2012-STOA-BB-012-AFF-SaudiArabia-SUBMITTED.docx€¦ · Web viewImpact: Replacing dirty energy is...

NEGATIVE: GREEN ENERGY SUBSIDIES - GOOD

NEGATIVE BRIEF: GREEN ENERGY SUBSIDIES - GOOD

By “Coach Vance” Trefethen

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its energy policy

Plan eliminates federal loan guarantees for “green energy” projects.

Negative: Green Energy Subsidies - good.............................................................................................................INHERENCY.........................................................................................................................................................................

1. Already mostly eliminated...............................................................................................................................................The Loan Programs Office (LPO) of the Dept of Energy budget ran out, hardly anyone is applying for loans any more and Trump is de-funding it...........................................................................................................................................................................Loan Guarantee Program of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was funded at ZERO for Fiscal Year (FY)2020....................................

2. Safeguards exist.................................................................................................................................................................DOE can stop a loan guarantee if the project isn’t working properly, and risky ones get terminated..................................................

HARMS / SIGNIFICANCE...................................................................................................................................................

1. Net benefits.......................................................................................................................................................................DOE energy loan guarantees are net beneficial. Outside audit by independent accountants proves it...............................................

2. A/T “Solyndra”.................................................................................................................................................................Impact of Solyndra was exaggerated and insignificant.........................................................................................................................

3. Mistaken analysis by Affirmative advocates....................................................................................................................Finding one or two programs that failed doesn’t prove energy loan guarantees as a whole are bad. The overwhelming majority are successful..........................................................................................................................................................................

4. Low risk to taxpayers.......................................................................................................................................................Projects are successful and even when they’re not, it doesn’t cost taxpayers much.............................................................................

5. A/T “Doesn’t create jobs”.................................................................................................................................................Doesn’t matter: Goal should be to solve where markets won’t adequately protect the environment...................................................

DISADVANTAGES..............................................................................................................................................................

1. Less Green Energy...........................................................................................................................................................Link: Without loan guarantee program, a lot of green energy doesn’t happen....................................................................................Impact: Replacing dirty energy is critical: Pollution particles cause sickness & death........................................................................

2. Canceling Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)....................................................................................................................Link: SMRs will be a low cost, low-carbon, safe option, but they need federal loan guarantees........................................................Link: SMR’s will reverse the nuclear decline with clean reliable baseload power..............................................................................Link: SMR’s and nuclear are key to reversing pollution and managing energy for a growing population..........................................The Impact: Carbon emissions cause human health risks, property damage and environmental hazards.........................................

3. Can’t decarbonize...........................................................................................................................................................Emerging energy technologies are blocked without federal investment.............................................................................................Reduced federal funding also reduces private investment in advanced energy technology...............................................................Link: Bio-energy is key to growing renewable energy – more important than wind, hydro and solar combined.............................Brink: We can’t decarbonize the energy system without bio-energy, and we can’t do it unless bio-energy deployment accelerates............................................................................................................................................................................................IMPACTS OF FAILING TO DECARBONIZE.................................................................................................................................The evidence is that climate change poses serious risks to the environment and the economy..........................................................Specific negative economic impacts of climate change......................................................................................................................

COPYRIGHT ©2020 MONUMENT PUBLISHING PAGE 1 OF 15 MONUMENTMEMBERS.COM

This release was published as part of Season 20 (2019-2020) school year for member debaters. See the member landing page for official release date and any notifications. This is proprietary intellectual content and may not be used without proper ownership.


A/T “Climate change is fake” - It’s the scientific consensus, supported by real-world measurements.............................................

4. Petroleum dependency & World Hunger........................................................................................................................Link: AFF plan sets back bio-energy development.............................................................................................................................Link: Biofuels will replace fossil fuels...............................................................................................................................................Link: Next-generation biofuels could completely replace petroleum, if we don’t cut them from the federal budget.......................Link: Why it’s important to replace fossil fuels used for agriculture: Because volatile energy price swings destabilize world food supplies........................................................................................................................................................................................Link & Impact: Billions go hungry. US agriculture is essential to feed starving billions globally and hundreds of millions are on the brink now..................................................................................................................................................................................Impact: Food insecurity=Food shortages, political instability, social unrest, extremism, conflict....................................................

5. Negative net economic losses.........................................................................................................................................Federal spending on energy research yields many times more economic benefits.............................................................................





