WNDI 2008

1 Airforce GLT Aff

Airforce GTL Aff

1AC............................................................................................................................................................................3 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................3 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................4 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................5 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................6 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................7 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................8 1AC............................................................................................................................................................................9 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 10 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 12 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 14 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 15 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 1AC.......................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Inherency
Inherency- no plan ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Inherency-lack of industry ....................................................................................................................................... 20 Inherency- no contracts............................................................................................................................................ 21 Inherency- no contracts............................................................................................................................................ 22 Inherency- no contracts............................................................................................................................................ 23 Inherency-military must act now ............................................................................................................................. 24 Inherency-DOD ....................................................................................................................................................... 25 Inherency-DOD ....................................................................................................................................................... 26 Inherency- airforce will increase travel ................................................................................................................... 27

Oil
OIL- trades off with tech ......................................................................................................................................... 28 OIL-high oil prices hurts air force ........................................................................................................................... 29 OIL-funds terrorism ................................................................................................................................................. 30 OIL-funds terrorism ................................................................................................................................................. 31 OIL-hurts readiness ................................................................................................................................................. 32 OIL-hurts readiness ................................................................................................................................................. 33 DOD steals from people .......................................................................................................................................... 34 Air fuel is key .......................................................................................................................................................... 35

Heg
Alternative energy key to mobility .......................................................................................................................... 36 GTL increase air plane efficiency/ reduce cost ........................................................................................................ 37 Air mobility good .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Air mobility good .................................................................................................................................................... 39 Air mobility key to heg ............................................................................................................................................ 40 Airpower key to heg ................................................................................................................................................ 41 Alternative energy key to Air Force ........................................................................................................................ 42 Airpower good ......................................................................................................................................................... 43 Airpower good ......................................................................................................................................................... 44 Airpower good ......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Air power modernization ......................................................................................................................................... 46 Soft power ............................................................................................................................................................... 47 Multilateralism......................................................................................................................................................... 48

WNDI 2008

2 Airforce GLT Aff

Global Warming
warming ................................................................................................................................................................... 49 warming ................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Warming .................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Warming-bio D ........................................................................................................................................................ 52

Economy
Airlines .................................................................................................................................................................... 53 Airlines .................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Modeling.................................................................................................................................................................. 55 Modeling.................................................................................................................................................................. 56 Modeling.................................................................................................................................................................. 57 Modeling.................................................................................................................................................................. 58 Jet fuels expensive ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Free trade ................................................................................................................................................................. 60

Solvency
Contracts key ........................................................................................................................................................... 61 Contracts key ........................................................................................................................................................... 62 GTL-saves natural gas ............................................................................................................................................. 63 GTL-cheap ............................................................................................................................................................... 64 GTL-reduce military spending................................................................................................................................. 65 GTL-reduce military spending................................................................................................................................. 66 GTL-Biomass solvency ........................................................................................................................................... 67 GTL-more efficient .................................................................................................................................................. 68 DOD is key .............................................................................................................................................................. 69 ESPC........................................................................................................................................................................ 70 GTL-easy to transport and clean .............................................................................................................................. 71 Renewable good (general) ....................................................................................................................................... 72 GTL good ................................................................................................................................................................ 73

Answers
A2 to commercial change counterplan .................................................................................................................... 74 A2 regulation counterplan ....................................................................................................................................... 75 A2 biodiesel/ethanol ................................................................................................................................................ 76 A2 T ......................................................................................................................................................................... 77 A2 T ......................................................................................................................................................................... 78 A2 T ......................................................................................................................................................................... 79 A2 T ......................................................................................................................................................................... 80 A2 private c/p .......................................................................................................................................................... 81 A2 private c/p .......................................................................................................................................................... 82 A2 private c/p .......................................................................................................................................................... 83

Natural Gas Good

Lots of natural gas ................................................................................................................................................... 84 Natural gas clean ..................................................................................................................................................... 85 Natural gas clean ..................................................................................................................................................... 86 Natural gas clean ..................................................................................................................................................... 87 Natural gas good industry ..................................................................................................................................... 88 Natural gas good-transportation............................................................................................................................... 89

WNDI 2008

3 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Observation One: The Status Quo The Air Force is currently attempting a transition to gas-to-liquid fuels. Unfortunately, Congressional limits on long-term contracts prevent getting the project off the ground Breanne Wagner May 12, 2008, National Defense Magazine,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/may/market.htm
Tom Sayles, Rentech vice president of government affairs and communications, says that besides the life cycle requirement, the industry has bigger financial concerns. Long-term contracts are needed to get this [industry] off the ground. Today, the military purchases fuel on an annual basis, Sayles says, while electricity is bought in 10-year contracts. Additionally, Ramsbottom believes the industry wont move forward in a timely manner without strong government

support. The Air Force wants to develop synthetic jet fuel as soon as possible, but is restricted by Congress. Lawmakers are showing greater interest in alternative energy, but many caution against moving too quickly. Sen. Jeff
Bingaman, D-N.M., who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wants to ensure the Air Force weighs all the options before purchasing new aviation fuel. We need to make sure were undertaking careful analysis before making an investment, he says. Of particular interest is biofuels development, Bingaman says. There are a lot of studies in dispute with each other on the topic of whether biofuels help or hinder our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. To help clear up the confusion, the committee has asked the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering to study the cost and environmental impact of all the options, Bingaman says. A draft report is expected in July, with the final report due by years end, says David Gray, director of energy systems analysis with Noblis, a research firm in Falls Church, Va. Gray sits on the board of the National Academies studies. Noblis previously conducted a study commissioned by the Air Force and the National Energy Technology Laboratory to evaluate how much biomass would have to be mixed with coal to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Despite the hurdles, the Air Force and industry are not slowing down. Although the Air Force cannot yet purchase synthetic jet fuel on a commercial scale, an exemption in the 2007 energy act does allow it to buy fuel for testing . The service bought its first batch in 2006 from Syntroleum, an energy company based in Tulsa, Okla. The company has since closed down its plant. The Air Force plans to purchase 300,000 gallons this year, but has not yet released a bid, Anderson tells reporters. The Defense Logistics Agency will release two bids on behalf of the Air Force, one for a coal-to-liquids fuel and the other from any feedstock. Last year, the service bought 281,000 gallons of gas-to-liquids fuel from Shell in Malaysia. In March, the Air Force completed its first supersonic flight test using a 50/50 mix of petroleum and FischerTropsch gas-to-liquid fuel. A B-1B Lancer from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, flew over New Mexico and Texas, according to the Air Force. A B-52 Stratofortress and a C-17 Globemaster III have also flown using the synthetic mix. The commercial industry also began testing alternative jet fuels in February when Virgin Atlantic flew a Boeing 747-400 from London to Amsterdam powered by 80 percent petroleum and 20 percent biodiesel derived from tropical oils, says Imperium Renewables, the company that provided the fuel.

WNDI 2008

4 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase the use of alternative energy by awarding long-term contracts of up to twenty five years to producers of synthetic jet fuel manufactured from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process in the United States.

WNDI 2008

5 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Advantage 1 is Air power: High fuel costs are eating away at the Air Force budget, trading off with both training and operational missions, devastating readiness Marc V. Schanz, Associate Editor Air Force Magazine, journal of air force association, The Fuel War Vol. 90, No. 6, June 2007, http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.html
The Air Force is the largest single consumer of energy in the Department of Defense. That would still be the case even if the United States were not engaged in a Global War on Terrorism, but it is, and the demands of that worldwide conflict have pushed fuel use to new heights. Last year, the Air Forces total energy bill came to $6.7 billion, the bulk of it related to air operations. When USAFs budgets began to sag under the weight of rising oil prices, worried Air Force leaders began closely examining the services energy costs and planning for reforms. The fuel problem became undeniable nearly two years ago. USAF already was burning lots and lots of fuel as a result of the war. Then, in September 2005, USAF deployed many aircraft to the Gulf Coast to assist in evacuation, search and rescue, recovery, and other operations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The effort was enormous and costly. It also highlighted the vulnerability of the nations domestic energy supply, according to Michael A. Aimone, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations, and mission support. The Department of Defense, as the governments largest fuel user, accounts for 93 percent of overall federal energy cost s. Yet even with such a huge fuel bill, the Pentagon accounts for about two percent of the nations entire energy use. In the fight to control costs, the Air Force has moved heavily into renewable energy usage. The Air Force led the federal government in the amount of renewable energy purchased last year and the year before. In fact, USAF is the fourth largest purchaser of renewable energy in the nation. Aimone noted that one of the largest photovoltaic farms in the world is being built at Nellis AFB, Nev. This sun-powered system will generate up to 18 megawatts of power. Luke AFB, Ariz., March ARB, Calif., and several smaller installations also have buildings with photovoltaic systems. All recognize, however, that the Air Force has to do something to cut back on its use of petroleum. Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, a September 2006 report prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, says that energy costs comprise about three percent of the militarys annual spending. That, however, is the average for all DOD activities: The

share for mobility and combat aircraft is significantly higher. Even in peacetime, the Air Forces mobility fleet is flying every day, moving people and supplies across the globe, racking up 42 percent of the services energy costs. Officials at Air Mobility Command, Scott AFB, Ill., report that the mobility fleet used about $1.3
billion worth of jet fuel in Fiscal 2005 and $1.8 billion for 2006. Expenditures in the first quarter of Fiscal 2007$530 millionput AMC on pace to surpass the $2 billion mark. Just behind AMCs use is that of Air Combat Command, the services main operator of combat aircraft. ACCs fighter fleet each year accounts for about 22 percent of the Air Forces energy bill. ACCs long-range bomber operations account for another six percent of the total. Indeed, a whopping 80 percent of the Air Forces fuel costs are

attributable to aviation operationstraining, exercises, and deployments. Traditionally, this area has been off-limits to budget cutters. Aimone said, For most of my 37-year career in the Air Force, when we approached the
subject of energy conservation, it was around facilities operations and vehicle operations. In short, no one wanted to touch flying. First Lt. Katherine R. Kebisek, a public affairs officer at AMC, noted that fluctuations in fuel prices make it difficult to reliably predict costs. Each day, she said, AMC missions consume about 2.5 million gallons of JP-8. Planning for surge contingencies such as a Katrina-like situation must be done above the command level. With oil prices lingering at high levels, though, the Air Force has slowly begun moving to manage operational consumption, too. Usage of JP-8 fuel, particularly in training operations, is under scrutiny. Running the Numbers In September 2005, the Air Force was paying around $1.74 per gallon for JP-8, said Sheila Flemings, an ACC flying hour cost program analyst. The total amount of fuel consumed by ACC in Fiscal 2005 was some 501 million gallons, Flemings said, coming out at over $747 million in JP-8 aviation fuel costs. Since then, fuel costs have risen by roughly one-third, even as the overall budgets have grown

tighter. The result is reduced funding for flying hours to train aircrews. Flying commands have set minimum requirements for aircrew training, according to John Cilento, an ACC flying hour program analyst. It is an
issue, said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, ACC commander. Its always an issue. Col. Eric Best, chief of ACC flight operations, told Norfolks Virginian-Pilot that pilots are encouraged to land when a training mission is completed, even if it ends early, rather than continue flying until allotted time expires. In addition, said Best, operators are being encouraged to make more frequent use of simulators, though everyone realizes the systems can replicate only part of the flight experience. Indeed,

the Air Force Flying Hour Program budget is slated to be reduced by around 10 percent each year from Fiscal 2008 until 2013. One big reason is high fuel cost. The result, ACC officials say, is less training and lower combat readiness.

WNDI 2008

6 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Separately, dependence on foreign oil sources means a single supply disruption could devastate the military Yochi J. Dreazen, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push Dependence on Oil Seen as Too Risky, May 21,2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With

fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer. In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic jet fuel. A similar
formula -- a blend of half-synthetic and half-conventional petroleum -- has been used in some South African commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast. "The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas," Capt. Fournier said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane's thrusters during the test flight. "But you won't know unless you try." With oil's multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping -- crude futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New York trading -- energy security has emerged as a major concern for the Pentagon. The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -- almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White

House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced. Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energysecurity advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

WNDI 2008

7 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Airpower is key to solve multiple nuclear conflicts Zalmay Khalilzad and Ian O. Lesser. Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century: Regional Futures and U.S. Strategy, 1998 http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR897/
The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American

air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several sub-regions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuously on the Korean peninsula and to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty
obligations and therefore has pre-planned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, US airpower would be at the forefront of an

American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service, (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capabilityfighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS and tankersare relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already
targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire longrange cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown,

American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response. Such responses would be necessitated by three general classes of contingencies. The first involves the politico-military collapse of a key regional actor, as might occur in the case of North Korea, Myanmar, Indonesia, or Pakistan. The second involves acute politicalmilitary crises that have a potential for rapid escalation, as may occur in the Taiwan Strait, the Spratlys, the Indian subcontinent, or on the Korean peninsula. The third involves cases of prolonged domestic instability that may have either spillover or contagion effects, as in China, Indonesia, Myanmar, or North Korea .

WNDI 2008

8 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Air power is key to U.S. hegmony Phillip S. Meilinger, 10 March 03 ( retired Air Force colonel and command pilot with a PhD in military history)
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/vorspr03.html Just as the Royal Navy defended British economic strength over a century ago, so do our air forces protect our economic security. This is especially true because military strategy has evolved so dramatically over the past decade. The basic factors that shaped our geopolitical environment during the Cold War era have changed. The Soviet threat is gone, but other threats and other commitments remain. In fact, US military deployments have increased fourfold while the size of our military has shrunk by 40 percent. The character of these engagements has also altered. It is ever more essential that the United States maintain strong public support for its actions. This in turn means we must be extremely careful about both inflicting and sustaining casualties. Our military campaigns from the Persian Gulf War to Afghanistan have been marked by remarkably low losses, and the increasing use of precision weapons has limited civilian casualties and collateral damage, essential to maintaining worldwide public support. It is obvious, however, that if such sterilized warfare is our goal, then certain types of strategies, tactics, and weapons are more desirable than others. Precision or nonlethal weapons delivered by air platforms- ideally either unmanned, unseen, or flying beyond the range of enemy fire- are the instruments of choice. To be sure, the process of identifying, tracking, and destroying mobile targets- tanks, trucks, and terrorists- remains one of our most difficult challenges, but this problem is being addressed through the use of a combination of space-, air-, and land-based sensors tied to strike aircraft by satellite. It would be foolish for our leaders to think that air and space power could be effective in any crisis, but it has now become their weapon of first resort. The American people intuitively realize this: recent Gallup Polls reveal that 42 percent of those surveyed believe the Air Force is the most crucial arm of our national defense, and a like number believe it should be built up to a greater extent than the other services. Just as our commercial air fleet is the largest and most modern in the world, so too is our military airpower. Our superiority is even greater than a comparison of the number of US military aircraft to the totals of other leading countries would indicate (fig. 4). Although China has a large supply of aircraft, most are obsolescent, including over 4,500 Vietnam-era MiG-17s, -19s, and -21s. Certainly, quantity has its own quality, but most of the Chinese air force would stand little chance against a frontline adversary. Similarly, Russias air force has atrophied dramatically over the past decade. Once the pride of the Soviet state, much of this vaunted air force now sits unused. Examining the types of military aircraft comprising the worlds air forces is also revealing. The majority of combat aircraft worldwide consists of short-range fighter-bombers, such as the F-16, Mirage 2000, and MiG-21. The United States has nearly 4,000 such aircraft but has far more capability than that. Our airlift and aerial-tanker fleets allow us to project power anywhere in the world on short notice. The United States possesses the vast majority of the worlds large military cargo aircraft, such as the C-17 and C-5, while also having four times more tankers than the rest of the world combined. Tankers turn our tactical fighters into strategic bombers. No other nation has such an impressive capability to project power and influence. China, for example, has fewer than 50 modern cargo aircraft and virtually no aerial-refueling capability. Our dominance in space is equally compelling. At present, approximately 550 operational satellites are in orbit. Nearly half of those were launched by the United States, and approximately 100 of them have military missions. In addition, the Global Positioning Systems constellation of 28 satellites provides precise geographical data to users all over the world. In contrast, Russia now has only 90 operational spacecraft, and much of its space infrastructure- its missile-launch detection system, for example- is moribund. Although China can be expected to become a space competitor- it is currently working on an antisatellite system- it has launched an average of fewer than four satellites per year over the past decade. Within the US military services, one finds an increasing reliance and emphasis on air and space power. According to an old saying, if you want to know whats important, follow the money. In the American military, that trail is clear. The backbone of the Navy is the aircraft carrier, which costs over $5 billion each (without its aircraft and support ships), and the Navy spends nearly as much on aircraft each year as does the Air Force. The top funding priority of the Marine Corps is the tilt-rotor V-22 cargo plane, which will cost $85 million apiece. The Army has major production and modernization programs for Comanche, Apache, and Black Hawk helicopters that will total $70 billion. Indeed, over the past decade, the Army has spent more on aircraft and missiles than it <CONTINUED>

WNDI 2008

9 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
<CONTINUED> has on tracked combat vehicles. In sum, over 60 percent of the US defense budget is devoted to air and space forces. In fact, a comparison of our four air arms with those of the rest of the world shows that each individually is greater than the military air assets of most major countries (fig. 5). The qualitative superiority of American aircraft makes our air and space dominance even more profound. The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. Indeed, the major disagreements that occur among the services today generally concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those assets, but their differing views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the authority of the joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the question of which service should command space, and the question of whether the air or ground commander should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance of joint operations, and air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon. Air and space dominance also provides our civilian leadership with flexibility. Although intelligence is never perfect, our leaders now have unprecedented information regarding what military actions can or cannot accomplish and how much risk is involved in a given action. For example, our leaders understood far better than ever before how many aircraft and weapons would be needed over Serbia and Afghanistan to produce a specified military effect, weapon accuracy, collateral damage that might occur, and risk to our aircrews. This allowed our leaders to fine-tune the air campaign, providing more rapid and effective control than previously. Other factors affect the way well fight. One hears much talk today of transforming the military to meet new threats. The Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan- and, for that matter, Somalia and Haiti- indicate that traditional methods, weapons, forces, and strategy will often be inadvisable. Warfare has changed. Stealth, precision weapons, and space-based communication and intelligence-gathering systems are examples of this new form of war. Certainly, the human element in war can never be ignored. People make war, and all their strengths and weaknesses must be considered. Yet, it would be foolish not to exploit new technologies that remove part of the risk and human burden in war. It is not always necessary for people to suffer. Air and space power permits new types of strategies that make war on things rather than on people and that employ things rather than people. It capitalizes on the explosion in computer, electronic, and materials technologies that so characterize the modern era. This is Americas strength- one that we must ensure.

Hegemony solves back their nuke war impacts Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 1995
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

WNDI 2008

10 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Advantage two is the airline industry: High jet fuel prices have the commercial airline industry on the brink of collapse CNN, United reports $2.7 billion loss, stock soars. July 22, 2008,
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/news/companies/airline_earnings/?postversion=2008072217 United Airlines parent UAL Corp. stock soared 68% Tuesday after it reported a second-quarter net loss of $2.7 billion Tuesday due to the soaring price of fuel and announced thousands of new job cuts . UAL Corp.
(UAUA, Fortune 500) said its loss of $21.47 per share stemmed from $2.6 billion in previously recorded accounting charges, including a $2.3 billion special charge for "goodwill impairment." Excluding these charges, the parent of the nation's second-largest airline reported a loss of $151 million for the quarter, or $1.19 per share. But that was better than the loss of $2.05 per share that analysts surveyed by Thomson/First Call had expected on that basis. The company's stock ended the day $3.42 higher to $8.41 a share. United said operating revenue totaled $5.37 billion, falling just short of the $5.40 billion analysts had expected. "Our industry continues to be challenged, perhaps as never before, by fuel prices that continue to march higher," United Chief Executive Glenn Tilton said in a webcast with analysts. "We're taking the difficult but imperative action of cutting jobs throughout the company." Jack Brace, chief financial officer, said United plans to cut 7,000 jobs, or 12% of its total workforce, by the end of 2009, much larger than the previously announced cuts of approximately 1,500 jobs. Brace also said the airline will eliminate 100 of its least fuel-efficient airplanes from its fleet. John Tague, chief operating officer, said United will also eliminate its least fuel-efficient routes, aiming for a 13% capacity reduction by the end of 2009. "At current fuel prices, the economics of certain routes just don't make sense right now," said Tague. "Routes that cannot withstand the pressure of elevated fuel costs will be eliminated." United also announced that it extended its Mileage Plus bank card partnership with Chase Bank, meaning that United will receive a $600 million payment from Chase, and increase its cash flow over the next two years by $200 million. Other airlines struggling with rising fuel prices also posted quarterly losses Tuesday. But airline stocks rose as oil prices prices plunged. US Airways (LCC, Fortune 500) jumped nearly 59% on Tuesday and JetBlue (JBLU) climbed almost 16% by the end of the day. "The market probably liked what it heard on the conference call with the capacity cuts," said Ray Neidl, airline analyst for Calyon Securities. "But I think the biggest thing is the change in oil prices." Oil plunged as much as $5.41 a barrel in Tuesday trading, before settling $3.09 lower, due to concerns about energy use in a troubled economy and reduced fears that a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico will hurt production. "Oil prices going down has certainly had an impact," said U.S. Airways Chief Executive Doug Parker in an analyst call, when asked to comment on the rising stock prices. The Tuesday trading is in stark contrast to the airlines' performance so far this year. Year-to-date, the Amex Airline Index (XAL) has plunged 50%. US Airways, the nation's No. 6 carrier, reported a narrower second-quarter loss than had been forecast on revenue that came roughly within expectations. The airline posted a net loss of $101 million, or $1.11 per share. Analysts had expected a loss of $1.29 per share. Excluding charges, the net loss was $567 million, or $6.16 per share, the company said. The carrier reported total operating revenue of $3.25 billion, versus Wall Street's projections for sales of $3.27 billion. JetBlue Airways booked a net loss of $7 million, or a loss of 3 cents a share, as operating revenue surged 17.7% to $859 million. Analysts had projected a loss of 7 cents per share on revenue of $856 million. Rising fuel prices are squeezing the money-losing airline industry, which is in its worse state since the fallout immediately following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Sales gains "are clearly not keeping pace with the extraordinary increase in the price of jet fuel," JetBlue Chief Executive Dave Barger said in a statement.

WNDI 2008

11 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
The airline industry is key to the economy IATA, is an international trade body, created some 60 years ago by a group of airlines. Today, IATA represents
some 230 airlines comprising 93% of scheduled international air traffic. The organisation also represents, leads and serves the airline industry in general. 2007, http://www.iata.org/NR/rdonlyres/35FC46A4-20FB-4E10-9B0C77651B78A4CD/0/890700_Aviation_Economic_Benefits_Summary_Report.pdf Global economic growth is a key driver of growth in air traffic demand. However, while air traffic demand has increased as economies have grown, air transportation itself can be a key cause and facilitator of economic growth. Not only is the aviation industry a major industry in its own right, employing large numbers of highly skilled workers, but more importantly it is an essential input into the rapidly growing global economy. Greater connections to the global air transport network can boost the productivity and growth of economies by providing better access to markets, enhancing links within and between businesses and providing greater access to resources and to international capital markets .

