Download Control + 1 – Block Headings

234830368
DDW 2012
1
CP
Text: The 50 States and relevant territories of the United States should provide a tax
credit for the construction of infrastructure to transport carbon dioxide for the
purposes of carbon capture, create multi-state agreements to regulate a national
network, and implement statutes and regulations to approve, site, construct, and
manage infrastructure.
States solve best—no federal involvement required
Bliss et al., 10 – Kevin, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, with Darrick Eugene, Consultant, Robert W. Harms, The Harms Group, Victor G. Carrillo, Texas Railroad
Commission, Kipp Coddington, Mowrey, Meezan, Coddington, Cloud, LLP, Mike Moore, VP External Affairs, Blue Source LLC, John Harju, Associate Director for Research at the University of
North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, Grand Forks, North Dakota Melanie Jensen, University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, Grand Forks, North
Dakota Lisa Botnen, University of North Dakota Energy & Environmental Research Center, Grand Forks, North Dakota Philip M. Marston, Marston Law, Doug Louis, Director, Conservation
Division, Kansas Corporation Commission, Steve Melzer, Melzer Consulting, Colby Drechsel, Wyoming Pipeline Authority, Jack Moody, Director, State Mineral Lease Program, Jackson,
Mississippi Lon Whitman, Enhanced Oil Recovery Institute, University of Wyoming (“A Policy, Legal, and Regulatory Evaluation of the Feasibility of a National Pipeline Infrastructure for the
Transport and Storage of Carbon Dioxide,” Southern States Energy Board, 9/10/10, http://www.sseb.org/downloads/pipeline.pdf)
The conclusions and recommendations at the end of the report serve to reinforce the finding that the current level of regulatory oversight is appropriate and no
additional federal regulation is required. To the degree there is a place for expanded regulation
of CO2 pipelines, such regulation must preserve the
states and their involvement. Specifically, the report finds and recommends the
current pipeline infrastructure was sited, constructed, and regulated by the states in which they
operate with federal oversight limited to safety regulations or instances where federal lands are traversed. Today, no federal involvement is required
to facilitate the development of CO2 pipelines.
-driven EOR through the use of anthropogenic, or man-made, CO2 along
contractual basis of CO2 transport and avoid marginalizing
with the pipeline infrastructure necessary to meet that de
-EOR CO2 storage and transportation opportunities can be delayed until they are economically
or politically mandated. Should such a mandate occur, sufficient public resources must be allocated to build the infrastructure necessary and mitigate the economic
only purposes is not viewed less
favorably by the public than pipelines transporting CO2 for EOR. State Recommendation
-based regulatory solutions for CO2 pipelines should be carefully
considered before pursuit of additional federal regulation. Any policy decision should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and promote flexibility and innovation in
States should implement statutes and regulations to approve, site, construct, and manage CO2
pipelines to meet EOR demands
States should consider creating separate pipeline authorities to foster
pipeline build-out. In lieu of additional federal regulation, states should consider multi-state agreements as a way to regulate a
national CO2 pipeline network. Because of their existing experience with CO2 -driven EOR, states should quantify and
distribute information relating to jobs and public revenue resulting from CO2 pipelines.
response to marke
DA
Jackson Vanik will pass now – but push is key
Needham 7/25 (By Vicki Needham, 07/25/12, Business groups keep up pressure to pass Russia trade bill
,http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/1005-trade/240115-business-groups-keep-up-pressure-on-to-pass-russiatrade-bill)
"It looks like we are very close to getting Russia PNTR done," Milller told reporters. Passage in the House would give the Senate a
chance to clear the bill for President Obama's signature before Russia joins the World Trade Organization on Aug. 22. He said
the issue has been derailed too many times in the past and that it will hurt U.S. businesses if it is pushed off until
September or the lame-duck session that is expected after the election. "We can actually get something done for U.S.
companies that want to do business in the ninth-largest economy in the world," he said. Business groups agree that
without PNTR, U.S. firms are increasingly disadvantaged going forward. David Thomas, vice president for trade, BRT, said
inaction would be like sending a team to the Olympics but standing on the sidelines while the other countries
participate. "We find ourselves within striking distance and our campaign continues to get final action next week," he said. U.S.
Trade Representative Ron Kirk told the U.S.-Russia Business Council on Tuesday that failing to pass a measure "could
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
1
234830368
DDW 2012
1
jeopardize well-paying jobs here at home." Overall, BRT officials said they are confident there are the votes in the House and
Senate to move the measure in time, it is just a matter of doing it .
The plan is unpopular. Support for CCS has dried up
Shackley and Dütschke, 12 (Simon Shackley, School of GeoSciences, University of
Edinburgh, and Elisabeth Dütschke, Competence Center Energy Technology and Energy
Systems, “Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage – not a Silver Bullet to Climate Change, but a
Feasible Option?” Energy & Environment, Vol. 23, No. 2 & 3, 2012)
• Within policy and political circles, an apparent earlier consensus around the importance of
climate change and the need for deep reduction in carbon emissions has weakened under
the stress of the new economic austerity plus the increased realisation that decarbonisation
would be expensive, difficult (technically, socio-economically and politically) and not
necessarily with apparent up-sides for politicians to talk-up for votes. Support for CCS has
been one of the victims of this new ‘climate real politik’.
Repeal requires political leverage from Obama
Doug Palmer, 7-19-12 (Staff Writer, Chicago Tribune, " House lawmakers reach deal on Russia trade, rights bill",
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-russia-tradebre86i10y-20120719,0,4282739.story :)
The Congress appears increasingly unlikely to approve a controversial bill to upgrade trade relations with Russia
before the November elections, despite a push by the White House and U.S. business groups for votes this month. "I
think practically speaking no one expects Congress to deal with (permanent normal trade relations) before the lame-duck"
session after the elections, said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics,
referring to the period between the November 6 congressional elections and the start of the new Congress in January,
2013. "I think there's a background fear that this will become a political football if the House moves forward ," Hufbauer said.
Congress is under pressure to lift a Cold War human rights provision known as the Jackson-Vanik amendment and
approve "permanent normal trade relations," or PNTR, because of Russia's expected entry into the World Trade
Organization in August. If it does not act, Russia could deny U.S. firms some of the market-opening concessions it
made to join the WTO, putting those companies at a disadvantage to foreign competitors in one of the world's 10largest economies. However, the push to pass the legislation comes at a low point in U.S.-Russia relations, with many U.S.
lawmakers angry over Moscow's support for the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and questioning Russia's
commitment to democracy and human rights. "Members are rightly concerned over recent developments in Russia, as well
as Russia's policies with respect to Syria and Iran. This makes it incumbent upon the President to show leadership
and for these issues to be addressed in a bipartisan fashion, enabling PNTR to move forward," a House Republican
aide said.
Repeal is key to Relations
Gvosdev, 2-19-12 [Nikolas K., former editor of the National Interest, and a frequent foreign policy commentator in both
the print and broadcast media. He is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11441/the-realist-prism-resetting-the-u-s-russia-reset]
The third is whether some of the new foundations in the U.S.-Russia relationship have solidified to the point that they
can help weather the current storms. In contrast to the situation in 2008, there are now some important institutional
connections in place. The Northern Distribution Network could represent enough ballast -- both in terms of the income
generated for Russia and the safe route it offers the U.S. and NATO for the war effort in Afghanistan and for egress
once the drawdown begins in the coming year -- to help prevent the relationship from veering out of control. The
partnership between Exxon and Rosneft to develop both the Russian Arctic and additional projects in North America
creates another set of incentives to keep ties on a level basis, as does the immense potential of a fully realized
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
2
234830368
DDW 2012
1
partnership between Russian and American firms in the nuclear power industry. American car manufacturers have
found Russia to be a booming export market, while the U.S. space program is now dependent on Russia to ferry
astronauts and cargo to maintain America’s manned presence in space. In short, there are a growing number of interests
that depend on the preservation of healthy U.S.-Russia relations for their own success. But it is not yet clear whether they have
sufficient clout to outweigh the naysayers on both sides. An upcoming decision-point could offer a good indication of what
to expect. The World Trade Organization is expected to ratify Russia’s accession later this spring. However, American
firms will not be able to take advantage of Russia's WTO membership as long as U.S. trade with Russia is still subject to
the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik amendment. Congress would first have to agree to "graduate" Russia from the terms of
the legislation, but many members remain hesitant. An unofficial swap would see Russia given permanent normal
trading relations status, but with new legislation applying "smart sanctions" against specific Russian individuals and
entities accused of condoning human rights abuses, most notably in the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky.
