You are on page 1of 40

Space Neg

DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Index
Index..........................................................................................................................................................................................1
Index........................................................................................................................................................................1
Strategy Sheet............................................................................................................................................................................4
Strategy Sheet.........................................................................................................................................................4
Space Colonization Offense Frontline......................................................................................................................................5
Space Colonization Offense Frontline..................................................................................................................5
Space Colonization Offense Frontline......................................................................................................................................6
Space Colonization Offense Frontline..................................................................................................................6
Ext. - Space Colonization  Militarization..............................................................................................................................7

Ext. - Space Colonization  Militarization........................................................................................................7


Ext. - Space Colonization  Militarization .............................................................................................................................8

Ext. - Space Colonization  Militarization .......................................................................................................8


Ext. - Space Colonization  Diseases......................................................................................................................................9

Ext. - Space Colonization  Diseases..................................................................................................................9


Ext. - Space Colonization  Diseases....................................................................................................................................10

Ext. - Space Colonization  Diseases................................................................................................................10


Space Colonization Defense Frontline....................................................................................................................................11
Space Colonization Defense Frontline...............................................................................................................11
Space Colonization Defense Frontline....................................................................................................................................12
Space Colonization Defense Frontline...............................................................................................................12
Space Colonization Defense Frontline ...................................................................................................................................13
Space Colonization Defense Frontline ..............................................................................................................13
Ext. - No Space Colonization – Dangerous/Expensive...........................................................................................................14
Ext. - No Space Colonization – Dangerous/Expensive......................................................................................14
Ext. - No Space Colonization – No Interest............................................................................................................................15
Ext. - No Space Colonization – No Interest.......................................................................................................15
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – Technically Infeasible..............................................................................................16
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – Technically Infeasible........................................................................16
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – Bone/Muscle Loss...................................................................................................17
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – Bone/Muscle Loss..............................................................................17
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – No Inter-Stellar Travel.............................................................................................18
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – No Inter-Stellar Travel.....................................................................18
Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – No Inter-Stellar Travel.............................................................................................19

1
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – No Inter-Stellar Travel.....................................................................19


Innovation Frontline................................................................................................................................................................20
Innovation Frontline............................................................................................................................................20
Innovation Frontline................................................................................................................................................................20
Innovation Frontline............................................................................................................................................20
Innovation Frontline................................................................................................................................................................22
Innovation Frontline............................................................................................................................................22
Ext. – Economy Rocks............................................................................................................................................................23
Ext. – Economy Rocks.........................................................................................................................................23
Ext. – Alternate Causality – Bad Education............................................................................................................................24
Ext. – Alternate Causality – Bad Education......................................................................................................24
Ext. – Alternate Causality – No Workforce ...........................................................................................................................25
Ext. – Alternate Causality – No Workforce ......................................................................................................25
Counterplan 1NC.....................................................................................................................................................................26
Counterplan 1NC.................................................................................................................................................26
Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation...................................................................................................................................27
Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation..............................................................................................................27
Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation...................................................................................................................................28
Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation..............................................................................................................28
Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation...................................................................................................................................29
Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation..............................................................................................................29
Counterplan – Solvency – Cooperation/Economy..................................................................................................................30
Counterplan – Solvency – Cooperation/Economy............................................................................................30
Counterplan – A2 China Not Ready.......................................................................................................................................31
Counterplan – A2 China Not Ready..................................................................................................................31
Counterplan – A2 Kills US Business .....................................................................................................................................32
Counterplan – A2 Kills US Business .................................................................................................................32
Counterplan – A2 China Gets US Tech Secrets .....................................................................................................................33
Counterplan – A2 China Gets US Tech Secrets ...............................................................................................33
Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan......................................................................................................................................34
Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan..................................................................................................................34
Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan......................................................................................................................................35
Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan..................................................................................................................35
Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan......................................................................................................................................36
Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan..................................................................................................................36
2
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill
Politics – Solar Power Popular................................................................................................................................................37
Politics – Solar Power Popular...........................................................................................................................37
Politics – NASA Funding Partisan..........................................................................................................................................38
Politics – NASA Funding Partisan.....................................................................................................................38
Politics – NASA Funding Unpopular......................................................................................................................................39
Politics – NASA Funding Unpopular.................................................................................................................39
Politics – Solar Power Unpopular...........................................................................................................................................40
Politics – Solar Power Unpopular......................................................................................................................40

3
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Strategy Sheet
In my opinion the best strategy is to go for the counterplan, which is to have the US lift commercial space
technology restrictions with a net benefit of politics. Currently, the United States won’t share any of its
technology with China, which angers not only China but other nations cooperating with China, like the
EU (a solvency deficit to the plan even if you don’t go for the counterplan). There are also a lot of good
cards on why these restrictions hurt the American economy and the global economy because they inhibit
innovation. That means the counterplan would solve all of case, and it shouldn’t be hard to win politics
links based off of alternative energy incentives.
The file contains frontlines to both advantages, and so space colonization bad IS an option, although in
my opinion, not a good one, especially since there are only like 3 reasons.
Yay politics
Toodles
Risha

4
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Space Colonization Offense Frontline

1. Space exploration will cause environmental exploitation, nuclear annihilation, arms races, and
epidemics
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)
We are now poised to take the bad seed of greed, environmental exploitation and war into space. Having shown such enormous
disregard for our own planet Earth, the so-called "visionaries" and "explorers" are now ready to rape and pillage the heavens.
Countless launches of nuclear materials, using rockets that regularly blow up on the launch pad, will seriously jeopardize life on Earth.
Returning potentially bacteria-laden space materials back to Earth, without any real plans for containment and monitoring, could
create new epidemics for us. The possibility of an expanding nuclear-powered arms race in space will certainly have serious
ecological and political ramifications as well. The effort to deny years of consensus around international space law will create new
global conflicts and confrontations.

2. Militarization
A. Space exploration will inevitably lead to space militarization
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)
The Pentagon, through the U.S. Space Command, is working hard to ensure that the space corridor will remain open and free for
private corporate interests. Weapon systems such as nuclear powered lasers and anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons are now being
funded, researched, and tested in the U.S. It will only be a matter of time until deployment of space based weapons will follow. In
the Space Command’s document, Vision for 2020, they state that "Historically, military forces have evolved to protect national
interests and investments – both military and economic. During the rise of sea commerce, nations built navies to protect and
enhance their commercial interests. …The control of space will encompass protecting U.S. military, civil and commercial
investments in space…. Control of space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium,
and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required." A parallel, military highway will be created between the Earth and the
planets beyond. Documents commissioned by the U.S. Congress suggest that U.S. military bases on the Moon will enable the U.S.
to control access to and from the planet Earth. The logo of the U.S. Space Command is "Master of Space."

B. Space Militarization is destabilizing and risks catastrophic war


Mitchell 01
(Gordon, Kevin Ayotte and David Cram Helwich, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Debate at University of Pittsburgh, Teaching Fellows in the
Department of Communications at University of Pittsburgh, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defense #6, “Missile Defence: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a
Crossroads”, July, http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/bmd/no6_paper.html)
the presence of space weapons…will result in the
A buildup of space weapons might begin with noble intentions of 'peace through strength' deterrence, but this rationale glosses over the tendency that '…

increased likelihood of their use'.33 This drift toward usage is strengthened by a strategic fact elucidated by Frank Barnaby: when it comes to arming the heavens, 'anti-ballistic missiles and anti-satellite warfare technologies go hand-in-
hand'.34 The interlocking nature of offense and defense in military space technology stems from the inherent 'dual capability' of spaceborne weapon components. As Marc Vidricaire, Delegation of Canada to the UN Conference on Disarmament, explains: 'If you want
to intercept something in space, you could use the same capability to target something on land'. 35 To the extent that ballistic missile interceptors based in space can knock out enemy missiles in mid-flight, such interceptors can also be used as orbiting 'Death Stars',

capable of sending munitions hurtling through the Earth's atmosphere. The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic
calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would
enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious

seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's
flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics,

Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer
multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable'.36

projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible
effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can

do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size!'. 37 In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace,
defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-

grilled people'.38 Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack
would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons. An accidental war sparked by a
computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

5
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Space Colonization Offense Frontline

3. Diseases
A. Space exploration will lead to the spread of pathogenic viruses through biohazardous land samples
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

Potential dangers do exist though. Barry DiGregorio, author and founder of the International Committee Against Mars Sample Return,
has written that "…any Martian samples returned to Earth must be treated as biohazardous material until proven otherwise." At the
present time NASA has taken no action to create a special facility to handle space sample returns. On March 6, 1997 a report issued
by the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that such a facility should be operational at least two
years prior to launch of a Mars Sample Return mission. Reminding us of the Spanish exploration of the Americas, and the smallpox
virus they carried that killed thousands of indigenous people, DiGregorio warns that the Mars samples could "contain pathogenic
viruses or bacteria." There are vast deposits of mineral resources like magnesium and cobalt believed to be on Mars. In June of 1997,
NASA announced plans for manned mining colonies on Mars, expected around 2007-2009. The mining colonies, NASA says, would
be powered by nuclear reactors launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida.