A collapse in the US economy collapses the world economy. Walter Russell Mead, Kissinger Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, Foreign Policy. 3/1/ 04
Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States--government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments--more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world. That is sticky power with a vengeance.

Global economic decline will bring Armageddon Lt. Col, Tom Bearden, PhD Nuclear Engineering, April 25, 2000,
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/042500%20-%20modified.htm Just prior to the terrible collapse of the World economy, with the crumbling well underway and rising, it is inevitable that some of the weapons of mass destruction will be used by one or more nations on others. An interesting result then---as all the old strategic studies used to show---is that everyone will fire everything as fast as possible against their perceived enemies. The reason is simple: When the mass destruction weapons are unleashed at all, the only chance a nation has to survive is to desperately try to destroy its perceived enemies before they destroy it. So there will erupt a spasmodic unleashing of the long range missiles, nuclear arsenals, and biological warfare arsenals of the nations as they feel the economic collapse, poverty, death, misery, etc. a bit earlier. The ensuing holocaust is certain to immediately draw in the major nations also, and literally a hell on earth will result. In short, we will get the great Armageddon we have been fearing since the advent of the nuclear genie. Right now, my personal estimate is that we have about a 99% chance of that scenario or some modified version of it, resulting.

WNDI 2008

12 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Advantage three is emissions: Scenario 1 is Global Warming. Emissions from airplanes are uniquely bad because they occur in the upper atmosphere this is THREE TIMES worse than ground-level pollution Mark Clayton. Assessing the Jet Threat, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 9, 20 05
Little is known about the global climate effects of airliner exhaust. Although

jets create far less greenhouse gas than power plants or automobiles, they have an outsize impact because of where they spew it the delicate upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, five to seven miles up from Earth's surface. And an expected
boom in airline travel in coming years is likely to swamp any efficiency gains from the next generation of airliners, such as the just unveiled Airbus A380. The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place. "Airliners are special because even though their total emissions are

relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the atmosphere. "It's a special location." When injected together into the icy atmosphere , the mix of exhaust gases including water vapor, unburned hydrocarbons, particulates, sulfates, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon dioxide produces clouds and has two to three times the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology researchers reported last year. That finding meshes with what Travis found. Comparing ground temperature readings during the 9/11 flight ban with those after and before it, Travis found that those seemingly inconsequential wisps fanning out miles above the earth were like a blanket, reducing temperature fluctuations nationwide.

By 2020, aircraft will consume the entire amount of greenhouse gases agreed to be reduced by Kyoto Paul Stephen Dempsey, Professor of Law & Director, Transportation Law Program, University of Denver College of Law. Trade & Transport Policy In Inclement Skies, Journal of Air Law and Commerce Fall, 2000 65 J. Air L.
& Com. 639
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and ozone have all increased dramatically in concentration over the past half century as population, industry and transportation have exploded. n72 Some sources ascribe to air transport a 24.3% share

of transportation-related emissions that could potentially affect the climate, and project an increase in energy use by this mode of 180% by the year 2005. The International Civil Aviation Organization predicts a 65% increase in fuel consumption between 1990 and 2010 . Others predict that technological
improvements will allow nitrogen oxide emissions to hold constant even while fuel consumption (now 180 million tonnes) doubles. n73 Still other sources calculate that carbon dioxide emissions from global subsonic aviation may rise from 554 million tonnes in 1990 to 957 million tonnes by the year 2015. By 2020, emissions from aircraft could consume the 5.2% reductions in greenhouse gasses that the world community agreed to eliminate in Kyoto in 1997. n74 Dr. Peter Bein predicts that even if global emission rates remain at present levels, CO<2> levels would still reach two and one-half times their pre-industrial level (about twice today's concentration) by 2010. With increasing emissions, CO<2> levels will increase more. n75 By the year 2100, aviation could account for 14% of the world's anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. n76

WNDI 2008

13 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Global warming is threatening the survival of humanity Stein 08 David. (Science editor). Global warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting. The Canadian
National Newspaper. 7/14/2008. http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception.

We dont have to solve all warming, we just have to slow it down enough to allow adaptation Reuters. 1990s hottest decade of millennium, report shows, March 10, 1999
http://www.crystalinks.com/greenhouse3.html
"As you go back farther in time, the data become sketchier," Michael Mann of the University of Massachusetts said . "One can't quite pin things down as well, but our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years." He said the records were not perfect, but complete enough to show "startling revelations." "If temperatures change slowly, society and the environment have time to adjust," he said. "The slow, moderate, long-term cooling trend that we found makes the abrupt warming of the late 20th-century even more dramatic. "The cooling trend of over 900 years was dramatically reversed in less than a century. The abruptness of the recent warming is key, and it is a potential cause for concern." In January the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said they had established that 1998 was the warmest year on record. But their finding was based on records only going back 120 years.

WNDI 2008

14 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Scenario 2 is the Ozone. Airplane emissions destroy the ozone layer Mark A. Drumbl, Assistant Professor, Washington & Lee University School of Law. Poverty, Wealth, and Obligation in International Environmental Law, Tulane Law Review March, 20 02 76 Tul. L. Rev. 843
Scientists reported in September 2000 that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica might reach a record depth. Hole in Ozone Layer May Hit Record Size, The Globe & Mail (Can.), Sept. 23, 2000, at http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet (last visited Sept. 23, 2000) (on file with author). But this may be due to the "lag-time" between more effective regulation and the salutary effects of that more effective regulation on the environment. There is evidence that CFCs persist for a long time and will thereby keep on depleting the ozone layer for some time after their emission is phased out. New culprits in the depletion of the ozone layer are greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those generated by airplanes. See Sue Wheat, Like Icarus, We Ignore the Warning Signs, The Indep. (London), July 30, 2000, at 19. These emissions, which form part of the broader problem of climate change, alter meteorological conditions in the stratosphere that, in turn, significantly affect the size of the hole in the ozone layer as well as its depth and persistence. See Hole in Ozone Layer May Hit Record Size, supra. The relationship between climate change and the ozone problem demonstrates the interconnectedness of environmental issues at large and the need for regulatory regimes to be administratively linked.

Stratospheric airplane emissions are worse for ozone depletion that all other forms of pollution Paul Stephen Dempsey, Professor of Law & Director, Transportation Law Program, University of Denver College of Law. Trade & Transport Policy In Inclement Skies, Journal of Air Law and Commerce Fall, 2000 65 J. Air L.
& Com. 639
Yet of all the modes of transport, aviation is uniquely global. The typical turbofan jet engine burning kerosene produces unburned hydrocarbons, soot, carbon monoxide, and nitric oxide (one type of nitrogen oxide). n14 Hyrdocarbons produce smog, carbon monoxide takes oxygen out of the blood system, and nitrogen dioxide produces excessive nutrients in bays and estuaries (forty percent of the nitrogen oxide entering the Chesapeake Bay, for example, comes from air). Although air transport contributes a relatively small share of total pollutants (about three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, for example), n15 it is the only industry which discharges harmful emissions (such as nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide) directly into the upper atmosphere, thus contributing more profoundly to global warming and ozone depletion.

In the troposphere, jet engines generate ozone by photochemical reaction, while in the stratosphere, they may destroy ozone via catalytic reaction. n16 Moreover, of all modes of transport, commercial aviation is growing fastest - outpacing any other form of transportation. This makes aviation of growing concern
to sustainability in the twenty-first century.

This impact is separate from the warming debate ozone depletion causes complete extinction scientific consensus is on our side Greenpeace, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression
in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

WNDI 2008

15 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Observation two is solvency Tests of synthetic fuel have been successful, but advanced purchasing contracts are necessary for financing Aviation Week & Space Technology, OCTOBER 9, 2006,
IN THE FIRST TEST SEPT. 19, the bomber launched from a Flight Test Center runway here and passed over a gathering of government and industry officials. Test engines 7 and 8 left a good impression a somewhat reduced trail of black smoke compared to longer and wider streams from the six JP-8-fueled engines. Air Force Under Secretary Ronald M. Sega, a retired major general and former Air Force pilot, flew on the test mission. Though that flight was cut short because a wingtip landing gear failed to retract properly, Sega said the two TF33 engines fueled with the blend, worked like the other engines using JP-8. Flights on Sept. 27 and 29
completed the initial test cycle. Ground tests of the synthetic kerosene- JP-8 blend indicate that it burns at about the same rate as petroleumbased fuel, says William E. Harrison, 3rd, chief of the fuels branch at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Tests also have demonstrated the advantage of a 20-40% reduction in particulates. Harrison says no leakage was found in the test engines. This was expected, but is still a concern A blend of synthetic kerosene and JP-8 burns in PW TF33 engines 7 and 8, leaving a slightly reduced trail of black smoke. since the synthetic contains no aromatics, which cause 0-rings and gaskets to swell and prevent leaks. Pre-flight tests indicated that by mixing JP-8 with the synthetic kerosene, the blended fuel had the right properties for proper sealing. Syntroleum Corp. of Tulsa, Okla., provided 100,000 gal. of the synthetic kerosene. It was produced from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process developed in Germany in the 1920s, but it can be made from coal as well. Syntroleum also provided diesel fuel the Air Force is using in ground vehicle tests at Edwards AFB and Selfridge Air National Guard base in Michigan. Syntroleum has mothballed its demonstration plant, according to a company official. The plant, capable of producing 70 barrels a day, costs $1 million a month to operate. Syntroleum is looking for business and will reopen the refinery when new contracts are obtained. Representatives of three U.S. users of the Fischer-Tropsch process attended the initial Air Force test flight and eagerly await the results. In addition to Syntroleums Chairman Kenneth L. Agee, there was D. Hunt Ramsbottom, president and CEO of Rentech of Denver, and John W. Rich, Jr., president of WMPI Pty. of Frackville, Pa. Each company is looking to develop aviation synthetics to complement their offerings. Harrison says the drive to find alternative and improved fuels

has picked up steam with rising concerns over the price of petroleum-based fuels, dependence on foreign sources for oil and interest in conservation (AW&ST July 31, p. 54). Synthetic kerosene has been the Air
Forces chief focus in part because it appears to be transparent to engines built for petroleum-based fuels. Furthermore, there are large stores of natural gas and coal in North America. Interested in the potential of a 200- million-gallon purchase by the Air Force and the Navy in 2008, 25 companies responded to a request for information on synthetics. The Air Force has adopted a systems engineering approach to determine the impact of synthetic kerosene on aircraft and engines. A similar synthetic, produced from coal by Sasol Ltd. of Johannesburg, South Africa, has been fueling commercial aircraft at Johannesburg since 1999 was approved by the U.K. Defense Ministry as Def Stan 91-91. Success of the drive for alternative fuel will depend on purchase contracts, one industry official says. A roadblock to large government buys is a requirement that

fuel be acquired for a fiscal year. If Congress would permit Defense Dept. contracts for much longer periods, the chance of Wall Street financing new refineries would be improved greatly, according to a government official.

WNDI 2008

16 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Long term contracts solve investors financial risks and lead to consistent budgeting. Col Gregory J. Lengyel, 2007, USAF, Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog new tricks
www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf Senators Jim Bunning and Barack Obama have introduced legislation to address the need to pull together the investors and the billions of dollars need to build a synthetic fuel plant by expanding and enhancing the DOE loan guarantee program included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005; providing a new program of matching loans to address funding shortages for front-end engineering and design (capped at $20 million and must be matched by non-federal money); expanding investment tax credit and expensing provisions, and extending the fuel excise tax credit; providing funding for the DOD to purchase, test, and integrate synfuels into the military; authorizing a study on synfuel storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and perhaps most importantly to reduce financial risk associated with starting a Long-term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there were a long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they would otherwise pay for petroleum products. In past years, the DOD has not had the authority to enter into the 15- or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington DC, Senator Bunning addressed the issue: I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for highquality, clean, domestic fuel. Longterm contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts. Secretary Wynne also addressed price stability at the Energy Forum. Last year, the AF spent about $6.6 billion on aviation fuel; 1.6 billion dollars more than budgeted. In 2005, the fuel budget was $1.4 billion more than the previous year. We could have paid for a supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense. Maybe then we could have a predictable cost for fuel.

WNDI 2008

17 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Federal support for synfuels is key to commercial use of the technology its the only way to overcome start-up costs JET FUEL INTELLIGENCE 4-28-2008 New US Military Synfuel Spec Clears Path For Civilian Use
Earlier this month, the US military revised its specification for JP-8 jet fuel in a move that may prove to speed up acceptance of alternative fuels for commercial airlines, as well as other defense forces around the world. The Air Force shares with civilian aviation not only the jet fuel market but also engine and airframe models, so
its work to test and certify synthetic fuels is blazing a trail for broader use of alternative fuels that improve supply security and help reduce the carbon footprint of aviation ( JFI Mar.10,p1 ). Ever since the Defense Department spelled out its Assured Fuels Initiative more than two years ago, events on the world stage have heightened the urgency for developing alternative sources of jet fuel ( JFI Mar.19'07 ,p1 ). With every $10 per barrel increase in oil prices, the Air Force is saddled with an additional $600 million in unfunded fuel bills. "The perfect storm of rising oil prices and push for environmental responsibility have provided more momentum for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy," says Jeffrey Braun, director of the Alternative Fuels Certification Office (AFCO). That office was set up last August at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio to spearhead the testing and certification process of new fuels for the Air Force fleet. Concerted efforts by AFCO over the last five months toward those goals resulted in the revision on Apr. 11 of the JP-8 specification to encompass fuels produced via the FischerTropsch (FT) process. The new spec for MIL DTL 83-133 allows up to 50% synthetic FT kerosene for military aircraft and marks the latest revision to this fuel standard since JP-8 was introduced back in the 1980s. Modification of the fuel standard to accommodate synthetic fuels progresses two key goals: to have the entire Air Force fleet certified to use a 50-50 synfuel blend by late 2010, and to acquire 50% of fuel needs within the continental US from domestically produced synfuels from plants that use methods for carbon capture and storage (CCS) ( JFI Sep.17,p1 ). While the Air Force is well on its way to achieving the first goal, the acquisition target for 400 million gallons of domestic synthetic jet fuel could prove more elusive, since it depends on how quickly FT fuel plants can be built across the US . Huge capital costs, estimated at $3 billion-$4billion for a commercial-scale FT plant with

CCS capability, are impeding development of a domestic synfuels industry. The Air Force is hopeful that joint work undertaken with the Department of Energy will yield a viable technology to bring CCS to the US market in a cost-effective manner.

Flying planes with synfuels would cut fuel costs drastically CS Monitor Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel? December 28, 20 07,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html?page=1 The US Air Force is experimenting with a synthetic fuel that could become a cheaper fuel-alternative for the entire US military and even commercial aviation, officials say. As the cost of a barrel of oil approaches $100
and US reliance on foreign oil sources grows, the Air Force, the single biggest user of energy in the US government, wants to find a cheaper alternative. Air Force officials think they may have found it in a fuel that blends the normal JP-8 fuel, currently used for the military's jet engines, with a synthetic fuel made from natural gas and liquid coal. The 50-50 blend is less expensive

between $40 to $75 per barrel and it burns cleaner than normal fuel. The synthetic fuel is purchased from US-based suppliers and then blended with the military's JP-8 fuel. "We're making sure the Air Force is ahead of the curve
so we can utilize this domestic resource instead of having to be both dependent on foreign sources and send dollars offshore instead of spending the dollars here in the US," says Kevin Billings, a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force helping to oversee the initiative. Last week, on the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight, the Air Force flew a C-17 Globemaster III from Washington state to New Jersey, the first transcontinental flight using the synthetic fuel. The flight was an attempt to demonstrate that pilots could fly the plane, considered a "workhorse" of the Air Force fleet, using "syn-fuel" without degrading the performance of the plane's engine.

WNDI 2008

18 Airforce GLT Aff

1AC
Synthetic fuels cut emissions by 90% Mike Millikin, editor and analyst in the IT industry for more than 15 years. Air Force Flight Test of Syntroleum Gas-to-Liquids Fuel Successful, 19 September 2006,
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/air_force_fligh.html Syntroleum announced that its Fischer-Tropsch (FT) jet fuel has been successfully tested in a United States Air Force B-52 Stratofortress Bomber aircraft. The plane lifted off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., with a
50/50 blend of FT and traditional JP-8 jet fuel which was burned in two of the eight engines on the plane. This marks the first time that FT jet fuel has been tested in a military flight demo, and is the first of several planned test flights. The test is a result of more than four years of successful research and development efforts with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), focused on producing a high-performance alternative fuel for military applications. The program culminating in the test flight today is the first step in opening up new horizons for sourcing fuel for military purposes. Bill Harrison, fuels expert with the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio Undersecretary of the Air Force Dr. Ronald M. Sega was on the mission as a crewmember. This test sets the stage for a more comprehensive plan the Air Force has toward conservation. This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels. Dr. Sega Dr. Sega said the engines running on the synthetic fuel performed as well as the others. But he is still waiting for test analysis and the final test results. The next step in the program will be an eight-engine test in a few months. Before the manned flight, the Air Force Flight Test Center tested the fuel to see how it reacted to aircraft parts. The fuel ran a T-63 engine during 130 hours of fuel testing. One of the engines was then taken off the B-52 and sent to Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., where it went through a 50-hour continuous alternative fuel run. The engines were reinstalled into the bomber and ground tested before the test flight. After going through the testing at Edwards, the alternative fuel left in the bombers fuel tanks is scheduled to undergo cold-weather testing in January or February. The fuel was produced at Syntroleums gas-to-liquids (GTL) FT demonstration facility near Tulsa, Okla. where it has produced more than 400,000 gallons of ultra clean products. This flight test is part of the DODs Assured Fuel Initiative, an effort to develop secure domestic sources for the militarys energy need s. The Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil and foreign producers and get about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016. Syntroleums jet fuel has shown superior performance characteristics compared to traditional aviation fuels. Prior testing by the military on the companys FT fuels have shown a reduction in particulate matter and soot emissions of greater than 90% depending upon the turbine engine type compared to aviation fuels produced by refining crude oil. The

reduced particulate matter and soot emissions significantly improve engine efficiency, performance and overall air quality. In addition to the companys work with the DOD, Syntroleums technology and FT products have been
successfully tested in several government programs through the US Department of Energys ultra clean fuels program and with academic research institutions and auto manufacturers. One of the shuttle buses used at Edwards Air Force Base is running Syntroleums diesel fuel as part of an ongoing road test.

Not only is GTL fuel compatible with all vehicles, simplifying logistics, it can be transported with existing infrastructure and the DoD is progressing certification of the entire fleet by 2011. Dr. Robert Freerks, September 5, 2007, The Benefits and Challenges of Producing Liquid Fuel from Coal: The
Role of Federal Research, Lexis The Department of Defense has been a leader in advancing the development of a U.S.- based FischerTropsch fuels industry. As part of several conjoined programs, the Department is seeking to encourage the development of a domestic alternative fuels industry that can provide a reliable source of fuel for their aircraft, tanks, ships and other vehicles while reducing emissions. For the sake of simplifying logistics, these initiatives also aim to reduce the multiple types of fuels that our military must carry to the battlefield - approximately 9. This new fuel also must be capable of being stored, transported and distributed using existing infrastructure. Only fuels produced using the Fischer-Tropsch process are able to meet all of these requirements. Through the Assured Fuels Initiative the Air Force has tested F-T jet fuel in multiple applications from a diesel engine powered HMMWV (Hummer) to a B-52 bomber. Last month the Air Force certified its entire B-52 fleet to fly on a 50/50 blend of F-T jet fuel and conventional jet fuel and is progressing on extending that certification to all its aircraft by 2011.

WNDI 2008

19 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency- no plan
The U.S. Military has no energy strategy in the SQ Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 The DOD energy issues cannot be viewed in isolation. They are a subset of the larger national problem. Reducing dependence on imported energy is a critical national issue that must be addressed immediately.First, the DOD needs to recognize the problem from a military perspective: energy is the key enabler of US military combat power. That combat power requires a huge consumption of mostly imported petroleum-based fuels. It also creates a command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) structure that is dependent on a civilian electrical grid and rising costs to support the military's energy needs. Blatantly absent is a comprehensive strategy for an energy or organizational structure to implement an energy strategy.

WNDI 2008

20 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency-lack of industry
Air force plans to shift to synfuels are hamstrung by lack of commercial industry Breanne Wagner , Aviation Energy, Market for Synthetic Aviation Fuels Off to a Shaky Start, may 20 08
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm) Makers of synthetic fuel are eager to offer their wares to the military as a lower cost and nationally produced alternative to petroleum-based products. Chief among the potential buyers of synthetic fuel is the Air Force, which has trumpeted an ambitious plan to power its aircraft with alternative propellants. The service plans to certify its aircraft fleet with synthetics by 2011 and aims to meet half of its fuel needs with such products by 2016. But Air Force officials face roadblocks that are hampering efforts to stimulate the growth of a fledging synthetic jet fuel market. While the development of alternative energy technology in the United States has exploded in recent years, for synthetic aviation fuels, progress has been much slower. The industry is just beginning to grow in the United States, says William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics.

WNDI 2008

21 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency- no contracts
Air force plans to shift to synfuels are hamstrung by lack of commercial industry Breanne Wagner , Aviation Energy, Market for Synthetic Aviation Fuels Off to a Shaky Start, may 20 08
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm) Makers of synthetic fuel are eager to offer their wares to the military as a lower cost and nationally produced alternative to petroleum-based products. Chief among the potential buyers of synthetic fuel is the Air Force, which has trumpeted an ambitious plan to power its aircraft with alternative propellants. The service plans to certify its aircraft fleet with synthetics by 2011 and aims to meet half of its fuel needs with such products by 2016. But Air Force officials face roadblocks that are hampering efforts to stimulate the growth of a fledging synthetic jet fuel market. While the development of alternative energy technology in the United States has exploded in recent years, for synthetic aviation fuels, progress has been much slower. The industry is just beginning to grow in the United States, says William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics.