Whether this Solomonic compromise could work, however, remains to be seen. The Russian government has already
responded very negatively to sanctions unilaterally imposed by the State Department and may be quite unwilling to accept
such a compromise, even if it means graduating Russia from Jackson-Vanik. At the same time, there remains
resistance within Congress to "giving up" one of its last remaining tools to pressure Russia on a whole range of issues,
from chicken imports to religious freedom. The fate of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, therefore, is the canary in the coal
mine for U.S.-Russia relations. If a successful repeal is negotiated, it bodes well for regenerating the relationship. However, if
Obama, like George W. Bush before him, is unable to secure Russia’s graduation, this could end up being a fatal
blow to the whole idea of the reset .
US-Russia relations solve nuclear war and every major impact
Allison & Blackwill, ’11 [Graham, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s
Kennedy School, former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, Robert D., Henry A. Kissinger senior
fellow for U.S. foreign policy -- Council on Foreign Relations, served as U.S. ambassador to India and as deputy national
security adviser for strategic planning in the Bush administration, both co-chairmen of the Task Force on Russia and U.S.
National Interests, co-sponsored by the Belfer Center and the Center for the National Interest, 10-30-11 Politico, “10
reasons why Russia still matters,” http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=161EF282-72F9-4D48-8B9CC5B3396CA0E6]
That central point is that Russia matters a great deal to a U.S. government seeking to defend and advance its national
interests. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's decision to return next year as president makes it all the more critical for
Washington to manage its relationship with Russia through coherent, realistic policies. No one denies that Russia is a
dangerous, difficult, often disappointing state to do business with. We should not overlook its many human rights and legal
failures. Nonetheless, Russia is a player whose choices affect our vital interests in nuclear security and energy. It is key to
supplying 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Ten realities
require U.S. policymakers to advance our nation's interests by engaging and working with Moscow. First, Russia remains
the only nation that can erase the United States from the map in 30 minutes. As every president since John F. Kennedy has
recognized, Russia's cooperation is critical to averting nuclear war. Second, Russia is our most consequential partner in
preventing nuclear terrorism. Through a combination of more than $11 billion in U.S. aid, provided through the
Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and impressive Russian professionalism, two decades after the
collapse of the “evil empire,” not one nuclear weapon has been found loose. Third, Russia plays an essential role in
preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile-delivery systems. As Washington seeks to stop Iran's drive
toward nuclear weapons, Russian choices to sell or withhold sensitive technologies are the difference between failure and
the possibility of success. Fourth, Russian support in sharing intelligence and cooperating in operations remains essential to
the U.S. war to destroy Al Qaeda and combat other transnational terrorist groups. Fifth, Russia provides a vital supply line
to 100,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan. As U.S. relations with Pakistan have deteriorated, the Russian lifeline has
grown ever more important and now accounts for half all daily deliveries. Sixth, Russia is the world’s largest oil producer
and second largest gas producer. Over the past decade, Russia has added more oil and gas exports to world energy markets
than any other nation. Most major energy transport routes from Eurasia start in Russia or cross its nine time zones. As
citizens of a country that imports two of every three of the 20 million barrels of oil that fuel U.S. cars daily, Americans feel
Russia’s impact at our gas pumps. Seventh, Moscow is an important player in today’s international system. It is no accident
that Russia is one of the five veto-wielding, permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, as well as a member of the
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
3
234830368
DDW 2012
1
G-8 and G-20. A Moscow more closely aligned with U.S. goals would be significant in the balance of power to shape an
environment in which China can emerge as a global power without overturning the existing order. Eighth, Russia is the
largest country on Earth by land area, abutting China on the East, Poland in the West and the United States across the
Arctic. This territory provides transit corridors for supplies to global markets whose stability is vital to the U.S. economy.
Ninth, Russia’s brainpower is reflected in the fact that it has won more Nobel Prizes for science than all of Asia, places first
in most math competitions and dominates the world chess masters list. The only way U.S. astronauts can now travel to and
from the International Space Station is to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. The co-founder of the most advanced digital
company in the world, Google, is Russian-born Sergei Brin. Tenth, Russia’s potential as a spoiler is difficult to exaggerate.
Consider what a Russian president intent on frustrating U.S. international objectives could do — from stopping the supply
flow to Afghanistan to selling S-300 air defense missiles to Tehran to joining China in preventing U.N. Security Council
resolutions. So next time you hear a policymaker dismissing Russia with rhetoric about “who cares?” ask them to identify
nations that matter more to U.S. success, or failure, in advancing our national interests.
K
Transportation infrastructure mirrors the attempt to supersede death and become immortal – this
strategy is ultimately responsible for our repression of our transgressive use of excess
Merle 09 (Julien Merle, Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, “Bataille’s Writings: (Un-)framing the
transgression of architecture’s limits,” 2009, Edinburgh Architecture Research, http://ace.caad.ed.ac.uk/ear2009/upload/pdfs/015Merlex.pdf)
For Bataille, architecture is not only there presentation of the ideal social norm but also an instrument to dictate good social
behaviour. Architecture is perhaps a discipline with definite boundaries but it has also a more practical aim: precisely, to
define the boundaries of society, to represent its ideal norm. Bataille isn’t the first to connect the human form with
architecture. Vitruvius did so, when he discovered the proportions of contemporary types of humanity in the different
orders of Greek architecture. But Vitruvius (as well as most of classical architects after him), used the metaphor to give life
to the stone. Bataille uses the analogy to demonstrate the reverse, a petrifaction of the living flesh that is reduced to a mere
structure or a proportioned skeleton. Architecture is seen as the final stage of a natural progression leading from the ape to
the ideal man and finally finding completion with the monument. But all that disappears with the passage from man to
monument is what is perishable: the flesh that rots through time. And all that remains is the skeleton, the structure.
Architecture preserves of man only what death has no hold on. This Hegelian-dialectical move, that is to face consciously
death and to supersede it, by becoming what death cannot impact, by killing the mortal animal within man, by transforming
man into pure spirit, is what Bataille would criticize all his life. Man reproduces himself as ideal, as immortal, as pure
spirit, by killing the mortal-animal that he is, through the mirror-trap that architecture holds out to him. Man is confined,
conformed and limited within his ideal, non animal reflection. Finally, Bataille concludes this rather short entry on
architecture by identifying the consequences and possibilities of an onslaught on architecture and its limitative or normative
process: ‘And if one attacks architecture, whose monumental productions are at present the real masters of the world,
grouping servile multitudes in their shadows, imposing admiration and astonishment, order and constraint, one is, as it
were, attacking man’.3 With this passage, Bataille formulates the battle plan of his project and the aim of his thought: the
ideal man and its adjunct set of norms and hierarchies directly inherited from the Enlightenment’s discourse, can be
overturned and transgressed through the attack of its representation: architecture. However, Bataille’s criticism of idealism
is not limited to the representative or reflective function of architecture. He also investigated the question of materiality. In
the third issue of Document, he wrote: ‘The time has come, when employing the word materialism, to assign to it the
meaning of a direct interpretation, excluding all idealism, of raw phenomena, and not of a system founded on the
fragmentary elements of an ideological analysis elaborated under the sign of religious ties’.4 Bataille restlessly opposed the
classical conception of philosophical materialism that was for him nothing but idealism in disguise. He sought to vanquish
the “ontologizing” of matter, which is what he believed materialist thinkers did. ‘Most materialists, despite wanting to
eliminate all spiritual entities, ended up describing an order of things whose hierarchical relations mark it as specifically
idealist. They have situated dead matter at the summit of a conventional hierarchy of diverse types of facts, without
realizing that in this way they have submitted to an obsession with an ideal form of matter, with a form which approaches
closer than any other to that which matter should be’. 5 This ‘should be’, for Bataille, is a form of homogeneous
appropriation: it presupposes the existence of a standard or a normative frame; a frame rejecting outside of itself its most
heterogeneous content. Applied to architecture, this leads to the questions of the ‘true’ use of materials and the ‘purity’ of
construction, means that are so dear to numerous classical and modern architects. Thus, materialism is also a form of
ordering, setting up limits and hierarchies; often a subject of discussion but most of the time an authoritarian boundary for
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
4
234830368
DDW 2012
1
architectural practices, marking the territory between what is a proper or true architecture and what should simply be
discarded as such. The question of the temporal and the decay in architecture, or of its economy, is also tackled by Bataille.