B. Extinction
Daswani, 96 (Kavita, South China Morning Post, 1/4, lexis)

Despite the importance of the discovery of the "facilitating" cell, it is not what Dr Ben-Abraham wants to talk about. There is a much
more pressing medical crisis at hand - one he believes the world must be alerted to: the possibility of a virus deadlier than HIV. If this
makes Dr Ben-Abraham sound like a prophet of doom, then he makes no apology for it. AIDS, the Ebola outbreak which killed more
than 100 people in Africa last year, the flu epidemic that has now affected 200,000 in the former Soviet Union - they are all, according
to Dr Ben-Abraham, the "tip of the iceberg". Two decades of intensive study and research in the field of virology have convinced him
of one thing: in place of natural and man-made disasters or nuclear warfare, humanity could face extinction because of a single virus,
deadlier than HIV. "An airborne virus is a lively, complex and dangerous organism," he said. "It can come from a rare animal or from
anywhere and can mutate constantly. If there is no cure, it affects one person and then there is a chain reaction and it is unstoppable. It
is a tragedy waiting to happen." That may sound like a far-fetched plot for a Hollywood film, but Dr Ben -Abraham said history has
already proven his theory. Fifteen years ago, few could have predicted the impact of AIDS on the world. Ebola has had sporadic
outbreaks over the past 20 years and the only way the deadly virus - which turns internal organs into liquid - could be contained was
because it was killed before it had a chance to spread. Imagine, he says, if it was closer to home: an outbreak of that scale in London,
New York or Hong Kong. It could happen anytime in the next 20 years - theoretically, it could happen tomorrow. The shock of the
AIDS epidemic has prompted virus experts to admit "that something new is indeed happening and that the threat of a deadly viral
outbreak is imminent", said Joshua Lederberg of the Rockefeller University in New York, at a recent conference. He added that the
problem was "very serious and is getting worse". Dr Ben-Abraham said: "Nature isn't benign. The survival of the human species is
not a preordained evolutionary programme. Abundant sources of genetic variation exist for viruses to learn how to mutate and evade
the immune system." He cites the 1968 Hong Kong flu outbreak as an example of how viruses have outsmarted human intelligence.
And as new "mega-cities" are being developed in the Third World and rainforests are destroyed, disease-carrying animals and insects
are forced into areas of human habitation. "This raises the very real possibility that lethal, mysterious viruses would, for the first time,
infect humanity at a large scale and imperil the survival of the human race," he said.

6
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization  Militarization

Space travel and colonization allows for the unchecked nuclearization of space
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

Nuclear power has become the power source of choice for NASA. Not only has NASA, and the Department of Energy (DoE), been
promoting the use of nuclear power for on-board generators for deep space missions, but there is growing evidence that the space
exploration and exploitation "adventure" will soon be awash in nuclear materials. According to Marshall Savage, the founder of the
First Millennial Foundation (a pro-space colonization organization), "We really can’t mess up the Moon, either by mining it or
building nuclear power plants. We can ruthlessly strip mine the surface of the Moon for centuries and it will be hard to tell we’ve even
been there. There is no reason why we cannot build nuclear power plants on the Moon’s surface with impunity. Equipped with
limitless nuclear, the lunar civilization will be capable of prodigious rates of economic growth." One cannot help but wonder what
would happen to the poor Moon miner who becomes contaminated by radioactive dust after removing his irradiated space suit inside
the lunar habitat.
There is a growing call as well for the nuclear rocket to Mars. Already work is underway on the project at Los Alamos Labs in New
Mexico and at the University of Florida Nuclear Engineering Department. In his Space News op-ed called Nuclear Propulsion to
Mars, aerospace industry engineer Robert Kleinberger states that the nuclear rocket "could be used for defending U.S. space systems,
reboosting the International Space Station, returning to the Moon for exploration or mining, and for exploring and opening the inner
solar system to scientific research. The nuclear vehicle could even assist in the eventual colonization of Mars." In fact, there is such a
growing demand for plutonium for "space projects" that the DoE is now undertaking an internal review of its production process. The
DoE is considering re-opening plutonium processing lines at such facilities as Hanford in Washington state, a site that has created
enormous contamination during its years of bomb making.

Space exploration and colonization sparks militarization and a global arms race
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

But there are obstacles to U.S. space "dominance". Present international space law speaks against the notion of U.S. space control. The
Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by the U.S. and 90 other countries, affirms "the peaceful purposes" of outer space and forbids
"weapons of mass destruction" from being deployed in space. This same space law also declares that all interplanetary bodies belong
to the common good. As NASA lands on the moon and Mars and explores other planets they are finding gold, cobalt, magnesium,
helium 3 and other rich resources. Plans are now underway to place mining colonies on these bodies. The U.S. is now exploring ways
to circumvent international space law in order to "exploit" these planetary bodies so that corporate interests may secure the enormous
financial benefits expected from this Mining the Sky as is described by NASA scientist John Lewis in his book by the same title.
The Columbus mythology is often invoked to describe our "manifest destiny" as it relates to space exploration and colonization. The
noble explorer theme is used to cover the more practical notion of profits to be made in regards to space. There is big money to be
made building and launching rockets. There is money to be made building and launching satellites. There is money and power to be
derived by "controlling" space. And there is money to be made mining the sky. Another obstacle exists though. If the U.S. can
"control" space, so might another nation. Thus we have the early stages of an arms race in space. How will France, Russia, China or
any other nation respond as the U.S. consolidates its "control" of space?
In order to ensure that the Pentagon maintains its current space military superiority the U.S. Space Command is now developing new
war fighting technologies like the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Anti-satellite weapons (ASATS) as well as space based laser
weapons. Star Wars is alive and well. Recent efforts to move toward early deployment of the BMD system, which could easily be
used for offensive purposes, is expected to break the 1972 ABM Treaty as well as the Outer Space Treaty.

7
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization  Militarization


Space colonization increases nuclear production and arms races
Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 1999 (Bruce K.,
“Space Exploration and Exploitation,” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/scandm.htm)

Nuclear power in space becomes a key ingredient in the plans for space colonization and domination. Nuclear power is seen by NASA
as an appropriate power source for interplanetary missions. Nuclear rockets are envisioned for trips to Mars and nuclear powered
mining colonies are planned for the moon and Mars.
At the same time the U.S. Space Command sees nuclear power as the primary source for the enormous amounts of power generation
that will be required for space weapons. The Department of Energy (DoE) laboratories throughout the U.S., casting about for a new
role as the need for more nuclear weapons diminishes, views space as a great new opportunity for their on-going nuclear production
work. Labs like Hanford (Washington state); Savannah River Plant (South Carolina); Los Alamos (New Mexico); Lawrence
Livermore (California); and INEL (Idaho) are already heavily involved in space nuclear power production efforts.
As we prepare to move into the 21st century it is crucial for peace and environmental activists to view space as an area of concern.
The enormous expenditures of our tax revenues for space must be questioned. The morality and ethics of moving an arms race into
space must be vigorously debated. The environmental consequences of U.S. space policy must be explored and resisted.
But most importantly, the question of the kind of seed we carry from earth into the heavens must be considered by the people of our
planet. Are we to allow the U.S., and other nations, to carry the bad seed of warfare, greed, exploitation and environmental
contamination into space? The Columbus mythology does indeed fit. Only it reminds us that the single mindedness that pursues
profits and power in the "New World" will also carry grave implications for centuries to come. Now is our brief chance in history to
prevent a great wrong from occurring. Now is the time that we must organize a global call to resist the nuclearization and
weaponization of space. We must make space for peace.

8
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization  Diseases

Space travel and exploration lead to decreased system immunity through stresses of spaceflight
NASA 2004 (Dolores Beasley and William Jeffs, Release 04-320, “Study Suggests Spaceflight May Decrease Human Immunity,”
September 29, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/sep/HQ_04320_immunity.html)

A NASA-funded study has found the human body's ability to fight off disease may be decreased by spaceflight. The effect may even
linger after an astronaut's return to Earth following long flights. In addition to the conditions experienced by astronauts in flight, the
stresses experienced before launch and after landing also may contribute to a decrease in immunity. Results of the study were recently
published in "Brain, Behavior, and Immunity." The results may help researchers better understand the affects of spaceflight on the
human immune response. They may also provide new insights to ensure the health, safety and performance of International Space
Station crewmembers and future spacefarers on extended missions. "Astronauts live and work in a relatively crowded and stressful
environment," said Duane Pierson, the study's principal investigator and NASA Senior Microbiologist at Johnson Space Center,
Houston. "Stresses integral to spaceflight can adversely affect astronaut health by impairing the human immune response. Our study
suggests these effects may increase as mission duration and mission activity demands increase," he added.
The white blood cell count provides a clue to the presence of illness. The five main types of white cells work together to protect the
body by fighting infection and attacking foreign material. The most prevalent white blood cells are called neutrophils.
From 1999 to 2002, scientists from NASA, Enterprise Advisory Services, Inc., of Houston, and the Boston University School of
Medicine compared neutrophil functions in 25 astronauts. They made comparisons after five-day Space Shuttle missions and after
nine to 11 day missions. Researchers found the number of neutrophils increased by 85 percent at landing compared to preflight levels.
Healthy ground control subjects, who did not fly, exhibited no more than a two percent increase. Researchers also discovered
functions performed by these cells, specifically ingestion and destruction of microorganisms, are affected by factors associated with
spaceflight. The effect becomes more pronounced during longer missions. The increase in astronaut neutrophil numbers resulted in a
corresponding increase (more than 50 percent) in total white blood cell counts at landing. The increase is a consistent consequence of
stress.
Pierson emphasized that "no astronauts in the study became ill; however, longer exploration missions may result in clinical
manifestations of decreased immune response." Researchers concluded the general effect of spaceflight, pre- and post flight-related
stress decreases the ability of crewmembers' neutrophils to destroy microbial invaders. This finding suggests crewmembers returning
from longer missions may be briefly more susceptible to infections than before launch, because these cells are not as efficient in
ingesting and destroying infectious agents.

