n150 These define "net metering" as the calculation of the
difference between the amount of electricity that is supplied and the amount that is taken from the grid, by a "net metering system," in a
given billing period. n151 A "net metering system," defined by the VT PSB to include renewable generation less than 250 kW in
capacity, must be constructed for the purpose of offsetting a consumer's electricity use by feeding excess generation capacity back to
the grid. n152
Stimulus won’t help the economy—sucks resources out of private sector, borrowing costs, creates
vested interests that drain resources out of the economy
PPP JOURNAL, “Economic Structure—A Spending Solution?” n. 75, 12—11,
http://www.publicservice.co.uk/article.asp?publication=The%20PPP%20Journal&id=547&content_name=Economic%2
0Structure&article=18537, accessed 5-15-12.
However, there is an argument that when it comes to promoting recovery, long-term returns are perhaps less important than boosting
short-term demand in the economy. Keynesian economists argue that increasing public spending can create a positive multiplier by
utilising idle resources. For example, if unemployed people are given jobs, they then have more money to spend on goods and services.
There are, however, several reasons why stimulus policies are unlikely to succeed in achieving a sustainable recovery. Firstly, public
spending absorbs resources that would otherwise be available to the private sector – a process known as 'crowding out'. Private sector
investment will tend to decline as the role of the government expands. Secondly, stimulus policies inevitably involve higher levels of
government borrowing. Increased public debt puts upward pressure on interest rates, raising the cost of loans for private investment. It
also raises expectations that taxes will rise in the future to pay off the debt, which in turn reduces investors' confidence in the long-run
performance of the economy. Finally, public spending creates vested interests that depend on continued government support. After the
recession is over, it becomes difficult for politicians to withdraw subsidies for activities initiated during the stimulus programme. The role
of the state may increase permanently as a result of policies undertaken during slumps, with highly negative long-term economic effects
resulting from a higher tax burden and less economic freedom.
EV Neg: Oil Ans--1NC
Domestic production is better insurance against supply shocks than are emissions cuts
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
Some cite continuing concerns about the security implications of U.S. dependence on imported oil as a justification for expanded use of
electric vehicles. While the notion of “energy independence,” is an illusion, because the negative economic impact of a serious effort
would be disastrous, the U.S. can do a better job of controlling the level of imports, but not by maintaining a self-imposed embargo on oil
and gas exploration, as has been announced by the Obama Administration. Concerns about dependence on oil imports from the
Persian Gulf are addressed more directly by a vigorous effort to produce domestic oil resources and pursuit of additional efficiency gains
in the internal combustion engine (ICE).
Little threat from oil dependence—other countries suffer no ill effects, most U.S. oil comes from
Canada and Mexico
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
Further, the arguments about the economic and security implications of import dependence are hard to square with the fact that nations
such as Germany and Japan are almost totally dependent on oil imports. The U.S. is not unique in being dependent on imports. Steps
can and have been taken to manage the risks associated with imports, such as the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Currently, the U.S.
imports about 1.6 million barrels of oil daily from the Persian Gulf, which is down from 2.4 million before the recession.6 The major
sources of U.S. imports are Canada and Mexico, which are hardly considered national security risks.
No economic vulnerability – spare capacity, alternative routes, and structural insulation check
KAHN 2011 (Jeremy Kahn, journalist, “Crude Reality,” February 13, 2011,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/02/13/crude_reality/?page=full, Sawyer)
There’s no denying the importance of Middle Eastern oil to the US economy. Although only 15 percent of imported US oil comes directly
from the Persian Gulf, the region is responsible for nearly a third of the world’s production and the majority of its known reserves. But
the oil market is also elastic: Many key producing countries have spare capacity, so if oil is cut off from one country,
others tend to increase their output rapidly to compensate. Today, regions outside the Middle East, such as the west coast of
Africa, make up an increasingly important share of worldwide production. Private companies also hold large stockpiles of oil to smooth
over shortages — amounting to a few billion barrels in the United States alone — as does the US government, with 700 million barrels in
its strategic petroleum reserve. And the market can largely work around shipping disruptions by using alternative
routes; though they are more expensive, transportation costs account for only tiny fraction of the price of oil. Compared to the 1970s,
too, the structure of the US economy offers better insulation from oil price shocks. Today, the country uses
half as much energy per dollar of gross domestic product as it did in 1973, according to data from the US Energy
Information Administration. Remarkably, the economy consumed less total energy in 2009 than in 1997, even though its GDP rose and
the population grew. When it comes time to fill up at the pump, the average US consumer today spends less than 4 percent of his or her
disposable income on gasoline, compared with more than 6 percent in 1980. Oil, though crucial, is simply a smaller part of the economy
than it once was.