T fuel has been tested in the SQ, advanced purchasing contracts are key for a transition. Breanne Wagner May 12, 2008, National Defense Magazine,
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/may/market.htm Tom Sayles, Rentech vice president of government affairs and communications, says that besides the life cycle requirement, the industry has bigger financial concerns. Long-term contracts are needed to get this [industry] off the ground. Today, the military purchases fuel on an annual basis, Sayles says, while electricity is bought in 10-year contracts. Additionally, Ramsbottom believes the industry wont move forward in a timely manner without strong government support. The Air Force wants to develop synthetic jet fuel as soon as possible, but is restricted by Congress. Lawmakers are showing greater interest in alternative energy, but many caution against moving too quickly. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wants to ensure the Air Force weighs all the options before purchasing new aviation fuel. We need to make sure were undertaking careful analysis before making an investment, he says. Of particular interest is biofuels development, Bingaman says. There are a lot of studies in dispute with each other on the topic of whether biofuels help or hinder our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. To help clear up the confusion, the committee has asked the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering to study the cost and environmental impact of all the options, Bingaman says. A draft report is expected in July, with the final report due by years end, says David Gray, director of energy systems analysis with Noblis, a research firm in Falls Church, Va. Gray sits on the board of the National Academies studies. Noblis previously conducted a study commissioned by the Air Force and the National Energy Technology Laboratory to evaluate how much biomass would have to be mixed with coal to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Despite the hurdles, the Air Force and industry are not slowing down. Although the Air Force cannot yet purchase synthetic jet fuel on a commercial scale, an exemption in the 2007 energy act does allow it to buy fuel for testing. The service bought its first batch in 2006 from Syntroleum, an energy company based in Tulsa, Okla. The company has since closed down its plant. The Air Force plans to purchase 300,000 gallons this year, but has not yet released a bid, Anderson tells reporters. The Defense Logistics Agency will release two bids on behalf of the Air Force, one for a coal-to-liquids fuel and the other from any feedstock. Last year, the service bought 281,000 gallons of gas-to-liquids fuel from Shell in Malaysia. In March, the Air Force completed its first supersonic flight test using a 50/50 mix of petroleum and Fischer-Tropsch gas-to-liquid fuel. A B-1B Lancer from Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, flew over New Mexico and Texas, according to the Air Force. A B-52 Stratofortress and a C-17 Globemaster III have also flown using the synthetic mix. The commercial industry also began testing alternative jet fuels in February when Virgin Atlantic flew a Boeing 747-400 from London to Amsterdam powered by 80 percent petroleum and 20 percent biodiesel derived from tropical oils, says Imperium Renewables, the company that provided the fuel.

WNDI 2008

22 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency- no contracts
Successful synthetic fuel tests in the Status Quo but advnaced purchasing contracts are necessary for financing AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY, OCTOBER 9, 2006,
IN THE FIRST TEST SEPT. 19, the bomber launched from a Flight Test Center runway here and passed over a gathering of government and industry officials. Test engines 7 and 8 left a good impression a somewhat reduced trail of black smoke compared to longer and wider streams from the six JP-8-fueled engines. Air Force Under Secretary Ronald M. Sega, a retired major general and former Air Force pilot, flew on the test mission. Though that flight was cut short because a wingtip landing gear failed to retract properly, Sega said the two TF33 engines fueled with the blend, worked like the other engines using JP-8. Flights on Sept. 27 and 29 completed the initial test cycle. Ground tests of the synthetic kerosene- JP-8 blend indicate that it burns at about the same rate as petroleumbased fuel, says William E. Harrison, 3rd, chief of the fuels branch at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. Tests also have demonstrated the advantage of a 20-40% reduction in particulates. Harrison says no leakage was found in the test engines. This was expected, but is still a concern A blend of synthetic kerosene and JP-8 burns in PW TF33 engines 7 and 8, leaving a slightly reduced trail of black smoke. since the synthetic contains no aromatics, which cause 0-rings and gaskets to swell and prevent leaks. Pre-flight tests indicated that by mixing JP-8 with the synthetic kerosene, the blended fuel had the right properties for proper sealing. Syntroleum Corp. of Tulsa, Okla., provided 100,000 gal. of the synthetic kerosene. It was produced from natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process developed in Germany in the 1920s, but it can be made from coal as well. Syntroleum also provided diesel fuel the Air Force is using in ground vehicle tests at Edwards AFB and Selfridge Air National Guard base in Michigan. Syntroleum has mothballed its demonstration plant, according to a company official. The plant, capable of producing 70 barrels a day, costs $1 million a month to operate. Syntroleum is looking for business and will reopen the refinery when new contracts are obtained. Representatives of three U.S. users of the Fischer-Tropsch process attended the initial Air Force test flight and eagerly await the results. In addition to Syntroleums Chairman Kenneth L. Agee, there was D. Hunt Ramsbottom, president and CEO of Rentech of Denver, and John W. Rich, Jr., president of WMPI Pty. of Frackville, Pa. Each company is looking to develop aviation synthetics to complement their offerings. Harrison says the drive to find alternative and improved fuels has picked up steam with rising concerns over the price of petroleum-based fuels, dependence on foreign sources for oil and interest in conservation (AW&ST July 31, p. 54). Synthetic kerosene has been the Air Forces chief focus in part because it appears to be transparent to engines built for petroleum-based fuels. Furthermore, there are large stores of natural gas and coal in North America. Interested in the potential of a 200- million-gallon purchase by the Air Force and the Navy in 2008, 25 companies responded to a request for information on synthetics. The Air Force has adopted a systems engineering approach to determine the impact of synthetic kerosene on aircraft and engines. A similar synthetic, produced from coal by Sasol Ltd. of Johannesburg, South Africa, has been fueling commercial aircraft at Johannesburg since 1999 was approved by the U.K. Defense Ministry as Def Stan 91-91. Success of the drive for alternative fuel will depend on purchase contracts, one industry official says. A roadblock to large government buys is a requirement that fuel be acquired for a fiscal year. If Congress would permit Defense Dept. contracts for much longer periods, the chance of Wall Street financing new refineries would be improved greatly, according to a government official.

WNDI 2008

23 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency- no contracts
Currently the Air force wants to use long-term contract with companies but lacks the authority.
Platts Oilgram news, fast-breaking global petroleum and gas news to your desktop every business day. Its correspondents around the world report on supply and demand trends, corporate news, government actions, exploration, technology, and more. Air Force aims to lead US transition away from oil, COLUMN; Pg. 9 Vol. 85 No. 50, March 12, 2007 lexis The service?which uses 2% of all US oil?intends to have an impact nationally, if not globally. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said the goal was to "change the environment in which we operate"?one in which high oil prices empower anti-US Iran and Venezuela?to give the president a "sovereign option" on energy. Wynne called for a "genuine government partnership" to bring this about, which was music to the ears of several hundred representatives from aerospace companies, automakers and energy producers, all interested in obtaining big military contracts for their products. The Air Force's goals include cutting fossil energy use 2% per year; increasing renewable use 10% by 2015; and getting 50% of the fuel it expects it will need in the US in 2016?about 325 million barrels?from domestically produced alternatives. To help get coal-to-liquids or other Fischer-Tropsch plants built in the US, the Air Force plans to continue testing alternative and synthetic fuels so it can certify by 2010 that they can work well in military jets and vehicles. The commercial airline industry expects to help establish its demand for the fuels by doing the same a year sooner. The Air Force also wants to enter into long-term contracts, with terms of up to 25 years, to create a market for synfuels. Air Force officials say they lack authority to enter the long-term deals, and are lobbying Congress to pass legislation (S. 154) affirming the Pentagon's contracting authority. Top Defense Department officials as recently as October said it was doubtful that DOD would sign long-term contracts because of uncertainty over prices and CTL technology. But they did not rule out the possibility that the Pentagon might enter long-term contracts for Fischer-Tropsch diesel or jet fuel if Congress passed new language on military contracts.

WNDI 2008

24 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency-military must act now

Steps towards alternative and renewable fuels. Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 1, 2007 , "Pentagon study says oil reliance strains
military"http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_str ains_military/ The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe.

WNDI 2008

25 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency-DOD
The DoD is the largest energy consumer in the country, and is bound to consume more. By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 1, 2007 , "Pentagon study says oil reliance strains
military"http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_str ains_military/ The Department of Defense is the largest single energy consumer in the country. The Air Force spends about $5 billion a year on fuel, mostly to support flight operations. The Navy and Army are close behind.Of all the cargo the military transports, more than half consists of fuel. About 80 percent of all material transported on the battlefield is fuel.The military's energy consumption has steadily grown as its arsenal has become more mechanized and as US forces have had to travel farther distances.In World War II, the United States consumed about a gallon of fuel per soldier per day, according to the report. In the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, about 4 gallons of fuel per soldier was consumed per day. In 2006, the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan burned about 16 gallons of fuel per soldier on average per day , almost twice as much as the year before.

The DoD is the worst polluter- particularly Air Force bases Las Vegas Sun, July 3, 2008 Nations Worst Polluters
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/03/nations-worst-polluters/ When it comes to entities that pollute the nations environment, the Defense Department is at the top of the Environmental Protection Agencys list. But Pentagon and military officials are defying the EPAs orders to clean up toxins being emitted by at least three military bases. The bases Fort Meade in Maryland, Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida and McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey are among 129 military sites on the EPAs Superfund list of the nations most polluted places, 13 of which have no cleanup plans. The Defense Department has rejected the EPAs orders to clean up the bases in Maryland, Florida and New Jersey, which EPA officials suspect are leaking contaminants into soil and the water supply. Pentagon officials, meanwhile, have refused to sign agreements for how the other 10 sites will be cleaned.

The DOD has no senior energy official at the time to solve energy management issues Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Despite current trends, the DOD's energy strategy remains ill defined, and no single individual or organization responsible for energy issues exists within the department. The DOD Annual Energy Management Report for FY 2006 lists the principal deputy undersecretary of defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) as the DOD senior energy official responsible for meeting the goals of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Executive Order (EO) 13123, Greening the Government through Efficient Energy Management.23 However, this position has been vacant for several years and does not satisfy the need for a comprehensive senior energy official for the department.

WNDI 2008

26 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency-DOD
DoD oil dependence in the SQ is extremely vulnerable, action needed now. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Fifth, the problem oil dependency creates for America and directly impacts the DOD is vulnerability to price volatility that results from supply and demand shocks.25 From fall 2005 until gasoline prices started to decline in fall 2006, the price of gasoline had replaced the weather as America's favorite subject of conversation with a stranger. The price of standard crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange was under $25 per barrel in September 2003, but by 11 August 2005, the price had increased to more than $60 per barrel; the price topped out at a record $78.40 per barrel on 13 July 2006.26 Experts attributed the spike in prices to many factors, including the war in Iraq, North Korea's missile launches, the crisis between Israel and Lebanon, Iranian nuclear brinkmanship, and Hurricane Katrina. None of these factors, except for the war in Iraq, could be controlled by the US government. The global energy infrastructure built over the last century is quite fragile and was not designed with any vision of terrorist attacks or computer hackers in mind. The DOD must accept the fact that vulnerabilities exist and that bad actors eventually will exploit these vulnerabilities if corrective measures are not taken.

Current Oil Prices cripple U.S Air Force Los Angles Times Oil prices hit military budgets hard. July 13, 2008,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-militaryoil13-2008jul13,0,4522206.story WASHINGTON -- Across the oil-thirsty U.S. military, commanders are scrambling for ways to offset the ever-rising cost of fuel. But their best efforts so far have fallen short. The military services have found ways to save millions of dollars through conservation, but the price of oil has outpaced the costcutting efforts. The Navy, for example, estimates that it is saving $300 million a year through conservation. That sounds impressive until the oil price jump is taken into consideration. "From July through Sept. 30, we will see a $400-million increase in our fuel bill," said Navy Capt. Arthur Cotton, head of the Fleet Training and Readiness reporting branch. "So all of those energy savings we have done are wiped out, and then some, just over the period of 90 days." Overall, the Pentagon will spend $16.4 billion on fuel this year, up from $5.2 billion in 2003. The increase has made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more expensive, adding $140 million to the cost of operations in Afghanistan and $565 million in Iraq. The wars combined are costing $12.1 billion a month. Military officials emphasize that the increases have not affected how combat operations are being conducted. The Defense Department's biggest fuel users are the Air Force, which accounts for 52% of the fuel bill, and the Navy, which uses 32%. Within those branches, conservation efforts are wide-ranging.

WNDI 2008

27 Airforce GLT Aff

Inherency- airforce will increase travel

High aviation fuel prices are increasing, and travel will increase. By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 1, 2007 , "Pentagon study says oil reliance strains
military"http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_str ains_military/ The National Defense Strategy, which lays out the Pentagon's anticipated missions, calls for an increased US military presence around the globe to be able to combat international terrorist groups and respond to humanitarian and security crises. But aviation fuel consumption for example, has increased 6 percent over the last decade. And the report predicts that trend will continue."The US military will have to be even more energy intense, locate in more regions of the world, employ new technologies, and manage a more complex logistics system," according to the report. "Simply put, more miles will be traveled, both by combat units and the supply units that sustain them, which will result in increased energy consumption. Oil costs in the military stop new weapon system purchases,and forces dependency on threatening countries, DoD commitment is key. The costs of relying on oil to power the military are consuming an increasing share of the military's budget, the report asserts. Energy costs have doubled since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it says, and the cost of conducting operations could become so expensive in the future that the military will not be able to pay for some of its new weapon systems.Ensuring access to dwindling oil supplies also carries a big price tag. The United States, relying largely on military patrols, spends an average of $44 billion per year safeguarding oil supplies in the Persian Gulf. And the United States is often dependent on some of the same countries that pose the greatest threats to US interests.Achieving an energy transformation at the Department of Defense "will require the commitment, personal involvement , and leadership of the secretary of defense and his key subordinates," the report says.

WNDI 2008

28 Airforce GLT Aff

OIL- trades off with tech

Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks" http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Second, the DOD must recognize that energy dependence makes the military vulnerable in several ways. The DOD operations require assured access to large amounts of fuel for combat platforms. They also require electricity for DOD installations from a fragile and vulnerable electrical grid. Recent cost increases and higher projected costs take defense dollars from other key budgeted areas. Energy requirements are directly related to combat effectiveness, and the infrastructure required to transport and distribute energy to the battlefield is extremely expensive and diverts resources from combat initiatives. Combat forces are limited by a tether of fuel that needs to be lengthened.

Fuel costs directly trade off with Air Force and Navy Tech development JULIAN E. BARNES Los Angeles Times7/15/2008
<http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?articleID=20080715_49_E4_hTheAi454716> The military services have found ways to save millions of dollars through conservation, but the price of oil has outpaced the cost-cutting efforts. The Navy, for example, estimates it is saving $300 million a year through conservation. That sounds impressive, until the oil price spike weighs in. "From July through Sept. 30, we will see a $400 million increase in our fuel bill," said Navy Capt. Arthur Cotton, the Fleet Training and Readiness Reporting branch head. "So all of those energy savings we have done are wiped out, and then some, just over the period of 90 days." Overall, the Pentagon will spend $16.4 billion on fuel this year, up from $5.2 billion in 2003. The increase has made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more expensive, adding $140 million to the cost of operations in Afghanistan and $565 million in Iraq. Military officials emphasize that the increases have not affected combat operations, which cost $12.1 billion a month. The Defense Department's biggest fuel users are the Air Force, which accounts for 52 percent of the fuel bill, and the Navy, which uses 32 percent of the fuel. Within those branches, conservation efforts are wide ranging. A decades-old initiative to scrub the hulls of Navy ships, making them faster at sea, is getting new scrutiny and gaining new importance. And the Navy is stepping up efforts to replace live exercises with virtual maneuvers that allow sailors to train while keeping ships in port. This year, the Navy will conduct 124 of the so-called "synthetic exercises," up from 84 last year. A study last year showed the initiative saved the Navy $160 million. The Air Force and the Navy are considering increases in flight simulator training, although a large-scale shift probably will wait until after a Defense Department study is complete by late next year. For its part, the Air Force is attempting to reduce taxi and idling times of planes. It is working to reduce the weight of aircraft, lower the amount of excess fuel some aircraft carry and make flight paths more efficient. And on its bases, the service is beginning to replace pickup trucks with souped-up golf carts. William C. Anderson, the assistant secretary who oversees energy issues for the Air Force, said commanders are trying to encourage a culture change, so that fuel efficiency is given a higher priority. "We are getting our teams to think about saving energy while still doing the mission," he said. The fuel cost spike has been particularly difficult for the Air Force. In recent years, the Air Force the largest user of fuel in the federal government had intended to pay for new planes by reducing the number of airmen. But the increase in fuel prices ate up all of that savings. Soon, other services might face the same squeeze and suffer the cancellation or delay of vital equipment programs as a result of fuel price increases. Each branch must present a draft of its next budget to the secretary of defense by early August. And the comptroller's office has warned the services that they must accommodate fuel price increases in their budget. Top military officials are mum on what could be in line for cuts. For now, the Pentagon is predicting fuel prices will decline 4.8 percent next year. But the Pentagon has not been especially accurate with its projections. The Defense Department originally estimated oil this year would cost $91 a barrel. But military services are paying nearly $171 a barrel. Much of the price hike this year was covered by Congress in the recently enacted emergency war funding measure. Because of its heavy use of jet fuel, the Air Force has taken perhaps the most aggressive steps toward conservation efforts and alternatives to petroleum fuel.

WNDI 2008

29 Airforce GLT Aff

OIL-high oil prices hurts air force

Current Oil Prices cripple U.S Air Force Los Angles Times Oil prices hit military budgets hard. July 13, 2008,
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-militaryoil13-2008jul13,0,4522206.story WASHINGTON -- Across the oil-thirsty U.S. military, commanders are scrambling for ways to offset the ever-rising cost of fuel. But their best efforts so far have fallen short. The military services have found ways to save millions of dollars through conservation, but the price of oil has outpaced the costcutting efforts. The Navy, for example, estimates that it is saving $300 million a year through conservation. That sounds impressive until the oil price jump is taken into consideration. "From July through Sept. 30, we will see a $400-million increase in our fuel bill," said Navy Capt. Arthur Cotton, head of the Fleet Training and Readiness reporting branch. "So all of those energy savings we have done are wiped out, and then some, just over the period of 90 days." Overall, the Pentagon will spend $16.4 billion on fuel this year, up from $5.2 billion in 2003. The increase has made the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan more expensive, adding $140 million to the cost of operations in Afghanistan and $565 million in Iraq. The wars combined are costing $12.1 billion a month. Military officials emphasize that the increases have not affected how combat operations are being conducted. The Defense Department's biggest fuel users are the Air Force, which accounts for 52% of the fuel bill, and the Navy, which uses 32%. Within those branches, conservation efforts are wide-ranging.

WNDI 2008

30 Airforce GLT Aff

OIL-funds terrorism
Current energy policy is a paradox U.S military directly fund terrorist organizations Breanne Wagner , Aviation Energy, Market for Synthetic Aviation Fuels Off to a Shaky Start, may
2008,http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm) Makers of synthetic fuel are eager to offer their wares to the military as a lower cost and nationally produced alternative to petroleum-based products. Chief among the potential buyers of synthetic fuel is the Air Force, which has trumpeted an ambitious plan to power its aircraft with alternative propellants. The service plans to certify its aircraft fleet with synthetics by 2011 and aims to meet half of its fuel needs with such products by 2016. But Air Force officials face roadblocks that are hampering efforts to stimulate the growth of a fledging synthetic jet fuel market. While the development of alternative energy technology in the United States has exploded in recent years, for synthetic aviation fuels, progress has been much slower. The industry is just beginning to grow in the United States, says William Anderson, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and logistics. Rentech and Baard Energy were two of the first companies to announce plans to build synthetic aviation fuel plants. But their sites wont be ready until 2011 and 2012, respectively. Other countries are far ahead in this area, including South Africa, Malaysia and Qatar. There are at least a dozen [plants] operating around the world today and another couple of dozen under construction or in the final planning stages, Anderson says at an Air Force energy forum in Arlington, Va. Anderson estimates that every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the Air Force $600 million annually. Additionally, the development of alternative fuel is considered a national security priority. At the energy forum, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a staunch alternative energy advocate, claims that the United States is hurting its anti-terrorism campaign by importing foreign oil. The United States is financing both sides of the war on terror. Were financing our own military and our own economy, and then a lot of our petrol dollars find their way into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists, says Barbour.

And our oil dependence leaves U.S pipelines vulnerable to terrorist attack; this cripples U.S military in times of need. Yochi J. Dreazen, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push Dependence on Oil Seen as Too Risky, May 21,2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121134017363909773.html)
WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. -- With fuel prices soaring, the U.S. military, the country's largest single consumer of oil, is turning into an alternative-fuels pioneer. In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic jet fuel. A similar formula -- a blend of half-synthetic and half-conventional petroleum -has been used in some South African commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast. "The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas," Capt. Fournier said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane's thrusters during the test flight. "But you won't know unless you try." With oil's multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping -- crude futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New York trading -- energy security has emerged as a major concern for the Pentagon. The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -- almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced. Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

WNDI 2008

31 Airforce GLT Aff

OIL-funds terrorism
U.S. oil pipelines are susceptible to terrorism.
Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks" http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Almost one-half million miles of oil and gas transmission pipeline serve the United States. These pipelines are integral to the US energy supply and have vital links to such other critical IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROBLEMVULNERABILITY 21 infrastructure as power plants, airports, and military installations. The pipeline networks are widespread, running through remote and densely populated regions, and are vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. Roughly 160,000 miles of pipeline carry more than 75 percent of the nation's crude oil and around 60 percent of its refined petroleum products. The US natural gas pipeline network consists of about 210,000 miles of pipeline for field gathering and transmission nationwide.3 Pipelines are vulnerable to vandalism and terrorist attack with firearms, explosives, or other physical means. Some also may be vulnerable to cyberattack on computer control systems or vulnerable to an attack on the electric grid supplying power to them. Oil and gas pipelines have been targeted extensively by terrorists outside and within the United States. Rebels have targeted one oil pipeline in Colombia more than 600 times since 1995. In 1996, London police foiled a plot by the Irish Republican Army to bomb gas pipelines and other utilities. Since 9/11, federal warnings about al-Qaeda have specifically mentioned pipelines as possible targets. The 800-mile-long Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), which runs from Alaska's North Slope oil fields to the marine terminal in Valdez, Alaska, delivers nearly 17 percent of US domestic oil production. The TAPS already has been targeted numerous times, and in January 2006, federal authorities acknowledged a detailed posting on a Web site purportedly linked to alQaeda that encouraged attacks on US pipelines, especially TAPS, using weapons or explosives.4

WNDI 2008

32 Airforce GLT Aff

OIL-hurts readiness
High fuel prices hurt U.S. Military readiness By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 1, 2007 , "Pentagon study says oil reliance strains
military"http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_str ains_military/ Higher fuel consumption is a consequence of the US military's changing posture in recent years. During the Cold War, US forces were deployed at numerous bases across the world; since then, the United States has downsized its force and closed many of its former bases in Asia and Europe.The Pentagon's strategic planning has placed a premium on being able to deploy forces quickly around the world from bases in the United States.