INHERENCY

1. Already mostly eliminated

The Loan Programs Office (LPO) of the Dept of Energy budget ran out, hardly anyone is applying for loans any more and Trump is de-funding it

Philip Rosetti 2018 (Director of Energy Policy & Data Analyst at American Action Forum) 3 Dec 2018 “The Energy Loan Guarantee Program is Worth Reforming https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-energy-loan-guarantee-program-is-worth-reforming/ (brackets added)

Why did LPO struggle to attract applicants or fill a gap in private sector financing? Put simply, with government money it created an artificial government preference for specific technologies, yet without any government money it is not attractive to many potential applicants. While LPO was originally intended to pursue innovative technologies as an environmental program, the government repurposed LPO to take tax money and fund the administration’s sanctioned projects as an economic stimulus that would only support a small number of jobs. The result was that LPO accomplished neither of its goals: It did not stimulate the economy, and it did not meet expectation as a major driver of innovation. Since the ARRA’s [American Recovery & Reinvestment Act] budget authority for covering CSCs [credit subsidy cost] has mostly ran out, the number of new Title 17 applicants for LPO has plummeted, and the Trump Administration has requested the elimination of LPO in its budget requests. But such a move ignores the potential benefits that a refocused LPO could have.



https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-energy-loan-guarantee-program-is-worth-reforming/



Loan Guarantee Program of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 was funded at ZERO for Fiscal Year (FY)2020

Congressional Research Service 2019 (non-partisan research agency of Congress) updated 15 Nov 2019 “Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs“ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40913.pdf



https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40913.pdf


2. Safeguards exist

DOE can stop a loan guarantee if the project isn’t working properly, and risky ones get terminated

Herb Allison 2012 (former national finance chairman for Sen. John McCain, appointed by the White House Chief of Staff to investigate Dept of Energy loan guarantee programs and publish a report) testimony before the Senate COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 13 March 2012 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg76906/html/CHRG-112shrg76906.htm

DOE's loan agreements allow it to stop further funding and demand more credit protection if projects do not meet targets. Some of the riskier projects have not received any funding, and others have been funded only partially. If those projects do not meet conditions in their loan agreements, DOE could cutoff more funding, and the forecasted loss could decline substantially.

HARMS / SIGNIFICANCE

1. Net benefits

DOE energy loan guarantees are net beneficial. Outside audit by independent accountants proves it

Richard W. Caperton 2012 (Director of Clean Energy Investment on the Energy Policy team at the Center for American Progress) 10 Feb 2012 “Federal Energy Loan Guarantees Win Clean Bill of Health” https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/02/10/11067/federal-energy-loan-guarantees-win-clean-bill-of-health/

Take a deep breath, because what I’m about to tell you may be shocking: Federal loan guarantees for energy projects have been successful, cost-effective investments—contrary to what some conservatives insist is the case. Don’t take my word for it. That’s the message from Herb Allison, former national finance chairman for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who led a team of accountants and auditors in conducting an independent analysis of the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program.

2. A/T “Solyndra”

[Solyndra was a government-aided solar energy company that went bankrupt during the Obama administration and supposedly proves that all government policies to subsidize green energy are bad.]

Impact of Solyndra was exaggerated and insignificant


Allison and his team found that, despite the hysteria around the now-bankrupt solar-panel maker Solyndra LLC, this program will cost $2 billion less than initially expected. When the Department of Energy first issued these guarantees starting in 2009, they expected that they would cost the government more than $5 billion. At their most recent internal analysis in 2011, DOE concluded that the loans were performing better than expected, and that they would not cost less than $3 billion. Now, Allison and his team of independent consultants find that even DOE’s most recent projections were too high, and that the guarantees would only cost $2.7 billion. To put that in perspective, the fossil-fuel industry got a whopping $70 billion in government subsidies from 2002 to 2008. Many of these subsidies have been in place for nearly 100 years. The nuclear industry, too, has benefited from billions of dollars in subsidies, including loan guarantees, over the last half-century.



http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2012/02/10/11067/federal-energy-loan-guarantees-win-clean-bill-of-health/


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2008/09/08/28762/mccain-herbert-allison/



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg76906/html/CHRG-112shrg76906.htm


3. Mistaken analysis by Affirmative advocates

Finding one or two programs that failed doesn’t prove energy loan guarantees as a whole are bad. The overwhelming majority are successful


The White House today released Allison’s review, which includes an analysis of every loan guarantee issued from Department of Energy, as well as recommendations for managing this portfolio of federal guarantees going forward. This independent review was requested by the White House in late 2011 to make sure that the DOE loan guarantee portfolio was cost-effective for taxpayers. The Allison review confirms what we already know, thanks to the Congressional Research Service and Bloomberg Government. Instead of looking at individual investments, CRS examined the entire DOE portfolio, concluding that the overwhelming majority of the portfolio was in electrical generation projects, which DOE structured to have very low risk. Bloomberg Government took that a step forward, and concluded that the media’s incessant focus on Solyndra was “not proportional to its impact.”