No impact to oil shocks – prefer the consensus of new economic research and scholarship
KAHN 2011 (Jeremy Kahn, journalist, “Crude Reality,” February 13, 2011,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/02/13/crude_reality/?page=full, Sawyer)
Economists have a term for this disruption: an oil shock. The idea that such oil shocks will inevitably wreak havoc on
the US economy has become deeply rooted in the American psyche, and in turn the United States has made
ensuring the smooth flow of crude from the Middle East a central tenet of its foreign policy. Oil security is one of the primary reasons
America has a long-term military presence in the region. Even aside from the Iraq and Afghan wars, we have equipment and forces
positioned in Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar; the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet is permanently stationed in Bahrain. But a growing
body of economic research suggests that this conventional view of oil shocks is wrong. The US economy is far
less susceptible to interruptions in the oil supply than previously assumed, according to these studies.
Scholars examining the recent history of oil disruptions have found the worldwide oil market to be remarkably
adaptable and surprisingly quick at compensating for shortfalls. Economists have found that much of the damage
once attributed to oil shocks can more persuasively be laid at the feet of bad government policies. The US economy, meanwhile, has
become less dependent on Persian Gulf oil and less sensitive to changes in crude prices overall than it was in 1973.
EV Neg: Oil Ans--Ext
Electric car support is not justified—no environmental or oil benefit, is mere tech-forcing
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
A recent article in the Washington Post by Charles Lane rhetorically asks why electric vehicles continue to be pushed “despite mounting
evidence that the vehicles serve no particular purpose, environmental or economic?”16 It goes on to state that even with substantial
subsidies, these cars cost too much, they do not reliably reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and are an inefficient means to achieve
gasoline savings. The Wall Street Journal has reached similar conclusions as have independent research organizations like J.D. Powers
and Associates. These assessments lead to the conclusion that the government’s strong push to promote electric vehicles is nothing
more than an attempt at technology forcing via industrial policy. This conclusion is obvious when the characteristics of the electric
vehicle system are examined and large government subsidies are taken into account. The major factors consumers will consider when
looking at the electric car as a substitute for ICE vehicles are cost, range, battery issues, and infrastructure.
Oil dependence will decline over the next several decades
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that oil import dependence will decline 6% by 2035. EIA projects that consumption
is expected to remain relatively “flat”7 and argues that “meanwhile, the increase in U.S. crude oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and
elsewhere, combined with increasing biofuel and coal-to-liquids (CTL) production and decreasing petroleum-derived fuel demand, is
expected to reduce the need for imports over the longer term.”8 EIA concludes its most recent projection of petroleum import trends with
the following observation: “U.S. dependence on imported liquid fuels measured as a share of total U.S. liquid fuel use, which reached 60
percent in 2005 and 2006 before falling to 52 percent in 2009, is expected to continue declining over the projection period, to 42 percent
in 2035.”