High fuel costs are undermining Air Force readiness Marc V. Schanz, Associate Editor Air Force Magazine, journal of air force association, The Fuel War Vol. 90, No. 6, June 2007, http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.html
The Air Force is the largest single consumer of energy in the Department of Defense. That would still be the case even if the United States were not engaged in a Global War on Terrorism, but it is, and the demands of that worldwide conflict have pushed fuel use to new heights. Last year, the Air Forces total energy bill came to $6.7 billion, the bulk of it related to air operations. When USAFs budgets began to sag under the weight of rising oil prices, worried Air Force leaders began closely examining the services energy costs and planning for reforms. The fuel problem became undeniable nearly two years ago. USAF already was burning lots and lots of fuel as a result of the war. Then, in September 2005, USAF deployed many aircraft to the Gulf Coast to assist in evacuation, search and rescue, recovery, and other operations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The effort was enormous and costly. It also highlighted the vulnerability of the nations domestic energy supply, according to Michael A. Aimone, Air Force assistant deputy chief of staff for logistics, installations, and mission support. The Department of Defense, as the governments largest fuel user, accounts for 93 percent of overall federal energy cost s. Yet even with such a huge fuel bill, the Pentagon accounts for about two percent of the nations entire energy use. In the fight to control costs, the Air Force has moved heavily into renewable energy usage. The Air Force led the federal government in the amount of renewable energy purchased last year and the year before. In fact, USAF is the fourth largest purchaser of renewable energy in the nation. Aimone noted that one of the largest photovoltaic farms in the world is being built at Nellis AFB, Nev. This sun-powered system will generate up to 18 megawatts of power. Luke AFB, Ariz., March ARB, Calif., and several smaller installations also have buildings with photovoltaic systems. All recognize, however, that the Air Force has to do something to cut back on its use of petroleum. Reducing DOD Fossil-Fuel Dependence, a September 2006 report prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, says that energy costs comprise about three percent of the militarys annual spending. That, however, is the average for all DOD activities: The

share for mobility and combat aircraft is significantly higher. Even in peacetime, the Air Forces mobility fleet is flying every day, moving people and supplies across the globe, racking up 42 percent of the services energy costs. Officials at Air Mobility Command, Scott AFB, Ill., report that the mobility fleet used about $1.3
billion worth of jet fuel in Fiscal 2005 and $1.8 billion for 2006. Expenditures in the first quarter of Fiscal 2007$530 millionput AMC on pace to surpass the $2 billion mark. Just behind AMCs use is that of Air Combat Command, the services main operator of combat aircraft. ACCs fighter fleet each year accounts for about 22 percent of the Air Forces energy bill. ACCs long-range bomber operations account for another six percent of the total. Indeed, a whopping 80 percent of the Air Forces fuel costs are

attributable to aviation operationstraining, exercises, and deployments. Traditionally, this area has been off-limits to budget cutters. Aimone said, For most of my 37-year career in the Air Force, when we approached the
subject of energy conservation, it was around facilities operations and vehicle operations. In short, no one wanted to touch flying. First Lt. Katherine R. Kebisek, a public affairs officer at AMC, noted that fluctuations in fuel prices make it difficult to reliably predict costs. Each day, she said, AMC missions consume about 2.5 million gallons of JP-8. Planning for surge contingencies such as a Katrina-like situation must be done above the command level. With oil prices lingering at high levels, though, the Air Force has slowly begun moving to manage operational consumption, too. Usage of JP-8 fuel, particularly in training operations, is under scrutiny. Running the Numbers In September 2005, the Air Force was paying around $1.74 per gallon for JP-8, said Sheila Flemings, an ACC flying hour cost program analyst. The total amount of fuel consumed by ACC in Fiscal 2005 was some 501 million gallons, Flemings said, coming out at over $747 million in JP-8 aviation fuel costs. Since then, fuel costs have risen by roughly one-third, even as the overall budgets have grown

tighter. The result is reduced funding for flying hours to train aircrews. Flying commands have set minimum requirements for aircrew training, according to John Cilento, an ACC flying hour program analyst. It is an
issue, said Gen. Ronald E. Keys, ACC commander. Its always an issue. Col. Eric Best, chief of ACC flight operations, told Norfolks Virginian-Pilot that pilots are encouraged to land when a training mission is completed, even if it ends early, rather than continue flying until allotted time expires. In addition, said Best, operators are being encouraged to make more frequent use of simulators, though everyone realizes the systems can replicate only part of the flight experience. Indeed,

the Air Force Flying Hour Program budget is slated to be reduced by around 10 percent each year from Fiscal 2008 until 2013. One big reason is high fuel cost. The result, ACC officials say, is less training and lower combat readiness.

WNDI 2008

33 Airforce GLT Aff

OIL-hurts readiness
Oil dependence kills Military Readiness Dreazen 2K8, Yochi J., May 21, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, The Wall-Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121134017363909773.html The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced. Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

Oil hurts military readiness Bengston 2K6 (Ron, Member of the American Energy Independence Group, Energy Independence and
National Security http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/nationalsecurity.html) In 2005, Hurricanes off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana damaged oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, causing the price of oil to rise over $70 per barrel. What would another Arab oil embargo do? Or, God forbid, what would happen if Iran makes a nuclear bomb and gives it to Islamic militants who then detonate the bomb in the Saudi oil fields, destroying Saudi oil production? The price of Iran's oil, and all oil on the world market, would then skyrocket to over $200 per barrel. The price of gasoline and diesel would increase to over $5 per gallon in the USA and could go as high as $6-$10. Shortages would create gasoline rationing. What would that do to the U.S. economy? What would that cost the American people in real dollars? Jobs lost, retail sales falling, housing market collapsing... And, given the fact that a large percentage of the fuel that powers U.S. military vehicles and aircraft is made from foreign oil, U.S. oil dependence undermines the U.S. militarys ability to respond to a national security emergency.

Oil dependence kills Military Readiness Dreazen 2K8, Yochi J., May 21, U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push, The Wall-Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121134017363909773.html The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department's overall energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available -almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force's bill for jet fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel costs. Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil if it's mass-produced. Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers could cripple military operations around the world. "The endgame is to wean the dependence on foreign oil," says Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson.

WNDI 2008

34 Airforce GLT Aff

DOD steals from people

If an oil shortage occurs DoD would have priority access to domestic oil production, jacking civilian prices. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Additionally, if a catastrophe shuts down world oil flow, our government will ensure the DOD has priority access to domestic oil production and the 7001,000 million barrels of oil in the strategic petroleum reserve. However, scenarios of supply disruptions to DOD installations through the US oil and gas transmission pipeline system or to deployed operational forces through fuel logistics distribution networks are not completely far fetched.

WNDI 2008

35 Airforce GLT Aff

Air fuel is key

Air Refueling is Critical Air Force Journal of Logistics Volume XXVI Number 1 Spring 2002
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/1448347/US-Air-Force-Vol-26-No-1-Final> The ability to project and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrencethe first line of our national security) General Charles T. Robertson. Jr, commander of US Transportation Command (JSTRANSCOM). stressed this point when he noted the importance of rapid global mobility to the nations ahility to project and sutamn military power) Air refueling is a force multiplier inherently critical to achieving the rapid global mobility described by General Robertson. As a force multiplier, it bridges the gap between the continental United Stales (CONUS) and various theaters of operation, accelerating the deployment cycle and reducing dependency on torward staging bases and host-nation Support While deterrence is the first line of national security, the ability to tight and win, regardless of the level of conflict. is the bedrock of our national security.4 Air refuelingsecond role, force enhancement, is critical to military activities in this regard. As a force enhancer, it extends the range. payload. and loiter lime of combat and combat

WNDI 2008

36 Airforce GLT Aff

Alternative energy key to mobility

ALTERNATIVES KEY MOBILITY Goodman 2K2 (Sherri, Deputy under Secretary of Defense, Climate Change Impacts National Security,
http://www.p2pays.org/ref/21/20958.htm) DoD has a longstanding commitment to protect the environment while maintaining military readiness. Reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions both improves environmental quality and enhances military readiness. This win-win situation occurs when GHG emissions are reduced by improving operational practices and the energy efficiency of the militarys aircraft, ships, and combat vehicles.Improving the fuel efficiency of tactical equipment reduces training costs by reducing DoDs fuel costs. These savings are then available for maintaining military readiness. Improving fuel efficiency also makes operational senseby using fuel-efficient equipment, less fuel must be transported for operations, thereby enhancing mobility and reducing logistical requirements. In order to achieve these benefits, DoD is funding research for a wide range of technologies.

WNDI 2008

37 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL increase air plane efficiency/ reduce cost

Marc V. Schanz, Associate Editor Air Force Magazine, journal of air force association, The Fuel War Vol. 90, No. 6, June 2007, http://www.afa.org/magazine/june2007/0607fuel.html The Air Force is engaged in an ambitious project aimed at using natural gas as a jet fuel, hoping that, over the long term, dependence on JP-8 could be reduced. The project today is in the test phase, and the central element is a B-52 bomber used as a test article. It was sent from Edwards AFB, Calif., to Minot AFB, N.D., on Jan. 17, its goal being to perform cold-weather testing while using a mix of synthetic fuel derived from coal shale. (See Aerospace World: B-52 Flies on Synthetic Fuel Blend, February, p. 27.) USAF procured 100,000 gallons of US-manufactured blended synthetic jet fuel, which it successfully tested on the ground and in the air. The 5th Bomb Wing bomber earlier had flown with a mix of synthetic fuel and regular aviation fuel, eventually flying tests with synthetic fuel in all eight engines. USAF researchers are analyzing test data now. Gen. Bruce Carlson, head of Air Force Materiel Command, explained that the Air Force chose a B-52 because it has eight engines, so, if this is a catastrophic failure, well shut down two and land and wont even declare an emergency. The bomber experienced no unusual problems. The Air Force is working toward full certification of a 50-50 blend in the B-52 by early 2008. Carlson indicated that with good results, the program may expand to other aircraft. Well probably go on and fly maybe a [KC-135], maybe a T-38, and move on from there. The Air Force leadership is already pushing fuel experimentation on the mobility fleet, given that it is a source of high fuel costs. If we want to get the biggest bang for the buck, I suggest we go into the transports, Aimone said. Carlson said he first caught wind that change was coming during a meeting with Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. Not long after he took office, Wynne informed Carlson that he wanted to look at a program to wean us off oil and it had to start right now, recalled Carlson. Wynne made it clear that he meant business. In a September 2006 letter to airmen, he said moving toward energy independence is a critical element to ensuring US economic and national security in the long run. Just a $10 increase in a barrel of oil costs the Air Force almost $600 million a yearmoney better spent fighting the GWOT or recapitalizing our aging fleet, Wynne wrote. Undersecretary of the Air Force Ronald M. Sega was tapped as the forces energy executive and went to work articulating an official service strategy. Segas approach was simple: Make energy use a major consideration in every service action, Aimone recalled. It should factor into how airmen preplan the next aircraft flight, what we load in the airplane as cargo or fuel, Aimone said of Segas strategy. It may not be the consideration, but it will be a consideration. Sega, who came to the job after heading up DODs research and engineering efforts, plunged into the projecteven serving as a crew member onboard the experimental B-52 during its maiden flight test in September. The synthetic fuel used in the test is derived from natural gas, Sega explained in a meeting with reporters. It relies on the so-called Fischer-Tropsch process, which can produce usable fuel from coal or shale oil. New Fuels, New Strategy William E. Harrison, an engineer with the Air Force Research Laboratorys propulsions directorate, said his organization has been working on the science behind F-T fuels, looking at basic properties and exploring the suitability and feasibility of using them on Air Force platforms. The fuels, he explained, are clean and feature significantly fewer particulates than is the case with traditional oil-based aviation fuel. The F-T process, in essence, removes the compounds and sulfur from fuel. During lab testing with a T63 turbine engine, AFRL discovered a significant reduction in exhaust and excellent low temperature propertiesa major factor in flying at higher altitudes and keeping fuel stable. The associated dirt, grime, and soot of hydrocarbons disappear and result in lower maintenance costs. Imagine an engine that can run 40,000 hours without soot cleanout, Aimone said. Carlson said USAF has established within its lab an enhanced program to closely examine synthetic fuels specifically fuels made from coal, natural gas, corn, and other bio-products. Early work on such projects was basic science, he said. Now, the challenge is to get the science to work in the real world. Trading off JP-8 for synthetic fuels can be tricky. Air Force researchers have been contacting countries experienced in the use of synthetic fuels. Some of these have extensive knowledge about its effects on engines, seals, and pumps. Sega noted that Air Force Research Laboratory scientists are working to get greater efficiency out of aircraft engines, as well as conducting research to increase efficiencies on the airframe itself. Simply put, the Air Force wants to insulate itself against the growing instability of global energy prices, noted senior leaders who spoke at a fuel symposium in January.

WNDI 2008

38 Airforce GLT Aff

Air mobility good

AIR MOBILITY AND FUEL CRITICAL TO US READINESS Camerer 2K2 Mark D., Air Force Journal of Logistics, Spring, Civilian contract air refueling: the ability to
project and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrence - Innovative or Insane? Statistical Data Included, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_1_26/ai_89269557 The ability to project and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrence-the first line of our national security. (2) General Charles T. Robertson, Jr, commander of US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), stressed this point when he noted the importance of rapid global mobility to the nation's ability to project and sustain military power. (3) Air refueling is a force multiplier inherently critical to achieving the rapid global mobility described by General Robertson. As a force multiplier, it bridges the gap between the continental United States (CONUS) and various theaters of operation, accelerating the deployment cycle and reducing dependency on forward staging bases and hostnation support. While deterrence is the first line of national security, the ability to fight and win, regardless of the level of conflict, is the bedrock of our national security. (4) Air refueling's second role, force enhancement, is critical to military activities in this regard. As a force enhancer, it extends the range, payload, and loiter time of combat and combat support forces, allowing a variety of combat aircraft to attack strategic and tactical targets, deep in an adversary's territory, with greater payloads. These unique capabilities, force multiplication and force enhancement, make air refueling an indispensable military resource.

AIR MOBILITY IS A CRITICAL ASSET TO NATIONAL SECURITY Camerer 2K2 Mark D., Air Force Journal of Logistics, Spring, Civilian contract air refueling: the ability to
project and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrence - Innovative or Insane? Statistical Data Included, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_1_26/ai_89269557 Air refueling provides the capability to increase levels of mass, surprise, economy of force, and security and concentrates more assets for offensive or defensive operations. (11) The overall effect of this capability is to enhance and multiply airpower employment capabilities. For example, air refueling an attack aircraft en route to its target allows greater payloads, which enhances the ability to achieve mass and concentration of firepower at any level in an adversary's battlespace. It also allows attacking aircraft to use indirect target approaches, terrain masking, and multiple axes of attack to create surprise. Air refueling other support aircraft increases time aloft and decreases the number of aircraft and aircrews needed to build an air bridge or provide 24-hour command and control capability, thus achieving economy of force. It also enhances maneuver by providing additional fuel to attacking aircraft, which generates a valuable maneuver advantage during air-to-air engagements, while putting the adve rsary at a distinct disadvantage. Air refueling mobility airlift aircraft presents another opportunity to achieve maneuver flexibility. Increasing the range and cargo load of these aircraft increases flexibility by allowing commanders to insert troops and cargo into theaters at decisive moments. Ultimately, this allows maximum use of resources and multiplies the force available, allowing greater persistence in engagements, operations, and campaigns. Finally, because air refueling increases range, airpower assets can be based beyond the effective range of enemy weapons. This increases security and frees up assets for offensive or defensive operations.

WNDI 2008

39 Airforce GLT Aff

Air mobility good

Air mobility key to winning wars GAO 2K William C. Meredith, Richard G. Payne, Raul S. Cajulis, Lawrence E. Dixon, James E. Lewis, Sharon
L. Reid, and Gregory J. Symons, United States General Accounting Office, Military Readiness, Air Transport Falls Short of Requirements, June 2000, http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/ns00135.pdf The ultimate test for the military, according to the National Military Strategy, is for the United States to be able to win two major theater wars occurring nearly simultaneously. Air mobility would deliver the bulk of the initial time critical forces and supplies, and it is the cornerstone for the nations security strategy for the foreseeable future.

WNDI 2008

40 Airforce GLT Aff

Air mobility key to heg

AND OUR AIR MOBILITY IS CRTICAL TO U.S HEG Mark D. Camerer., Air Force Journal of Logistics, Spring, Civilian contract air refueling: the ability to project
and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrence - Innovative or Insane? Statistical Data Included,2002, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_1_26/ai_89269557 The ability

to project and sustain military power over vast distances is a basic requirement of deterrence-the first line of our national security. (2) General Charles T.
Robertson, Jr, commander of US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), stressed this point when he noted the importance of rapid global mobility to the nation's ability to project and sustain

military power. (3) Air refueling is a force multiplier inherently critical to achieving the rapid global mobility described by General Robertson. As a force multiplier, it bridges the gap between the continental United States (CONUS) and various theaters of operation, accelerating the deployment cycle and reducing dependency on forward staging bases and host-nation support. While deterrence is the first line of national security, the ability to fight and win, regardless of the level of conflict, is the bedrock of our national security. (4) Air refueling's second role, force enhancement, is critical to military activities in this regard. As a force enhancer, it extends the range, payload, and loiter time of combat and combat support forces, allowing a variety of combat aircraft to attack strategic and tactical targets, deep in an adversary's territory, with greater payloads. These unique capabilities, force
multiplication and force enhancement, make air refueling an indispensable military resource.

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY HELPS TROOP DEPLOYMENTS AND MOBILITY. US Fed News 2K6
(October 24, REP. KAPTUR, UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO PRESIDENT ANNOUNCE $3.6 MILLION FEDERAL RESEARCH AWARD FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY) "The Department of Defense joins as a new partner because it also understands that America has to change. The Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines know they can't depend on imported oil. They know we have to find new ways of powering the future." University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs expressed the gratitude of the university community for Congresswoman Kaptur's efforts in securing the support of the Defense Department. "This is a celebration of perseverance," he said. "It's a big dream to think we can harness the energy of the sun, but it's actually not just our democracy but all of humanity that can benefit from this kind of work." Congresswoman Kaptur reiterated her commitment to helping America achieve energy independence. She said the Center for Solar Energy and Hydrogen will anchor one end of the proposed hightechnology corridor in west Toledo. Establishment of a Department of Defense research center for alternative energy was UT's top federal research priority during the current federal fiscal year, and Congresswoman Kaptur, a senior member of Congress, championed the project from her position on the defense subcommittee of House Appropriations. She also noted the importance of alternative energy to U.S. troops deployed in remote and often difficult environments, such as Afghanistan. She has heard from military leaders who have expressed the need for lightweight and portable energy transmission systems to increase the flexibility and mobility of American forces.

WNDI 2008

41 Airforce GLT Aff

Airpower key to heg

Air power is key to heg Air and Space Power Journal March 10, 2003
The reason for this emphasis on air and space power among our soldiers, sailors, and marines is their realization that military operations have little likelihood of success without it. It has become the American way of war. Indeed, the major disagreements that occur among the services today generally concern the control and purpose of air and space assets. All of them covet those assets, but their differing views on the nature of war shape how they should be employed. Thus, we have debates regarding the authority of the joint force air component commander, the role of the corps commander in the deep battle, the question of which service should command space, and the question of whether the air or ground commander should control attack helicopters. All the services trumpet the importance of joint operations, and air and space power increasingly has become our primary joint weapon. Air and space dominance also provides our civilian leadership with flexibility. Although intelligence is never perfect, our leaders now have unprecedented information regarding what military actions can or cannot accomplish and how much risk is involved in a given action. For example, our leaders understood far better than ever before how many aircraft and weapons would be needed over Serbia and Afghanistan to produce a specified military effect, weapon accuracy, collateral damage that might occur, and risk to our aircrews. This allowed our leaders to fine-tune the air campaign, providing more rapid and effective control than previously. Other factors affect the way we'll fight. One hears much talk today of "transforming the military" to meet new threats. The Persian Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan- and, for that matter, Somalia and Haiti- indicate that traditional methods, weapons, forces, and strategy will often be inadvisable. Warfare has changed. Stealth, precision weapons, and space-based communication and intelligence-gathering systems are examples of this new form of war. Certainly, the human element in war can never be ignored. People make war, and all their strengths and weaknesses must be considered. Yet, it would be foolish not to exploit new technologies that remove part of the risk and human burden in war. It is not always necessary for people to suffer. Air and space power permits new types of strategies that make war on things rather than on people and that employ things rather than people. It capitalizes on the explosion in computer, electronic, and materials technologies that so characterize the modern era. This is America's strength- one that we must ensure.

US leadership is essential to prevent global nuclear exchange. Zalmay Khalilzad, RAND, The Washington Quarterly, Spring 19 95
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

WNDI 2008

42 Airforce GLT Aff

Alternative energy key to Air Force

FUEL KEY TO AIR FORCE Wolf 2K7 Jim, Reuters, October 27, U.S. Air Force Turns to Alternative Fuel, Slashing CO2,
http://www.enn.com/pollution/article/24117 U.S. Air Force global operations require a huge amount of energy. In fiscal 2006, the service consumed almost 2.6 billion gallons of aviation fuel at a cost of more than $5.7 billion, according to an Air Force fact sheet. Jet fuel accounts for 81 percent of the Air Force's total $7 billion a year in energy spending, said Anderson. For every $10 jump in the price of a barrel of oil, Air Force costs rise $610 million, a sum that eats into modernization efforts and other programs if not offset by additional funds from Congress, he said.

WNDI 2008

43 Airforce GLT Aff

Airpower good
Air power is key to check unexpected attacks Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief. Airpower and Optical Illusions: Many still find it easy to discount the value of airpower Air Force Magazine March 2005, Vol. 88, No. 3
Airpower, in each case, proved valuable in unexpected ways. We will be glad to have such a flexible, hard-hitting weapon the next time we run into a nasty surprise, as we inevitably will. Future air wars might be more demanding than many now expect. Note that, when USAF pilots in F-15Cs recently engaged in mock combat with Indian Air Force pilots, the Indians often won. China is modernizing its military forces faster than anyone expected. In todays dynamic world, it would be unwise to prepare only for threats that are visible now. US power must be flexible and adaptable. In every conflict for the past 15 years, airpower has provided that kind of capability. Retired Gen. Richard E. Hawley, former head of Air Combat Command, says Pentagon officials should have a little humility about their ability to predict what kind of a fight we may be in 15 years hence. Hawley added: Those who would bet the future security of the nation on their ability to predict the future are on the wrong track. None of us can know what the future holds, and only a balanced mix of forces and capabilities will allow us to face that future with full confidence that our military will not fail us when we need it most.

WNDI 2008

44 Airforce GLT Aff

Airpower good
Airpower is key to solve multiple conflicts in Asia Ashley J. Tellis et al, Chung Min Lee, James Mulvenon, Courtney Purrington, and Michael D. Swaine, Sources Of Conflict In The 21st Century, availible via the rand website @ rand.org. chapter 3, 1998 The first
key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several sub-regions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuously on the Korean peninsula and to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and therefore has pre-planned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, US airpower would be at the forefront of an American politicomilitary response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service, (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capabilityfighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS and tankersare relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces. But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response. Such responses would be necessitated by three general classes of contingencies. The first involves the politico-military collapse of a key regional actor, as might occur in the case of North Korea, Myanmar, Indonesia, or Pakistan. The second involves acute politicalmilitary crises that have a potential for rapid escalation, as may occur in the Taiwan Strait, the Spratlys, the Indian subcontinent, or on the Korean peninsula. The third involves cases of prolonged domestic instability that may have either spillover or contagion effects, as in China, Indonesia, Myanmar, or North Korea.