4. Low risk to taxpayers

Projects are successful and even when they’re not, it doesn’t cost taxpayers much


There are multiple reasons why the risks to taxpayers from this program are so low. First, most of the guarantees went to support projects that have very secure contracts to sell their power to investment-grade rated utilities. Allison and his team of independent auditors endorsed the methodology that DOE initially used to evaluate these types of projects:The Independent Consultant used the same Nine Criteria as did DOE because, in the opinion of the Independent Consultant, they comprise the salient factors for evaluating the credits and are substantially similar to the criteria that would be employed by private sector credit analysts for these types of loans.Second, even in the event that something does go wrong with an investment, there is almost always someone willing to buy the project at a discount. Beacon Power Corp., for example, declared bankruptcy after getting a loan guarantee for $43 million. But this wasn’t a $43 million loss for taxpayers, because the energy investment firm Rockland Capital agreed to buy the project for $30.5 million. Obviously, this is not the perfect outcome, but it helps to understand why Beacon’s bankruptcy won’t cost taxpayers the full amount of the guarantee.

5. A/T “Doesn’t create jobs”

Doesn’t matter: Goal should be to solve where markets won’t adequately protect the environment

Philip Rosetti 2018 (Director of Energy Policy & Data Analyst at American Action Forum) 3 Dec 2018 “The Energy Loan Guarantee Program is Worth Reforming https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/the-energy-loan-guarantee-program-is-worth-reforming/ (brackets added)

As an environmental program, LPO [Loan Programs Office] and its Title 17 program hold considerable potential (if reformed), but it cannot be part of any so-called “green jobs” or other economic growth strategy. Government redistribution does not spur economic growth, and LPO is no exception to this rule: A government-directed environmental program will not directly boost the economy. Yet this fact does not mean that there is not a role for LPO, as the government has goals besides strengthening the economy. Politicians seek GHG reductions, and, as outlined above, existing technology in the market is unlikely to deliver them. There is therefore a role for a program that can provide capital to innovative technologies. LPO could be that invaluable environmental program.





http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/208887-energy-department-to-recover-majority-of-money-loaned-to-bankrupt-firm?utm_campaign=E2Wire&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/07/384063/bloomberg-report-solyndra-hype/

http://op.bna.com/env.nsf/id/jstn-8mzszy/$File/CRSSolar.pdf




DISADVANTAGES

1. Less Green Energy

Link: Without loan guarantee program, a lot of green energy doesn’t happen


It’s important to remember why the Loan Guarantee Program exists. Innovative companies—key to our future competitiveness and economic prosperity—risk getting caught in the “valley of death,” where nascent but promising companies often languish as they strive to accumulate the necessary funds. Bringing new clean energy technologies to commercial scale for the first time can require hundreds of millions, even billions, of dollars. Private investors are either unable to fund projects that require this much capital, as is the case with many venture capitalists, too. Both kinds of investors or are unwilling to lend money to projects that use first-of-a-kind technology not fully proven at commercial scale, as is the case with most banks. The DOE’s Loan Guarantee Program brought companies across the “valley of death” by providing these businesses with loan guarantees that made it possible to raise the necessary capital and jumpstart the economy. By fixing the “valley of death” problem, DOE has allowed extremely important projects to move forward, including the world’s largest wind farm, the first commercial cellulosic ethanol plant, and our country’s largest concentrating solar power project. In total, the program will support nearly 40 projects, which will employ 60,000 people.

Impact: Replacing dirty energy is critical: Pollution particles cause sickness & death.