Oil dependency breeds interdependence – independence leads to global war
MILLER 2010 (Gregory D. Miller, assistant professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma, “The Security Costs of Energy Independence,”
Center for Strategic International Studies, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 107-119, April 2010, http://www.asiaresearch.ir/files/10apr_Miller.pdf,
Sawyer)
A drop in demand for oil would lead to increased probability of conflict between current oil exporters and
their customers, including developed Western states, as well as between oil producers and their neighbors. This risk will be especially
pronounced in regions with a high number of oil-exporting states such as the Middle East. According to the concept of interdependence, the
likelihood of states going to war with each other decreases as mutual dependence between them
increases, with trade being the most common measure of interdependence. This idea was reflected in the Clinton administration policy of increasing
trade with China in the 1990s. Early European integration in the 1950s was similarly designed to prevent a future European war. 3 If valid, then the inverse
of the theory suggests that as states reduce their demand for foreign oil, levels of interdependence between
consumer states and oil exporters will fall, increasing the likelihood of conflict. Although it is unlikely that war would
occur simply because of lower trade levels, the logic of interdependence theory is that the wealth gained from trade restrains
policymakers who otherwise might engage in conflict. 4 If the United States is no longer dependent on foreign
oil and if oil-exporting states no longer gain revenue from the United States, there would be fewer constraints
on each state’s willingness to use violence, whether it be in the form of conventional military force or state sponsorship of terrorism.
EV Neg: Warming Ans--1NC (1/2)
Electric cards only shift around the environmental impact
Michael Kwan, “Plug-In Electric Cars Are not the Future,” MOBILE MAGAZINE, 5—21—09,
http://www.mobilemag.com/2009/05/21/plug-in-electric-cars-are-not-the-future/, accessed 7-13-12.
Second, since the electric car itself does not have any harmful emissions, many people assume that these cars are as clean as can be.
However, all they do is divert the environmental impact back to wherever you get your electricity. For places that get their electricity
through hydro power, the impact isn’t so bad. For places that use nuclear, there are inherent risks, but it is generally “clean” if managed
properly. However, many places still have their electricity generated through the burning of fossil fuels. An electric car may be a little
greener than its internal combustion-powered counterpart, but it’s still polluting by proxy. Further still, I don’t think that the current electric
infrastructure can handle the increased demand from millions of electric cars. Something fundamental has to change.
Warming’s not real – the Earth has been cooling for decades
Ferrara 12[Peter, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and Senior Fellow at the
National Center for Policy Analysis. Served in the White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy
Attorney General of the United States, Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, 5/23/2012, “Sorry
Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-globalwarming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/] DHirsch
Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human
use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming. That is because natural climate cycles
have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more
than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.That is one
of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland
Institute, held last week in Chicago. I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost
Energy. The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government
financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or
government body wannabees, such as the United Nations. See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online. What you will see are
calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data. In sharp contrast to these
climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are
causing catastrophic global warming in public debate. With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists
really do have any response. The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an
analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It has achieved that status through these international climate
conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific
rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC. You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming
what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered. If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.
Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not
follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the
supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past). It
follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles. For example, temperatures
dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s. The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age. Ice
ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now. In the late 1970s, the natural cycles
turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to
their advantage. The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the
heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.
EV Neg: Warming Ans--1NC (2/2)
The newest temperature records prove warming isn’t anthropogenic
Ferrara ’12[Peter, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and Senior Fellow at the
National Center for Policy Analysis. Served in the White House Office of Policy Development, and as Associate Deputy
Attorney General of the United States, Graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, 3/01/2012, “Fakegate:
The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-theobnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/3/] DHirsch