Space travel increases risk for AIDS and cancer through immunodeficiency risks
Sastry, assistant professor of experimental veterinary pathology, 2001 (Dr. Jaqannadha K., Texas Medical Center News (Ronda
Wendler), "Studies on Cell-Mediated Immunity Against Immune Disorders,” http://www.tmc.edu/tmcnews/10_15_01/page_02.html)

Space travel can cause reduced immunity which leads to increased risk for infections. Immunodeficiency is also the basis for several
cancers and AIDS. This project applied the ground-based microgravity technology developed by NASA to help understand immune
disorders such as cancer and AIDS. This line of study may eventually help in the design of treatments and vaccines for these
conditions.

9
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization  Diseases

Space harbors deadly viruses in the debris streams of comets


Britt, Senior Space Writer, 2000 (Robert Roy, “Germs from Outer Space! Researchers Say Flu Bugs Rain Down from Beyond,”
January 21, http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/flu_in_space_000121.html)

Maybe not. It could be that increasingly frequent sunspots are driving the virus out of the stratosphere and into your body.So say Sir
Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe of the University of Wales at Cardiff. And while there is much doubt by many other
scientists that the flu comes from space, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe are generating a lot of interest with their idea.
In a new paper, to be published in an upcoming issue of the Indian journal Current Science, the researchers present data that show how
previous periods of high sunspot activity coincided with flu pandemics (large-scale epidemics). A roughly 11-year cycle of solar
activity is increasing now and is expected to peak soon, other scientists agree. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe say we can expect another
flu pandemic to accompany the solar peak "within weeks." By that claim, perhaps debate over their research will soon be settled.
Injecting the flu into our atmosphere The researchers say that the virus, or a trigger that causes it, is deposited throughout space by
dust in the debris stream of comets, which are thought by many researchers to harbor organic material. As Earth passes through the
stream, dust (and perhaps the virus) enters our atmosphere, where it can lodge for two decades or more, until gravity pulls it down.

10
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Space Colonization Defense Frontline

1. Space exploration is expensive, time consuming, and dangerous


Robertson, freelance space industry journalist, 2006 (Donald F., “Space Exploration: A Reality Check,”
March 6, http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html)

Two largely unquestioned assumptions long ago took root within the space community. As we prepare to voyage back to Earth’s
Moon and on to Mars, it is time to question them both.
The first assumption is that exploring the Moon, Mars, or any part of the solar system, can be accomplished in a generation or two and
with limited loss of life. The second is that we can use robots to successfully understand another world. Both assumptions are almost
certainly wrong, yet many important elements of our civil space program are based on one or both of them being correct.
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, even within the space community most people don’t have a clue how “mind-boggingly big space
really is.” Most of the major worlds in the solar system have surface areas at least as large as terrestrial continents — a few are much
larger — and every one of them is unremittingly hostile to human life. Learning to travel confidently through former President John F.
Kennedy’s “this new ocean” will be difficult, expensive, time-consuming and dangerous.

2. The land is unhabitable, and scientists refuse to address technical issues


Bell, former space scientist and Adjunct Professor for Planetary Science at the Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics
& Planetology at the University of Hawaii, 2005 (Jeffrey F., “The Dream Palace of the Space Cadets,” Nov.25,
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html)

Unfortunately, the new generation of organizations like the Space Frontier Foundation and the Mars Society and even the staid
National Space Society mostly lack something that the old L-5 Society and Space Studies Institute had: technical sophistication.
Just look at Bob Zubrin's vision of Mars colonization. Nowhere in Zubrin's books is there the kind of detailed engineering design for
Mars colonies that the O'Neillians produced for their L-5 colonies. The problems of sustaining human life on Mars are dismissed after
superficial discussions devoid of any hard numbers.
And there are obvious problems with colonizing Mars. The first one is that it gets incredibly cold there - probably down to -130C on
winter nights. Every robot Mars probe has used small slugs of Pu-238 to keep its batteries from freezing at night.
And there is air on Mars - not enough to breathe, but enough to conduct heat. The Martian regolith will not be the perfect insulator that
the Moon's is. Thermal control on Mars will not be simply a matter of adding layers of aluminum foil to reflect the sun. Bases and
rovers will need to be insulated and heated. And how do you keep a human in a spacesuit warm in this climate?
And Mars has permafrost - at least in some places and those places are the ones to colonize. How do we keep the heat leaking out
from our habitat or farm greenhouse into the ground from heating up the ice and melting or subliming it away? This is a severe
problem in permafrost areas of the Earth - how bad will it be on Mars? Zubrin even proposes underground habitats. These will be in direct contact
with the cold subsoil or bedrock which will suck heat out at a rapid rate.
If Gerard O'Neill was still alive and advocating Mars colonies, he would be doing some basic thermal transfer calculations to see how bad the Martian cold problem
really is. He would be figuring out how big a fission reactor to send along to keep the colony warm and how often its core will need to be replenished by fresh U-235
from Earth. He would even have a rough number for the amount of Pu-238 everyone will have to carry in their spacesuit backpacks.
Bob Zubrin is perfectly competent to do these calculations since he has a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering. But you never see this kind of
hard engineering analysis from the Mars Society. Instead, we get propaganda stunts like the Devon Island "Mars Base" which is only
manned during the peak of the Arctic summer when the climate is tropical compared with that of Mars. Another thing you never see
from the Mars Society is a realistic discussion of what would happen to the human body in the low Martian gravity. Zubrin has discussed
at length the need for artificial spin gravity on the 6 month trip to Mars. But he assumes that the problem ends once the astronauts land on Mars. The problem of bone
loss in a 0.38g field on Mars for ~18 months is completely ignored. When I read Zubrin's book The Case For Mars, I was so intrigued by this
surprising omission that I consulted a friend who is a space medic at JSC. He tells me that this issue was once discussed at a
conference of medical doctors who had actually worked with the long-term residents of Mir and ISS. NONE of these experts thought
that humans could adapt permanently to Mars gravity!

11
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Space Colonization Defense Frontline


3. Lack of human interest and funding prevents colonization
Hobby Space 2005 (“Solar Sci-Fi,” January 25, http://www.hobbyspace.com/SolarSciFi/essay.html)

A paradox of the post-Moon Race era is that while interest and support of the U.S. public for space exploration collapsed, the
popularity of space-based science fiction literally sky-rocketed. Star Trek, Star Wars, Close Encounters of Third Kind, ET, and other
such movie and television space adventures have enjoyed huge success since the early 1970's, when, ironically, the Apollo project
ended without a follow-on program of lunar development and Mars exploration. Polls continue to show little support for an ambitious
space program and NASA's budget has fallen to a quarter of it's high in the 1960s. Even among many hard-core sci-fi addicts and
Trekkers, the interest in current space exploration is remarkably low.
A number of reasons for this come to mind: Space travel in Sci-fi is easy and cheap. The Enterprise can take hundreds of people to
another star as easily as a 747 goes from New York to London. An Apollo Moonshot, on the other hand, cost hundreds of millions of
dollars to send three people to the moon in a small, cramped pod, which was the only thing leftover from a skyskraper tall rocket.
It is difficult to picture oneself ever riding in a small capsule on top of a throw-away missile while it's easy to imagine walking on the
roomy bridge of the Enterprise. The huge costs seemed extravagent during a period of so much economic and social turmoil in the US.
Sci-Fi adventures cost only the price of a theater ticket or were free on the tube. The Space Shuttle was disappointingly expensive and
complicated, involving thousands of support staff to fly only a few times a year. Hardly the DC-3 of space as promised.
Space Sci-Fi usually involves faster-than-light travel that makes accessable a whole galaxy of amazing planets and alien civilizations.
Meanwhile, our unmanned planetary explorers showed a solar system of cratered, desolate, and seemingly lifeless worlds with little
appeal.

4. Bone, muscle, and cardiovascular deterioration through exposure to microgravity deters people from
colonizing space
CNN 2000 (“The Science of the International Space Station,” December 26,
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/12/26/part.two/index.html)
One of the priorities for NASA is to use the ISS to study what microgravity does to people. Four decades of human space travel show
that it weakens the bones, the muscles and even the cardiovascular system. Some astronauts experience nausea or have trouble
sleeping. Uri says the goal of this new research is to find ways to make space a friendlier place to live. "Some of the earlier things
we're going to be studying is understanding the mechanisms of how those changes actually occur," he says. "So far we've observed
what the changes are and now we need to know what the mechanisms are so we can develop counter measures to prevent those
changes."