He saw within the mirroring of the ideal man in architecture a form of repetition; a repetition allowing architecture to
extend its domination this time on the field of the temporal and the economic. Man is asked to recognize himself in
architecture, and then in its turn architecture reflects what the ideal man is. Doing as such architecture constantly
reproduces itself, through man and within itself. And reproduction is the way out of the process of entropy which is,
through time, threatening every system and being. Architecture tries to stand outside of time, Bataille’s Writings refusing
decay and somehow its own death, by embodying the concept of harmony. ‘Harmony, like the project, refuses the notion
of time: its principle is the repetition through which everything becomes eternal. The ideal is architecture, or sculpture,
immobilizing the harmony, guaranteeing the duration of motivations of which essence is the annihilation of time’.
Architecture, on those questions of the temporal, decay and economy, is seen as a self-securing investment whose benefits
are literally eternal. Architecture can’t show signs of tiredness or crumbliness (only badly conceived architecture can, and
the blame is always put on the architect). It has to mirror man’s overcoming of death, eternally. Architecture should sustain
time, annihilate decay, represent harmony and finally stand outside of economy as the symbol of it, its general equivalent.
And everything that does not comply with the architectural will (but which is nevertheless constantly appearing on the
surface of architecture) should be rejected on the other side of the boundary (set up by the architectural authority), as
nonarchitecture, as an entropic failure, as disharmonious, as an economic loss.
Radical environmental solutions demand exposure to catastrophic imagery – their utilitarian mode of
accounting make destruction inevitable
Yusoff 09 (Kathryn Yusoff, Professor of Geography at the University of Exeter, “Excess, catastrophe, and climate change,”
October, 2009, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space advance online publication,
http://www.envplan.com/epd/fulltext/dforth/d7407.pdf)
``Knowledge is the agreement of the organism and the environment from which it emerges. Without knowledge, without
the identity of the organism, and without this agreement, life could not be imagined. What therefore is the organism in the
world, if not the unconsidered flight of a possible into the heart of the impossible that surrounds it? Developing this idea,
knowledge strives to restore the impossible (the unforeseeable) to the possible (the foreseeable). Through knowledge, this
hazardous flight is changed into a wise calculation: calculation is itself only possible by giving its possibility a fundamental
value. The wager of knowledge opens two paths.'' Bataille (2001, pages 221 ^ 222) One path, Bataille suggests, is to carry
on with the provisional nature of data to strengthen knowledge into degrees of certainty and predictability. This is, I have
argued, to cleave apart knowledge from nonknowledge or climate uncertainties and respond only to what we think we know
is certain. This route, as evidenced by the computation of polar sea ice retreat, is to ignore the dimensions of knowledge
that threaten the capacity of knowledge to have mastery over the planet. There is a cost to this splitting of the ambiguities of
knowledge into a restricted economy. At a practical level, the cost is that this nonknowledge exceeds the capacity of GCMs'
limited registers and renders them useless. At a political level, the cost is that we continue to regulate and respond to this
knowledge in ways that narrowly account for the circuit of cosmic energy, such as the recirculation of carbon credits. In
this knowledge, ``nothing is tragic, terrifying or sacred...nothing in this region is poetic'' (Bataille, 2001, page 222,
emphasis in original). The other side of the wager is to respond to how ``the movement of poetry departs from the known
and leads to the unknown'' (Bataille, 1970b, page 20) and how ``poetic language once again opens me to the abyss'' (2001,
page 222). To be opened to the abyss in Bataillean terms is to risk ourselves in light of this knowledge, to be radically open
to the implications of it. To envision rapidly retreating ice streams is to be attentive to their efficacy in the world, the poetry
and excess of their motion as experience that will have to be borne by others and is transformative in ways that
contemporary experience in the Arctic attests to. With the loss of ice comes the loss of intimacy with ways of knowing in
the Arctic. It is for circumpolar peoples a loss of traditional knowledge of their environment. For Aqqaluk Lynge, President
of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, Greenland, ``The magnitude of the climate change challenge is such a response of a
higher order is needed'' (2008, page 102). What is required is an excessive response that breaks with the vicious circuit of
accounting in the Arctic, where sea ice loss and its future disappearance feed into the development of energy production
opportunities and further the circulation of carbon credits. If we take Char's assertion that ``we are closer to the catastrophe
than the alarm itself'' to mean that our relationship to the disaster is presently more intimate than our power to represent
itöfifty-year climate lags, the lack of computing power that impedes complex GCMs, unknown teleconnections and
feedbacks, insufficient res- ponse to our knowledgeöwe might think about how to recuperate some excess from the disaster
itself to compose our ``well-being of misfortune'' (Bataille, 1994, page 132). Both Bataille and Blanchot sought to write
into this experience to somehow bring back the disaster into a space of vital thought and ethical possibility. And, if we
acknowl- edge that the disaster of climate change will not be a single event, but a multiple field of destructions that like the
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
5
234830368
DDW 2012
1
Burkean sublime can be found in the everyday of our wasting world, the call to bring back something of the energy burst of
the disaster seems urgent.(14) Bataille says: ``We need on the one hand to go beyond the narrow limits within which we
ordinarily remain, and on the other hand somehow bring our going-beyond back within our limits'' (1991, page 69). The
way to `bring back' for Bataille is to acknowledge the ambiguities of knowledge that are often excluded and the intimacy of
knowledge as a form of experience. This means that more than ways of accounting, limiting, and conserving, what GCM
models give us is a form of nonknowledge, the futurity of climate change as a site of destruction that has many
uncertainties that cannot be assimilated in the current narrow limits of modelling. This intimate space of the imagination is
a vision of the world that breaks through the narrow limits of data to scream forth that we must be changed by this
knowledge. This is the cost of knowledge, that, as Blanchot warns, means we cannot go ``Let us change, let us change, and
remain the same'' (1997, page 102, emphasis in original). He suggests that, when the theme everywhere is that we must
change, we cannot do so without a radical new thinking that does not repeat the partial responses of the political order and
the moving, urgent responses of the spiritual order. More than anything this excessive dimension of the informational
models of climate change prediction offers us a vision of loss. For Bataille and Char the consciousness of an expanded or
general economy is the ``vital quality which urges struggle'' (Bataille, 1994, page 132). This vital quality is born of an
exuberance that is not quantifiable and is matched only by the generosity of the sun. This vital strategy moves us away from
the utilitarian models of accounting for loss in billions of dollars and contracts for CO2 which are produced through and
maintained by forms of digitalised globalism and perhaps into intimate experiments with another energy formösolar
power(15)öthat is, for Bataille, the only limit of the biosphere.
The opposition to our transgressive use of excess culminates in devastating forms of accumulation and
denies life meaning
Stoekl 07 (Alan, professor of French and comparative literature at Penn State University, “Bataille’s Peak: Energy, Religion and
Postsustainability,” 2007, p.44-46)
Bataille does, then, implicitly face the question of carrying capacity. Perhaps the ultimate example of this is nuclear war.