The results of the latest, most advanced data collection also suggest that CO2 is not responsible for the
modest global warming of the late 20th century. The UN models agree with established science that if human greenhouse
gas emissions were causing global warming, there should be a hot spot of higher temperatures in the troposphere above the tropics,
where collected concentrations would have the greatest effect, and the warming would show up first. This is known in the literature on
climate science as “the fingerprint” for man caused global warming. But data from global weather satellites and more
comprehensive weather balloons show no hotspot, and no fingerprint, which means no serious global
warming due to human greenhouse gas emissions. QED. Moreover, satellites also have been measuring the energy
entering the earth’s atmosphere from the sun, and the energy escaping back out to space. If the theory of man caused global warming is
correct, then the energy escaping back out should be less than the energy entering, as the greenhouse gases capture some of the
energy in the atmosphere. But the satellite data show negligible difference. The real cutting edge in climate science was
publicly exposed recently in a book by one of the long time leaders of the German environmental
movement, Fritz Vahrenholt, in his new book, The Cold Sun. The book expresses the growing concern among more careful real
climate scientists, rather than political scientists, that trends in solar activity portend a return to the cold, limited
agricultural output, and widespread disease of the Little Ice Age, or even a more full blown, overdue by
historical standards, real ice age. The consolation is that those threatening developments are still centuries away. In an
interview with Spiegel magazine, titled “I Feel Duped on Climate Change,” Vahrenholt tells readers that the UN’s forecasts on the
severity of climate change are exaggerated and supported by weak science. The American version would be Al
Gore producing a movie with the title, “The Most Inconvenient Truth:I Was Wrong.” The root of the global warming confusion is that the
UN is not a disinterested party that can be trusted to compile and interpret the climate science on which
the world’s policymakers can rely. The UN sees the theory of man caused catastrophic global warming as
a tremendous opportunity for gaining the regulatory and taxation powers of a world government. It is at least
as self-interested on the subject as oil and gas companies. It has used its role as grand overseer of climate science to advance its own
agenda. The result has been a great disservice to the scientific community and to policymakers. It fueled a global panic and mass
delusion that has cost hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars, and is likely to cost trillions more before it finally runs its course.
Humanity will adapt to warming – efforts are already started
Christopher Borick, Prof @ Muhlenberg, and Barry G. Rabe, senior fellow @ Brookings, May 2012, “Americans
Cool on Geoengineering Approaches to Addressing Climate Change,” Issues in Governance Studies, Iss. 47,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/5/30%20geo%20engineering%20rabe%20borick/30%20geo%20engineering%20rabe%20borick.pdf
With expanding concern that climate change is already impactingenvironments aroundthe planet there has been increasing
discussion and planning for methods of climateadaptation.From measures to fortify coastal areas from rising sea levels to
research onagricultural practices during prolonged droughts, climate adaptation efforts areintensifying on an
international level.Given the limited success in efforts to mitigateincreasing temperatures, some have suggested that
governments would be better servedif they concentrated on finding ways to adapt to a warmer planet
rather than trying tostop warming from happening.This could involve a wide range of initiatives such asadjusting to higher
temperatures or rising sea levels. The results of the NSAPOCC, whichwas fielded in December of 2011, indicate that the American
public largely rejects thenotion that governments should stop mitigation efforts and turn to adaptation measures.Two out of every three
Americans said that they do not agree that we should shiftattention away from trying to stop global warming and instead focus on
adaptation.
EV Neg: Warming Ans--Ext (1/2)
Emission cuts from PHEV are small—electricity generation also emits pollutants
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
Because only the tailpipe emissions are counted, there is a tendency to overstate the emission reductions from PHEVs. However,
PHEVs, including the Leaf, also need to include emissions associated with the electricity consumed in charging. Since coal is the
dominant electric power source, those emissions may offset the reduction in tailpipe emissions. In the case of the Leaf, it is an
“emissions elsewhere” vehicle; not a zero emissions vehicle. An analyst with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory concludes that
the difference in emissions is fairly small when compared on a well-to-wheel basis with the most efficient diesel engine currently
available.
Any emissions cuts from electric cards will be swamped by gains elsewhere
William O’Keefe, CEO, “Electric Cards: Not Ready for Prime Time,” POLICY OUTLOOK, Marshall Institute, 12—10,
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/922.pdf, accessed 5-7-12.
The potential contribution of electric cars to reducing carbon dioxide emissions is trivial, but not cheap. According to the Congressional
Research Service (CRS), cars and other light duty vehicles accounted for 17% of U.S. emissions in 2007,4 which translates into about
4% of global emissions. Since electric vehicles will account for only a small percentage of the U.S. fleet anytime soon, under 5% until
after 2020 or beyond, their impact on global emissions will be swamped by developing country emissions.
Other issues are far greater threats to the environment than is climate change
Dr. Indur Goklany, environment and development analyst, “What to Do About Climate Change,” POLICY ANALYSIS
n. 609, Cato Institute, 2—5—08, p. 22-23.