Joel K. Bourne 2019 (journalist) NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC 19 Feb 2019 Coal’s other dark side: Toxic ash that can poison water and people https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/coal-other-dark-side-toxic-ash/#close

TVA's Kingston Fossil Plant, built in 1955, was the largest coal-burning power plant in the world for more than a decade, and it still burns 14,000 tons of pulverized coal, or 140 rail-car loads, each day. About 10 percent of the coal, the non-combustible part, becomes coal ash—powdery fly ash that collects in smokestack filters, and coarser bottom ash and boiler slag that gets flushed out of the plant's furnaces. The ash is a mix of clays, quartz, and other minerals, forged into tiny glass-like beads by the heat of the fire. But it also concentrates dozens of naturally occurring heavy metals, including known carcinogens and toxins such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, vanadium, chromium, as well as radioactive uranium and radon. These metals pose the greatest health threat from coal ash. Even without a catastrophic spill, they can leach into and contaminate groundwater. Attached to fine particles of ash they can drift through the air, blowing onto skin and into nostrils. Some coal ash particles are so fine—less than 2.5 microns in diameter, a 30th the width of a human hair —that they can be sucked deep into the lungs and become a health hazard even without toxic hitchhikers. PM 2.5, as such particles are called, are also in smog, smoke, and auto exhaust, and they’re a known cause of numerous respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and a significant cause of global mortality .



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28696208

https://ehs.duke.edu/2018/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/09/Kravchenko_Coal-Ash.pdf


https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basics


https://www.tva.gov/Energy/Our-Power-System/Coal/Kingston-Fossil-Plant

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/coal-other-dark-side-toxic-ash/#close

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/02/coal-other-dark-side-toxic-ash/#close

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

https://www.americanprogress.org/press/statement/2011/07/14/14664/statement-caps-caperton-on-the-passage-of-the-clean-energy-financing-act/




2. Canceling Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

Link: SMRs will be a low cost, low-carbon, safe option, but they need federal loan guarantees

Heather Payne, Jonas Monast, Hannah Wiseman and Nicolas Eason 2017. (Payne - Assistant Director, Center on Climate, Energy, Environment and Economics (CE3), University of North Carolina School of Law. Monast - C. Boyden Gray Distinguished Fellow, Assistant Professor and Director of the Center on Climate, Energy, Environment and Economics (CE3), University of North Carolina School of Law. Wiseman - Attorneys’ Title Professor, Florida State University College of Law. Eason - J.D. Candidate 2019, University of North Carolina School of Law.) Transitioning to a Lower-Carbon Energy Future: Challenges and Opportunities for Municipal Utilities and Electric Cooperatives https://law.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/fsuuncmuni.pdf (brackets added)

UAMPS [Utah Associated Municipal Power System] launched the Carbon Free Power Project in 2015 to ensure a lower-carbon future of its members’ energy supply. The project will focus on energy efficiency, distributed solar, and the development of NuScale small modular reactors (SMRs). Even though nuclear power is carbon free, it carries a unique set of challenges such as safety, scalability, compatibility with renewable resources, and cost. Small reactors like the NuScale SMR provide solutions to these issues in a variety of ways. The 40% ramp rate allows the reactors to heat and cool quickly, making them “Fukushima proof.” Improved ramp rate and scalability also make the reactors more compatible with intermittent renewable resources in terms of grid balancing. Each NuScale module is planned to be a 50MW pressurized water reactor. This can be scaled up to twelve reactors in a single power plant for 600MW of generation. NuScale SMRs are expected to provide a lower-cost option for munis and PPAs compared to larger traditional nuclear reactors. The development of NuScale SMRs relies partly on federal tax credits and loan guarantees.



https://law.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/fsuuncmuni.pdf


Link: SMR’s will reverse the nuclear decline with clean reliable baseload power

Brian Isom, Michael Reed, Chet Garlick 2017 (Isom - Policy Fellow at the Independent Institute and Research Manager at the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University. Reed - PhD Student Natural Resource Economics, W. Virginia Univ. Garlick - Undergraduate studying Computer Science and Economics with a minor in Mathematics at Utah State Univ) Oct 2017 THE FUTURE OF SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTORS IN THE U.S. https://strata.org/pdf/2017/smr.pdf