The modern economy, according to Bataille, does not recognize the possibility of excess and therefore limits; the
Protestant, and then the Marxist, ideal is to reinvest all excess back into the productive process, always augmenting output
in this way. “Utility” in this model ends up being perfectly impractical: only so much output can be reabsorbed into the
ever-more-efficient productive process. As in the case with Tibet, ultimately the excess will have to be burned off. This can
happen either peacefully, through various postcapitalist mechanisms that Bataille recommends, such as the Marshall Plan,
which will shift growth to other parts of the world, or violently and apocalyptically through the ultimate in war: nuclear
holocaust. One can see that, in the end, the world itself will be en vase clos, fully developed, with no place for the excess to
go. The bad alternative—nuclear holocaust—will result in the ultimate reduction in carrying capacity: a burned-out,
depopulated earth. Humanity is, at the same time, through industry, which uses energy for the development of the forces of
production, both a multiple opening of the possibilities of growth, and the infinite faculty for burnoff in pure loss (facilite
infinie de consumation en pure perte]. (OC. 7: 170; AS, 181) Modern war is first of all a renunciation: one produces and
amasses wealth in order to overcome a foe. War is an adjunct to economic expansion; it is a practical use of excessive
forces. And this perhaps is the ultimate danger of the present-day (1949) buildup of nuclear arms: armament, seemingly a
practical way of defending one’s own country or spreading one’s own values, in other words, of growing, ultimately leads
to the risk of a “pure destruction” of excess—and even of carrying capacity In the case of warfare, destructiveness is
masked, made unrecognizable, by the appearance of an ultimate utility: in this case the spread of the American economy
and the American way of life around the globe. Paradoxically, there is a kind of self-consciousness concerning excess, in
the “naïve” society—which recognizes expenditure for what it is (in the form of unproductive glory in primitive warfare)—
and a thorough ignorance of it in the modem one, which would always attempt to put waste to work (“useful” armaments)
even at the cost of wholesale destruction. Bataille, then, like Le Blanc, can be characterized as a thinker of society who
situates his theory in the context of ecological limits. From Bataille’s perspective, however, there is always too much rather
than too little, given the existence of ecological (“natural”) and social (“cultural”) limits. The “end” of humankind, its
ultimate goal, is thus the destruction of this surplus. While Le Blanc stresses war and sacrifice as a means of obtaining or
maintaining what is essential to bare human (personal, social) survival, Bataille emphasizes the maintenance of limits and
survival as mere preconditions for engaging in the glorious destruction of excess. The meaning of the limit and its
affirmation is inseparable from the senselessness of its transgression in expenditure (la dépense). By seeing warfare as a
mere (group) survival mechanism, Le Blanc makes the same mistake as that made by the supporters of a nuclear buildup;
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
6
234830368
DDW 2012
1
he, like they, sees warfare as practical, serving a purpose, and not as the sheer burn-off it really is. If, however, our most
fundamental gesture is the destruction of a surplus, the production of that surplus must be seen as subsidiary. Once we
recognize that everything cannot be saved and reinvested, the ultimate end (and most crucial problem) of our existence
becomes the disposal of excess wealth (concentrated, nonusable energy). All other activity leads to something else, is a
means to some other end; the only end that leads nowhere is the act of destruction by which we may—or may not—assure
our (personal) survival (there is nothing to guarantee that radical destruction—consumation—does not turn on its author).
We work in order to spend. We strive to produce sacred (charged) things, not practical things. Survival and reproduction
alone are not the ultimate ends of human existence. We could characterize Bataille for this reason as a thinker of ecology
who nevertheless emphasizes the primacy of an ecstatic social act (destruct ion). By characterizing survival as a means not
an end (the most fundamental idea in “general economy”), expenditure for Bataille becomes a limitless, insubordinate act—
a real end (that which does not lead outside itself). I follow Bataille in this primacy of the delirium of expenditure over the
simple exigency of personal or even social survival (Le Blanc). This does not preclude, however, a kind of ethical
aftereffect of Bataille’s expenditure: survival for this reason can be read as the fundamentally unintentional consequence of
expenditure rather than its purpose. Seeing a nuclear buildup as the wrong kind of expenditure—because it is seen as a
means not an end—can lead, in Bataille’s view, to a rethinking of the role of expenditure in the modern world and hence,
perhaps, the world’s (but not modernity’s) survival.
Our alternative is to refuse the 1ac’s utilitarian ethics as a revolutionary act of sacrifice – that’s the only
way to reverse nuclear annihilation, slavery and escape the current political order
Goldhammer 5 - Ph.D. in political science from the University of California, Berkeley (Jesse, “The Headless Republic”,
pg 10-14)
In chapter 4, I examine how the renegade surrealist Georges Bataille used the sacrificial ideas developed by his
predecessors to challenge the basic premise of the French discourse on sacrificial violence. Although Bataille agrees with
Maistre, Sor,el, and the French revolutionaries that sacrificial violence can be adapted to modern political settings, Bataille
disputes the historical association of sacrifice with political foundation and authority. Maistre, Sorel, and the French
revolutionaries sought to place sacrifice in the service of moral revolutions in order to ground new forms of politics and
legitimate power. For Bataille, however, human liberation requires not better politics, achieved through violent political
foundation, but rather the sacrificial dismantling of the constitutive elements of modern political activity. Taking aim at
liberalism and utilitarianism in particular, Bataille pursues an idea of revolutionary sacrifice that liberates human beings
from all forms of servility, including morality authority, identity, community the whole modern political enterprise. Bataille
argues that revolutionary liberation requires the retrieval of sacrificial activities that subvert rational, useful, and productive
modes of thought and action anything that transforms human beings into things. Rather than producing something that the
sacrificer can use, such as power rendered sacred, Bataillian sacrifice generates an ecstatic experience of self loss. In
Bataille's vie sacrifice must free humanity from politics, not support, establish, or reestablish it. Bataffle thus envisions that
unproductive sacrificial activities will give birth to a metapoitical community paradoxically defined by its permanent lack
of foundation. In this way Bataille uses the works of Maistre and Sorel to repudiate the basic assumptions of the French
discourse on sacrificial violence. Batalile's radical reformulating of political sacrifice reveals what is at stake in using
sacrificial violence to found politics. During the t93os, Bataille increasingly distanced sacrificial practices from the realm of
politics because he was fearful that founding violence would generate fascism rather than freedom. On the eve of World
War II, Bataille extended this logic as far as it would go, imagining that sacrificial violence would achieve ecstatic
liberation if it were practiced in the bedroom or on and through the text. Although Bataille never evinces any reticence
about violence or cruelty I argue that he ultimately realized that sacrifice practiced in either a French revolutionary,
Maistrian, or Sorelian fashion led to tyranny. Batallle's contribution to the French discourse on sacrificial violence is thus
ironical. On one hand, he pushes the idea of sacrificial violence to its logical conclusion by arguing that the sacrifice of
another being for the sake of political change cannot generate anything useful or productive. On the other hand, the
legendary sacrificial crime to borrow again from Machiavelli permanently alters the sacrificers as well as the basis upon
which they can form a community with others. Thus, Bataille recognized that seeking political change through sacrifice
permanently destabilizes the basic elements of modern Western politics. Although Bataille lays bare the risk of using
sacrificial violence to found politics, he also succumbs to the same temptation as his predecessors who condemned the use
of sacrifice by others, but wished to harness it for themselves. Bataille criticizes the French revolutionaries, Maistre, and
Sorel for placing sacrifice in the service of authoritarian structures of power. Like the other members of the discourse on
sacrificial violence, however, Bataille never abandons the idea that sacrificial violence is a sacred, spectacular form of
bloodshed that plays a vital role in the formation of human communality. During the Cold War, Bataille
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
7
234830368
DDW 2012
1
uncharacteristically developed this position into a quasi scientific, general theory of political economy Representing a
systematic critique of utilitarianism, this postwar theoretical work illustrates Bataille's effort to find contemporary examples
of sacrificial loss that will save the modern world from the dangers of political sclerosis and the possibility of nuclear
annihilation. In setting sacrifice to work, Bataille contradicts his prewar claims about the absolute uselessness of sacrifice.
At the same time, he also demonstrates the sublime appeal the attraction and danger of adapting ancient ideas about
violence and loss to modern political conditions. It was precisely this particular quality of sacrificial violence that originally
attracted the French revolutionaries,.leading them to inaugurate the discourse on sacrificial violence. Defining sacrifice is
difficult because of the ambiguity inherent in violence. Violence is generally defined in terms of physical injury or harm to
subjects and objects. Violence directed against humans involves injury to or constraint of the body and mind. Against
objects, violence entails damage or destruction. Metaphoric violence, the broadest aspect of the definition, includes
innumerable symbolic, culturally specific notions of harm. The modern meaning of violence is limited and, unfortunately,
confused by the fact that it is distinguished from "force," which today is often used to mean legitimate violence. Because
there are various, irreconcilable concepts of right, there is also irresolvable debate about the difference between force and
violence. In the ancient world, however, the concept of violence retained the ambiguity eschewed by the modern world, Vi
"force," is the root of the Latin vi/coda, "violence," collapsing the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate bloodshed.