Climate change is not now—nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future—the most important environmental problem facing the globe,
unless present-day problems such as hunger, water-related diseases, lack of access to safe water and sanitation, and indoor air
pollution are reduced drastically. Otherwise, with respect to human well-being, it will continue to be outranked by these other problems
and, with respect to environmental well-being, by habitat loss and other threats to biodiversity.
Not anthropogenic – multiple warrants
Spencer 12 (Roy, former NASA climatologist and author, “Ten Years After the Warming,” 2/26, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/02/)
As can be seen, in the last 10 years the estimated forcing has been the strongest. Yet,most if not all temperature
datasets show little or no global-average warming recently, either in the atmosphere, at the surface, or in the upper 700 meters of the ocean. For
So what is happening?You cannot simply say a lack of warming in 10 years is not that
No, we are supposedly in uncharted territory with a
maximum in radiative forcing of the climate system. One cannot compare on an equal basis the last 10 years with any previous decades without
warming. There are 5 possibilities for the recent cessation of warming which are most discussed: 1) cooling from anthropogenic aerosols has been
cancelling out warming from more greenhouse gases2) natural cooling from internal climate fluctuations
or the sun is cancelling out the GHG warming3) increased ocean mixing is causing the extra energy to be
distributed into the deep ocean4) the temperature ’sensitivity’ of the climate system is not as large as the
IPCC assumes. 5) there is something fundamentally wrong with the GHG warming theory itself Of course, some
example, here are the tropospheric temperatures up though a few days ago:
unusual, and that there have been previous 10-year periods without warming, too.
combination of the above 5 explanations is also possible. The 1st possibility (aerosol cooling is cancelling out GHG forcing) is one of the more popular explanations with the climate
The uncertain strength(and even sign) of aerosol forcing allows the climate
modelers to use aerosols as a tuning knob (aka fudge factor) in making their models produce warming moreor-less consistent with past observations. Using an assumed large aerosol cooling to cancel out the GHG warming allows the modelers to retain
high climate sensitivity, and thus the fear of strong future warming if those aerosols ever dissipate. The 2nd
possibility (natural cooling) is a much less desirable explanation for the IPCC crowd because it opens the door to Mother
Nature having as much or more influence on the climate system than do humans. We can’t have that, you know.
Then you would have to consider the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 years was natural, too. Goodbye,
modelers, and especially with NASA’s James Hansen .
AGW funding. The 3rd possibility (increased ocean mixing) is one of the more legitimate possibilities, at least theoretically. It’s popular with NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. But one would
need more observational evidence this is happening before embracing the idea. Unfortunately, how vertical mixing in the ocean naturally varies over time is poorly understood; the
different IPCC models have widely varying strengths of mixing, and so ocean mixing is a huge wild card in
the global warming debate, as is aerosol cooling.I believe much of past climate change on time scales of decades to many centuries might be due
to such variations in ocean mixing, along with their likely influence on global cloud cover changing the amount of solar input into the climate system. The 4th possibility (the
climate system is relatively insensitive to forcing) is the top contender in the opinion of myself, Dick Lindzen, anda few
other climate researchers who work in this field. The 5th possibility (increasing GHGs don’t really cause warming) is total anathema to the IPCC.
Without GHG warming, the whole AGW movement collapses. This kind of scientific finding would normally be Nobel Prize territory…except that the Nobel Prize has become more of
humans might not be destroying
the Earth. The longer we go without significant warming, the more obvious it will become that there is
something seriously wrong with current AGW theory. I don’t think there is a certain number of years – 5, 10, 20, etc. – which will disprove the
a socio-political award in recent years, with only politically correct recipients. The self-flagellating elites don’t like the idea
science of AGW….unless the climate system cools for the next 10 years. Eek! But I personally doubt that will happen.