WNDI 2008

45 Airforce GLT Aff

Airpower good
Air power prevents global WMD conflicts Khalilzad and Lesser , 98 (Zalmay and Ian, Senior Researchers Rand, Sources of Conflict in the 21st
Century, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/...R897.chap3.pdf) This subsection attempts to synthesize some of the key operational implications distilled from the analyses relating to the rise of Asia and the potential for conflict in each of its constituent regions. The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several subregions of the continent still harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuous on the Korean peninsula and, to a lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas, such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States has clear treaty obligations and, therefore, has preplanned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, U.S. air power would be at the forefront of an American politicomilitary response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service; (c) the possible unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured. The entire range of warfighting capabilityfighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS and J-STARS, and tankersare relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve armed operations against large, fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large Sources of Conflict in Asia 165 land armies, as is the case in Korea, China-Taiwan, IndiaPakistan, and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia with existing Scudclass theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time frames examined in this report.

Widespread sale of Russian tech means our airpower will challenged Robert S. Dudney, Editor in Chief. Airpower Fiction and Fact, Air Force Magazine April 2005, Vol. 88, No. 4
In this recent spate of press attacks, one finds indications of two troubling beliefs. One is that future US air superiority can be taken for granted. The other is that the Air Force and Army are locked in a zero-sum budgetary game. USAF is a full-service air force, providing many productsairlift, aeriel refueling, communications, airborne command and control, precision attack, close air support, intelligencesurveillance-reconnaissance work, and more. Theater commanders want as much of this stuff as they can get. Yet everything hinges on air superiority, and the nation increasingly seems to think it can get by without new investment in tactical fightersthe basic tools of air dominance. That is a great gamble. The danger is raised by the proliferation of sophisticated, Russian-designed air defense systems and front-line fighters. The F/A-22 is the only jet sure to overcome the threats in decades ahead, which is why USAF wants it. The fundamental fact [is] that air and space will be contested in the future, warned Gen. John P. Jumper, USAF Chief of Staff. Those who think otherwise are wrong. Secondly, the media act as if the Air Force and Army are engaged in a kind of Darwinian struggle. Its essence is that the battered Army needs more money (for more troops) and USAFs budget is the main place to get it.

WNDI 2008

46 Airforce GLT Aff

Air power modernization

Air modernization on track in the SQ- all your disads are non unique CONGRESSMAN RICK RENZI (AZ-1), America Must Take the First Step to Move Away from Oil. May 2, 2006 http://www.house.gov/list/press/az01_renzi/FirstStepOilOPED.html
Analysts had warned in recent years that the Air Force should brace for drastic cuts in its aircraft procurement programs. The administrations proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, however, not only preserves the services key acquisition accounts, but also contains seed money to begin research and development for new generations of aircraft. But the ramping up of new programs, such as a tanker replacement, a long-range bomber, and ongoing efforts such as the joint strike fighter and the F-22A Raptor, may mean some budget crunches in the near-term, experts predicted. Meanwhile, none of the Air Forces major programs face cancellation. They got their share of the budget, thats for sure, said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst for the Teal Group. They preserved key programs and, in general, seem to be on track for their vision. The Air Force requested $105.9 billion in fiscal 2007 with $37.4 billion allocated to procurement.

WNDI 2008

47 Airforce GLT Aff

Soft power
Oil revenues allow countries to work against the U.S. and their neighbors, killing soft power. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Second, high oil revenues in the hands of oil-exporting nations allow governments to act with impunity against their own people and work against the United States and its neighbors. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, Latin America's loudest anti-American cheerleader, has used oil revenue to build support for his economic vision by providing subsidized oil to neighboring countries and gaining advantage over them by purchasing bonds to finance their debt. Russian president Vladimir Putin has renationalized his energy sector, restricted foreign access to his pipeline system, and demanded open access to Europe. Iran has reduced its international debt and increased foreign reserves to prepare for possible sanctions. Goldwyn remarks that "Even Saudi Arabia's economic reform movement, born in the days of $10 oil in 1998, evaporated when oil reached $30 per barrel in 2000. Enrichment of America's competitors or adversaries harms US security interests in every part of the globe."

WNDI 2008

48 Airforce GLT Aff

Multilateralism
Oil dependency makes nations reluctant to join U.S. led coalitions- France, Russia, China prove. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Foreign policy issues are daily concerns for the White House and the Department of State, but the DOD is typically the department called upon when foreign policy goes awry. In his article, "Energy Security: The New Threats in Latin America and Africa," David L. Goldwyn, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argues that current US energy dependency challenges US power in five ways. First, dependency on consuming imported oil makes many nations reluctant to join coalitions led by the United States to combat weapons proliferation, terrorism, or aggression. Examples include French, Russian, and Chinese resistance to sanctions on Iran; Chinese resistance to sanctions against Sudan; and US tolerance of Middle East repression that would otherwise have been sanctioned were it to occur in any other non-oil-producing part of the world

WNDI 2008

49 Airforce GLT Aff

warming
Airplanes lead to warming scientists agree Times Newspapers Limited, August 8/4, 2004
Civil aviation's contribution to climate change is as hard to measure with any precision as the warming trend itself, and in absolute terms it remains small. Yet there is now little dispute among scientists in or outside the industry that its carbon dioxide emissions -the main waste product of jets as of internal combustion engines -are growing more rapidly than those of other transport sectors and with disproportionately serious effects because they trap more heat

when released at or near an airliner's cruising altitude than they would at ground level. This trend will only accelerate with the quadrupling of trans-Pacific travel between the US and China over the next six years as agreed in bilateral trade talks between Washington and Beijing last month. Furthermore, the fuel that jets burn remains untaxed
in every major market. But this is no reason for the EU to seek to tax aviation fuel in a heavy-handed attempt to slow the growth of

Emissions from airplanes are uniquely bad because they occur in the upper atmosphere Mark Clayton. Assessing the Jet Threat, Christian Science Monitor. Posted February 9, 2005
Little is known about the global climate effects of airliner exhaust. Although

jets create far less greenhouse gas than power plants or automobiles, they have an outsize impact because of where they spew it the delicate upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, five to seven miles up from Earth's surface. And an expected
boom in airline travel in coming years is likely to swamp any efficiency gains from the next generation of airliners, such as the just unveiled Airbus A380. The result: growing scientific concern that jets may be turning the skies into a hazier, heat-trapping place. "Airliners are special because even though their total emissions are

relatively small, compared to other sources, they're putting their emissions directly into the upper troposphere," says Joyce Penner, a University of Michigan professor of atmospheric science and lead author of a landmark report on aviation and the atmosphere. "It's a special location." When injected together into the icy atmosphere, the mix of exhaust gases including water vapor, unburned hydrocarbons, particulates, sulfates, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and carbon dioxide produces clouds and has two to three times the warming effect of carbon dioxide alone, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology researchers reported last year. That finding meshes with what Travis found. Comparing ground temperature readings during the 9/11 flight ban with those after and before it, Travis found that those seemingly inconsequential wisps fanning out miles above the earth were like a blanket, reducing temperature fluctuations nationwide.

By 2020, aircraft will consume the entire amount of greenhouse gases agreed to be reduced by Kyoto Paul Stephen Dempsey, Professor of Law & Director, Transportation Law Program, University of Denver College of Law. Trade & Transport Policy In Inclement Skies, Journal of Air Law and Commerce Fall, 2000 65 J. Air L.
& Com. 639
Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxide and ozone have all increased dramatically in concentration over the past half century as population, industry and transportation have exploded. n72 Some sources ascribe to air transport a 24.3% share

of transportation-related emissions that could potentially affect the climate, and project an increase in energy use by this mode of 180% by the year 2005. The International Civil Aviation Organization predicts a 65% increase in fuel consumption between 1990 and 2010 . Others predict that technological
improvements will allow nitrogen oxide emissions to hold constant even while fuel consumption (now 180 million tonnes) doubles. n73 Still other sources calculate that carbon dioxide emissions from global subsonic aviation may rise from 554 million tonnes in 1990 to 957 million tonnes by the year 2015. By 2020, emissions from aircraft could consume the 5.2% reductions in greenhouse gasses that the world community agreed to eliminate in Kyoto in 1997. n74 Dr. Peter Bein predicts that even if global emission rates remain at present levels, CO<2> levels would still reach two and one-half times their pre-industrial level (about twice today's concentration) by 2010. With increasing emissions, CO<2> levels will increase more. n75 By the year 2100, aviation could account for 14% of the world's anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. n76

WNDI 2008

50 Airforce GLT Aff

warming
Airplane emissions are uniquely bad for the atmosphere Mark A. Drumbl, Assistant Professor, Washington & Lee University School of Law. Poverty, Wealth, and Obligation in International Environmental Law, Tulane Law Review March, 2002 76 Tul. L. Rev. 843
Scientists reported in September 2000 that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica might reach a record depth. Hole in Ozone Layer May Hit Record Size, The Globe & Mail (Can.), Sept. 23, 2000, at http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet (last visited Sept. 23, 2000) (on file with author). But this may be due to the "lag-time" between more effective regulation and the salutary effects of that more effective regulation on the environment. There is evidence that CFCs persist for a long time and will thereby keep on depleting the ozone layer for some time after their emission is phased out. New culprits in the depletion of the ozone layer are greenhouse gas emissions, particularly those generated by airplanes. See Sue Wheat, Like Icarus, We Ignore the Warning Signs, The Indep. (London), July 30, 2000, at 19. These emissions, which form part of the broader problem of climate change, alter meteorological conditions in the stratosphere that, in turn, significantly affect the size of the hole in the ozone layer as well as its depth and persistence. See Hole in Ozone Layer May Hit Record Size, supra. The relationship between climate change and the ozone problem demonstrates the interconnectedness of environmental issues at large and the need for regulatory regimes to be administratively linked.

Stratospheric airplane emissions are worse for ozone depletion that all other forms of pollution Paul Stephen Dempsey, Professor of Law & Director, Transportation Law Program, University of Denver College of Law. Trade & Transport Policy In Inclement Skies, Journal of Air Law and Commerce Fall, 2000 65 J. Air L.
& Com. 639
Yet of all the modes of transport, aviation is uniquely global. The typical turbofan jet engine burning kerosene produces unburned hydrocarbons, soot, carbon monoxide, and nitric oxide (one type of nitrogen oxide). n14 Hyrdocarbons produce smog, carbon monoxide takes oxygen out of the blood system, and nitrogen dioxide produces excessive nutrients in bays and estuaries (forty percent of the nitrogen oxide entering the Chesapeake Bay, for example, comes from air). Although air transport contributes a relatively small share of total pollutants (about three percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, for example), n15 it is the only industry which discharges harmful emissions (such as nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide) directly into the upper atmosphere, thus contributing more profoundly to global warming and ozone depletion.

In the troposphere, jet engines generate ozone by photochemical reaction, while in the stratosphere, they may destroy ozone via catalytic reaction. n16 Moreover, of all modes of transport, commercial aviation is growing fastest - outpacing any other form of transportation. This makes aviation of growing concern
to sustainability in the twenty-first century.

Ozone depletion causes complete extinction scientific consensus is on our side Greenpeace, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of the Ozone Layer,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons and ozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vast majority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis. The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the ozone layer, life on earth would not exist . Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can cause cataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression
in humans as well as innumerable effects on other living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes are literally the continuation of life on earth.

WNDI 2008

51 Airforce GLT Aff

Warming
Jet planes emission release largest amount of emissions Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Greenhouse Gas Pollution in the Stratosphere Due to Increasing Airplane Traffic, Effects On the Environment. 26 November 2000, http://www-personal.umich.edu/~murty/planetravel2/planetravel2.html As reported in CBS News 60 Minutes on 26 November 2000, jet airplane traffic is going up at a heady rate worldwide these days. Because this traffic is releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases into the stratosphere directly, around the globe and round the clock, this traffic is perhaps the major contributor to the observed global warming. The report in Newsweek cited earlier states that ocean warming is the most menacing threat contributing to the expected total destruction of coral reefs all around

Co2 is the single worst green house, causing global warming global warming Mike Weilbacher. Anthony R. Wood, Consulting writer January 16, 20 08. The Franklin Institute Science
Museum, Philadelphia, provided information and assistance. Copyright 2006 Hot Topics Hot Serials More than three quarters of the molecules you inhale are nitrogen. Oxygen comprises almost 21 percent of your air. Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for only 0.03 percent of the atmosphere. Yet it is critical, because it is the single most important agent for global warming. And it is slowly but surely increasing its presence in the atmosphere. Scientists think there's about 30 percent more carbon dioxide in the air today than when the Industrial Revolution began in 1760.Worse, it may hit 600 ppm - double the former level - by the year 2025. How old will you be then? Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas. CO2 is released into the atmosphere by many natural processes, such as the respiration of animals and plants, which give off CO2 at night when sunlight is not present. You exhale carbon dioxide. Volcanoes and forest fires release it too. But since 1760, unnatural, man-made processes have added dramatically to the natural level of carbon dioxide in the air. The Industrial Revolution marked the beginning of burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural gas - to produce heat and power. Burning fossil fuels produces large amounts of carbon dioxide. Any motor or engine produces it as the major waste product. The two major causes of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are transportation - cars, planes, trains, trucks - and electric utilities. Last week's lesson showed how the greenhouse effect works. When long-wavelength infrared heat travels up through the atmosphere, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide absorb the heat and warm the air. As the Earth warms in the decades ahead, one of the biggest reasons will be increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Global warming became a hot issue in the brutally warm summer of 1988, when drought parched a huge portion of the United States, especially in the Southeast. Farmers lost their crops, and livestock perished in large numbers. Oppressive heat covered much of the country. That summer, Dr. James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies told Congress that he was 99 percent sure the planet was warming due to increases in greenhouse gases. His was the first declaration of this by a scientist of his stature.

Global warming is threatening the survival of humanity Stein 08 David. (Science editor). Global warming Xtra: Scientists warn about Antarctic melting. The Canadian
National Newspaper. 7/14/2008. http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/07/14/02463.html Global Warming continues to be approaches by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex, which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception.

WNDI 2008

52 Airforce GLT Aff

Warming-bio D
Immediate action is key to reversing global warming that causes species extinction. By BILL BLAKEMORE July 18, 2005, ABC news, Is Global Warming Leading to Extinction?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=942506&page=1 "I see sometimes biologists that have been working at a site for a very long time and toward the end of their experiences, they become somewhat jaded, they become saddened, because they feel there's been this inevitable degradation of the forest or the species that they've come to know and love," says Chris Raxworthy. "The Biosphere. That's the totality of life on the face of the Earth. It's a razor-thin membrane of living organisms," says Wilson. "That's our bubble, we live in that. Have we got any big risk in it? We got a lot of risk in it!" "It's an urgent situation, but it's not a situation that should paralyze people with fear or with inaction," says Masters. "I am very optimistic that we will adjust. There's such an amazing groundswell, such an amazing movement by people around the world." "If we continue business as usual, yes, I think life as we know it is going to change drastically," says Parmesan. "And we're going to have massive extinctions." "This is a challenge that's one of the most daunting before humanity now," says Wilson. "It is also a magnificent challenge, that I think that people understand that they would want to be part of it." The biologists are telling us if the average global temperature keeps going up it's not a question of if -- but how many -more species will be lost.

Biodiversity is key to human survival Animal Welfare Institute, 2005 Endangered Species Handbook- Project-Biodiversity
http://www.endangeredspecieshandbook.org/projects.php Just as the diversity and ecological roles of species are beginning to be seen as components of an immense and beautiful living tapestry, the strands of this tapestry are unraveling. The disappearance of even a single species can result in extinctions of others dependent on it. For example, elephants and hornbills are the primary dispersers of many forest plant seeds, upon which a host of animals rely. Both are now in danger of extinction, threatening entire ecosystems. Thus, biodiversity is not an abstract concept, but a blueprint of the Earth's life forms. It is vital that its many parts be preserved. Once destroyed, many ecosystems, such as old-growth forests and other key environments, may never regenerate. In most such cases, our knowledge of diverse systems is inadequate to gauge just how many species--or which species--could disappear from an ecosystem before it collapses. Nor do we know how much genetic diversity a species can lose through loss of individuals before it can no longer adapt to changes in its environment. Drastic changes caused by human activities are outpacing research on such situations. The healthy functioning of ecosystems is key to human survival. Although the majority of biologists consider the loss of biodiversity to be the greatest problem facing humanity, few members of the public are even aware of this critical situation. Ignoring these experts' opinions of the precarious status of our planet's health, upon which our lives depend, is the equivalent of ignoring the opinion of a team of eminent doctors recommending urgent action to remedy an emergency medical condition.

WNDI 2008

53 Airforce GLT Aff

Airlines
Airline industry is on the brink of collapse due to high oil prices CNN, United reports $2.7 billion loss, stock soars. July 22, 2008,
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/22/news/companies/airline_earnings/?postversion=2008072217 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- United Airlines parent UAL Corp. stock soared 68% Tuesday after it reported a second-quarter net loss of $2.7 billion Tuesday due to the soaring price of fuel and announced thousands of new job cuts. UAL Corp. (UAUA, Fortune 500) said its loss of $21.47 per share stemmed from $2.6 billion in previously recorded accounting charges, including a $2.3 billion special charge for "goodwill impairment." Excluding these charges, the parent of the nation's second-largest airline reported a loss of $151 million for the quarter, or $1.19 per share. But that was better than the loss of $2.05 per share that analysts surveyed by Thomson/First Call had expected on that basis. The company's stock ended the day $3.42 higher to $8.41 a share. United said operating revenue totaled $5.37 billion, falling just short of the $5.40 billion analysts had expected. "Our industry continues to be challenged, perhaps as never before, by fuel prices that continue to march higher," United Chief Executive Glenn Tilton said in a webcast with analysts. "We're taking the difficult but imperative action of cutting jobs throughout the company." Jack Brace, chief financial officer, said United plans to cut 7,000 jobs, or 12% of its total workforce, by the end of 2009, much larger than the previously announced cuts of approximately 1,500 jobs. Brace also said the airline will eliminate 100 of its least fuel-efficient airplanes from its fleet. John Tague, chief operating officer, said United will also eliminate its least fuel-efficient routes, aiming for a 13% capacity reduction by the end of 2009. "At current fuel prices, the economics of certain routes just don't make sense right now," said Tague. "Routes that cannot withstand the pressure of elevated fuel costs will be eliminated." United also announced that it extended its Mileage Plus bank card partnership with Chase Bank, meaning that United will receive a $600 million payment from Chase, and increase its cash flow over the next two years by $200 million. Other airlines struggling with rising fuel prices also posted quarterly losses Tuesday. But airline stocks rose as oil prices prices plunged. US Airways (LCC, Fortune 500) jumped nearly 59% on Tuesday and JetBlue (JBLU) climbed almost 16% by the end of the day. "The market probably liked what it heard on the conference call with the capacity cuts," said Ray Neidl, airline analyst for Calyon Securities. "But I think the biggest thing is the change in oil prices." Oil plunged as much as $5.41 a barrel in Tuesday trading, before settling $3.09 lower, due to concerns about energy use in a troubled economy and reduced fears that a tropical storm in the Gulf of Mexico will hurt production. "Oil prices going down has certainly had an impact," said U.S. Airways Chief Executive Doug Parker in an analyst call, when asked to comment on the rising stock prices. The Tuesday trading is in stark contrast to the airlines' performance so far this year. Year-to-date, the Amex Airline Index (XAL) has plunged 50%. US Airways, the nation's No. 6 carrier, reported a narrower second-quarter loss than had been forecast on revenue that came roughly within expectations. The airline posted a net loss of $101 million, or $1.11 per share. Analysts had expected a loss of $1.29 per share. Excluding charges, the net loss was $567 million, or $6.16 per share, the company said. The carrier reported total operating revenue of $3.25 billion, versus Wall Street's projections for sales of $3.27 billion. JetBlue Airways booked a net loss of $7 million, or a loss of 3 cents a share, as operating revenue surged 17.7% to $859 million. Analysts had projected a loss of 7 cents per share on revenue of $856 million. Rising fuel prices are squeezing the money-losing airline industry, which is in its worse state since the fallout immediately following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Sales gains "are clearly not keeping pace with the extraordinary increase in the price of jet fuel," JetBlue Chief Executive Dave Barger said in a statement.

WNDI 2008

54 Airforce GLT Aff

Airlines
The Airline key to global economy IATA is an international trade body, created some 60 years ago by a group of airlines. Today, IATA represents
some 230 airlines comprising 93% of scheduled international air traffic. The organisation also represents, leads and serves the airline industry in general. 2007, http://www.iata.org/NR/rdonlyres/35FC46A4-20FB-4E10-9B0C77651B78A4CD/0/890700_Aviation_Economic_Benefits_Summary_Report.pdf Global economic growth is a key driver of growth in air traffic demand. However, while air traffic demand has increased as economies have grown, air transportation itself can be a key cause and facilitator of economic growth. Not only is the aviation industry a major industry in its own right, employing large numbers of highly skilled workers, but more importantly it is an essential input into the rapidly growing global economy. Greater connections to the global air transport network can boost the productivity and growth of economies by providing better access to markets, enhancing links within and between businesses and providing greater access to resources and to international capital markets.