SMR technology presents an exciting opportunity for the future of energy production in the US and has the potential to play a major role in the US energy portfolio. Nuclear power currently makes up about 20 percent of US electricity generation. That number, however, will drop in coming years as old nuclear reactors are retired. The EIA predicts that by 2050, nuclear power will account for about 11 percent of total electricity production in the US. Those numbers reflect expected retirements of old nuclear plants, increased competition from alternative energy sources, and expected growth in US electricity demand of up to 92 percent over the same period. Traditional operating licenses for nuclear reactors issued by the NRC give plant operators 40 years of generating life before they must either close the plant or apply for a twenty-year license extension. Ninety percent of currently operating nuclear plants have already received or applied for license extensions. The NRC is currently drafting guidelines for subsequent license renewal applications, which would extend the overall operating age to 80 years for a plant. These guidelines are scheduled to be published by the end of 2017 and may help postpone nuclear retirements in the US. At some point, however, the aging US nuclear reactor fleet will have to be retired and replaced by something else. SMRs provide one potential option to replace aging energy infrastructure in the US. As mentioned above, SMRs take advantage of mass production, rather than economies of scale. Because they are modular, SMRs can be mass produced and scaled up or down to meet demand. Modules can be added or taken away, allowing power plants to grow with towns and making them more adaptable to regional needs. The smaller size also allows for lower fabrication and shipping costs. Because they are small, it is also easier to include safety measures to prevent accidents with SMRs. Large reactors often require electric pumps to move coolant through the reactor core and instances of power failure can shut down those pumps, causing the reactor to overheat and melt down. Smaller reactors have less piping and require less coolant, so they do not require pumps and back-up generators to keep coolant moving. Instead they rely on properties of physics to circulate coolant. This is known as a passive safety measure, meaning a loss of power to the plant will not require human intervention to prevent a meltdown because the reactor will naturally do so on its own. SMRs also emit zero carbon during electricity production, which, in an age of ever-growing concern over climate change and support for renewable energy, makes nuclear a potentially attractive means of producing reliable, baseload power.

Link: SMR’s and nuclear are key to reversing pollution and managing energy for a growing population

World Nuclear News 2020 ( public information service of World Nuclear Association, industry trade association) 8 Jan 2020 “IAEA explains nuclear's vital role in a carbon-free future” https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-explains-nuclears-vital-role-in-a-carbon-free

Currently 450 nuclear power reactors operate worldwide, but to respond to emerging needs and challenges, the nuclear power industry is looking ahead towards innovative solutions for the long-term operation of existing reactors, the timely expansion of ongoing nuclear power programmes, and the deployment of new reactor technologies, the film says. Several countries are developing small modular reactors (SMRs) and one has already been built in Russia, it adds, referring to the floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov. Rebecca Casper, mayor of Idaho Falls in the USA, said SMRs can "integrate beautifully and seamlessly with wind, with solar, with some of those other sources that are maybe intermittent but that are also carbon-free". Nuclear power is "the key," she adds, “that makes all of that other desirable alternative energy possible because alone it just can't sustain a growing population." Rafael Mariano Grossi, IAEA director general, says: "The scientific consensus on climate change - and the voices of millions calling for climate action - makes clear what's at stake. Our energy choices today will determine our children’s world tomorrow. Nuclear power is part of the solution."



https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-explains-nuclears-vital-role-in-a-carbon-free

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/IAEA-explains-nuclears-vital-role-in-a-carbon-free

https://strata.org/pdf/2017/smr.pdf


The Impact: Carbon emissions cause human health risks, property damage and environmental hazards

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center 2018. (joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution; made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.) “What is a carbon tax?” Ethical disclosure: article is undated but references materials published in 2018. https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax

Emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases are increasing global temperatures, raising sea levels, shifting rainfall patterns, boosting storm intensity, and harming coral reefs and other marine life. Greenhouse gas emissions thus create a host of potential economic and environmental threats, including property damage from storms, human health risks, reduced agricultural productivity, and ecosystem deterioration (Environmental Protection Agency 2017; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2018).

3. Can’t decarbonize

Emerging energy technologies are blocked without federal investment.

Dr. Colin Cunliff 2019 (Senior Policy Analyst at Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Davis ) 2 Apr 2019 “FY 2020 Energy Innovation Funding: Congress Should Push the Pedal to the Metal” https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/02/fy-2020-energy-innovation-funding-congress-should-push-pedal-metal

In addition, because energy is valued as a commodity—i.e., there is no tangible difference in the electricity that comes from a coal plant versus a wind farm—emerging technologies often cannot distinguish themselves from incumbent technologies and must therefore compete on price and performance from the moment they enter the market. Electric utilities are often legally mandated to keep prices low and are prohibited from investing in new technologies. The federal government is uniquely suited to address these barriers, making high-risk, long-term investments the private sector is simply unwilling to fund. Indeed, ITIF has found that federal investment frequently serves as a catalyst for industry, as government RD&D [Research, Design & Development] tends to attract rather than crowd out additional private RD&D dollars.