EV Neg: Warming Ans--Ext (2/2)
EVs are all hype and don’t solve warming—night-charging necessitates a high level of CO2
emissions
Petersen, 11 – Attorney at Law, principally in the energy and alternative energy sectors, frequent speaker at
international industry and energy policy conferences (John, “Plug-in Vehicles and Their Dirty Little Secret”,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com, 6 January 2011, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/01/plug-in-vehicles-and-their-dirty-littlesecret?cmpid=rss)
Over the last few months I've had a running debate with some die-hard EVangelicals who insist that plug-in cars will be cleaner than
simple, reliable and relatively inexpensive Prius class HEVs. Since most of my readers have enough to do without slogging through the
comments section, it's high time we lay the cards on the table and show why the myth of zero emissions vehicles is one of
the most outrageous lies ever foisted on the American public. The following graph comparing the life-cycle CO2
emissions of conventional, hybrid and plug-in vehicles comes from a March 15, 2010 presentation by Dr. Constantine Samaras of Rand
Corporation. It clearly shows that HEVs and PHEVs are equivalent emitters of CO2 if you take the analysis all the
way back to the black earth and base the comparisons on national average CO2 emissions from electric
power generation. While the graph suggests that there is no meaningful air quality advantage to plug-in vehicles,
the reality is much worse because the specific power generation assets that will be used for night-time charging
of plug-in vehicles are dirtier than the national average. The following table is based on data extracted from US Energy
Information Administration'srecently released "Electric Power Industry 2009: Year in Review." It lists high emissions power from fossil
fuels in the top section, zero emissions power from conventional sources in the middle section and "clean power" from renewable
sources in the bottom section. Since the data was pulled from different parts of the report, estimates of total power generated from
specific renewable sources can't be provided. Since renewables as a class are inconsequential to national power production, I don't
think the missing data is relevant. The most intriguing facts in the table are the capacity utilization rates for both natural gas and hydro
power facilities. Natural gas facilities operated at 25% of capacity in 2009, which works out to a national average of six hours per day.
You see the same thing with hydro power facilities which operated at 40% of capacity in 2009, or about ten hours per day. While
some natural gas and hydro power plants run 24/7, the nation tends to operate both types of facilities as
peak power providers rather than baseload power providers. We turn off the clean hydro power and
natural gas at night.The two baseload elements of US power production are nuclear, which usually runs at a
steady state 24 hours a day, and coal, which can be ramped up and down within a limited range to help match
supply and demand. During night-time hours, the prime time for electric vehicle recharging, the vast bulk
of electric power nationwide comes from nuclear and coal because operators want to conserve their more flexible
resources including natural gas and hydro power for high value peak demand periods. As a result, coal accounts for a higher
percentage of night-time power than it does day-time power or 24 hour power. There's just no avoiding the reality
that electricity produced at night is significantly dirtier than the national average while electricity produced
during the day is cleaner than the national average. As you shift the US average emissions line in the Rand graph to the right to
reflect the differences between day-time and night-time power, plug-ins become seriously sub-optimal. The conclusions
are inescapable when you study the data. I have searched without luck for a scholarly technical analysis that quantifies the
emissions differential between relatively clean day-time power, which has a high proportion of variable hydro power and natural gas, and
dirtier night-time power, which has a much higher proportion of coal. If you know of a credible study, I'd love to have a reference. The
dirty little secret of plug-in vehicles is that they'll all charge their batteries with inherently dirty night-time
power and be responsible for more CO2 emissions than a fuel efficientPrius-class HEV that costs a third less and
doesn't have any pesky issues with plugs, charging infrastructure or range limitations. News stories, speeches and press
releases can only maintain the zero emissions mythology for so long. Sooner or later the public is going to realize
that it's all hype, blue smoke and mirrors, and that plug-in vehicles have little of substance to offer
consumers. When the public comes to the realization that plug-in vehicles:Won't save their owners significant
amounts of money; Won't be as efficient as HEVs when utility fuel consumption is factored into the equation; Won't be
as CO2 efficient as HEVs when utility emissions are factored into the equation; and Are little more than feel-good,
taxpayer subsidized eco-bling for the politically powerful elite, the backlash against EV developers like Tesla Motors
(TSLA), General Motors (GM) and Nissan (NSANY.PK), together with battery suppliers like Ener1 (HEV) and A123 Systems (AONE),
could be unpleasant.