I/jo lentus denotes "acting with (unreasonable) force towards others, violent, savage, aggressive."' In this case,
"unreasonable" describes not the illicitness or illegality of a violent act, but rather its disproportionate, extraordinary; or
distinctive quality: This definition of plo/cows is negative and thus departs from the more ambiguous meaning of vLs,
which retains a positive quality. In addition to signifying the use of physical strength to compel or constrain vigorously as
well as the unlawful use of force, pbs also implies binding force or authority.' J/ls thus encompasses the essential
uncertainty of violence, the fact that it can be "good" or "bad," depending on the context. A subcategory of violence,
sacrifice is etymologically an act that renders holy or sacred. If rendering sacred entails a process of setting apart from the
quotidian or profane, then sacrificial violence is a paradoxical practice: it is a form of violence capable of breaking and
forming distinctions or erasing and drawing boundaries. This definition is counterintuitive because the modern view of
violence exclusively associates it with the breaking down of social distinctions, chaos, mayhem, disruption, anarchy, loss of
control, and the like. In contrast, sacrificial violence involves a double movement; it transgresses limits in order to inscribe
or reinscribe them. 'What is more, this is not necessarily a conservative operation. The purpose of sacrifice is not limited to
the restoration of a particular order, limit, boundary, or status quo. The function of sacrifice is contingent upon how it
"makes sacred." Some sacred things are pure, elevated, divine, majestic, and absolute; others are impure, debased, demonic,
abject, and inassimilable. When violentia denotes the capacity to transgress, pollute, or profane things that are pure or
sacred, it captures only the negative aspect of the violent dou ble movement of sacrifice.Viewed from the standpoint of
force or legitimate violence, sacrifice holds the potential to generate a positive sacredness, which mimics the legitimacy of
political power. In this respect, sacrifice describes a variety of practices that transform the negativity of violence into
something socioculturally acceptable. Like any other social phenomenon, violence has normal and exceptional
manifestations. Socially acceptable violence does not call attention to itself or to its author; it is woven into the fabric of
everyday life. Exceptional, spectacular; or transgressive violence creates a tear in that fabric and, in so doing, sets its
authors and their victims apart from their fellow human beings.This separation by dint of violence is the essence of the
sacrificial mechanism and the reason why such bloodshed is considered sacred. A process of collective destruction,
sacrificial violence is often ritualized or culturally prefigured. Although this book is concerned with the meanings of human
sacrifice in a modern political context, sacrifice has, more often than not, involved animal, vegetable, and inanimate
objects. Ritual sacrificial practices and their meanings are typically inherited from the past and are usually invoked only in
particular circumstances. As the very term implies, ritual sacrifice is anticipated, orchestrated, and socially acceptable; like
Mass or potlatch, it is a symbolic form of violence that conforms to a regularized set of expectations. The participants in the
ritual know what kind of violence will take place; they know how that violence will be conducted, and by whom; most
important, they know whit category of victim (pridner ofwar, woman, racial or religious minority, etc.) will be selected.
Although the actual function ofritual sacrifice may remain a mystery to those who practice it, its total meaning is
predetermined. Thus, ritual sacrifice can be compared to a game of chance: the rules may not be written down, but they are
fixed. These rules govern the selection ofthe victim, even though the specific victim and the actual outcome remain
unknown. Finajly, like games of chance, sacrificial rites can have various outcomes, a reflection of their "success" or
"failure?' Sacrifice is not always ritually prescribed. Two factors separate spontaneous sacrificial violence from its ritual
cousin: the absence of agreement about sacrificial legitimacy and procedure. Without ritual prescription knowing whom,
when, and how to kill communities that spontaneously sacrifice inevitably find themselves deeply divided about the reasons
for and methods of killing. Indeed, in such cases, sacrifice may simply heighten communal conflict. Whifr ritual sacrifice
expresses the rigidity and hierarchy of the social order that it serves, spontaneous sacrifice has no specific allegiance to any
set of cultural symbols or social distinctions. Spontaneous sacrificial violence is potentially revolutionary when it
symbolically manifests' ociocuIrural meanings and symbols that compete with dominant, traditional ones. Disconnected
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
8
234830368
DDW 2012
1
from an orchestrated and au¬thorized set of practices, spontaneous sacrifice can, through violence, open a space of
contestation that serves to challenge status quo views and practices. It is a telltale sign that a community in crisis is
pregnant with a new political order.
About 3 minutes of case
CCS is infeasible – would cost $5.1 trillion to stabilize CO2 levels
Tsouris and Aaron ’10 (Costas Tsouris and Douglas Aaron are at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and
Georgia Institute of Technology, US, September 2010, “ Do we really need carbon capture and storage?”,
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2010/September/DoWeReallyNeedCarbonCaptureStorage.asp) SRK
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a possible technology to mitigate anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to the
atmosphere. CCS includes multiple methods to accomplish the goals of capturing, transporting and storing CO2; most
such efforts focus on fossil-fuel-based power generation. Primarily because of its high cost and environmental issues,
CCS will face considerable obstacles. Several economic and technical challenges must be overcome for CCS to
compete with alternative energy strategies for CO2 emissions avoidance. To better understand the relative importance
of the cost of CCS and its effectiveness in avoiding CO2 emissions, we performed a comparison of carbon avoidance via
CCS and using alternative energy technologies.1 In this comparison, the resources that would be spent on CCS were
instead used to develop alternative energy capacity - specifically wind, nuclear and geothermal power - a concept called
'virtual CCS'. This comparison was designed to rank CCS and alternative energy technologies according to the
effectiveness and cost of avoiding CO2 emissions. The calculations involved in this simulation determined the cost of
performing CCS on a globally significant mass of CO2 emissions by considering the wedge concept of Pacala and
Socolow.2 Specifically, we considered 100 billion (giga) tonnes (GtCO2) to be avoided over 50 years as the basis for
comparison. Pacala and Socolow proposed to divide anthropogenic CO2 emissions into 'wedges' to facilitate the
implementation of a portfolio approach to solving the CO2 problem. Global emissions were estimated at 30 GtCO2 for
the year 2010, assumed to increase linearly over time, and expected to double by 2060. Stabilising the emissions at 2010
levels would require 800 GtCO2 to be avoided in the next 50 years. Assuming $51 (£33) per tonne of CO2 (tCO2)
avoided via CCS, an estimate based on the 2005 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report for a new coal-fired
power plant,3 we estimated the cost for one wedge of CCS to be $5.1 trillion. For virtual CCS, this means that $5.1
trillion spread over 50 years could be utilised to build, maintain, operate and decommission alternative energy
installations such as wind farms, nuclear plants or geothermal plants.