Reduced federal funding also reduces private investment in advanced energy technology

Dr. Colin Cunliff 2019 (Senior Policy Analyst at Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Davis ) 2 Apr 2019 “FY 2020 Energy Innovation Funding: Congress Should Push the Pedal to the Metal” https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/02/fy-2020-energy-innovation-funding-congress-should-push-pedal-metal (brackets in original)

Public support for emerging energy technologies is needed across the innovation spectrum in order to address market failures that typically block emerging energy technologies from reaching full maturity. Additionally, many studies have found that public investment in energy RD&D acts as a catalyst and accelerant for private RD&D. DOE itself finds that “[DOE investment] is most effective when it complements private investment, i.e. when [DOE] outputs create productive investment opportunities for the private sector, thereby crowding in private investment.” Unfortunately, the converse is also true: Reduced public funding will likely lead to fewer opportunities for private-sector investment in new energy technologies. Analysis by Matt Hourihan of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that declining federal energy RD&D investment during the early 1980s contributed to decreased private RD&D in advanced energy technologies.



https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/02/fy-2020-energy-innovation-funding-congress-should-push-pedal-metal




https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-carbon-tax


Link: Bio-energy is key to growing renewable energy – more important than wind, hydro and solar combined

Kimmo Tiilikainen and Fatih Birol 2018 (Tiilikainen is minister of the environment, energy and housing of Finland. Birol is executive director of the International Energy Agency) 10 Nov 2018 “Modern bioenergy is critical to meeting global climate change goals” https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/11/modern-bioenergy-critical-meeting-global-climate-change-goals/

The electricity sector has been undergoing a remarkable transformation in recent years thanks to the growth in solar PV and wind, the new stars in the renewables world. But step back and consider the whole energy system, and you will find that the role of modern bioenergy in turning on the lights, providing energy to industries and buildings, or powering cars and trucks is equal to all other renewables put together – including hydropower, wind, and solar energy. The reason is simple. Electricity accounts for just a fifth of global energy use while modern bioenergy (which excludes the traditional use of biomass, such as for cooking in developing countries) is the only renewable resource today that can supply energy to all end-use sectors. In fact, the most recent analysis from the International Energy Agency shows that modern bioenergy will lead the growth in renewable energy consumption for the next five years.

Brink: We can’t decarbonize the energy system without bio-energy, and we can’t do it unless bio-energy deployment accelerates

Kimmo Tiilikainen and Fatih Birol 2018 (Tiilikainen is minister of the environment, energy and housing of Finland. Birol is executive director of the International Energy Agency) 10 Nov 2018 “Modern bioenergy is critical to meeting global climate change goals” https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/11/modern-bioenergy-critical-meeting-global-climate-change-goals/

Yet, the role of modern bioenergy in decarbonising the global energy system is not widely recognised, which is a major blind spot in the global energy debate. The fact is that modern bioenergy is a sustainable solution to address the global climate challenge while contributing to energy diversification and security. But in order to achieve these targets, its deployment must accelerate.

IMPACTS OF FAILING TO DECARBONIZE

The evidence is that climate change poses serious risks to the environment and the economy

Dr. Adele C. Morris 2013. (fellow and policy director for Climate & Energy Economics at Brookings Institution; previously spent a year as a Senior Economist covering energy and climate issues for the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress; served nine years with the Treasury Department as its chief natural resource economist, served as the senior economist for environmental affairs at the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during the development of the Kyoto Protocol. Formerly with Office of Management and Budget, where she conducted regulatory oversight of agriculture and natural resource agencies. Ph.D. in Economics, Princeton Univ.) February 2013. “Proposal 11: The Many Benefits of a Carbon Tax.” The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop11.pdf

Climate change poses serious risks to both the environment and the economy. Scientists project that, depending on future GHG emissions, by 2100 average global temperatures will be 2°F to 11.5°F higher than now (National Academy of Sciences 2012). These higher temperatures will raise sea levels and produce more-frequent, extreme, and damaging weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, storms, and droughts. These changes will disrupt ecosystems and crop production, increase heat-related deaths, require costly adaptation, and produce many other monetary and nonmonetary consequences. While much remains to be learned about the potential impacts of climate change, the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that lower GHG concentrations will produce lower climatic disruptions; for that reason, it is prudent to take steps today to curb emissions.



https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop11.pdf

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/10/11/modern-bioenergy-critical-meeting-global-climate-change-goals/


https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-bioenergy-lead-growth-renewables-over-next-five-years

https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-bioenergy-lead-growth-renewables-over-next-five-years