EV Neg: Air Pollution Ans
Deaths can’t be caused by today’s levels of pollution
Schwartz 6- Joel Schwartz is a professor of Environmental Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health. He works in the Department of Environmental Health and the Department of
Epidemiology. He has a Ph.D., 1980, from Brandeis University. (“Air Pollution and Health: Do Popular Portrayals Reflect the Scientific Evidence?”, American Enterprise Institute Environmental Policy
Outlook, 5.)
By far the most serious health claim about air pollution is that it kills tens of thousands of Americans each
year, mainly due to exposure to PM2.5. There is no question that high levels of air pollution can kill. About 4,000 Londoners
died during the infamous five-day “London Fog” of December 1952, when soot and sulfur dioxide soared to levels tens of times greater
than the highest levels experienced in developed countries today, and visibility dropped to less than 20 feet.34
However, current fears center on whether today’s comparatively low levels of air pollution are also
deadly.An embarrassment for proponents of low-level air pollution as a cause of death is that the evidence
is almost solely circumstantial, being based on statistical studies reporting small correlations between longor short-term air pollution levels and risk of dying.These “observational” studies are not based on
randomized trials, but on non-random data that inherently suffer from confounding by non-pollution
factors with much larger effects on health than the purported effects of air pollution.
Observational studies could be taken more seriously if they were supported by evidence from randomized,
controlled studies that eliminate the possibility of con- founding by non-pollution factors. Such studies
can not, of course, be done with people, but they can be done with animals. However, researchers have
been unable to kill animals with air pollution at levels any- where near as low as the levels found in
ambient air.
Levels of air pollution are exaggerated
Schwartz 6Joel Schwartz is a professor of Environmental Epidemiology at Harvard School of Public Health. He works in the Department of Environmental Health and the Department of
Epidemiology. He has a Ph.D., 1980, from Brandeis University. (“Air Pollution and Health: Do Popular Portrayals Reflect the Scientific Evidence?”, American Enterprise Institute Environmental Policy
Outlook, 8-9.)
Most public information on air pollution and health comes from environmental activists, regulators, and health researchers. As these
case studies show, their claims of harm from current, historically low air pollution levels are at best
exaggerations and at worst fabrications. The result is unwarranted public fear, and continued support for
ever more costly regulatory requirements that deliver little or no benefit in exchange for their high costs.
Regulators, environmentalists, and scientists enjoy substantial credibility with the public and the press.
But like other interest groups, their goals often do not coincide with the interests of the vast majority of Americans.
Environmental groups want to increase support for ever more stringent regulations, maintain and enhance their control over other
people’s lives, and bring in the donations that support their activism. Regulators want to show the success of their efforts
to reduce air pollution, but they also want to justify the need to preserve or expand their powers and
budgets.Maintaining a climate of crisis and pessimism meets these institutional goals, but at the expense of encouraging
people to exaggerate the risks they face. While it is not surprising that activists and regulators exaggerate air pollution risks,
they would not be taken as seriously without scientific authority to back them up. The credibility of science and scientists flows from the
power of scientific methods to uncover truths about the world, and from the perceived objectivity of scientists themselves. As the case
studies above show, trust in scientific authority is often misplaced. Scientific and medical research does have checks and
balances that are absent from more explicitly political endeavors. Environmental health research nevertheless suffers from
its own set of pressures that militate against evenhanded inquiry and dispassionate analysis and
presentation of evidence. Studies that report harm from air pollution are more likely to be published than
studies that do not.Regulatory agencies, whose power and budgets depend on the perception that air
pollution is a serious health problem, are also major funders of the research intended to demonstrate the
severity of the problem. Scientists who believe air pollution is a serious health threat and who report
larger health effects are more likely to attract research funding. It is not a big leap to conclude that there is a great
deal of selection bias in who does environmental health research, what questions they ask, and how they report their
results. Journalists should be acting as a check on air pollution misinformation, but they are not. Media outlets face their own
pressures to sensationalize stories. Good news does not sell newspapers or attract viewers. As a result,
journalists and editors are more likely to cover studies claiming harm from air pollution, and to pass along
these claims with little or no critical review. True, few journalists have the expertise to evaluate the technical merits of specific studies.