WNDI 2008

55 Airforce GLT Aff

Modeling
U.S air force technology will be modeled and spread commercially. Defense Daily, the leading daily publication for business leads and defense market intelligence in land, sea, air,
and space initiatives. Air Force Certifies Synthetic Fuel Mix For Use On B-52H Bomber Aircraft. Vol. 235 No. 27, August 8, 2007. LEXIS The Air Force today will reach a significant milestone in helping the nation wean itself off of its dependence on foreign oil by declaring that the B-52H bomber aircraft fleet is cleared to fly using an alternative fuel mix that can be derived partially from natural gas , the service's top official said here yesterday.
"Tomorrow [Wednesday] the Air Force plans to officially certify our B-52H to fly on a synth[etic]-fuel blend," Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne said yesterday on the first day of the DARPA Tech 2007 conference, the forum at which the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) presents its strategic vision to industry and academia. The Air Force last year began testing the alternative fuel mix on the B- 52H, which is powered by eight Pratt & Whitey [UTX] TF33 turbofan engines. The synthetic fuel blend consists half of traditional JP-8 aviation fuel and half of natural gas that is converted via a process called the Fischer-Tropsch procedure. The advantage of using such Fisher-Tropsch fuel is that the natural gas will eventually be derived from coal shale, of which the United States has abundant supplies. The reasons for seeking alternative types of fuel are clear, Wynne told the conference audience. "Over the last few years our dependence on foreign oil is increasingly obvious," he said. Rising fuel prices have had "a particularly devastating effect" on the Air Force's budget, especially since the service is the largest consumer of fuel in the U.S. government, he continued. Indeed, for every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil, it costs the Air Force, $600 million more annually, he noted. In the event of war, the cost of fuel could double on top of the increases already seen, Wynne said. "So to hedge against the rising cost of petroleum and to hedge against the possible disruption in supply, we are preparing our fleet to fly on alternative fuels ." Accordingly, the Air Force wants all of its aircraft certified to operate on alternative fuels next decade and would like by 2016 to have half of the aviation fuel that it consumes be a synthetic blend (Defense Daily, Nov. 21, 2006 and Dec. 22, 2006). Based on the experience in qualifying the Fischer-

Tropsch fuel on the B-52H, the Air Force now has a standardized process in place to certify the fuel on other platforms, Wynne said. "In fact," he said, "next year we intend to qualify the C-17 fleet." The C-17 is a Boeing [BA]-built transport aircraft powered by two Pratt & Whitney F117 engines. These powerplants are derivatives of the engines used on commercial Boeing 757 and 767 passenger aircraft. Thus certifying the F117 family of engines opens up the commercial airline industry, the largest consumer of aviation fuel, to the alternative blends, and creates a huge market for them, Wynne said. "If we can stabilize and get to a manufactured price and get away from a commodity price, think of the withdrawal of leverage that it will bring from petty dictators or cartels across the world," he said. The Air Force has said it expects that such fuels will eventually be more affordable, produce fewer
pollutants and potentially enable greater engine performance. Wynne said the Air Force does not intend to stop with petroleum-based blends, but rather, in working with DARPA, wants to develop clean, environmentally friendly fuel alternatives to petroleum. "There are few technologies more needed today, I believe, than clean, ecologically viable ways to hedge our dependence on foreign oil," he said. "Our Air Force needs them and so does the nation... "If we could get it from a biological source to start from, what a change it would be," he continued. "If you invent them, we can test them. If they test well, we have qualified the process...If they work, I have no doubt they will rapidly move from the Air Force to the commercial world.

Military adjustments would be modeled nation wide By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 1, 2007 , "Pentagon study says oil reliance strains military"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_reliance_strains_mili tary/ The military is considered a technology leader and how it decides to meet future energy needs could influence broader national efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The report adds a powerful voice to the growing chorus warning that, as oil supplies dwindle during the next half-century, US reliance on fossil fuels poses a serious risk to national security. "The Pentagon's efforts in this area would have a huge impact on the rest of the country," Copulos said.

WNDI 2008

56 Airforce GLT Aff

Modeling
Air Force development is key to new fuel standards in commercial aviationnew government commitment is key to overcome capital costs JET FUEL INTELLIGENCE 4-28-2008 New US Military Synfuel Spec Clears Path For Civilian Use
Earlier this month, the US military revised its specification for JP-8 jet fuel in a move that may prove to speed up acceptance of alternative fuels for commercial airlines, as well as other defense forces around the world. The Air Force shares with civilian aviation not only the jet fuel market but also engine and airframe models, so
its work to test and certify synthetic fuels is blazing a trail for broader use of alternative fuels that improve supply security and help reduce the carbon footprint of aviation ( JFI Mar.10,p1 ). Ever since the Defense Department spelled out its Assured Fuels Initiative more than two years ago, events on the world stage have heightened the urgency for developing alternative sources of jet fuel ( JFI Mar.19'07 ,p1 ). With every $10 per barrel increase in oil prices, the Air Force is saddled with an additional $600 million in unfunded fuel bills. "The perfect storm of rising oil prices and push for environmental responsibility have provided more momentum for the pursuit of alternative sources of energy," says Jeffrey Braun, director of the Alternative Fuels Certification Office (AFCO). That office was set up last August at Wright-Patterson Air Force base in Ohio to spearhead the testing and certification process of new fuels for the Air Force fleet. Concerted efforts by AFCO over the last five months toward those goals resulted in the revision on Apr. 11 of the JP-8 specification to encompass fuels produced via the FischerTropsch (FT) process. The new spec for MIL DTL 83-133 allows up to 50% synthetic FT kerosene for military aircraft and marks the latest revision to this fuel standard since JP-8 was introduced back in the 1980s. Modification of the fuel standard to accommodate synthetic fuels progresses two key goals: to have the entire Air Force fleet certified to use a 50-50 synfuel blend by late 2010, and to acquire 50% of fuel needs within the continental US from domestically produced synfuels from plants that use methods for carbon capture and storage (CCS) ( JFI Sep.17,p1 ). While the Air Force is well on its way to achieving the first goal, the acquisition target for 400 million gallons of domestic synthetic jet fuel could prove more elusive, since it depends on how quickly FT fuel plants can be built across the US . Huge capital costs, estimated at $3 billion-$4billion for a commercial-scale FT plant with

CCS capability, are impeding development of a domestic synfuels industry. The Air Force is hopeful that joint work undertaken with the Department of Energy will yield a viable technology to bring CCS to the US market in a cost-effective manner.

WNDI 2008

57 Airforce GLT Aff

Modeling
The plan is key commercial airlines cant make the switch until tech and infrastructure has been developed IATA, International Air Transport Association, which includes 270 airlines, including the world's largest. Flights
by these airlines comprise more than 98 percent of all international scheduled air traffic. A complex issue http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/fuel_efficiency.htm 2000 Fuel efficiency of aircraft depends on many factors, not all of which are directly controllable by airlines. These include market forces, the availability of technology and adequate infrastructure capacity . Safety, legal and
environmental constraints can also limit the potential to operate more efficiently. A particular challenge for manufacturers and operators lies in the tradeoffs that exist between emissions, noise and other design requirements. In many cases, aircraft tend to become less fuel efficient when design criteria for meeting more stringent noise requirements are considered. Similarly, higher combustion temperatures to improve fuel efficiency typically result in increased levels of nitrogen oxides.

WNDI 2008

58 Airforce GLT Aff

Modeling
The airline industry is at a cross-roads the technology it chooses to replace oil will be determined by the military Eggers 6/4/2008 Cmdr. Jeffrey W. Eggers is an active-duty naval officer serving on the Joint Staff. Was director
for combating terrorism at national security council, Armed Forces Journal "The fuel gauge of national security" http://www.afji.com/2008/05/3434573 accessed June 25, 2008 MM Oil's ascendancy to a strategic commodity was through the military; the military should also be the source of its demise. The British Navy's shift from coal to oil and the U.S. Navy's pioneering research in nuclear power suggest that military requirements and innovation are well-poised to push difficult or innovative solutions. For starters, U.S. warships are one of the few places where nuclear power might reduce the transportation sector's dependence on liquid fuels. Thus the maritime sector has the luxury of being poised for transformation to alternative methods if and when oil spikes to prices considered inconceivable today. Similarly, land-based transportation is arguably close to viable jumping points to new foundational technologies, possibly through electric or hydrogen power. It is significantly less clear what non-liquid or non-carbon technology the airline industry might choose. While there are alternatives on the horizon for shipping and wheeled transportation, there is no resource so optimized in ease of storage and power density as good old petroleum. And given that jet fuel constitutes the Defense Department's largest single energy expenditure, improvements in this field would not only close the widest gap in civil transportation requirement, they would simultaneously make the largest improvement in defense propulsion vulnerabilities. At the International Maritime Propulsion Conference in May,
scientists and researchers will debate the viability of crude oil alternatives and will likely conclude that CTL processes offer the most feasible short-term solution. Similar studies in Europe have concluded that hydrogen and biofuels are unlikely short-term successors. Hydrogen is an energy storage option, not a source, and current generation biofuels are competing with food supplies the principal reason that a gallon of milk still costs more than a gallon of gasoline. While CTL is cost-effective now, the process of liquefying coal requires significant amounts of water and produces significant carbon emissions, two sensitive areas that need to be addressed hand-inhand with energy needs, not at the expense of one another. Climate change and associated political pressures mean that proposed solutions must increasingly utilize a comprehensive well-to-wheel analysis, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of environmental consequences. National security has always held the trump card over environmental factors, and this is unlikely to change, but the bar for playing this hand is rising. As we begin to capture more of the hidden costs of energy, cheap solutions will become harder to find, further emphasizing the need for expanded research. In military consumption of oil, aircraft account for 73 percent , ground vehicles 15 percent, ships 8 percent and ground installations 4 percent. So while there has been significant attention to conserving energy on military installations and converting warships to nuclear power, these two together account for less than one-fifth of aviations thirst for oil. The Air Force has aggressively explored the use of biofuels in the B-52 bomber and other aircraft with recent success, yet it is not clear that biofuels could be a long-term path to reduced vulnerability for aviation. In 2006, the U.S. airline industry consumed about 20 billion gallons of fuel, yet the U.S. produces slightly more than 4 billion gallons of ethanol annually, and that level of production is beginning to be problematic, as evidenced by the rising price of corn and milk. At the levels of intractability we face, real solutions must be not only scaleable, but utilize the strictest full cost burden methods of accounting. None of this has gone unnoticed by the Pentagon. In 2006, before the prodding by Congress, the Defense Department sponsored several symposiums to look at reducing the dependence. The Energy Conversation, a nonprofit consortium of private and public sector entities, was born out of close collaboration with the Pentagon to connect the best ideas, innovations, resources and people all of which will be needed to create a sustainable energy future. Attempting to lead from the front, the Pentagon has begun to reduce its consumption of oil, now down to about 300,000 barrels a day. The bad news is that costs are clearly skyrocketing. At current prices, the Pentagon will spend more than $8 billion this year on oil. But cost savings and incremental reductions in military consumption are not the real opportunity here. Rather, a renewed and expanded investment in military energy research and development will catalyze methods and

improvements that would become diffused throughout industry. This pattern has played out many times before. There have been many tangible benefits to society from a long history of technological exploration and innovation by the military. Now taken for granted for their civilian uses, radar, microwaves, the Internet and GPS were initially sponsored and funded by military research. Most relevant here, military requirements have also been key drivers of energy innovation. Perhaps the most significant and widely underreported example of military requirements forcing energy innovation was the Navys pioneering research in the use of nuclear power before the advent of the Manhattan Project. In 1937, Rear Adm. Stanford Hooper, as director of the
Navys Technical Division, explored the concept of nuclear energy at Johns Hopkins Universitys physics department, ultimately resulting in a Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) meeting with physicist Enrico Fermi in 1939 and the launching of the Navys nuclear energy research, not to build a bomb, but to power a submarine. The NRL made considerable progress in the key challenge of uranium isotope separation, and the Navys methods were ultimately adopted by the Manhattan Project. After World War II, Capt. Hyman Rickover, a Navy electrical engineer, realized the importance of uranium to harness the atom to drive submarines, culminating in the first nuclear-powered vehicle, the Nautilus, launched in 1955. Today, retired Navy nuclear power officers now operate a good majority of the 103 operating nuclear power plants in the U.S.

WNDI 2008

59 Airforce GLT Aff

Jet fuels expensive

True Jet fuel prices increase exponentially due to refueling methods. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Amazingly, jet fuel purchased at $2.30 per gallon costs the Air Force more than $42 per gallon when delivered by way of air refueling and costs $2.79 per gallon for ground delivery. This purchase averages out to $6.36 per gallon total. Army and Navy average burdened fuel costs totaled $5.62 and $3.08 per gallon, respectively.13A long-range Army helicopter resupply missiontraveling 600 kilometers with eight logistical supply aircraft and providing fuel at three separate staging areas en routewould result in fuel costs approaching $400 per gallon as delivered to the resupply aircraft when accounting for the cost of aircraft utilization and fuel used to establish the staging areas.14 Force structure dedicated to fuel delivery is also expensive. The Army alone has approximately 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve soldiers in fuelrelated jobs that cost around $3.2 billion each year.

WNDI 2008

60 Airforce GLT Aff

Free trade
Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks" http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Third, the global oil market is far from being a fair, free-market system. Governments that do not allow free-market access to develop, exploit, and expand supplies control most of the world's major oil reserves. Most free-market commodities allow the market supply to expand to meet demand. As oil prices rise, many governments are less receptive to foreign investment, preventing supply from responding to demand and driving prices even higher.22 An increased price of imported goods increases the US trade deficit and exports wealth to foreign lands. In 2005, imported oil accounted for one-third of the country's $800 billion trade deficit.

WNDI 2008

61 Airforce GLT Aff

Contracts key
Long-term contracts are critical to switching to synthetic fuel
Col Gregory J. Lengyel, USAF is a Air Force Fellow for the Brookings Institution Department of Defense energy strategy teaching an old dog new tricks August 2007 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/08defense_lengyel/lengyel20070815.pdf Long-term contracts move much of the financial risk from private investors to the American taxpayers. If there were a long-term decline in the price of oil, the DOD could potentially pay much higher prices for synthetic fuel than they otherwise would pay for petroleum products. In past years the DOD has not received the authority to enter into the 15- or 25-year deals industry wants. In his keynote address to the March 2007 USAF Energy Forum in Washington, DC, Senator Bunning addressed the issue: I believe the DOD should be authorized to pay a premium for high-quality, clean, domestic fuel. Longterm contracts will provide price certainty and allow for more consistent budgeting. These contracts will vary above and below market prices as world oil prices change during the life of a 25-year contract. I believe this is healthy and normal for long-term contracts.43 Secretary Michael W. Wynne also addressed price stability at the Energy Forum: Last year, the AF spent about $6.6 billion on aviation fuel; 1.6 billion dollars more than budgeted. In 2005, the fuel budget was $1.4 billion more than the previous year. We could have paid a supplier to build a dedicated coal, natural gas, or other derived fuel plant with this $3 billion in unbudgeted expense. Maybe then we could have a predictable cost for fuel.44

Only Long term contracts can attract companies to produce a market for Synthetic fuels Platts Oilgram News, fast-breaking global petroleum and gas news to your desktop every business day. Its
correspondents around the world report on supply and demand trends, corporate news, government actions, exploration, technology, and more. US synthetic jet fuel likely from Sasol, Shell; Obstacles remain for domestic production MARKETS & DATA; Pg. 9 Vol. 84 No. 230, November 29, 20 06,lexis US companies told DOD one obstacle to commercializing synthetic jet is financing, which is hampered by the Pentagon's ability to only enter into five-year contracts. "Most US suppliers said they need guaranteed long-term contracts" of 15 to 25 years with DOD to get bankers to support a $2 billion to $4 billion plant, Serino said. Companies and trade groups are lobbying to allow the Pentagon to extend the contact terms, something Serino said the DESC would be willing to do if Congress approves. Suppliers also said they will need state incentives and money from the US Energy Department's loan guarantee program to make the projects work, she said. Some are also seeking price incentives, such as minimum prices and escalator clauses. Serino said she hopes US military use of synthetic jet will help boost the market and make financing easier. She noted that once approved for the military, commercial sales would likely follow since the fuel would already have passed stringent military testing. "Once the [US] plants are built,

WNDI 2008

62 Airforce GLT Aff

Contracts key
Long term contracts are key to solving Breanne Wagner , Aviation Energy, Market for Synthetic Aviation Fuels Off to a Shaky Start, may
2008,http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2008/May/Market.htm) Despite industry claims of cleaner fuel, the Air Force is uncertain if companies can satisfy the new energy act requirement. Bollinger points to a lack of standards as the main impediment. You heard industry representatives who are producing this fuel say that they can meet this standard, Bollinger says. But there is no standard. Industry estimates are based on an antiquated EPA standard that doesnt measure the life cycle, he explains. Until those life cycle standards are developed, the Air Force simply cant buy the fuel, Bollinger says. He believes the requirement is hampering market development because it deters companies from building facilities. The uncertainty associated with the new rule is viewed as a risk in the market, Bollinger says. Companies need financing to build plants, but they cant get money until the standard is defined. The EPA estimated that it would take at least a year to write new standards. Tom Sayles, Rentech vice president of government affairs and communications, says that besides the life cycle requirement, the industry has bigger financial concerns. Long-term contracts are needed to get this [industry] off the ground. Today, the military purchases fuel on an annual basis, Sayles says, while electricity is bought in 10-year contracts. Additionally, Ramsbottom believes the industry wont move forward in a timely manner without strong government support. The Air Force wants to develop synthetic jet fuel as soon as possible, but is restricted by Congress. Lawmakers are showing greater interest in alternative energy, but many caution against moving too quickly.

WNDI 2008

63 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-saves natural gas

Gas-to-liquid is key to preserving 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually US Fed News, "NEW TWIST ON OLD TECHNOLOGY YIELDS ULTRA-CLEAN TRANSPORTATION FUELS FROM NATURAL GAS, COAL., May 5, 2005 Lexis
Another environmental benefit of gas-to-liquids is its potential to end natural gas venting or flaringthe controlled release or burning of gas that is sometimes economically necessary to produce the oil with which it is associated. More than 100 billion cubic meters of natural gas are lost annually to venting or flaring at sites around the world-enough to meet the natural gas needs of France and Germany. Gas-to-liquids also holds the promise of monetizing an enormous natural gas resource that is "stranded" for lack of a market. The world's stranded gas reserves total about 2,500 trillion cubic feet. If this resource could find a market, it would exceed, in energy-equivalent terms, Saudi Arabia's proved oil reserves. In the DOE-funded clean-coal project, ICRC and Syntroleum will evaluate commercially available coal gasification and synthesis gas cleanup technologies, and will seek to integrate these technologies with a cobalt catalyst-based FT process as a precursor to an eventual commercial-scale coal-to-liquids plant. The 24-month project will also field test 6,000 gallons of ultra-clean diesel produced from the cobalt-catalyst FT process. The idea is to introduce coal-to-liquids diesel in a U.S. market to gain market awareness and acceptance, similar to the introduction of gas-to-liquids diesel in Alaska and Washington, DC. Such efforts support the Bush administration's efforts to diversify America's energy supply portfolio and bolster the nation's energy security.

WNDI 2008

64 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-cheap
GTL CHEAP

CS Monitor Air Force to fly on synthetic fuel? December 28, 2007,

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1228/p03s05-usgn.html?page=1 The US Air Force is experimenting with a synthetic fuel that could become a cheaper fuel-alternative for the entire US military and even commercial aviation, officials say. As the cost of a barrel of oil approaches $100 and US reliance on foreign oil sources grows, the Air Force, the single biggest user of energy in the US government, wants to find a cheaper alternative. Air Force officials think they may have found it in a fuel that blends the normal JP-8 fuel, currently used for the military's jet engines, with a synthetic fuel made from natural gas and liquid coal. The 50-50 blend is less expensive between $40 to $75 per barrel and it burns cleaner than normal fuel. The synthetic fuel is purchased from US-based suppliers and then blended with the military's JP-8 fuel. "We're making sure the Air Force is ahead of the curve so we can utilize this domestic resource instead of having to be both dependent on foreign sources and send dollars offshore instead of spending the dollars here in the US," says Kevin Billings, a deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force helping to oversee the initiative. Last week, on the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight, the Air Force flew a C-17 Globemaster III from Washington state to New Jersey, the first transcontinental flight using the synthetic fuel. The flight was an attempt to demonstrate that pilots could fly the plane, considered a "workhorse" of the Air Force fleet, using "syn-fuel" without degrading the performance of the plane's engine.

Fischer Tropsch Fuel costs about a dollar per gallon and reduces co2 emissions immensely Diesel Fuel News, Sept 15, 2003 by Jack Peckham California eyeing coal-GTL opportunity to cut 'petroleum
dependence,' boost clean-diesel fuel With current technology now available for coal-GTL plant greenhouse gas "sequestration"-C[O.sub.2] diverted underground to enhance coal-bed methane recovery--a coal-GTL scheme could win environmental kudos on several fronts, Yakobson contends. A coal-FT plant with C[O.sub.2] sequestration would produce only one-tenth the C[O.sub.2] emissions of a conventional pulverized coal electricity plant, and about one-sixth the C[O.sub.2] of a coal-fired, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant, Yakobson showed CEC/CARB. Bonus: Nitrogen oxides (NOx) plant emissions would be extremely low--about 9 parts per million (one-fifteenth that of conventional coal plants). Sulfur recovery from coal gasification would exceed 99.9%, too, thanks to advanced gasification technologies. With current coal gasification and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) conversion technologies, Rentech believes a Powder River Basin mine-mouth GTL plant (or a petroleum coke GTL plant near refineries with coking plants) could produce FT diesel for well under $1/gallon, plus about 8-20 cents/gallon transport cost to California (probably via railcar).

WNDI 2008

65 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-reduce military spending

GTL is key to solving Air Force readiness True Jet fuel prices increase exponentially due to refueling methods. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks" http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/0 8
Amazingly, jet fuel purchased at $2.30 per gallon costs the Air Force more than $42 per gallon when delivered by way of air refueling and costs $2.79 per gallon for ground delivery. This purchase averages out to $6.36 per gallon total. Army and Navy average burdened fuel costs totaled $5.62 and $3.08 per gallon, respectively.13A long-range Army helicopter resupply missiontraveling 600 kilometers with eight logistical supply aircraft and providing fuel at three separate staging areas en routewould result in fuel costs approaching $400 per gallon as delivered to the resupply aircraft when accounting for the cost of aircraft utilization and fuel used to establish the staging areas.14 Force structure dedicated to fuel delivery is also expensive. The Army alone has approximately 20,000 active and 40,000 reserve soldiers in fuel-related jobs that cost around $3.2 billion each year.

WNDI 2008

66 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-reduce military spending

Reducing military spending is key to solving federal deficit Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Third, the DOD has long operated under the assumption that energy is cheap and plentiful; therefore, energy has not been managed like other combat enablers, including intelligence, ac- INTRODUCTION quisition, and logistics. This trend must end. Present DOD fuel costs represent approximately a 2.5 percent to 3 percent fraction of the national defense budget. That percentage may seem small, but in a fiscally constrained wartime environment where DOD and service budgets already have been cut and cut again, every dollar already is committed. The forecast calls for more of the same. An already huge national debt, federal budget deficits, a looming fiscal storm of rising national health care costs, and a potential social security crisis make fiscally

Alternative energy in the military is key to reducing costs. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 In simple terms, DOD energy use can be divided into two main categories: petroleum-based fuel for mobility platforms and infrastructure energy (electricity and natural gas) supporting installations and facilities. The vast majority of DOD energy consumption, some 74 percent of total energy cost, supports mobility platforms, including aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. Aviation fuel alone accounts for 58 percent of the total DOD energy cost. Buildings and facilities account for 22 percent of DOD energy cost.4 If the DOD wants to save energy, it should look first at mobility platforms (particularly aircraft) and buildings. Jet fuel accounts for 7.9 billion dollars of military funding, equivalent to the entire Marine Corps. Fuel does not come cheap. The DOD spent approximately $13.55 billion on energy as a commodity in FY 2006. Of that amount, the DOD spent roughly $10 billion on mobility fuels and $3.5 billion on facilities and infrastructure. A $10 per barrel increase in the cost of fuel increases the DOD operating costs by roughly $1.3 billion each year,10 which roughly equals the entire 2007 procurement budget for the United States Marine Corps.