5. Dangerous particles of dust and backwards travel prevent faster-than-light travel


BBC 2001
(“Travelling to the Stars: Faster-than-Light-Travel,” January 19, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A505630)

All of the above technologies could either practically or theoretically accelerate spacecraft to enormous speeds. However a constraint
exists. Nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum. Even if it was possible to travel at the speed of light, it could still take
hundreds of years to reach even relatively close stars. We might also start to travel backwards in time. A scary prospect for some. For
the time being, faster-than-light travel remains in the realms of fiction.
Making craft go faster will reduce the time required greatly, but the risks will increase. You don't even want to hit a tiny, microscopic
particle of dust when travelling at a few million kilometres per hour, not to mention an asteroid. Particle detection mechanisms will
have to be very sophisticated indeed.

12
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Space Colonization Defense Frontline


6. Space colonization is not inevitable—public biases against space travel prevent support and funding
The Space Review 2005 (Stephen Ashworth, “The mission, the business, and the tandem (part 1),” January 31,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/312/1)

How realistic is this model? If governments are to deliver sustainable progress in space, then at the very least the goal of interplanetary
civilization will have to be deeply embedded in their institutional psyches—as deeply as, say, such goals as creating the welfare state,
or defeating Hitler, or demonstrating falling unemployment and rising prosperity. At present, there is no sign of this happening. The
intellectual ideal of civilization in space remains the special preserve of a minority of visionaries, rather than the popular passion of
society as a whole. To politicians, manned spaceflight remains a hobby for rich countries, not part of their core business: pure
exploration, not economic growth. Meanwhile, the space agencies are offering to spend large amounts of other people’s money
without submitting their work to the disciplines of either international competition or the commercial market.
Under these circumstances, the hope that the continuous application of sizeable government space budgets will lead incrementally and
inevitably to permanent extraterrestrial settlements is very much a hostage to fortune. This hope is vulnerable to the kind of changing
circumstances that closed off the potential of the Apollo-Saturn system for evolutionary growth and doomed it to cancellation (a
winged flyback version of the Saturn first stage was designed, and lunar bases sketched out). It is vulnerable to the kind of
bureaucratic inefficiency which wasted many tens of billions of dollars, rubles, and euros on the International Space Station, while
gaining us no progress whatsoever towards making spaceflight more affordable or sustainable, whether through opening up the key
extraterrestrial resources of asteroidal ice and solar power, or through making spaceflight accessible to the public at an economical
price, or even through demonstrating artificial gravity or medical methods of adaptation to weightlessness.

13
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - No Space Colonization – Dangerous/Expensive

Space exploration and colonization will be extremely dangerous and costly


Robertson, freelance space industry journalist, 2006 (Donald F., “Space Exploration: A Reality Check,”
March 6, http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive06/RobertsonOpEd_030606.html)

Dramatic increases in exploration funding are not likely in the foreseeable future. If we are going to make progress toward truly
understanding the Moon and Mars, we must send scientists while staying close to existing budgets. Whatever the dangers, we must
proceed with our existing tools and technologies.
Dangerous it will be. Detailed exploration, let alone settlement, of nearby worlds will be the single most difficult task humanity has
ever tackled. Most likely, it will take many hundreds, or even thousands, of years. Our first attempts to establish a base on Earth’s
Moon or Mars may well fail. As on the oceans, many people will die: we cannot insist on levels of safety that make the exercise
technically impractical or unaffordable.

14
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - No Space Colonization – No Interest

Colonization of space won’t happen—General biases and lack of political funding prevent efforts
Britt, Senior Space Writer, 2001 (Robert Roy, “Survival of the Elitist: BIoterrorism May Spur Space Colonies,” October 30,
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/)

Yet Hawking's comments come at a time when plans are already being discussed to create a modern Noah's Ark to escape the planet
and preserve humanity. Saving yourself or protecting your progeny, however, will not come cheap.
One idea for an Ark is actually called ARC, for the Alliance to Rescue Civilization. And if it flies, everything from DNA to important
architectural drawings would make their way to the Moon, a futuristic spaceport, or some other safe haven. A select group of
individuals would go, too, to maintain the monumental archive and to round out, with live bodies, what is billed as a way to save
civilization no matter what happens on Earth.
It's the sort of scheme that since the dawn of the nuclear age has driven the desire to colonize space.
Yet the desire has long been scoffed at, generating what proponents acknowledge as a significant societal giggle factor tied to the sci-
fi images conjured by such an endeavor. These proponents have fought an uphill political and financial battle to get the notion of
sending humans beyond Earth orbit back on NASA's agenda. They have yet to succeed. The space agency has no firm plans to send
astronauts beyond the International Space Station. So in recent years, many of the movement's most vocal supporters have given up on
NASA. Private enterprise is the only hope, they say, and the almighty dollar will drive any serious effort to put people on the Moon,

15
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – Technically Infeasible

Space colonization isn’t possible—Advocates fail to consider practical technical and financial issues
Bell, former space scientist and Adjunct Professor for Planetary Science at the Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics
& Planetology at the University of Hawaii, 2005 (Jeffrey F., “The Dream Palace of the Space Cadets,” Nov.25,
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html)

Actually, I wasn't laughing then. I never laugh while reading foolish online discussions about space. My reaction is intense frustration.
It is frustrating to find that many Space Cadets are shockingly ignorant about space technology - and even more frustrating that the
average level of ignorance seems to get worse with every passing year.
On the face of it this makes no sense. The first thing you do when you become obsessed with something is study it obsessively, right?
And 21st century Space Cadets don't have to plow through yellowing books in college engineering libraries like I did in the 1970s -
today the basic facts are there at web sites run by people like Mark Wade and Marcus Lindroos who make extraordinary efforts to dig
out obscure information. But for years now, I have been meeting people who are both wildly enthusiastic about space travel as a broad
intellectual concept and completely ignorant of the practical details. They don't know how rocket engines work. They don't know the
basics of orbital mechanics. They don't know the facts (or the uncertainties) about the dangers of radiation and microgravity. Even
worse, they have no idea how much space travel costs, or how these costs compare to other areas of human activity like war or
mountain-climbing. They think that Will is all you need to colonize the solar system- they have no concept of the political, financial,
and technological investment that it would take. But the small fraction of the pro-space community I meet in person seems tame
compared to the internet space chat community. One regularly finds long discussion threads on politically impossible ideas like a one-
way Mars suicide mission, financially impossible ideas like building spaceships on the Moon, and technically impossible ideas like
ion-powered space blimps. In all these discussions, the few informed people who try to point out the massive problems with these
ideas are swamped by a much larger number of enthusiasts who clearly don't know enough basic science or engineering to even
understand the issues. I get even more frustrated when I visit the web sites of the various space advocacy groups. They are a pale
shadow of the L-5 Society and the Space Studies Institute (both of which I joined in the 1970s). Many of these organizations seem to
live in a dream palace of their own creation that has no relationship to the real world at all.

16
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – Bone/Muscle Loss


Space travel leads to extensive muscle atrophy and bone deterioration in reduced-gravity environments –
counter-measures can’t solve
Potember, Bryden, and Shapiro, Researchers for the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University, 2001 (Dr.
Richard S., Dr. Wayne A., and Dr. Jay R., “Analysis of bone metabolism biomarkers and countermeasures using time of flight mass
spectrometry,”

Exposure to reduced gravity during space travel profoundly alters the loads placed on bone and muscle. Astronauts lose muscle mass
and strength while in space. Exercise countermeasures are so important that other activities may not be given enough time. The data
from humans in space indicates a very rapid atrophy of skeletal muscle. After 5- day flights, mean cross-sectional areas of muscle
fibers were 11 and 24% smaller in type I and II fibers. These changes occurred even though countermeasures were undertaken by
astronauts.
There is a need to measure pharmacological, hormonal and growth factor biomarkers and to develop in-depth knowledge of
molecular mechanisms for complex interplay between muscle atrophy and bone demineralization. We are evaluating the technical
feasibility for evaluating the following biomarkers by TOF-MS: growth hormone, insulin-like growth factors (IGF-I),
glucocorticoids: cortisol (which may play a central role in the early stages of muscle atrophy), and 3-methylhistidine (breakdown
product of muscle proteins). Exposure to microgravity rapidly leads to osteopenia due to increased bone resorption and decreased
bone formation. Studies with Skylab and Russian crews demonstrated 1.0-1.6%/month mean losses of bone mass from the spine,
femur, neck, and pelvis, increasing the risk of fracture. Also of concern is the lack of evidence that bone loss is fully reversible on
return to earth. Progress in developing effective countermeasures to demineralization depends on increased understanding of how the
complex biochemical systems that modulate bone turnover response to pharmacological and stress-induced interventions.