But continuing to rely on scientific authority will only perpetuate the problem of risk exaggeration . Among the
major providers of public information on environmental risks, investigative reporters are in the best position to assess how the political
economy of environmental health research affects the production and portrayal of scientific evidence. It would be a breath of fresh air if
journalists and editors took up this challenge.
EV Neg: Grid Reliability Ans
Prevention measures taken to prevent massive blackouts & escalation
DoE 9-10/04 – U.S. Department of Energy
[Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, “Is Our Power Grid More Reliable One Year After the Blackout?”, State Energy Program, Sept.-Oct./04,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/feature_detail_info.cfm/fid=32?print]
<The U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force publication, The August 14, 2003 Blackout One Year Later:
Actions Taken in the United States and Canada to Reduce Blackout Risk (PDF 236 KB) Download Acrobat Reader, details the
actions taken to improve grid reliability. For example, shortly after the Task Force identified direct causes of the August 14
blackout, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and NERC set to correct them. The U.S. Canada Power System Outage
Task Force conducted a massive investigation into the causes of the blackout and made 42
recommendations to improve power system operations. In December 2003, FERC ordered FirstEnergy to study the
adequacy of transmission and generation facilities in northeastern Ohio. The results were submitted in April 2004 and recommendations
are now being incorporated into FirstEnergy's operations and strategic plan. In February 2004, NERC directed FirstEnergy, the MISO,
PJM Interconnection, and the East Central Area Reliability Coordination Agreement on actions each organization needed by June 30,
2004, to reduce the potential of future blackouts. NERC then approved and verified their compliance plans. In response to the April 2004
Final Report, FERC took the following actions to clarify and develop reliability standards: * Commissioned a firm to
analyze transmission line outages related to inadequate tree trimming — a major contributor to the August 14 blackout — and determine
best practices for preventing this problem. See the "Utility Vegetation Management and Bulk Electric Reliability Report from the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission" (PDF 92 KB). * Began to require transmission owners to file reports on their tree trimming practices.
* Affirmed the need to strengthen and clarify NERC's operating reliability standards. Meanwhile, NERC strengthened its policies
on emergency operations, operations planning, and reliability coordinator procedures and will include
compliance metrics in its operating policies and planning standards by February 2005. New standards for
managing vegetation and calculating transmission line ratings are also being developed; procedures for
training and certifying operators are being revised.>
Blackouts happen monthly – means its empirically denied
Apt and Lave 8/10/04 - former NASA astronaut, executive director Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center; codirector of the center
[Jay Apt and Lester B. Lave, “Blackouts Are Inevitable,” Washington Post, 8/10/04, p. A19, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52952-2004Aug9.html]
<As we approach the first anniversary of the Blackout of '03, we're reminded of the many times that officials, from New York Gov.
Nelson Rockefeller in 1977 to Gov. George Pataki now -- along with a host of senators and representatives -- have assured us that they
will take steps to prevent future blackouts. Yet roughly every four months, the United States experiences a blackout
large enough to darken a half-million homes. Now the pressure is on Congress to enact an energy bill that
will protect us from the lights going out. There's just one problem: It can't be done. In a large, complicated
arrangement such as our system for generating, transmitting and distributing electricity, blackouts simply cannot be
prevented. Data for the past four decades show that blackouts occur more frequently than theory predicts, and they suggest that
it will become increasingly expensive to prevent these low-probability, high-consequence events. The
various proposed "fixes" are expensive and could even be counterproductive, causing future failures because of some
unanticipated interaction.> The state of current engineering is such that we cannot verify that any particular
change won't impose problems larger than those it is designed to remedy. Nor can we eliminate all problems.
Further, with a bit of "luck" and sufficient resources, an informed, intelligent terrorist organization could get
around any protective structures and software to bring down the system.