WNDI 2008

67 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-Biomass solvency
Fischer Tropsch synthetic fuels can be made out of biomass UPM, Helsinki, 10 July 2008 at 09:00 (Press Release)
UPM has completed the rebuild of the chemical recovery plant at its Kymi pulp mill in Kuusankoski. The new plant has started operations after a one month test period preceded by large connecting work between production lines. During the connecting works, the paper mill was shut down for six days at the end of May. Construction of the new recovery plant started in May 2006. The plant is the biggest ongoing investment project not only for UPM but also for the whole Finnish forest industry. The project employed 1,057 people as maximum. The final investment value exceeds Euro 340 million. The new recovery plant replaces two outdated chemical recovery lines by one modern line. After the investment, Kymi is a very competitive mill with integrated pulp and fine paper production and an annual paper production capacity of 840,000 tonnes with two paper machines. The new recovery plant improves Kymi's energy self-sufficiency as well as production efficiency. In addition, fossil carbon-dioxide emissions, odour emissions and other emissions to air will be decreased. The new plant enables to increase the use of biofuels and to double bio-electricity production capacity. Chemical recovery is one of the main processes of pulp production. The recovery plant is used to recover the chemicals used for cooking chemical pulp and to return them for re-use. At the same time, the wood dissolved during cooking can be utilised for energy.

WNDI 2008

68 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-more efficient
Oil to liquid fuel is cleaner and more efficient than conventional fuels
U.S Department of Energy, Gas to Liquids Benefits 09/18/2007, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/emerging_gas_liquids_benefits.html Tests indicate Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) diesel provides similar or better vehicle performance than conventional diesel. # Gas-to-liquids fuels can be produced using natural gas reserves that are uneconomical to recover using other methods (i.e., "stranded reserves"). # Using stranded reserves to produce liquid fuels reduces the need to flare natural gas, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. # Fischer-Tropsch diesel has been shown to reduce regulated exhaust emissions from a variety of diesel engines and vehicles, and the near-zero sulfur content of these fuels can enable use of advanced emission control devices . The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency calculated the potential benefits of F-T diesel versus conventional diesel based on the inherently cleaner-burning characteristics of F-T diesel, summarized in Clean Alternative Fuels: Fischer-Tropsch (PDF 68 KB). Download Adobe Reader.

Gas to liquid fuels is superior to current jet fuels Mike Millikin, editor and analyst in the IT industry for more than 15 years. Air Force Flight Test of Syntroleum Gas-to-Liquids Fuel Successful, 19 September 2006,
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/09/air_force_fligh.html Syntroleum announced that its Fischer-Tropsch (FT) jet fuel has been successfully tested in a United States Air Force B-52 Stratofortress Bomber aircraft. The plane lifted off from Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., with a
50/50 blend of FT and traditional JP-8 jet fuel which was burned in two of the eight engines on the plane. This marks the first time that FT jet fuel has been tested in a military flight demo, and is the first of several planned test flights. The test is a result of more than four years of successful research and development efforts with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), focused on producing a highperformance alternative fuel for military applications. The program culminating in the test flight today is the first step in opening up new horizons for sourcing fuel for military purposes. Bill Harrison, fuels expert with the Air Force Research Laboratory at WrightPatterson Air Force Base in Ohio Undersecretary of the Air Force Dr. Ronald M. Sega was on the mission as a crewmember. This test sets the stage for a more comprehensive plan the Air Force has toward conservation. This test fits into this overall vision and is the first step in a long process for looking at the viability of alternative fuels. Dr. Sega Dr. Sega said the engines running on the synthetic fuel performed as well as the others. But he is still waiting for test analysis and the final test results. The next step in the program will be an eight-engine test in a few months. Before the manned flight, the Air Force Flight Test Center tested the fuel to see how it reacted to aircraft parts. The fuel ran a T-63 engine during 130 hours of fuel testing. One of the engines was then taken off the B-52 and sent to Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., where it went through a 50-hour continuous alternative fuel run. The engines were reinstalled into the bomber and ground tested before the test flight. After going through the testing at Edwards, the alternative fuel left in the bombers fuel tanks is scheduled to undergo cold-weather testing in January or February. The fuel was produced at Syntroleums gas-toliquids (GTL) FT demonstration facility near Tulsa, Okla. where it has produced more than 400,000 gallons of ultra clean products. This flight test is part of the DODs Assured Fuel Initiative, an effort to develop secure domestic sources for the militarys energy needs. The Pentagon hopes to reduce its use of crude oil and foreign producers and get about half of its aviation fuel from alternative sources by 2016. Syntroleums jet fuel has shown superior performance

characteristics compared to traditional aviation fuels. Prior testing by the military on the companys FT fuels have shown a reduction in particulate matter and soot emissions of greater than 90% depending upon the turbine engine type compared to aviation fuels produced by refining crude oil. The reduced particulate matter and soot emissions significantly improve engine efficiency, performance and overall air quality. In addition to the companys work with the DOD, Syntroleums technology and FT
products have been successfully tested in several government programs through the US Department of Energys ultra clean fuels program and with academic research institutions and auto manufacturers. One of the shuttle buses used at Edwards Air Force Base is running Syntroleums diesel fuel as part of an ongoing road test.

WNDI 2008

69 Airforce GLT Aff

DOD is key
US oil dependence can only be solved through the DoD first, improving combat capability, reducing logistical spending, and lowering carbon emissions. Gregory J. Lengyel, January 2008, "Department of Defense energy strategy : teaching an old dog new tricks"
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Walker_Papers/PDF_Bin/Lengyel.pdf accessed 4/22/08 Decreasing US dependence on foreign oil significantly can be done only by looking at the many ways the DOD can consume less petroleum-based fuel through greater efficiency, smarter processes, and diversification of fuel sources to include alternatives other than petroleum. Domestically controlled production of alternative fuels also will help to assure access to critical energy requirements. Additionally, the DOD must ensure resiliency of installation electricity supply through increased onsite renewable energy production, reduced dependence on the commercial electric grid, and the capability to operate at full capacity if a commercial grid power failure occurs. Improved combat capability will result from the efficiency effects and lengthening the tether of fuel. Reduced logistics requirements energy costs will allow assets and funds to be diverted to combat needs and for hard-earned taxpayers' dollars to be spent more responsibly. Reduced consumption, increased alternative fuels, and renewable energy production will help preserve the environment through reduced carbon emissions and more efficient use of natural resources.

WNDI 2008

70 Airforce GLT Aff

ESPC
Expanding ESPC contracts to the Air Force are key to generate the savings necessary to solve. U.S. Department of Energy 2008
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/superespcs.html ESPC project is a partnership between the customer and an energy services company (ESCO). The ESCO conducts a comprehensive energy audit and identifies improvements that will save energy at the facility. In consultation with the agency customer, the ESCO designs and constructs a project that meets the agency's needs and arranges financing to pay for it. The ESCO guarantees that the improvements will generate savings sufficient to pay for the project over the term of the contract. After the contract ends, all additional cost savings accrue to the agency. Contract terms up to 25 years are allowed. A Sep. 19 test flight by a B-52 using a synthetic fuel made from natural gas has Air Force researchers flying high and aiming a little lower now as they look at alternative fuels for their ground vehicles. A spokesman for the service said the use of synthetic fuels is "vital if the Air Force is to have the means of operating without relying on foreign oil supplies." The September test flight at Edwards Air Force Base was just the first step, the spokesman said, as the service has a research project under way at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia, to use that technology for grounds vehicles. Alternative fuels can be produced from domestically available hydrocarbon products like natural gas and coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process, which was developed in Germany in the early 1920s. Gasification can convert any hydrocarbon feedstock into a synthetic gas that can then, through the Fischer-Tropsch process, be converted into any number of liquid fuel products. When the price of oil is between $60 and $65 per barrel, Fischer-Tropsch technology is economically viable, a Department of Defense official said ( NGW Sep.25,p4 ). The same technology was used by Germany to fuel their military machine for several years during World War II after most of its other fuel sources were cut off by Allied advances. The fuel for the B-52 flight was produced at Syntroleum's FT demonstration facility near Tulsa , Oklahoma , which has produced more than 400,000 gallons of ultra-clean products. Company spokesman Gary Gamino said that 100,000 gallons of fuel was made for the test at a cost of about $2.13 million. Gamino said the fuel used in the Edwards test flight came from its demonstration facility, which only produces 70 barrels or about 1,700 gallons per day. The company is currently in talks with Sustec AG, a private company based in Basel, Switzerland, to develop alternative fuels at a plant in Germany. The company is also in talks with another firm to develop a coal-to-liquids plant in the US, possibly in Montana or North Dakota. "If oil is cut off for any reason, we need a source of fuel to run military aircraft and vehicles," said Mike Mead, head of the Air Force Advance Power Technology Office at Robins AFB. He said the Fischer-Tropsch technology can use feed stocks such as natural gas, coal or biomass. "Currently we are demonstrating both a 100-percent synthetic fuel and a 50-50 blend of synthetic and petroleum fuel for vehicles and ground equipment applications," Mead said. The fuel in the aircraft tests was a 50-50 blend, but the goal is to prove that 100% synthetic fuel can be used. He said two synthetic fuel compounds are currently being tested: S8 FT fuel which was used a substitute for JP-8 jet fuel; and S2 FT fuel, which is being used as substitute for diesel fuel No. 2. The B-52 in the Sep. 19 test used a fuel blend of S8 and JP8 to run two of the jet bomber's eight engines with the remaining six being run on standard JP8 fuel. The S8 fuel is being used in refueling trucks, buses and other vehicles as well. One of the first lessons learned, Mead said, is that no modifications are needed to any vehicle or ground equipment that is being used. He said researchers are using the fuel "as is, and we don't have to change the vehicle at all in order to use it." Another advantage for the Fischer-Tropsch fuels is that it is cleaner burning than regular fuel, Mead said. He said that vehicles using the synthetic fuel showed a 90% reduction in particulate emissions and an 80% reduction in smoke. Despite these early successes, Mead said the fuel will still have to be cost competitive. Both the Air Force and Synthroleum have estimated that if the price of crude stays above $60 a barrel, the Fischer-Tropsch-based fuels will be cost competitive. In the future, he said, the Air Force may be able to run its aircraft and its ground vehicles on fuel made from natural gas or coal -- and not depend on supplies from foreign nations. There is no timetable for the research, Mead and other said. The main goal, they said, is to make sure it works.

WNDI 2008

71 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL-easy to transport and clean

GLT can be easily transported and reduce pollution Business Wire,"New Report on Gas to Liquids Looks at this lucrative and fast-rising industry from the basics to the specific technologies involved in the GTL Process," March 22, 20 07, Lexis
Natural gas can be use to produce bulk petrochemicals, including methanol and ammonia, but these are relatively small users of the gas reserves with limited markets. Liquid and other petroleum products are cheaper to transport, market, and distribute to large markets. They are transported in existing pipelines, product tankers, and even blended with existing crude oil or product streams. Furthermore, no special contractual arrangements are required for their sale within many suitable domestic and foreign markets. New technology is being developed and applied to convert natural gas to liquids in gas to liquids technology (GTL). The projects are scalable, allowing design optimization and application to smaller gas deposits. The key influences on their competitiveness are the cost of capital, operating costs of the plant, feedstock costs, scale, and ability to achieve high utilization rates in production. As a generalization however, GTL is not competitive against conventional oil production unless the gas has low opportunity value and is not readily transported. GTL not only adds value, but also is capable of producing products that could be sold or blended into refinery stock as superior products with fewer pollutants, for which there is growing demand. Reflecting its origins as a gas, gas to liquids processes produce diesel fuel with an energy density comparable to conventional diesel, but with a higher cetane number, permitting a superior performance engine design. Another problem emission associated with diesel fuel is particulate matter, which is composed of unburnt carbon and aromatics, and compounds of sulfur. Fine particulates are associated with respiratory problems, while certain complex aromatics have been found to be carcinogenic. Low sulfur content, leads to significant reductions in particulate matter that is generated during combustion, and the low aromatic content reduces the toxicity of the particulate matter reflecting in a worldwide trend towards the reduction of sulfur and aromatics in fuel. This report on Gas to Liquids looks at this lucrative and fast-rising industry from the basics to the specific technologies involved in the GTL process. A summary of the major players, major technologies involved, economic analysis of the GTL process, and much more, is contained inside this comprehensive guide to the Gas to Liquids industry.

WNDI 2008

72 Airforce GLT Aff

Renewable good (general)

Renewable energy systems decrease maintenance, fuel cost, noise, reduction of thermal image, improved stealth, and greater intelligence control, decrease waste output, and free engineering resources. Gordon Kuntz, Colonel, Army National Guard of the United States, April 20 07 [Army Environmental Policy
Institute, Use of Renewable Energy In Contingency Operations, p.15-17, www.aepi.army.mil] Use of renewable energy systems during CONOPS has multiple and varied advantages for Commanders. Advantages include36: reducing the logistic footprint by decreasing the fuel requirement by as much as 20-30%, augmentation of power by up to 30%, a decrease in maintenance needs, and overall reduction in cost from fuel savings both in decreased fuel use and cost of hauling fuel. Further benefits occur in reduction in the size and weight of noisy, fuel consuming power units, reduction of weight requirements for military operations through use of lighter equipment, and increased security through reduction of thermal image, improved stealth with reduced noise, and greater control of intelligence through decreased waste. By decreasing waste there is a significant restriction on potential enemy information gathering efforts through removal of a readily accessible source of material found in landfills. Biomass generators and MISER waste to energy systems give a reduction of water requirements of up to 50-80% and significantly decrease or eliminate transportation needs for waste disposal. Commanders have enhanced maneuverability, greater flexibility, and increased agility when using lighter renewable energy systems. Force protection and physical security are greatly improved by limiting soldier exposure to attack through significantly decreasing the number of convoys with less demand for fossil fuel. Augmenting energy needs with renewable energy systems allows engineer resources to be freed up for use in areas of greater importance. Communication lines are strengthened by reduction in the number and frequency of convoys hauling fuel, resulting in less vulnerability to direct attack, reduction or elimination of civilian assets hauling waste, and decreased need for or demand upon Host Nation resources in the form of water, fuel, energy, and sanitation support. Improved sanitation conditions results in health promotion of the force by decreasing disease exposure from trash and filth, thereby lowering the potential for disease and non-battle injury incidence.

WNDI 2008

73 Airforce GLT Aff

GTL good
Gas-to-liquid creates jobs, decrease foreign reliance, and is currently compatible with current engines and infrastructure. U.S Department of Energy, Gas to Liquids Benefits 09/18/2007,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/emerging_gas_liquids_benefits.html Gas-to-liquids fuels can be produced domestically while creating U.S. jobs. Using natural gas to produce transportation fuels would reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum and increase energy security. The following are additional potential benefits of gas-to-liquids fuels: * They can be used directly in today's diesel- and gasoline-powered vehicles. * They are compatible with the current petroleum distribution infrastructure and would not require new or modified pipelines, storage tanks, or retail station pumps. * Tests indicate Fischer-Tropsch (F-T) diesel provides similar or better vehicle performance than conventional diesel. * Gas-to-liquids fuels can be produced using natural gas reserves that are uneconomical to recover using other methods (i.e., "stranded reserves").

WNDI 2008

74 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 to commercial change counterplan

Commercial airline technology cannot meet the Air Forces needs Maj Daniel E. Bullock. The First Essential of Airpower: The Case for Air Force Laboratories Air & Space Power Chronicles 29 September 99 http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/bullock.html
The recent DoD efforts toward making the most of commercial technology seem to be taken in some circles as evidence that the Air Force need not be engaged in as much, if any, technology development. I share the Air Force Associations concern about that perception: Commercial industriesthe national industrial basewill now presumably meet defense needs. Certainly the commercial sector can meet many of the military's needs, and acquisition reforms will allow it to meet more of them. Nevertheless, the decline of an industrial base that can meet them in a timely manner remains a matter of serious concern to the Association. The Association remains skeptical that the commercial industrial base can effectively meet unique military needs such as stealth, armor, very-high-performance aircraft, large-caliber guns, deep-earth penetrating munitions, and rocket engines. Many of these technologies have no commercial use and virtually no intersection with commercial industry.9

WNDI 2008

75 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 regulation counterplan
Regulations requiring decreased emissions would devestate the airline industry Jonathan H. Adler, former CEI senior fellow in environmental policy, July 2000,
http://www.cei.org/pdf/1783.pdf It is unlikely the CO2 emissions from air travel will decline without a proportionate decrease in fuel use. Because fuel consumption is the second largest cost for airlinesan estimated $10 billion per year, or 15 percent of airlines operating costsairlines have already begun to seek means of reducing their fuel consumption, thereby increasing their competitiveness and profitability.85 Indeed, the industry has already cut fuel consumption by nearly 50 percent since 1977.86 This reduction has been a result of investments in newer, more efficient aircraft, as well as basic operational changes such as lowering cruising speeds, taxiing with only one engine, and shutting down engines when takeoff is delayed by inclement weather. Proposals to reduce airline emissions further, such as to 1990 levels, will force a dramatic reduction in air travel. Consumers will be forced into other modes of travel that are often more expensive and substantially less safe per mile traveled. Barring changes in existing air travel regulations, the imposition of tax or regulatory controls to meet 1990 emission levels could make it virtually impossible for US airlines to meet the increasing demand for air travel. The Air Transport Association (ATA) estimates that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would result in a 25 to 35 percent reduction in air services. Soaring costs will replace soaring planes. Airline fares and air cargo rates will skyrocket; service to smaller cities will be grounded; and industry employment will drop. The ATA projects that US airlines would be disproportionately impacted and placed at a competitive disadvantage, as airlines from third-world countries are exempt. The airline deregulation of the late-1970s is estimated to have saved consumers close to $20 billion per year.87 Greenhouse-gas emission controls now threaten to swallow those gains. As in other sectors of the economy, however, adopting deregulatory measures could enable airlines to reduce their pertrip fuel consumption.

WNDI 2008

76 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 biodiesel/ethanol
Only GLT can work ethanol corrodes the engine and biomass freezes in flght Clayton B. Cornell, Clayton has an Honors B.S. in Biology and a minor in Chemistry from the University of Utah.
He has also studied graduate level Toxicology and Oregon State University Algae Biofuel May Be Future For Aviation: June 8, 2007, http://claytonbodiecornell.greenoptions.com/2007/06/08/algae-biofuel-may-be-future-foraviation/ The biofuel debate has largely glossed over the friendly skies while high fuel prices continue to take their toll on the industry. No biofuel we have yet can step up to the plate. Ethanol collects water and corrodes the engine and lines while biodiesel freezes up in cold weather (ie: cruising altitude). Dont forget pilots general resistance to change and a life and death dependency on reliable fuel, and aviation biofuels dont have a leg to stand on.

WNDI 2008

77 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 T
Alternative energy includes biofuels, natural gas, wind, hydroelectric power, solar, hydrogen, and nuclear energy.
Larry O'Sullivan, Irish short story and freelance Article write 3,21,2008, http://energyconservation.suite101.com/article.cfm/alternative_sources_of_energy] Fossil Fuels such as coal and gasoline provide most of the energy needs of the world today, but because of their diminishing reserves, high prices and most importantly, their damaging effect on the environment, alternative sources of energy and environmentally friendly fuels are now being developed. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, There are more than a dozen alternative and advanced fuels in production or use today. From the perspective of protecting the environment, alternative fuels and alternative sources of energy usually fall under seven broad headings. Biofuels Natural Gas Wind Energy Hydroelectric Power Solar Energy Hydrogen Nuclear Energy

Alternative energy means biodiesel, electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, methanol, natural gas, and propane U.S department of energy, Alternative Fuels 04/29/2008,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/index.html Alternative Fuels These fuels are defined as alternative fuels by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and are currently, or have been, commercially available for vehicles. * Biodiesel * Electricity * Ethanol * Hydrogen * Methanol * Natural Gas * Propane

WNDI 2008

78 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 T
Alternative energy means natural gas propane and hydrogen U.S department of energy Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 1342 Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Tax Credit, 05/22/2008, http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/incentives_laws_epact.html
Provides a tax credit equal to 30% of the cost alternative refueling property, up to $30,000 for business property. Qualifying alternative fuels are natural gas, propane, hydrogen, E85, or biodiesel blends of B20 or more. Buyers of residential refueling equipment can receive a tax credit for $1,000. For non-tax-paying entities, the credit can be passed back to the equipment seller. The credit is effective on purchases put into service after December 31, 2005. It expires December 31, 2009 (hydrogen purchases expire in 2014).

GLT is alternative energy Department of Energy Gas to Liquids Content Last Updated: 09/18/2007,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/emerging_gas_liquids.html. Gas to liquids is a term describing processes for converting natural gas into liquid fuels. Liquid fuels domestically produced from natural gas are considered alternative fuels under the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct).

WNDI 2008

79 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 T
We meet: Natural gas is not only an alternative energy, but a popular one at that. DOE, Department of Energy. Natural Gas. May 2007 <http://www.energy.gov/energysources/naturalgas.htm>
Did you know that 900 of the next 1000 US power plants will use natural gas? Domestically produced and readily available to end-users through the existing utility infrastructure, natural gas has also become increasingly popular as an alternative energy and as a transportation fuel. The Office of Fossil Energy invests in research and development of technologies in the areas of natural gas supply, delivery reliability, and utilization. Through the Strategic Center for Natural Gas, DOE works with industry to develop technologies to support this fuel. In addition, the Natural Gas and Petroleum Import and Export Office is responsible for regulating natural gas imports and exports under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act of 1938; maintaining statistics on North American natural gas trade, and overseeing the Office of Fossil Energy's international programs pertaining to natural gas and petroleum. Serving alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), natural gas is clean burning and produces significantly fewer harmful emissions than reformulated gasoline. Natural gas can either be stored on board a vehicle in tanks as compressed natural gas (CNG) or cryogenically cooled to a liquid state, liquefied natural gas (LNG). Further, the Clean Cities program supports public and private partnerships that deploy alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and build supporting infrastructure. The Energy Information Administration maintains statistical data relating to the consumption and production of natural gas.

Prefer our definition, DOE is the most predictable source, predictability is key to solving their limits and education impacts Counter definition Alternative energy includes alternative fuels Warkentin-Glenn 2006 (Denise, Electric Power Industry,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ivtsqD692DoC) Alternative energy includes alternative fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is traditional.. It also includes the use of traditional energy sources, such as natural gas, in untraditional ways, such as distributed energy at the point of use through microturbines or fuel cells. Finally, it also encompasses future energy sources, such as hydrogen and fusion

Our definition only includes traditional sources converted alternative energy used for transportation purposes and produced in non traditional ways: Alternative energy is distinct from renewables Its intentionally broader NEPD 2007 (Natl Energy Policy Directorate, executive branch advisory,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Chapter6.pdf) Alternative energy includes: alterna-tive fuels that are transportation fuels other than gasoline and diesel, even when the type of energy, such as natural gas, is tradi-tional; the use of traditional energy sources, such as natural gas, in untraditional ways, such as for distributed energy at the point of use through microturbines or fuel cells; and future energy sources, such as hydrogen and fusion. Both renewable and alternative energy resources can be produced centrally or on a distributed basis near their point of use. Providing electricity, light, heat, or mechani-cal energy at the point of use diminishes the need for some transmission lines and pipe-lines, reducing associated energy delivery losses and increasing energy efficiency. Dis-tributed energy resources may be renew-able resources, such as biomass cogenera-tion in the lumber and paper industry or rooftop solar photovoltaic systems on homes, or they may be alternative uses of traditional energy, such as natural gas microturbines.