17
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – No Inter-Stellar Travel

Inability to travel faster than light makes space colonization impossible—travel to habitable planets will
take centuries
ISTF no date given (Innovative Technologies from Science Fiction, “Colonization of Space,”
http://www.itsf.org/brochure/longduration.html)

As we too often forget, the marvels of science used in science-fiction stories are not limited to the domains of physics or technology,
but also include products of life science. As an example, imagine mankind has finally located the ready-to-colonize, Earth-like planet
it has always dreamed of. This planet is orbiting a nice little star, a bunch of light years away from our blue planet. The interstellar
ship is ready, but there is just one little problem. As faster-than-light travel is not available in this not so hypothetical universe, the trip
will take between fifty and one hundred years. The members of the crew will be more than eighty when they reach their destination.
Life science can easily solve this first problem by giving human beings a longer life expectancy.
However, even a science-fiction writer would not dare to imagine that the small crew would remain sane after spending a century
crammed into a space ship cruising in the middle of nowhere. Once more, life science comes to the rescue. As in the novels "2001: A
Space Odyssey" (Arthur C. Clarke) or "The Legacy of Heorot" (Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle and Steven Barnes), the crew can be put
into hibernation or frozen sleep until they reach their destination. In addition to the crew, the frozen cargo of the ship will also include
all the plants and animals (embryos) that will be necessary for these new settlers to set up their colony.

18
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. - Space Colonization Impossible – No Inter-Stellar Travel

Faster-than-light travel is impossible—violates the theory of causality


Hinson, Research Analyst at the Center for Naval Analysis, 2003
(Jason W., “Relativity and FTL Travel,” April 3, http://www.faqs.org/faqs/star-trek/relativity_FTL/part4/)

Chapter 8: The Second Problem: FTL, Causality, and Unsolvable Paradoxes


In this section we will explore a problem with FTL travel that doesn't always seem to get consideration. The problem involves ones
ability to violate causality in certain frames of reference with the use of FTL travel. While this in itself doesn't necessarily make FTL
travel impossible, the ability to go further and produce an unsolvable paradox would make the FTLtravel prospect logically self
contradictory. So, I will start by discussing the meaning of causality and the problems of an unsolvable paradox. I will then try to
show how any form of FTL travel will produce violation of the causality principle. Finally, I will explain how, without special
provisions being in place, FTL travel can go further to produce an unsolvable paradox.
8.1 What is Meant Here by Causality and Unsolvable Paradoxes The principle of causality is fairly straight forward. According to
causality, if there is some effect which is produced by some cause, then the cause must precede the effect. So, if for some observer (in
some frame of reference) an effect truly happens before its cause occurs, then causality is violated for that observer. Now, recall our
discussion in Section 1.1 concerning when occurrences happen in a frame of reference. There I took a moment to explain that when I
talk about the order of events in some frame of reference, I mean their actual order, and not necessarily the order in which they are
seen. One can imagine a situation whereby I could first receive light from the effect and later receive light from the cause. However,
This might be because the effect is simply much closer to me than the cause (so that light takes less time to travel from the effect I
observer, and I see it first). After I take into account the time it took the light to travel from each event, then I will find the order in
which the events truly occurred, and this will determine whether or not there is a true violation of causality in my frame. This true
violation of causality is what I will be talking about, NOT some trick concerning when observers see events, but a concept concerning
the actual order of the events in some frame of reference.
Now, one can argue that the idea of causality violation doesn't necessarily destroy logic. The idea seems odd--to have an effect come
first, and then have the cause occur--but it doesn't have to produce a self-contradictory situation. An unsolvable paradox, however, is a
self-contradictory situation. It is a situation which logically forbids itself from being. Thus, when one shows that a particular set of
circumstances allows for an unsolvable paradox, then one can argue that those circumstances must logically be impossible.

Faster-than-light space travel is impossible—it violates the theory of special relativity


Wired News 2003
(Brian McWilliams, “Clark Campaigns at Light Speed,” September 30, http://www.wired.com/news/politics/1,60629-0.html)

Gary Melnick, a senior astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said Clark's faith in the possibility of
faster-than-light, or FTL, travel was "probably based more on his imagination than on physics."
While Clark's belief may stem from his knowledge of sophisticated military projects, there's no evidence to suggest that humans can
exceed the speed of light, said Melnick. In fact, considerable evidence posits that FTL travel is impossible, he said.
"Even if Clark becomes president, I doubt it would be within his powers to repeal the powers of physics," said Melnick, whose
research has focused on interstellar clouds and the formation of stars and planets.
Einstein's theory of special relativity says that time slows down as an object approaches the speed of light. Some scientists say that
FTL travel therefore implies time travel, or being able to travel to the future or the past.

19
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Innovation Frontline
1. The United States is still light years ahead of any other country in innovation
Science Daily, 6/13/08, “US Still Leads The World In Science And Technology”
Despite perceptions that the nation is losing its competitive edge, the United States remains the dominant leader in science and
technology worldwide, according to a new RAND Corporation study.
The United States accounts for 40 percent of the total world's spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of
the world's Nobel Prize winners and is home to three-quarters of the world's top 40 universities.
An inflow of foreign students in the sciences -- as well as scientists and engineers from overseas -- has helped the United States build
and maintain its worldwide lead, even as many other nations increase their spending on research and development. Continuing this
flow of foreign-born talent is critical to helping the United States maintain its lead, according to the study.
"Much of the concern about the United States losing its edge as the world's leader in science and technology appears to be
unfounded," said Titus Galama, co-author of the report and a management scientist at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. "But
the United States cannot afford to be complacent. Effort is needed to make sure the nation maintains or even extends its standing."

2. Alternate causalities
A. Lack of education
The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation, 2/16/05, “The Knowledge Economy: Is the United
States Losing its Competitive Edge?” < http://www.futureofinnovation.org/PDF/Benchmarks.pdf>
Research, education, the technical workforce, scientific discovery, innovation and economic growth are intertwined. To remain
competitive on the global stage, we must ensure that each remains vigorous and healthy. That requires sustained investments and informed
policies. Federal support of science and engineering research in universities and national laboratories has been key to America’s prosperity for more than half a
century. A robust educational system to support and train the best U.S. scientists and engineers and to attract outstanding students from
other nations is essential for producing a world-class workforce and enabling the R&D enterprise it underpins. But in recent years
federal investments in the physical sciences, math and engineering have not kept pace with the demands of a knowledge economy,
declining sharply as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This has placed future innovation and our economic competitiveness
at risk. To help policymakers and others assess U.S. high-tech competitiveness and the health of the American science and engineering enterprise, we have
identified key benchmarks in six essential areas—education, the workforce, knowledge creation and new ideas, R&D investments, the high-tech
economy, and specific high-tech sectors. We conclude that although the United States still leads the world in research and discovery, our advantage is eroding rapidly
as other countries commit significant resources to enhance their own innovative capabilities.

B. No workforce
John Kao, former professor of at the Harvard Business School, 10/30/07, “Why the United states Needs an
Innovation Strategy” http://www.strategy-business.com/li/leadingideas/li00049
I think we’re at a Sputnik moment today, except that it’s a silent Sputnik. There is no obvious inciting incident such as an adversary
putting up an object in space that is taunting us for not being first. Look at where we stand in comparison to the rest of the world.
Look at our approach to human capital, which boils down to education, and to our ability to attract and keep talent. Look at our idea-
generating capability and our approach to research and development. Look at our financial capital. We have real deficits in each of
these areas, while other countries are gaining strength.
There are three ingredients for innovation — human capital, idea generation, and financing — each of which is in a state of erosion in
the U.S. We have to understand that this isn’t just a one-note problem, such as “our schools aren’t working well” or “we should put
more money into science.” Those are knee-jerk, politically expedient answers to a complex problem. We need to address the systemic
nature of the problem with a strategy. And our nation’s leaders need a way of telling the story around that strategy to create alignment
throughout the stakeholder groups in society.

Innovation Frontline
C. Bad patent system
20
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Cecil D. Quillen, Senior Advisor, Putnam, Hayes & Bartlett, Inc. (Economic and Management Counsel).
Formerly Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Director, Eastman Kodak Company, 10/19/92,
“Innovation and the United States Patent System Today” <
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/intelpropertycomments/quillenattachments/innovation.pdf>
Now all of that has changed. Patent litigation has grown by leaps and bounds. The general law firms which once limited their practices
to antitrust and corporate matters, such as mergers and acquisitions, have discovered that patent litigation is equally lucrative, and
provide vigorous competition for the patent specialists. Jury trials are common, and plaintiffs' attorneys have even begun taking patent
cases on contingent fees. The standards for patentability have been lowered, and something like two thirds or more of the patents
which are litigated now are found to be valid and infringed. 4 And woe be to the District Court judge who ignores the admonition that infringers should be expected to pay more than "the normal, routine
royalty non-infringers might have paid." 5 Preliminary injunctions are frequently entered, and final injunctions before appeal are common. The exploration of the judicial activism that brought these changes about would make the subject of an interesting exercise in

of whether the
judicature. That however is not my purpose today. Rather my purpose today is to explore the effect of these changes on the climate for innovation -- the commercialization of new products and new processes -- and to raise the question

U.S. patent system, as it presently functions, is a significant deterrent to innovation in the United States If the law of supply and
demand applies to innovation -- and I suspect that it does -- this chart (Chart 3) perhaps illustrates how the equilibrium quantity of innovation in any economy might be determined. This is a conventional supply- demand chart and the
intersection of the demand curve and the marginal cost (supply) curve determines the equilibrium quantity (and cost/price) of innovation. And if -- as I have suggested -- through our patent system we have drastically

increased the cost of innovation in this country, then this second chart (Chart 4) illustrates the inevitable result. We get less
innovation, and it costs us more. I have no doubt that a healthy patent system is a spur to invention and innovation. I am equally
convinced that a patent system which imposes excessive costs on innovators is an unhealthy system and a deterrent to innovation. I
hope I have raised for you a serious question as to the current state of health of the U.S. patent system.