Specific negative economic impacts of climate change

Glenn D. Rudebusch 2019. (senior policy advisor and executive vice president in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.) March 25, 2019. “Climate Change and the Federal Reserve.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2019/march/climate-change-and-federal-reserve/?utm_source=frbsf-home-economic-letter-title&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=economic-letter

Some central banks also recognize that climate change is becoming increasingly relevant for monetary policy (Lane 2017, Cœuré 2018). For example, climate-related financial risks could affect the economy through elevated credit spreads, greater precautionary saving, and, in the extreme, a financial crisis. There could also be direct effects in the form of larger and more frequent macroeconomic shocks associated with the infrastructure damage, agricultural losses, and commodity price spikes caused by the droughts, floods, and hurricanes amplified by climate change (Debelle 2019). Even weather disasters abroad can disrupt exports, imports, and supply chains close to home. As a much more persistent factor, Colacito et al. (2018) found that the current trend toward higher temperatures on its own has slowed growth in a variety of sectors. They estimated that increased warming has already started to reduce average U.S. output growth and that, as temperatures rise, growth may be curtailed by more than ½ percentage point later in this century. On top of these direct effects, climate adaptation—with spending on equipment such as air conditioners and resilient infrastructure including seawalls and fortified transportation systems—is expected to increasingly divert resources from productive capital accumulation. Similarly, sizable investments would be necessary to reduce carbon pollution and mitigate climate change, and the transition to a low-carbon future may affect the economy through a variety of other channels (Batten 2018). In short, climate change is becoming relevant for a range of macroeconomic issues, including potential output growth, capital formation, productivity, and the long-run level of the real interest rate.

A/T “Climate change is fake” - It’s the scientific consensus, supported by real-world measurements

Glenn D. Rudebusch 2019. (senior policy advisor and executive vice president in the Economic Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.) March 25, 2019. “Climate Change and the Federal Reserve.” Federal Reserve Bank of San Fransisco https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2019/march/climate-change-and-federal-reserve/?utm_source=frbsf-home-economic-letter-title&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=economic-letter

Based on extensive scientific theory and evidence, a consensus view among scientists is that global warming is the result of carbon emissions from burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. Indeed, as early as 1896, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius showed that carbon emissions from human activities could cause global warming through a greenhouse effect. The underlying science is straightforward: Certain gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, capture the sun’s heat that is reflected off the Earth’s surface, thus blocking that heat from escaping into space. These greenhouse gases act like a blanket around the earth holding in heat. As more fossil fuels are burned, the blanket gets thicker, and global average temperatures increase. Other empirical measurements have confirmed many related adverse environmental changes such as rising sea levels and ocean acidity, shrinking glaciers and ice sheets, disappearing species, and more extreme storms (USGCRP 2018).



https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2019/march/climate-change-and-federal-reserve/?utm_source=frbsf-home-economic-letter-title&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=economic-letter





4. Petroleum dependency & World Hunger

Link: AFF plan sets back bio-energy development

Cross-apply DA-2 links about blocking research and deployment if we don’t have federal funding.

Link: Biofuels will replace fossil fuels

J. Popp, Z. Lakner, M. Harangi-Rakos and M. Fari 2014 (Popp and Hangari-Rakos – Debrecen University, Faculty of Applied Economics & Rural Development, Hungary. Lanker – Budapest Corvinus University, Faculty of Food Sciences, Hungary. Fari – Debrecen University, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences & Environmental Management, Hungary.) The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment Feb 2014 https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364032114000677?token=1D5287F96BFB59E6113FEDD7F2F169CE8D818584349B848877731E9ED5E702C4DEE2758AE6DDE4CD35AEA7B207841DCB

Link: Next-generation biofuels could completely replace petroleum, if we don’t cut them from the federal budget

Prof. Michael White 2017 (assistant professor of genetics at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis ) 22 Aug 2017 “HOW TRUMP'S CUTS TO BIOFUELS RESEARCH WOULD HURT THE PLANET AND OUR ECONOMY” https://psmag.com/economics/how-trumps-cuts-to-biofuels-research-would-hurt-the-planet-and-our-economy

Next-generation biofuels could, unlike corn ethanol, completely replace petroleum-based fuels in the gas tanks of existing cars, trucks, and planes. This is exactly the sort of solution that GOP politicians claim they are searching for: a way to fight climate change without completely disrupting our existing transportation infrastructure. We have an opportunity to foster a new industry that will save the planet, benefit American companies, and create American jobs. The Trump administration and its allies in Congress are choosing not to take it.



https://psmag.com/economics/how-trumps-cuts-to-biofuels-research-would-hurt-the-planet-and-our-economy


https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364032114000677?token=1D5287F96BFB59E6113FEDD7F2F169CE8D818584349B848877731E9ED5E702C4DEE2758AE6DDE4CD35AEA7B207841DCB




Link: Why it’s important to replace fossil fuels used for agriculture: Because volatile energy price swings destabilize world food supplies

Analysis: When fossil fuel energy is a big input to agriculture, and its price suddenly swings up, as it has in the past, the price of food goes up rapidly too. People in poor countries don’t have excess money lying around to pay the higher price of food, so they are at risk of “food insecurity,” a fancy way of saying they go hungry.