Leaks
Rochon et al. ’08 ( Emily Rochon: Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace International, Dr Erika
Bjureby Previously: lecturer in political ecology, Uppsala University. Currently: researcher, Greenpeace
International, Dr Paul Johnston is principal scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories and Head of the
Science Unit for Greenpeace International. Paul set up the Greenpeace Research Laboratories at London's Queen
Mary College in 1987. He has continued as the principal scientist since the group relocated to the University of
Exeter in 1992, David Santillo: Honorary Research Fellow (Greenpeace) David obtained a degree in marine and
freshwater biology in 1989, and a PhD in marine microbial ecology in 1993, both from the University of London,
before continuing with postdoctoral research into nutrient pollution in the Adriatic Sea. A senior scientist, David
joined the Greenpeace Research Laboratories in 1994, and now has almost 15 years experience in organic
analytical chemistry and development of policies for environmental protection, Dr. Gabriela von Goerne is
Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace Germany . She holds a university degree and a PhD in geology, May 2008, “
False Hope Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate”,
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2008/5/false-hope-why-carbon-capture.pdf) SRK
As long as CO2 is present in geological formations, there is a risk of leakage – it can migrate laterally or upwards
to the surface. In contact with water, CO2 becomes corrosive and can compromise the integrity of cap rocks, well
casings and cement plugs. Undetected fractures in cap rocks or those created by injecting CO2 at too high a
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
9
234830368
DDW 2012
1
pressure can provide another avenue for CO2 to escape. Improper design and construction of wells can also create
opportunities for leakage.121 The implications for climate mitigation as well as the other environmental and public
health risks make leakage a serious concern. Preventing leaks will largely rely upon careful technology choices,
project design, plant operation and reservoir selection. The IPCC notes that the fraction of CO2 retained in
“geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over 100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1000 years”.122
However, these findings are only valid for well-selected, fully characterised, properly designed and managed
storage locations. At the moment, sufficient capacity in high quality reservoirs cannot be assured, nor can their
appropriate design and management be guaranteed. It is likely that some CO2 storage will occur in lower quality
sites, without proper management. In these cases, the risk of leakage could be even greater. For example, a CCS
experiment in Texas (see “Storing carbon underground can have unintended consequences”, page 26) found CO2
injected into saline sedimentary aquifers caused carbonates and other minerals to dissolve rapidly. This could
allow CO2 and brine to leak into the water table.123 While it is not currently possible to quantify the exact risk of
leakage, any CO2 release has the potential to impact the surrounding environment; air, groundwater or soil. Most
computer models suggest leakage will occur fastest in the first 50-100 years of a project’s lifetime, before trapping
mechanisms take effect. Others indicate that little happens in the first 1000-year period with leakage most likely to
occur over the following 3000 to 5000 year period.124 Either way, even a tiny rate of leakage could undermine any
putative climate benefit of CCS. A leakage rate of just 1% on 600 Gt of stored carbon (2160 GtCO2 or about 100
years’ worth of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels), could release as much as 6Gt of carbon (21.6 GtCO2) per year
back into the atmosphere. This is roughly equivalent to current total global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.125
Remediation may be possible for CO2 leaks but there is no track record or cost estimates for these sorts of
measures.126
Peer reviewed studies show CCS can’t and won’t solve global warming
Rochon et al. ’08 ( Emily Rochon: Climate and Energy Campaigner at Greenpeace International, Dr Erika
Bjureby Previously: lecturer in political ecology, Uppsala University. Currently: researcher, Greenpeace
International, Dr Paul Johnston is principal scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories and Head of the
Science Unit for Greenpeace International. Paul set up the Greenpeace Research Laboratories at London's Queen
Mary College in 1987. He has continued as the principal scientist since the group relocated to the University of
Exeter in 1992, David Santillo: Honorary Research Fellow (Greenpeace) David obtained a degree in marine and
freshwater biology in 1989, and a PhD in marine microbial ecology in 1993, both from the University of London,
before continuing with postdoctoral research into nutrient pollution in the Adriatic Sea. A senior scientist, David
joined the Greenpeace Research Laboratories in 1994, and now has almost 15 years experience in organic
analytical chemistry and development of policies for environmental protection, Dr. Gabriela von Goerne is
Climate Campaigner at Greenpeace Germany . She holds a university degree and a PhD in geology, May 2008, “
False Hope Why carbon capture and storage won’t save the climate”,
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2008/5/false-hope-why-carbon-capture.pdf) SRK
Every decision made about new power plants today will influence the energy mix of the next 30-40 years. The urgency
of the climate crisis means solutions must be ready for large-scale deployment in the short-term. CCS simply cannot
deliver in time. While some system components of CCS are already in commercial use – mostly in the oil and gas
industry- “there is no operational experience with carbon capture from coal plants and certainly not with an
integrated sequestration operation”.78 While plans for demonstration facilities are underway, it is believed that the
earliest CCS might become feasible is 2030.79 The UNDP concludes that CCS “will arrive on the battlefield far too
late to help the world avoid dangerous climate change.”80 “Capture ready” power stations Proponents of CCS
circumvent the fact that the technology is not ready, by proposing to build “capture ready” power stations. This term
refers not to a particular type of technology but more a state of being for a power station. While there is no strict
definition of “capture ready”, the IEA describes a capture ready plant as “[one] which can be retrofitted with CO2
capture when the necessary regulatory or economic drivers are in place.”81 This is sufficiently broad to make any station
theoretically capture ready, and the term meaningless. The concept of “capture ready” power stations allows new
coal-fired power stations to be built today while providing no guarantee that emissions will be mitigated in the
future. In lieu of delivering a concrete solution to fighting climate change, it banks on the promise of an unproven
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
10
234830368
DDW 2012
1
technology and risks locking us into an energy future that fails to protect the climate. In the UK, for example, a proposed
new coal-fired power plant at Kingsnorth, Kent is being sold as “capture ready.” Yet this doesn’t mean that the new
plant will be able to capture and store carbon; it will just be ready to incorporate CCS should the technology ever
become viable in the future; and no-one has any idea if and when this might be. In the meantime, and possibly for its
entire lifetime, Kingsnorth (if built) will pump out around 8 million tonnes of CO2 per year, an amount equivalent to the
total annual CO2 emissions of Ghana.82 Recent project cancellations highlight some of the technical and economic
concerns tied to CCS. In 2007, at least 11 CCS projects were scrapped; plans for new projects stagnated; and the pace of
development for existing projects slowed considerably.83 Most recently, the US DOE pulled out of its flagship CCS
project, FutureGen, citing cost concerns (see “US abandons CCS flagship programme”, page 34). Delays and cost overruns have also led to project cancellations in the UK, Canada, and Norway. The vote of no confidence that CCS
received in a survey of 1000 “climate decision-makers and influencers” from around the world is also significant.
The survey, conducted by GlobeScan, the World Conservation Union, IUCN and the World Bank, reveals substantial
doubt about CCS. Only 34% of those polled were confident that retrofitting clean coal technology could reduce CO2
emissions over the next 25 years without unacceptable side effects, and only 36% in the ability of ‘clean coal technology’
to deliver low carbon energy with new power stations. In contrast, 74% expressed confidence in the ability of solar hot
water to deliver, 62% for offshore wind farms, 60% for onshore wind farms, and 51% for combined heat and power
plants.84 “Capture ready” or not, a coal-fired power station built today aggravates the climate crisis. Maintaining the
status quo in the hope that CCS might some day be able to deliver is not a climate mitigation strategy. Emission
reduction potential Even if CCS were ready, the IPCC notes that deployment would only take place if the
appropriate subsidy mechanisms and policy drivers (including a price on carbon) were put in place. As a result, it
estimates that the bulk of the technology’s adoption would not happen until the second half of this century.85
Assuming that commercial viability is reached, scenario studies indicate that by 2050 only 20-40% of global fossil fuel
CO2 emissions could be technically suitable for capture86. This includes 30-60% of emissions from the power
sector.87 Therefore up to 70% of emissions from electricity generation in 2050 may not even be technically suited to
CCS. Furthermore, this figure does not account for the fact that power stations will often be far away from storage sites.
In Australia, CCS would lead, at best, to a 9% emissions reduction in 2030 and a cumulative emissions reduction from
2005 to -Sydney-Wollongong area of New South Wales and at Port Augusta in South Australia, which together produce
about 39% of Australia’s current net CO2 emissions from electricity generation, there are no identified storage sites
within 500 km of the coal-fired power stations.89 In comparison, a modest improvement in energy efficiency could – at
zero or even negative cost – decrease emissions in 2030 by about the same amount, and cumulative emissions by twice
as much.90 Climate scientists warn global emissions must peak by 2015, just seven years away. CCS is unable to
deliver the necessary greenhouse gas emission reductions to meet this goal.
Earthquakes turn case – CCS causes earthquakes which pop the seal
Zoback and Gorelick 6/18 ( Mark D. Zoback is the Benjamin M. Page Professor at the Stanford Department
of Geophysics, Steven Gorelick is the Cyrus F. Tolman Professor in the Department of Environmental Earth
System Science at Stanford, “ Earthquake triggering and large-scale geologic storage of carbon
dioxide”,http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/13/1202473109.full.pdf) SRK
Many CCS research projects are cur- rently underway around the world. Much of this work involves characterization and
testing of potential storage formations and includes a number of small-scale pilot in- jection projects. Because the
storage ca- pacity/pressure build-up issue is critical to assess the potential for triggered seismicity, small-scale pilot
injection projects do not reflect how pressures are likely to change (increase) once full-scale injection is implemented. Moreover, even though limitations on pressure build-up are among the many factors that are evaluated
when potential formations are considered as sequestration sites, this is usually done in the context of not allowing
pressures to exceed the pres- sure at which hydraulic fractures would be initiated in the storage formation or caprock. In the context of a critically stressed crust, slip on preexisting, unidentified faults could trigger small- to
moderate-sized earthquakes at pressures far below that at which hydraulic fractures would form. As mentioned
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
11
234830368
DDW 2012
1
above, sequences of small to moderate earthquakes were apparently induced by injection of waste water near Guy,
Arkansas, Trinidad, Colorado, and Youngstown, Ohio in 2011 and on the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport, Texas. Although these
earthquakes were widely felt, they caused no injury, and only the Trinidad earthquake resulted in any significant
damage. However, had similar earthquakes been triggered at sites where CO2 was being injected, the impacts would
have raised pressing and important questions: Had the seal been breached? Was it still safe to leave previously injected
CO2 in place? In summary, multiple lines of evidence indicate that preexisting faults found in brittle rocks almost
everywhere in the earth’s crust are subject to failure, often in response to very small increases in pore pressure. In
light of the risk posed to a CO2 repository by even small- to moderate-sized earthquakes, formations suitable for
large-scale injection of CO2 must be carefully chosen. In addition to being well sealed by impermeable over- laying
strata, they should also be weakly cemented (so as not to fail through brittle faulting) and porous, permeable, and
laterally extensive to accommodate large volumes of CO2 with minimal pressure increases. Thus, the issue is not
whether CO2 can be safely stored at a given site; the issue is whether the capacity exists for sufficient volumes of
CO2 to be stored geologically for it to have the desired beneficial effect on climate change. In this context, it must
be recognized that large-scale CCS will be an extremely ex- pensive and risky strategy for achieving significant
reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions.