D. Foreign competition
Washington Post, 6/29/08, “5 Myths About the Death Of the American Factory” <
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702865.html>

To get to the bottom of the problem, though, we have to cut through the many myths that have been fabricated about the industry over
the years. U.S. manufacturers can save themselves by investing in innovation. Okay, but how much are you going to invest? U.S.
private-sector companies can't put as much money into technology and research and development as foreign governments do to build
up their sectors. As the chief executive of a technology firm with whom I've worked for many years says, "We're the best company in
the world, but we can't compete with foreign governments." Consider Airbus. The European Union has put more than $15 billion into
building this aircraft company from the ground up. Whatever you may think about the recent U.S. Air Force decision to buy tankers
from Airbus rather than Boeing, one thing is clear: Through its subsidies, the E.U. has managed to build a highly competitive aircraft
industry. South Korea has put more than $12 billion into its semiconductor industry to similar effect, severely harming the U.S.
semiconductor manufacturing base.
I wish it were that easy. Even the best management can't overcome some of the structural disadvantages we face. Take health-care
costs. In Europe, these costs are absorbed by the government. In the United States, manufacturers have to pay for them. General
Motors, for example, has estimated that the cost of health care adds about $1,600 to the price of each of its vehicles. How can you
compete when you have to add that cost to all the other challenges a U.S. manufacturer faces? Then there are environmental-
compliance costs. One recent study shows that these costs are about $77 billion a year for U.S. manufacturers. China, Taiwan and
many other foreign jurisdictions have no environmental costs of any significance, because they either have no environmental laws or
don't comply with them. The United States also has laws and regulations to keep our products and workplaces safe that we don't
require our trading partners to comply with.

21
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Innovation Frontline
3. NASA spinoffs hurt the economy
Federation of American Scientists, No Date Given, “NASA Technological Spinoff Fables” <
http://www.fas.org/spp/eprint/jp_950525.htm>
Many supporters of the space program have placed great stock in the benefits of technological spinoff from the space effort for the
American economy. Proponents estimates of the rate of return from NASA spending range from $7 in return from every $1 of NASA
spending (Lyttle, David, "Is Space Our Destiny?" Astronomy, February 1991, page 6) to $23 in return for every $1 of NASA spending
(Chase Econometric Associates, "The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending," prepared under NASA contract NASW-2741,
April 1976).
Popular citation of these figures to bolster support for NASA funding are quite misleading, since they overlook the methodology by
which they were derived. It is popularly claimed that studies have "concluded" that NASA research produces an "above average" rate
of return. The reality is that these studies have "assumed" that NASA research has an "average" return relative to other types of
reasearch.
The argument in favor of spinoffs is further flawed by its failure to distinguish the relative contributions of technology push and
market pull in the transfer process. The implicit assumption of the spinoff advocates is that the primary bottle-neck to technical
innovation is the absence of new technology, rather than the absence of a market. But in general, the range of technologies that are
feasible from an engineering standpoint is much broader than the range of technologies that pass the test of marketing feasibility. One
has only to look at the fates of quadrophonic sound systems, Betamax video cassets, and laser video-discs to understand that
inadequate engineering ingenuity is not the main barrier to commercial success.
A closer examination of the spinoff record would provide little comfort for space advocates. One recent German analysis of space
spinoffs concluded that (Schmoch, Ulrich, et al, "Analysis of Technical Spin-Off Effect of Space-Related R&D by Means of Patent
Indicators," 41st Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, 6-12 October 1990, IAA-90-610.):
"The overall conclusion to be drawn from this is that the spin-off rate is very low in highly specialized space projects -- a conclusion
which coincides with the finds of other investigations. The concept of a decisive spin-off in the narrow, real sense of the term cannot
therefore be validated on the result of these findings... many standard examples of spin-offs may be traced back to the first R&D boom
in the Sixties... only in the rarest of cases do the spin-offs prove to be identifiable as classic cases in which the source can be
associated exclusively with space technology and the diffusion be associated with a sector unrelated to space technology. In the
majority of cases, both source and diffusion can be associated with multiple purposes both within and outside space technology."
The most comprehensive recent review of the impact of NASA technology benefits to the commercial sector was conducted for NASA by the Chapman Research Group in 1989 (Chapman Research Group, An Exploration of Benefits From NASA "Spinoff", June 1989,
under contract 88-01 with NERAC, Inc.). This study evaluated the benefits derived from technologies identified in the annual NASA report Spinoff during the period from 1978 through 1986.
Unlike the previous econometric studies which simply assumed that the activities NASA labels "research" have the same payoff as commercial research, this study actually sought to quantify the econcomic side-benefits of NASA activities.
A total of over $21 billion in sales and savings benefits were identified as resulting from NASA activities. However, the report conceded that only about $5 billion of this total was due to actual spinoff, that is "instances in which a product, process, or even an entire
company would not have come into existence had it not been for the NASA furnished technology." Most notable among these is the $1.6 billion in medical instruments, frequently cited as a major NASA spinoff. The remaining $16 billion in benefits were in areas where
"the NASA technology contributed to the sales, but that contribution can vary widely, from a relatively small percentage of the total sales or savings..." And in this area, additional sales of commercial aircraft accounted for over $10 billion.
The significance of these findings is best appreciated in the context of overall NASA spending during this period. The total NASA budget from 1978 through 1986 amounted to over $54 billion, of which about $2.5 billion was devoted to aeronautical research and
development. NASA efforts in aeronautical research would seem to have been quite effective, with a $2.5 billion investment yielding $10 billion in benefits. Such a 4-to-1 payoff is not too surprising, given that work in this area is specifically targeted to improving
commercial products.

But the fact that the total NASA investment of $55 billion yielded a paltry $5 billion in true spinoffs, creating entirely new products or
industries, suggests a very poor return of ten cents on the dollar. Again, this should not be surprising, given the highly specialized
nature of much of the engineering and development work conducted by NASA.
So rather than being an unusually good investment paying 7:1 or 22:1 for each dollar invested, NASA has an astoundingly bad 1:10
payoff -- about a factor of 100 worse than the commercial economy as a whole.

4. The economy is resilient


Frederic S. Mishkin, member of the Board of Governors on the Federal Reserve System, 7/2/08, “Speech by
Governor Mishkin on global financial turmoil and the world economy” <
http://www.forexhound.com/article.cfm?articleID=104130>

Recent data suggest that the U.S. economy has proved more resilient than some had anticipated. Although the labor market has softened and
consumer sentiment has declined sharply since last fall, consumer spending has thus far held up better than expected. The economy should be
supported by monetary and fiscal stimulus, a reduced drag from residential construction, further progress in the repair of financial and credit markets,
and still-solid demand from abroad. However, the economy faces challenges. With housing construction continuing to decline and energy prices continuing to rise, risks to growth still appear, to my eye, to be to the downside. Households
face significant headwinds, including falling house prices, tighter credit, a softer job market, and higher energy prices. Businesses are also facing challenges, including rapidly escalating costs of raw materials and weaker domestic demand, although the strength of
foreign demand for U.S. goods and services has offset the slowing of domestic sales to some extent. All that said , we seem to have avoided some of the worst possible outcomes so far.

22
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. – Economy Rocks


Despite reports a recent study proves that the US is still incredibly ahead of everyone else in innovation
Reuters, 6/12/08, “U.S. still tops world on science and tech” <
http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNewsMolt/idUKN1141747120080612?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0>

The United States retains its global preeminence in science and technology, with a big boost from foreign students, scientists and
engineers, a RAND Corporation report issued on Thursday said.
RAND researchers said their conclusions contradict perceptions among some Americans that the nation was losing its competitiveness
in these crucial fields.
In fact, the United States remains ahead of its main competitors in Europe and Japan, according to the report from the nonprofit
research organization requested by the Pentagon.
"Although developing nations such as China, India and South Korea showed rapid growth in S&T (science and technology), these
nations still account for a small share of world innovation and scientific output," the report added.
The report looked at government, corporate and academic science and technology activities. It did not provide a country-by-country
ranking but cited the United States as the world's leader based on a number of measures.
The United States accounts for 40 percent of the global spending on scientific research and development, employs 70 percent of the
world's Nobel Prize winners and boasts three quarters of the world's top 40 universities, the report said.
"We find that the crisis that everybody is talking about does not seem to really be there," Titus Galama, one of the report's authors,
said in a telephone interview.
"There's lots of things changing in the world. The United States seems to be adapting fairly well to it," Galama added.