J. Popp, Z. Lakner, M. Harangi-Rakos and M. Fari 2014 (Popp and Hangari-Rakos – Debrecen University, Faculty of Applied Economics & Rural Development, Hungary. Lanker – Budapest Corvinus University, Faculty of Food Sciences, Hungary. Fari – Debrecen University, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences & Environmental Management, Hungary.) The effect of bioenergy expansion: Food, energy, and environment Feb 2014 https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S1364032114000677?token=1D5287F96BFB59E6113FEDD7F2F169CE8D818584349B848877731E9ED5E702C4DEE2758AE6DDE4CD35AEA7B207841DCB

Link & Impact: Billions go hungry. US agriculture is essential to feed starving billions globally and hundreds of millions are on the brink now

Dr Tammy Beckham 2015 (DVM, Ph.D., Dean of the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine) testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture 4 Nov 2015 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg97543/html/CHRG-114hhrg97543.htm

In addition to understanding the importance of the agricultural industry in the U.S. and its role in supporting national security, it is also important and critical that we understand the role of global food security in securing the homeland. Currently, 870 million people around the world do not have access to safe and nutritious food in a sufficient supply. By the year 2050, the global population is expected to exceed 9 billion people. Nearly all of the growth is expected to occur in developing countries. Feeding 9 billion people will demand that food production is increased by 70% and more specifically, that food production in the developing world double.

Impact: Food insecurity=Food shortages, political instability, social unrest, extremism, conflict.

Dr Tammy Beckham 2015 (DVM, Ph.D., Dean of the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine) testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture 4 Nov 2015 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg97543/html/CHRG-114hhrg97543.htm

Meeting these growing demands will be critical if we hope to maintain political stability in increasingly volatile regions across the globe. Food insecurity and scarcity is well known to be one of the most potent drivers of political instability and social unrest. In fact, according to the Lugar Center, “global food security has both foreign policy and national security implications for the U.S. Diplomatic efforts to maintain peace and stability are much more difficult whenever there are food shortages contributing to extremism and conflict”. Perfect examples of this have been seen throughout the Middle East and North Africa, where countries import over half of their food.



https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg97543/html/CHRG-114hhrg97543.htm








5. Negative net economic losses

Federal spending on energy research yields many times more economic benefits

Prof. Michael White 2017 (assistant professor of genetics at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis ) 22 Aug 2017 “HOW TRUMP'S CUTS TO BIOFUELS RESEARCH WOULD HURT THE PLANET AND OUR ECONOMY” https://psmag.com/economics/how-trumps-cuts-to-biofuels-research-would-hurt-the-planet-and-our-economy

It's now clear that the U.S. could boost biofuels production without threatening the food supply. When asked about climate change, GOP politicians routinely insist that any actions we take shouldn't compromise our economic growth. In response to a question about climate change at his Senate confirmation hearing, Trump's secretary of energy, Rick Perry, replied that "the question is how do we address it in a thoughtful way that doesn't compromise economic growth, the affordability of energy, or American jobs." And yet Perry is willing to acquiesce to massive budget cuts to a program that will be critical for the American economy in a post-fossil fuel future. The Department of Energy's budget request—the same document calling for a 70 percent cut to energy efficiency and renewable energy programs—touts a study showing that the $12 billion invested by the agency in this research over the years has yielded "an estimated net economic benefit to the United States of more than $230 billion."



https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/05/f34/FY2018BudgetVolume3.pdf

https://psmag.com/news/donald-trump-picks-rick-perry-to-run-the-department-of-energy



2012-STOA-BB-012-AFF-SaudiArabia-SUBMITTED.docx€¦ · Web viewImpact: Replacing dirty energy is...

Documents

Transcript of 2012-STOA-BB-012-AFF-SaudiArabia-SUBMITTED.docx€¦ · Web viewImpact: Replacing dirty energy is...