Climate change is completely natural and the world is cooling – historical cycle, satellite data, ocean
oscillation, and sunspots prove
Ferrara 12 (Peter Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, General Counsel for the
American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, he served in the White House
Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States
under President George H.W. Bush, he is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, 5/31/12, “Sorry Global
Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling” www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warmingalarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/2/)
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. Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the
warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from
the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
(AMO). In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010. Was that
based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?
Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer. He publicly predicted in
2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010. He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999,
something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant. Well, the results are in, and
the winner is….Don Easterbrook. Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are
Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?” Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk:
cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it. All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by
contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with
admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate. Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC
was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening. That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the
same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future. Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics
Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record
a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase. Such a doubling would take most of
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
12
234830368
DDW 2012
1
this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. You can see
Hayden’s presentation online as well. Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue
for another 2 decades or so. Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500
years, with similar data going back 15,000 years. He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward
trend. But that is not all. We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is
associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures . The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton
Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted
Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes). Even worse was the period
known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within
the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times. The Maunder Minimum
coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850. The Maunder
Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death. Such
impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon,
Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author
with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun. Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question
is only how cold this present cold cycle will get. Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s? Or will
the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum? He says it is
impossible to know now. But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.
Even if climate change is real, it doesn’t cause extinction.
Sherwood, Keith, and Craig Idso et al 2012 (Craig, PhD in geography @Arizona State, M.S. in Agronomy from U
Nebraska) Plant Responses to Significant and Rapid Global Warming http://co2science.org/articles/V15/N24/EDIT.php
In an impressive and enlightening review of the subject, Willis and MacDonald (2011) begin by noting that key research
efforts have focused on extinction scenarios derived from "a suite of predictive species distribution models (e.g., Guisan
and Thuiller, 2005)" - which are most often referred to as bioclimatic envelope models - that "predict current and future
range shifts and estimate the distances and rates of movement required for species to track the changes in climate and
move into suitable new climate space." And they write that one of the most-cited studies of this type - that of Thomas et
al. (2004) - "predicts that, on the basis of mid-range climatic warming scenarios for 2050, up to 37% of plant species
globally will be committed to extinction owing to lack of suitable climate space." In contrast, the two researchers say
that "biotic adaptation to climate change has been considered much less frequently." This phenomenon - which is
sometimes referred to as evolutionary resilience - they describe as "the ability of populations to persist in their current
location and to undergo evolutionary adaptation in response to changing environmental conditions (Sgro et al., 2010)."
And they note that this approach to the subject "recognizes that ongoing change is the norm in nature and one of the
dynamic processes that generates and maintains biodiversity patterns and processes," citing MacDonald et al. (2008)
and Willis et al. (2009). The aim of Willis and MacDonald's review, therefore, was to examine the effects of significant
and rapid warming on earth's plants during several previous intervals of the planet's climatic history that were as warm
as, or even warmer than, what climate alarmists typically predict for the next century. These intervals included the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the Eocene climatic optimum, the mid-Pliocene warm interval, the Eemian
interglacial, and the Holocene. And it is important to note that this approach, in contrast to the approach typically used
by climate alarmists, relies on empirical (as opposed to theoretical) data-based (as opposed to model-based),
reconstructions (as opposed to projections) of the past (as opposed to the future). And what were the primary findings
of the two researchers? As they describe them, in their own words, "persistence and range shifts (migrations) seem to
have been the predominant terrestrial biotic response (mainly of plants) to warmer intervals in Earth's history," while
"the same responses also appear to have occurred during intervals of rapid climate change." In addition, they make a
strong point of noting that "evidence for global extinctions or extinctions resulting from reduction of population sizes on
the scale predicted for the next century owing to loss of suitable climate space (Thomas et al., 2004) is not apparent." In
fact, they state that sometimes an actual increase in local biodiversity is observed, the case for which we lay out in
Section II (Physiological Reasons for Rejecting the CO2-Induced Global Warming Extinction Hypothesis) of our Major
Report The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere? Read it and rejoice!
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
13
234830368
DDW 2012
1
1) Their Handwerk 12 evidence concedes that with federal mandates, companies WOULD
implement CCS. Cross-apply their Gardner evidence here, the plan will happen in the status quo.
FIRST, momentum makes warming inevitable for decades
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), staff, STRATEGIC SURVEY v. 107 n. 1, September20 07, pp. 33-84
The IPCC's Summary for Policymakers on the scientific basis for climate change, released in February 2007, concluded that global surface temperature increased by 0.57-0.96°C from the
second half of the nineteenth century to the beginning of the twenty-first, with the rate accelerating to 0.10-0.16°C per decade over the last 50 years. Eleven of the last 12 years rank
According to the IPCC report, warming will inevitably continue and raised temperatures will
persist for centuries, even with the best possible efforts at mitigation, since there is a lag between emissions and warming
and since important greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for decades to centuries.
among the 12 warmest years since 1850.
SECOND, China overwhelms
John Vidal and David Adam, journalists, “China Overtakes US as World’s Biggest CO2 Emitter,” GUARDIAN, 6-19-07,
www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/climate/2007/0619chinaclimate.htm, accessed 5-20-08.
China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures
released today show. The surprising announcement will increase anxiety about China's growing role in driving man-made
global warming and will pile pressure onto world politicians to agree a new global agreement on climate change that includes the booming Chinese economy. China'semissions
had not been expected to overtake those from the US, formerly the world's biggest polluter, forseveral years, although some reports predicted it could happen as early as next year. But
according to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, soaring demand for coal to generate electricity and a surge in cement production have helped to push China's recorded
emissions for 2006 beyond those from the US already. It says China produced 6,200m tonnes of CO2 last year, compared with 5,800m tonnes from the US. Britain produced about 600m
"There will still be some uncertainty about the exact numbers, but this is the best and most
China relies very heavily on coal and all of the recent trends show their emissions going up very
tonnes. Jos Olivier, a senior scientist at the government agency who compiled the figures, said:
up to date estimate available.
quickly." China's emissions were 2% below those of the US in 2005. Perhead of population, China's pollution remains relatively low - about a quarter of that in the US and half that of
the UK.
THIRD, CO2 doesn’t cause warming—multiple reasons
S. Fred Singer et al., Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University, NATURE, NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY RULES
THE CLIMATE, Heartland Institute, Science and Environmental Policy Project,20 08, http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf,
accessed 4-27-08.
The correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide levels is weak and inconclusive. The
IPCC cites correlation of global mean temperature with increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in
the twentieth century to support its conclusion. The argument sounds plausible; after all, CO2 is a GH gas and its levels are
increasing. However, the correlation is poor and, in any case, would not prove causation. Prehistoric Temperatures from
Proxy Data The climate cooled from 1940-1975 while CO2 was rising rapidly (Figures 4a,b). Moreover, there has been no
warming trend apparent, especially in global data from satellites, since about 2001, despite a continuing rapid rise in CO2
emissions.The UK Met Office issued a 10-year forecast in August 2007 in which they predict further warming is unlikely before 2009.
However, they suggest at least half the years between 2009 and 2014 will be warmer than the present record set in 1998
[Met Office 2007]. ! Computer models don’t provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming.
Greenland Ice-Core Bore Hole Record !
FOURTH, best data prove humans aren’t to blame
S. Fred Singer et al., Distinguished Research Professor, George Mason University, NATURE, NOT HUMAN ACTIVITY RULES
THE CLIMATE, Heartland Institute, Science and Environmental Policy Project,2008, http://www.heartland.org/pdf/22835.pdf,
accessed 4-27-08.