The economy rocks


Peter Jackson, The Nation, 7/5/08, “Economy: not as bad as it would be!” < http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/05/economy-
not-as-bad-as-it-could-be/>

The Dow Jones Industrial Average might be showing a bear market, but Forbes magazine has some good news: it could be worse.
A bear market is one that is 20% below its latest peak, which the Dow Jones reached on July 2, at 21% below its October 2007 peak.
However, citing rallies in the strength of the dollar and super major oil companies, Forbes reports that “bearish expectations for
European rate rises and US employment were dashed by a dose of moderately favorable news.”
Much of the media attention to the economy recently has focused on the many weaknesses in the market. Business analysts, however,
are getting increasingly vocal with economic growth forecasts, noting in particular that economic downturns are part of the natural
market cycle—and very good times to invest. Consumer spending rose 0.4 percent in May, and has increased over 2 percent in the
quarter.
“The numbers weren’t as bad as they could have been,” one New Jersey trading managersaid, referring to a report this week that
shows 62,000 jobs were lost in June. “Some people had feared 100,000 in job losses or more.” The unemployment rate held steady at
5.5 percent in June, despite a glut of media attention to the reports of job losses.
Meanwhile, although the soaring price of oil is causing crunches in the airline industry and elsewhere, energy shares are helping
steady the US market. “It was energy shares that supported Wall Street as stocks climbed out of their recent trough,” Reuters.com
noted.
The dollar is also rebounding against the euro, despite fears leading into the July 4 weekend that an interest rate hike by the European
Central Bank would hurt the dollar, which has been struggling recently. The ECB’s decision to raise their rate to 4.25 percent was
initially feared to be an aggressive policy against the dollar, but the ECB said on Thursday their move was non-aggressive, intending
only to fight inflation. Currently, one dollar trades for 1.57 Euros or 1.98 British pounds.

23
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. – Alternate Causality – Bad Education


Enhancing education is critical to spurring innovation in the US
Timothy O’Brien, International Herald Tribune, 11/14/05, “U.S. fears it's losing ground to Asia in science
and innovation” < http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/11/14/business/invent.php>
Inventors have always held a special place in U.S. history and business lore, embodying innovation and economic progress in a
country that has long prized individual creativity and the power of ideas. West stands firmly in this tradition, but it is a tradition
that he says may soon be upended. He fears that corporate and public nurturing of inventors and scientific research in the
United States is faltering and that the country will pay a serious economic and intellectual penalty. Many of West's colleagues
echo his concerns.
"The scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are
gathering strength," the National Academy of Sciences observed in a report released last month. Leading U.S. scientists,
corporate executives and educators oversaw the drafting of the report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," available online at NAS.edu.
"Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader in science and technology, this may not
continue to be the case, inasmuch as great minds and ideas exist throughout the world," it said. "We fear the abruptness with
which a lead in science and technology can be lost - and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be
regained at all."
To spur innovation, it recommends enhanced mathematics and science education in primary school and high school, a more
hospitable environment for scientific research and training at the college and graduate levels, an increase in federal funds for
basic scientific research and a mix of tax incentives and other measures to foster high-paying jobs in groundbreaking
industries.
The report cites China and India among a number of economically promising countries that may be poised to usurp the United
States' leadership in innovation and job growth.

24
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Ext. – Alternate Causality – No Workforce


A shortage of engineers is killing our competitiveness
Kenneth Wilcox, San Jose Business Journal, 4/11/08, “The four fallacies of American innovation” <
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/04/14/editorial2.html>
Myth 1: We don't need people from other countries to have vibrant innovation centers in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in the
United States.
Reality: Much of the innovation in Silicon Valley has been driven by people who were born in other countries and moved here
to go to Stanford or Berkeley or MIT and many other universities across the U.S. and stayed on afterward.
Myth 2: Foreign engineers are taking American jobs.
Reality: We are not producing enough talent for the jobs we need. In fact, there is a profound shortage of engineering talent in
the U.S. today. Our universities are not producing enough of them to fill the jobs that the U.S. technology industry is creating.
Accordingly, U.S. technology companies are doing a significant amount of their hiring overseas.
Myth 3: We needn't worry because Chinese and Indian students who study engineering at U.S. schools will stay on afterward to
work in American technology companies.
Reality: Some will, but increasingly, young people in India and China who want to study engineering are choosing local
universities over American institutions. They're almost as good, and much cheaper. Those who come here for an engineering
education increasingly are choosing to return home because they believe that the opportunity is at least as large there.
Myth 4: None of these trends matter because we are inherently better at innovating than other people.
Reality: The world is learning how to innovate. China and India are determined to become knowledge-industry-based
economies. They are determined to compete successfully with the U.S. on the innovation front and I have no doubt that they
will do so.
The United States should be delighted to continue to attract foreign talent and to keep it, if it can. And if it can't, it should strive
to remain influential in those economies with which it competes through mechanisms such as a liberal study visa program, a
greatly expanded H-1B visa quota and unlimited H-1B visas for working scientists and engineers. If U.S. companies cannot
remain competitive, the standards of living, education and global prestige to which Americans have become accustomed -- that
is, the American way of life -- may be the ultimate casualty.

25
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan 1NC
Text: The United States federal government should remove commercial space technology from the
munitions list in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

US-Chinese cooperation over space technology is critical to international space cooperation and the
American economy.
Dr. James Clay Moltz, CNS Deputy Director, 1/26/06, “Space Conflict or Space Cooperation?” <
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/060126.htm>

A current assumption of U.S. defense policy is that the potential vulnerability of U.S. space assets to foreign attack will eventually
need to be addressed by the U.S. deployment of space weapons. However, given the breadth of U.S. policy tools, an equally viable
option may be a strategy of "cooperative engagement" with possible rivals in space, with the aim of steering these programs into
directions favorable to U.S. interests. This could create a "positive sum" game in space for all actors, whereas today we tend to view
space competition in Cold War "zero sum" terms.
In order to test this hypothesis regarding the possible use of cooperation as a threat prevention tool, the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University co-sponsored a seminar on January 19,
2006, in Washington, D.C. The meeting featured five speakers, each of whom analyzed the viability of a U.S. "cooperative engagement" strategy in space toward a specific country (or countries) that have been seen as possible U.S. rivals. Approximately 80 persons
attended the event, including representatives from the space industry, various non-governmental organizations, local universities, the State Department, the Defense Department, the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and NASA. Speakers (and topics)
included Dr. Joan Johnson-Freese (China), Dr. Victor Zaborsky (Russia and Ukraine), Dr. Randall Correll (India), Dr. Daniel Pinkston (North and South Korea), and Dr. John Sheldon (Iran).

Dr. Johnson-Freese's presentation on China provided considerable information about China's interest in space cooperation with the
United States, but also noted its desire not to appear to fall into an "unequal" relationship with Washington, given China's priority to
develop its own national space capabilities. Dr. Johnson-Freese called U.S.-Chinese space relations today "the last active venue of the
Cold War" and urged U.S. policymakers to reconsider the current U.S. strategy of seeking to isolate China in space, largely on non-
space-related political grounds. Her remarks emphasized the questionable effectiveness of current U.S. policy, given the ample
availability of Russian and European space technologies to China. Instead, she argued that NASA and U.S. companies could play a
positive role--if allowed--in helping to "shape" Chinese space policy and to steer it in a direction favorable to U.S. interests. More
specifically, she suggested that space cooperation should be on the agenda of the upcoming summit between President George Bush
and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao.
Dr. Zaborsky began his presentation with a review of the success of the U.S. policy of cooperative engagement in dealing with the proliferation threat posed by the Russian and Ukrainian space industries over the past 15 years. By providing Russian and Ukrainian
aerospace firms with launch quotas, access to U.S. corporations, and participation in the International Space Station (ISS), Dr. Zaborsky argued, the United States was able to strengthen export compliance within these industries and help provide needed space
technologies to assist in the ISS's development. Russian and Ukrainian engines and launch vehicles have also played a key supporting role in ensuring U.S. civilian and military space access over the past decade. Dr. Zaborsky noted Russia's willingness to cancel a
lucrative cryogenic engine deal with India as evidence of real compromises made by Russian industry in the 1990s in order to support U.S. nonproliferation goals. Looking ahead, Dr. Zaborsky urged a continuation of U.S. policies and the expansion of cooperation as a
means of maintaining U.S. influence and leverage.

The presentation by Dr. Correll explored the still relatively untilled soil of possible U.S.-Indian cooperation in space. While noting
past U.S. concerns about nuclear proliferation, Dr. Correll urged rapid expansion of U.S. space ties with India as a means of
cementing the bilateral relationship and developing a valuable new cooperative partner. He suggested such specific areas of
cooperation as communications satellites, military-to-military ties, robotic Moon missions, and ground tracking (including possible
use of Indian ground stations to correct "drift" in U.S. Global Positioning System satellites). Dr. Correll argued that--if properly
managed--space cooperation could become the "jewel in the crown" in the emerging U.S.-Indian strategic partnership. Today, he
lamented, there is little evidence of dynamic U.S. proposals in this area.
Dr. Pinkston's remarks covered the disparate, but emerging space programs in North and South Korea. He emphasized the highly political nature of both programs and
both countries' eagerness to use space as a means of building domestic support and establishing international respect for their scientific prowess. While Dr. Pinkston
focused mainly on cooperative opportunities with South Korea, he did not rule out future space cooperation with North Korea in the context of a nuclear settlement on
the Korean Peninsula. In this regard, Dr. Pinkston suggested that space cooperation could be a low-cost tool for the United States to employ in
seeking to provide a tangible, non-nuclear benefit to Pyongyang as a carrot for ending its nuclear program.
Finally, Dr. Sheldon's presentation, appropriately entitled "A Really Hard Case: Iranian Space Ambitions and the Prospects for U.S. Engagement," provided a unique summary of Tehran's past and current space efforts. While Iran's space accomplishments remain
minimal, he said, its ambitions, as in the nuclear sector, are high. Dr. Sheldon cited economic development, security (reconnaissance, mainly), and regional prestige as Iran's main goals. He noted that the United States could undercut Tehran's aims by establishing a
regional space consortium in the Middle East (excluding Iran), which could effectively overshadow any Iranian space advances. On the other hand, Dr. Sheldon suggested that space cooperation might play a positive role in the future, if Iran decided to cooperate with
the International Atomic Energy Agency in accepting limits on its nuclear program. In this context, U.S.-Iranian space cooperation could be used both as a confidence building tool and a lever to help ensure continued compliance.