WNDI 2008

80 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 T
StandardsOffense: 1. Limits- Our definition excludes oil and coal, giving you key disad grounds, and doesnt allow natural gas for
power generation. 2. Ground- We allow adequate counterplan ground for specific types of the above energys, and that ground is large due to multiple processes and implementations. 3. Education- Its key to talk about natural gas in terms of transportation fuel, the literature is at the core of the topic and most

Defense: 1. No matter what their definition is, the number of affs is exponential due to processing and the incentives used.
Just because their topic says the only topical aff is nuclear power, the ground is still huge due to a number incentives from tax breaks, loan guarantees, subsidies, and etc.

WNDI 2008

81 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 private c/p
Canada doesnt prove anything they dont deal with the same traffic volume Air Safety Week Privatizing Air Traffic Control, April 25, 2005
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_2005_April_25/ai_n13828775 Carr maintains that there is a difference of scale that must be considered. NAV Canada, he says, guides as many aircraft as U.S. air traffic controllers at Cleveland, albeit over a much larger area. Of the top six air traffic control providers, the U.S. handles 92 percent of the traffic, and the remaining five providers, including NAV Canada, guide 8 percent of flights. Carr declared, "Risking the public's safety by putting air traffic control up for sale should never be an option."

ATC privatization is not supported. AAAE, American Association of Airport Execuitives 2001
<http://www.aaae.org/news/200_Airport_Report/200_2001_Airport_Reports/AirportReportHTMLFormat.html?Rep ortID=77> March 15, 2001 Major U.S. airlines do not support privatization of the nations air traffic control system, Air Transport Association (ATA) President and CEO Carol Hallett stated. She added, Whoever is claiming that the major airlines support ATC privatization clearly has not spoken with the airlines chief executive officers. Referring to the recently released Reason Public Policy Institutes call for ATC privatization, Hallett said, There are many tasks that need to be implemented to modernize the governments ATC system, to make it more business-like and efficient, and to equip it to meet the demands of our economyprivatization is not on the list.

WNDI 2008

82 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 private c/p
Privatization epically fails in Australia, Canada, and the U.K. Professor Elliott Sclar, Columbia University and The HDR Management Consulting Group. Privatization. 2003 <http://www.natca.org/assets/Documents/mediacenter/PDFPitfallsofATCPrivatization.pdf>
Privatization advocates point to cases of air traffic control privatization in other countries to highlight the potential value of privatization for the United States (U.S.). However, an independent review of three prominent international privatizations, Australia, Canada, and Great Britain demonstrate the dangers of privatization and the inability of private air traffic controller (ATC) monopolies to effectively deliver positive results in any of the three criteria that prompt privatization consideration: reducing cost, increasing the speed of modernization, or stabilizing funding. Further, the case reviews demonstrate that privatized air traffic control systems tend to impose greater costs on users, are prone to technological failure as well as disruptive labor disputes, and privatizers ultimately rely on government backing, to costly effect. In Canada, the privatized system has led to massive increases in user fees for passengers, and dangerous understaffing in towers. In Australia, excessive demands on controllers have led to a series of strikes, while failures with new technologies led to actual radar blackouts and major traffic disruptions. In the United Kingdom, the newly privatized National Air Traffic System (NATS) has been forced to go to the government for financial bailouts valued to date at two thirds of the original sale price, while technological fail1ures have led to multiple system shutdowns and operational irregularities. Evaluation of the nature of air traffic control provision suggests that privatization cannot address the efficiency concerns advanced by its advocates. ATC cannot be competitively bid. The profit making market based incentives for efficiency and economy that are supposed to motivate a private provider do not easily align with the governments abiding interests in safety and security. Moreover, cross subsidy, which maintains geographic diversity in service provision, is not sustainable under the proposed user fee system. The labor intensive, and inherently monopolistic nature of air traffic control provision undermines effective private provision. Monopolistic, revenue-driven organizations, regardless of profit or not-for-profit status, have little incentive to keep fees at a minimum. Efficiency in a labor-intensive service necessarily consists of staff minimization strategies, which tend to be contrary to the safety principle that lies at the heart of ATC work. More importantly, as more and more private enterpris- 4 es have access to the vital air traffic control information as a result of the increased use of contractors and subcontractors, the U.S. is more exposed to the potential threat of terrorist activities. Lastly, based on a proprietary cost model and analysis of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Project Team estimates that privatization of ATC operations in the U.S. could lead to a 30% cost increase or more if the provision of equivalent levels of ATC services were provided by private contractors. In the end, once cost of training and liability expenses are appropriately taken into account, the federal government will spend more in its efforts to privatize ATC than the FAA would spend to provide the same service.

WNDI 2008

83 Airforce GLT Aff

A2 private c/p
Privatization cant solve for ATC Professor Elliott Sclar, Columbia University and The HDR Management Consulting Group. Privatization. 2003 <http://www.natca.org/assets/Documents/mediacenter/PDFPitfallsofATCPrivatization.pdf>
In general, privatization is a blunt instrument of organizational change . In many ways it is at variance with much of the general consensus in the management literature that effective organizational change is a process of continual improvement focused upon the actual work of service delivery. To make a case for privatization it is necessary to demonstrate that the problem is so extreme that incremental improvement is unworkable . Privatization proponents assert that to be the case, but they never identify the specific basis within the FAA for this conclusion. Typically, privatizations are aimed at

improving efficiency by introducing competitive behavior to a marketplace. It is clear to all parties, however, that there is no potential for competition in the air traffic control market. Air traffic control is too infrastructure dependent, and far too vital to our national interest to set up multiple competitive systems. Services cannot be rebid at any level of frequency if we hope to maintain continuity in a knowledge-dependent industry.
Privatization advocates would agree with this assessment of the inherent impossibility of inserting competition into the air traffic control market. However, they turn to general notions found in privatization theory that assert that, because private organizations can provide economic rewards to employees who further the profit or surplus generating potential of the organization, it will become more efficient in fulfilling its mission. The privatization literature also suggests that public agencies are entrenched and intractable to change. However there is also management literature that demonstrates that public agencies are as amenable to improvement as private ones as long as the problem is properly specified. Implicit in the theoretical formulation of

privatization is an assumption that efficiency will improve because customers can take their business elsewhere. The threat of the loss of business is supposed to ensure that the private provider will create a better product for the
organizations customers. But what if the private agency is to be the sole supplier? Economic incentives can quickly become a doubleedged sword cutting against the interests of the consuming public. The generation of revenue and economic rewards will not necessarily redound to better management of the ATC system. It is also important to note that the ability to generate revenue surpluses

and improved organizational efficiency are not the same. Especially when a private monopoly with less public accountability is proposed.

Privatization is ineffective in all forms Professor Elliott Sclar, Columbia University and The HDR Management Consulting Group. Privatization. 2003 http://www.natca.org/assets/Documents/mediacenter/PDFPitfallsofATCPrivatization.pdf
Since any privatization of the FAA would take the form of a single agency, there are many reasons to look critically at proposals to privatize it, rather than working to improve it. A strong case can be made that substantial

improvement in the management of the FAA will more reasonably occur through a process of internal reorganization than a wholesale switch in the organization delivering the service . This is especially true if the alternative organization will not be a market based competitive supplier of the service. Given that the base of expertise in ATC rests with the existing staff and management, the reality of any privatization will largely involve moving the same people into a new workspace to do virtually the same activities they were accomplishing prior to being privatized. A call for reorganization of an existing organization is not as dramatic as a call for privatization, but is likely to be more effective. In fact, when we take a close look at the proposed ATC system privatization through the lens of managerial efficiency, it is clear that it has little to do with solving air traffic control organizational problems. Rather, it reveals a simple ideological preference for deregulation and privatization regardless of circumstance. Privatization is central to virtually every domestic public policy proposal of the Bush Administration (except, paradoxically, air transportation safety4). It is part and parcel of the movements to privatize every public service from education to fire protection. Viewed in this light, it is clear that air traffic control inefficiency merely provides a rationale for change that is sought for other purposes . The danger in
such an ideological campaign for change is that if it succeeds and privatization moves ahead, it is not clear that the change will be synonymous with improvement in a situation vital to all Americans. It stands at least as good, if not better, a chance

of

making things worse.

WNDI 2008

84 Airforce GLT Aff

Lots of natural gas

We Have 118 years of natural gas Jasmin Melvin US natural gas supply abundant - industry report Jul 31, 2008
<http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idINN3048271520080730> WASHINGTON, July 30 (Reuters) - The United States has over 100 years worth of natural gas supplies, and forecasters have consistently low-balled the amount of the clean-burning fuel trapped in unconventional places like shale rock, an industry group said on Wednesday. Total U.S. recoverable supplies amount to 2,247 trillion cubic feet, or 118 years worth of supply at current production levels, according to a report funded by the American Clean Skies Foundation and completed by Navigant Consulting Inc. The foundation is chaired by Aubrey McClendon, the outspoken chief executive of Chesapeake Energy Corp (CHK.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the third-largest U.S. natural gas producer. "The size of these shale gas deposits is so enormous that they can no longer be overlooked," said McClendon, whose company is making big bets in shale gas plays like the Barnett Shale in Texas and the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana. More conservative estimates peg U.S recoverable natural gas supplies at 1,680 trillion cubic feet, or 88 years of supply.

So much natural gas, the prices are going down Jasmin Melvin US natural gas supply abundant - industry report Jul 31, 2008<http://in.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idINN3048271520080730>
But new technology like horizontal drilling and fracture stimulation in recent years have "liberated enormous amounts of natural gas," McClendon said. A conservative estimate for sustainable production from just the "big seven" shale plays is at least 27 billion cubic feet per day -- half of current total natural gas production, Smead said. But many unconventional natural gas plays, especially in the West, are off-limits to drilling because of a congressional ban. McClendon's Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-based company is spending $13.5 billion on drilling and leases in 2008, with the aim of being the biggest U.S. natural gas producer in coming years. Chesapeake is the third largest U.S. natural gas producer, behind BP (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) and Anadarko (APC.N: Quote, Profile, Research), according to first-quarter data. Other U.S. natural gas producers like EOG Resources Inc (EOG.N: Quote, Profile, Research), have taken a more cautious approach to securing rights to drill in unconventional shale plays. U.S. natural gas futures prices have fallen about 30 percent since the start of July, and settled at $9.248 per mmBtu on Wednesday. McClendon told Reuters he expected prices to hover in the $10/MMBtu range.

GAS NOW AP News, Study indicates abundant supply of natural gas Jul 30, 2008 < http://www.newsstar.com/news/x223020244/Study-indicates-abundant-supply-of-natural-gas> A study released Wednesday by a Washington foundation that promotes the use of natural gas indicates that the U.S. has enough supply of the fuel to last for more than a century. The study, prepared for the American Clean Skies Foundation by Chicago-based consulting firm Navigant Consulting Inc., showed that the nation has 2,247 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves. That would be an 118-year supply at 2007 production levels, said Rick Smead, the consulting group's director and a co-author of the study. He said the U.S. consumes 22 trillion cubic feet of gas per year. "There is not a resource constraint here," Smead said during a news conference in Washington. "... The gas is there. Now it depends on if the market is there." Denise Bode, the president of the American Clean Skies Foundation and a former member of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, said the study "authoritatively refutes head-on the mistaken belief that we do not have sufficient supply" of natural gas. Aubrey McClendon, the foundation's chairman and the chairman and chief executive officer of Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake Energy Corp., said that technological advancements during the past decade have given energy companies the ability to retrieve natural gas from socalled "unconventional sources" such as shale formations, tight sands and coalbed methane. Another result of that rapid development in technology is that the U.S. Energy Information Administration has in recent years underestimated the potential of natural gas retrieval from those sources, McClendon said, adding that's why the foundation undertook the study. Smead said to obtain the most current statistics for the study, a variety of approaches were used, including research through producer analyst presentations, reports in the trade press and direct outreach to producers and production-state officials. He said of the 114 producers contacted, about 60 percent responded to questions about resource size and current production.

WNDI 2008

85 Airforce GLT Aff

Natural gas clean

Natural Gas is easy to access, cheap, and clean, it will become the fuel of the future Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 20 04
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> Today, the natural gas industry is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). While FERC does not deal exclusively with natural gas issues, it is the primary rule making body with respect to the minimal regulation of the natural gas industry. Competition characterizes the natural gas industry as it is known today. The opening up of the industry, and the move away from strict regulation, has allowed for increased efficiency and technological improvements. Natural gas is now being obtained more efficiently, cheaply, and easily than ever before. However, the search for more natural gas to serve our ever growing demand requires new techniques and knowledge to obtain it from hard-to-reach places. Today, the natural gas industry has existed in this country for over 100 years, and it continues to grow. Deregulation and the move toward cleaner burning fuels have created an enormous market for natural gas across the country. New technologies are continually developed that allow Americans to use natural gas in new and exciting ways. With all of the advantages of natural gas, it is no wonder it has become the fuel of choice in this country, and throughout the world.

Natural Gas is important to decrease pollution Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 2004
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> Natural gas is an extremely important source of energy for reducing pollution and maintaining a clean and healthy environment. In addition to being a domestically abundant and secure source of energy, the use of natural gas also offers a number of environmental benefits over other sources of energy, particularly other fossil fuels. This section will discuss the environmental effects of natural gas, in terms of emissions as well as the environmental impact of the natural gas industry itself. Scroll down, or click on the links below to be transported ahead.

Natural Gas reduces smog Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 20 04
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> The use of natural gas does not contribute significantly to smog formation, as it emits low levels of nitrogen oxides, and virtually no particulate matter. For this reason, it can be used to help combat smog formation in those areas where ground level air quality is poor. The main sources of nitrogen oxides are electric utilities, motor vehicles, and industrial plants. Increased natural gas use in the electric generation sector, a shift to cleaner natural gas vehicles, or increased industrial natural gas use, could all serve to combat smog production, especially in urban centers where it is needed the most. Particularly in the summertime, when natural gas demand is lowest and smog problems are the greatest, industrial plants and electric generators could use natural gas to fuel their operations instead of other, more polluting fossil fuels. This would effectively reduce the emissions of smog causing chemicals, and result in clearer, healthier air around urban centers. For instance, a 1995 study by the Coalition for Gas-Based Environmental Solutions found that in the Northeast, smog and ozone-causing emissions could be reduced by 50 to 70 percent through the seasonal switching to natural gas by electric generators and industrial installations.

WNDI 2008

86 Airforce GLT Aff

Natural gas clean

Natural gas has multiple environmentally friendly uses Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 20 04
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> Natural gas fired electric generation, and natural gas powered industrial applications, offer a variety of environmental benefits and environmentally friendly uses, including: Fewer Emissions - combustion of natural gas, used in the generation of electricity, industrial boilers, and other applications, emits lower levels of NOx, CO2, and particulate emissions, and virtually no SO2 and mercury emissions. Natural gas can be used in place of, or in addition to, other fossil fuels, including coal, oil, or petroleum coke, which emit significantly higher levels of these pollutants. Reduced Sludge - coal fired power plants and industrial boilers that use scrubbers to reduce SO2 emissions levels generate thousands of tons of harmful sludge. Combustion of natural gas emits extremely low levels of SO2, eliminating the need for scrubbers, and reducing the amounts of sludge associated with power plants and industrial processes. Reburning - This process involves injecting natural gas into coal or oil fired boilers. The addition of natural gas to the fuel mix can result in NOx emission reductions of 50 to 70 percent, and SO2 emission reductions of 20 to 25 percent. Cogeneration - the production and use of both heat and electricity can increase the energy efficiency of electric generation systems and industrial boilers, which translates to requiring the combustion of less fuel and the emission of fewer pollutants. Natural gas is the preferred choice for new cogeneration applications. Combined Cycle Generation - Combined cycle generation units generate electricity and capture normally wasted heat energy, using it to generate more electricity. Like cogeneration applications, this increases energy efficiency, uses less fuel, and thus produces fewer emissions. Natural gas fired combined cycle generation units can be up to 60 percent energy efficient, whereas coal and oil generation units are typically only 30 to 35 percent efficient. Fuel Cells - Natural gas fuel cell technologies are in development for the generation of electricity. Fuel cells are sophisticated devices that use hydrogen to generate electricity, much like a battery. No emissions are involved in the generation of electricity from fuel cells, and natural gas, being a hydrogen rich source of fuel, can be used. Although still under development, widespread use of fuel cells could in the future significantly reduce the emissions associated with the generation of electricity.

WNDI 2008

87 Airforce GLT Aff

Natural gas clean

Natural Gas is the cleanest burning fuel The Gazette, Final Edition Rabaska project should go ahead, The Gazette, EDITORIAL / OP-ED; Pg. A16, July 16, 2007, Lexis
A proposed $840-million port for liquified natural gas, known as the Rabaska project, has passed its environmental hearing with flying colours. The Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE, reviewed the
proposal jointly with Ottawa's Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, and the study resulted in a green light. Now it's up to Quebec Environment Minister Line Beauchamp to make a recommendation to cabinet. Liquified natural gas (LNG) plants are controversial almost wherever they are proposed, and the politics of minority government might complicate the approval process for Rabaska. That's a pity, because the project - a joint venture of Gaz MEtro, Gaz de France and Enbridge Inc. - deserves to go ahead. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel. The gas now used in Quebec comes from Western Canada. The idea of Rabaska is to bring in gas from Russia and Algeria, or elsewhere by ship, condensed to one-600th of its gaseous volume, and then to reconvert it to gas and pipe it to homes and businesses. Canada's first LNG port is now under construction in New Brunswick. Another Quebec one has already been approved by the provincial government. That $1-billion project, at Gros Cacouna, about 250 kilometres east of Quebec City, is a joint effort of Petro-Canada and TransCanada Corp. The people of Gros Cacouna voted in favour of the plan in a referendum almost two years ago, and the plant is to open in 2010.

Russia will be a major source of Natural Gas sources for the US The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter, Russia will surge as a source for U.S. natural gas and nitrogen ENERGY; Vol. 77, No. 17, August 18, 2006, Lexis
Russia will surge as a source for U.S. natural gas and nitrogen. Russian-owned natural gas powerhouse Gazprom is shooting for a fourth of the U.S. market for liquefied natural gas by 2020 or so. Look for it to expand into many aspects of natural gas supply and distribution. Russian supplies will help temper rising prices of natural gas and spinoff products. For example, anhydrous ammonia sales from Russia and Ukraine are jumping: 26% of imports this
year...30% in a year or two. The downside: Politics can trump economics in Russia's energy marketing.

Amount isnt the only issue in natural gas supply, its the people controling it The Gazette (Montreal)Final EditionGros Cacouna LNG terminal on back burner, but not out ROBERT GIBBENS, Freelance, BUSINESS; Pg. B3, May 29, 2008
The $700-million Gros Cacouna liquefied natural gas terminal project backed by Petro-Canada and TransCanada Corp. may be in cold storage for lack of a supply contract, but it's not dead. Hal Kvisle, TransCanada's CEO, said yesterday there's a strong case for two LNG regasification terminals on the St. Lawrence, one at Gros Cacouna below Rivire-du-Loup, and another at Lvis, opposite Quebec City, based on projected energy market growth in Quebec, Ontario and New York. But inflation in steel, pipe, construction and many other costs have forced second thoughts about Gros Cacouna, he said after addressing the Canadian Club of Montreal. " It's not just the

long-term gas supply issue because there's plenty of natural gas, though the people controlling those supplies are naturally playing their cards astutely," he said. "We're talking to major gas companies, including Gazprom, despite its decision to be long-term gas supplier for the Rabaska terminal at Levis." Kvisle raised the
possibility Rabaska's capacity might be expanded, effectively replacing Gros Cacouna. He would not rule out TransCanada and PetroCanada becoming partners in the Rabaska consortium - now comprised of Gaz Metro, Ontario's Enbridge and Gaz de France.

WNDI 2008

88 Airforce GLT Aff

Natural gas good industry

Natural Gas makes industries more efficient Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 20 04
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> Pollutant emissions from the industrial sector and electric utilities contribute greatly to environmental problems in the United States. The use of natural gas to power both industrial boilers and processes and the generation of electricity can significantly improve the emissions profiles for these two sectors. Natural gas is becoming an increasingly important fuel in the generation of electricity. As well as providing an efficient, competitively priced fuel for the generation of electricity, the increased use of natural gas allows for the improvement in the emissions profile of the electric generation industry. According to the National Environmental Trust (NET) in their 2002 publication entitled 'Cleaning up Air Pollution from America's Power Plants', power plants in the U.S. account for 67 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 40 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 25 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 34 percent of mercury emissions. Coal fired power plants are the greatest contributors to these types of emissions. In fact, only 3 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 5 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 2 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 1 percent of mercury emissions come from non-coal fired power plants.

Natural Gas is a vital energy source Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 20 04
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> Natural Gas is a vital component of the world's supply of energy. It is one of the cleanest, safest, and most useful of all energy sources. Despite its importance, however, there are many misconceptions about natural gas. For instance, the word 'gas' itself has a variety of different uses, and meanings. When we fuel our car, we put 'gas' in it. However, the gasoline that goes into your vehicle, while a fossil fuel itself, is very different from natural gas. The 'gas' in the common barbecue is actually propane, which, while closely associated and commonly found in natural gas, is not really natural gas itself. While commonly grouped in with other fossil fuels and sources of energy, there are many characteristics of natural gas that make it unique. Below is a bit of background information about natural gas, what exactly it is, how it is formed, and how it is found in nature.

WNDI 2008

89 Airforce GLT Aff

Natural gas good-transportation

Natural gas key is Transportation Natural Gas Org. For the advancement of Natural gas. Background. 2004
<http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/background.asp> Natural gas can be used in the transportation sector to cut down on these high levels of pollution from gasoline and diesel powered cars, trucks, and buses. In fact, according to the EPA, compared to traditional vehicles, vehicles operating on compressed natural gas have reductions in carbon monoxide emissions of 90 to 97 percent, and reductions in carbon dioxide emissions of 25 percent. Nitrogen oxide emissions can be reduced by 35 to 60 percent, and other non-methane hydrocarbon emissions could be reduced by as much as 50 to 75 percent. In addition, because of the relatively simple makeup of natural gas in comparison to traditional vehicle fuels, there are fewer toxic and carcinogenic emissions from natural gas vehicles, and virtually no particulate emissions. Thus the environmentally friendly attributes of natural gas may be used in the transportation sector to reduce air pollution.