! Global warming prior to 1940 was not anthropogenic. Most agree that the pre-1940 warming signals a recovery from the
Little Ice Age and was not caused by GH gases but by natural factors, amongst which solar variability was probably most
important. Yet the IPCC in 2001 [IPCC-TAR, p. 716] still quoted a paper that maintains the cause was anthropogenic. That analysis [Wigley 1998] was based on an idiosyncratic
statistical approach that has been criticized as spurious. [Tsonis and Elsner 1999] Another way to show that this analysis is wrong is to divide the data into pre-1935 and post-1935
. The results for post-1935 correspond to those derived from an unforced (i.e., no increase
in GH gases) model calculation. This is contrary to expectation and also suggests the pre-1935 warming is not
anthropogenic. Conclusion: The claim that man is the primary cause of the recent warming is not supported by science. The
scientific evidence cited by the IPCC is largely contradicted by observations and analysis. If human influences on global
climate are minor, what are the major influences? There are many causes of global climate change, each one prominent
depending on the time scale considered. On a time scale of decades to centuries, solar variability may be the most important
periods, and then apply Wigley’s statistical method
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
14
234830368
DDW 2012
1
factor. There are also natural oscillations of internal origin, especially on a regional scale, that do not appear to be connected to
human causes either.
FIFTH, no consensus—lots of disagreement, IPCC is doctored
The Marshall Institute, staff, CLIMATE ISSUES & QUESTIONS, February 20 08, www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/577.pdf,
accessed 4-25-08.
The debate over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past and future climate has been going on for twenty years. It is not close to resolution, in
spite of assertions to the contrary. What is often referred to as a “consensus” is anything but. In many cases, this consensus
represents the “expert judgment” of a handful of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, which other
researchers can and do disagree with. For many, especially those engaged in advocacy, the claim of consensus is a device used
to advance their agenda.
Green energy now
UNEP Center 6/2012 (Frankfurt School: UNEP Collaborating Center for Climate & Sustainable Energy
Finance, June, 2012, “ Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2012”, http://fs-unepcentre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2012) SRK
Global investment in renewable power and fuels increased 17% to a new record of $257 billion in 2011. This was more
than six times the figure for 2004, and 94% more than the total in 2007, the last year before the acute phase of the world
financial crisis.
The percentage increase in investment between 2010 and 2011 was smaller than the 37% rise seen between 2009 and 2010,
but it took place at a time when the cost of renewable power equipment, particularly solar photovoltaic modules and
onshore wind turbines, was falling fast. The percentage growth in dollar investment would have been significantly larger in
2011 if it had not been for this deflation in the costs of PV and wind technology. The spectacular improvement in costcompetitiveness of renewables is explored in depth in Chapter 2. Last year’s increase in investment in renewable energy
also took place at a time of uncertainty over economic growth and policy priorities in developed economies – and those
issues continue to pose a serious threat in 2012 to the low-carbon transition and hopes of progress towards a “green
economy”. Two highlights of 2011 were the performance of solar, and the performance of the US. Wind is the most mature
of the “new” renewable power technologies, and has usually been the biggest single sector for investment over recent years.
However in 2011, it was out-stripped by solar, which attracted nearly twice as much investment – the first time a gap of
anything like this magnitude has opened up for solar over wind.
CCS just fuels addiction to fossil fuels
Suzuki 7/4 ( David Suzuki is a Japanese-Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist.
Suzuki earned a Ph.D in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1961, and was a professor in the genetics
department at the University of British Columbia from 1963 until his retirement in 2001, “ Renewable Energy,
Not Carbon Capture and Storage”, https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/04-3) SRK
We need to consider many solutions to deal with waste, pollution, and global warming, but not risky and expensive
schemes that serve only to enable our continued addiction to fossil fuels. Our best bet is to reduce waste and emissions.
And rather than dumping money into schemes like carbon capture and storage, we should invest in renewable energy.
Renewable energy solves warming
Renewable Energy World 07 (Citing analysis released by Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy
Council (EREC) and other climate and energy advocates, Jan 24, “ Increasing Renewable Energy in U.S. Can
Solve Global Warming”, http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2007/01/increasingrenewable-energy-in-u-s-can-solve-global-warming-47208) SRK
Landmark analysis released by Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and other climate and
energy advocates shows that the United States can indeed address global warming without relying on nuclear power or socalled "clean coal" -- as some in the ongoing energy debate claim. The new report, "Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for
Solving Global Warming" details a worldwide energy scenario where nearly 80% of U.S. electricity can be produced by
renewable energy sources; where carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced 50% globally and 72% in the U.S. without
resorting to an increase in dangerous nuclear power or new coal technologies; and where America's oil use can be cut by
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
15
234830368
DDW 2012
1
more than 50% by 2050 by using much more efficient cars and trucks (potentially plug-in hybrids), increased use of
biofuels and a greater reliance on electricity for transportation. The 92-page report, commissioned by the German
Aerospace Center, used input on all technologies of the renewable energy industry, including wind turbines, solar
photovoltaic panels, biomass power plants, solar thermal collectors, and biofuels, all of which "are rapidly becoming
mainstream." "The world cannot afford to stick to the conventional energy development path, relying on fossil fuels,
nuclear, and other outdated technologies. Energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy must play leading roles
in the world's energy future." -- Arthouros Zervos of the European Renewable Energy Council and John Coequyt of
Greenpeace USA
Even if climate change is real, it doesn’t cause extinction.
Sherwood, Keith, and Craig Idso et al 2012 (Craig, PhD in geography @Arizona State, M.S. in Agronomy from U
Nebraska) Plant Responses to Significant and Rapid Global Warming http://co2science.org/articles/V15/N24/EDIT.php
In an impressive and enlightening review of the subject, Willis and MacDonald (2011) begin by noting that key research
efforts have focused on extinction scenarios derived from "a suite of predictive species distribution models (e.g., Guisan
and Thuiller, 2005)" - which are most often referred to as bioclimatic envelope models - that "predict current and future
range shifts and estimate the distances and rates of movement required for species to track the changes in climate and
move into suitable new climate space." And they write that one of the most-cited studies of this type - that of Thomas et
al. (2004) - "predicts that, on the basis of mid-range climatic warming scenarios for 2050, up to 37% of plant species
globally will be committed to extinction owing to lack of suitable climate space." In contrast, the two researchers say
that "biotic adaptation to climate change has been considered much less frequently." This phenomenon - which is
sometimes referred to as evolutionary resilience - they describe as "the ability of populations to persist in their current
location and to undergo evolutionary adaptation in response to changing environmental conditions (Sgro et al., 2010)."
And they note that this approach to the subject "recognizes that ongoing change is the norm in nature and one of the
dynamic processes that generates and maintains biodiversity patterns and processes," citing MacDonald et al. (2008)
and Willis et al. (2009). The aim of Willis and MacDonald's review, therefore, was to examine the effects of significant
and rapid warming on earth's plants during several previous intervals of the planet's climatic history that were as warm
as, or even warmer than, what climate alarmists typically predict for the next century. These intervals included the
Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, the Eocene climatic optimum, the mid-Pliocene warm interval, the Eemian
interglacial, and the Holocene. And it is important to note that this approach, in contrast to the approach typically used
by climate alarmists, relies on empirical (as opposed to theoretical) data-based (as opposed to model-based),
reconstructions (as opposed to projections) of the past (as opposed to the future). And what were the primary findings
of the two researchers? As they describe them, in their own words, "persistence and range shifts (migrations) seem to
have been the predominant terrestrial biotic response (mainly of plants) to warmer intervals in Earth's history," while
"the same responses also appear to have occurred during intervals of rapid climate change." In addition, they make a
strong point of noting that "evidence for global extinctions or extinctions resulting from reduction of population sizes on
the scale predicted for the next century owing to loss of suitable climate space (Thomas et al., 2004) is not apparent." In
fact, they state that sometimes an actual increase in local biodiversity is observed, the case for which we lay out in
Section II (Physiological Reasons for Rejecting the CO2-Induced Global Warming Extinction Hypothesis) of our Major
Report The Specter of Species Extinction: Will Global Warming Decimate Earth's Biosphere? Read it and rejoice!
Last printed 6/25/2017 1:28:00 PM
16