Overall, the experts speaking at the seminar confirmed the possible contribution of space cooperation to threat prevention in space,
albeit with certain limitations. Most participants cited current U.S. export control restrictions as a major impediment and urged
reform of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). ITAR guidelines to allow trade at least in commercial space
technologies already widely available on the international market. Such a move, according to the authors, could free up U.S.
companies to compete more effectively in opening up new markets, expand opportunities for NASA, and increase U.S.
knowledge of foreign space programs. In general, the experts agreed that space cooperation has been an under-appreciated
tool in the U.S. foreign policy arsenal. They urged its more active consideration by policymakers for helping to reduce future
space threats, increase transparency, and build bridges in the service of U.S. commercial, scientific, and political goals in
space.
26
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation


China is currently the only country subjected to U.S. regulatory policies on space technology – this kills
our ability to cooperate with almost any nation in terms of space
Guo Xiaobing, researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations and visiting scholar at the University of Georgia’s Center for
International Trade and Security, 2007, < http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf>

There are two puzzles surrounding U.S. regulatory policies on space technology exports to China. First, among the major space faring
nations, China is the only country that the United States has excluded from its space cooperation strategy. Europe and Japan have
benefited greatly from their space cooperation with the United States. The former director of the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales
(CNES), even referred to CNES as a little baby of NASA. In the former
Eastern Bloc, the United States has adopted an engagement policy and allowed for the establishment of a joint launcher with Russia
and Ukraine to canvass business worldwide. This policy kills two birds with one stone. Not only does it reap the business benefits
intrinsic in the advanced rockets of the former Soviet Union, but also highlights the security benefits of preventing space technology
proliferation. The Iron Curtain is gone and the East and West have been cooperating, with the International Space Station (ISS) acting
as an important symbol.
However, there is no trace of Chinese participation in this international project. The second puzzle is that despite this blockade by the
United States, China’s space capabilities have improved tremendously with regards to manned space missions and satellite
exportation. Conversely, the United States, though it is the implementer of sanctions, finds its own share of the commercial satellite
market falling continuously. The ISS, advocated by the United States, has been in dire straits, mainly due to the breakup of the
Columbia Shuttle
China is a strong partner as its reliable and low cost space hardware and services offer an attractive option for these countries. China
has fairly mature space launch capabilities and a burgeoning satellite industry. Cooperating with China allows partner countries to
reduce their burden and lower risks. At the same time, it allows them to skirt U.S. regulatory obstacles. With the exception of the
United States, no country classifies commercial satellites as munitions.
Furthermore, only the United States views foreign satellites that contain American made components as its own product and therefore
subject to stringent U.S. export controls. Many of the countries partnering with China are fed up with the U.S. practice of imposing its
own standards on others.
In March 2004, the British newspaper The Observer pointed out in a discussion on the reasons for developing the Galileo system that
U.S. policies do not sufficiently consider others’ interests.13
It noted that (Europe) should not trust the United States in developing its satellite positioning system. Jacques Blamont, former CNES
director, who acknowledged the close association between his center and NASA, said that an international network to avoid ITAR
regulations has gradually formed due to the increasing frustration with U.S. regulatory policies.
Countries including Russia, China, India, Japan and Europe, as well as other organizations, have collaborated to circumvent the use of
U.S. satellite components.
Though he says this trend is likely to increasingly define the international satellite export market, it does not mean these countries will
formally organize against the United States. Rather, such moves will likely be decided based on the needs and interests of individual
companies and nations
It is in the long-term interests of the United States to correct the wrong decision made in 1999 and return to the policies of free trade
pursued by the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Nurturing China’s growing space activities through contact and
cooperation will be beneficial for both China and the United States.

27
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation


Current restrictions on commercial space technology inhibit America’s ability to cooperate with other
nations over space
Vincent G. Sabathier, Space Attache at the Embassy of France and a visiting senior fellow at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, 2007, “Europe and China” <
http://www.space.com/adastra/china_europe_0505.html>
At present, the relationship between the West and China remains ambiguous at best. Some perceive China as the next growing
military threat, others as an economic partner not to be neglected. For the United States, however, China remains a potential
enemy, if only over the issue of Taiwan. Europe, on the other hand, has taken steps in recent years to welcome China as a
potential partner. The attitude of the European Union (EU) is evident in its recent decision to boost economic and strategic
relations with China, even while the EU refrains from lifting the 15-year-old arms embargo against the country.
The marked difference between U.S. and EU attitudes towards China comes from, and reinforces, their respective philosophies
toward international relations-between "realism", the idea that nation states are the dominant players in world affairs and all
policy is driven by the national interest of these participants, and "liberalism", the concept that the primary actors on the
international stage are individuals, their relation the State and extra-national organizations.
It is in the arena of space where these differences are markedly apparent. While the United States places an emphasis on space
power and control, Europe maintains that its focus is on the peaceful use of outer space. The former is concentrating on
leveraging space to provide itself and its allies with an asymmetric military advantage; the latter is focusing on creating
"useful" space applications for Europe's populace and as a tool for the further integration and enlargement of the EU.
China is now acknowledged as a space-faring nation. It is the third country after Russia and the United States to have flown a
man--a taikonaut--in space. Its human space-flight program is increasingly vibrant with a second manned space launch planned
for this year--this time with two astronauts, and long-term goals of sending robotic and manned missions to the moon. Yet,
while symbolically important, manned flight is not as valuable to China as its ability to hoist satellites into orbit.
With thousands of isolated rural communities characterized by low population densities, and almost nonexistent
telecommunication infrastructure, China would benefit greatly from the increased utilization of advanced telecommunication
satellite technologies. The many applications of remote-sensing satellites, which have been very helpful in urban development
and agriculture in other countries, would also be an invaluable asset to help China cope with both current population and
economic growth.
The European rationale for cooperation and trade within Europe can naturally be extended to China.
The European vision, that space is a medium to explore, research and use for peaceful purposes, makes it a natural arena for
cooperation.
Cooperation in space science between Europe and China is likely to emerge. The ESA will be instrumental in finding the
appropriate domains for cooperation. For example, the new Dragon program will focus on earth observation science and
applications for China, using data primarily from ESA's ERS and Envisat satellites.
European space industries have sold telecommunication satellites to China in the past. This trend will continue since some
European manufacturers have now invested in International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR)-free technology that allows
them to export systems without the previous tedious, and some say prohibitive, ITAR rules. (ITAR is the U.S. law regarding
the import and export of military and defense technologies. All space technology falls under these constraining categories.)
Beyond different views of international relations, it is necessary to address another key difference between the EU and the
United States. All over Europe, most space-related technology does not fall under military export controls. This reflects the
different intended uses of space on each side of the Atlantic. Hence, for Europe, cooperation in space with China is fully
decoupled from any lifting of the arms embargo against this country.
Under the Clinton Administration, the United States attempted to cooperate with China on space transportation. This was
meant to curtail China's exportation of missile technology to countries such as Iran and North Korea, very much like what had
been done successfully in the 90s with Russia. The U.S. government forced NASA to redesign the International Space Station
with a stronger Russian involvement in mind--very valuable today with the shuttle grounded for more than two years. The U.S.
government also encouraged the aerospace industry to engage in commercial partnerships with its Russian counterpart in the
field of space transportation. As a result, Lockheed Martin resells the Proton Russian rocket, and incorporates in its new Atlas
5 expandable launcher, a Russian-made first-stage

28
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – Solvency - Cooperation


engine, the RD-180. The problem of illegal missile technology transfers between some U.S. companies and the Chinese
emerged in 1998, following the failed launch of an Intelsat satellite on a Long March booster, effectively ending that policy.
The resulting classification of space technology on the U.S. Department of State munitions list ended any cooperation in
space with China. As a result, space cooperation between Europe and the United States decreased as well.
If the United States really believes that space technology should not-indeed, must not-be disseminated, it has to engage Europe
quickly and explain its concerns. However, such a dialogue would be awkward. Very little cooperation regarding space-based
security applications goes on between Europe and the United States despite their military alliance. Meanwhile, ITAR itself has
created barriers to prevent such cooperation. At this point, Europe only has relationships with agencies such as NASA and
the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that focus on the peaceful use of space.
However, the United States' isolationist policy, which adversely impacts space cooperation through draconian export
regulations--while simultaneously taking steps to control and militarize space--forces other space-faring nations, such as
Europe, Japan Russia, India and China to cooperate among themselves in the end.
The perceived danger the United States feels regarding cooperation between Europe and China is nothing when compared to
the difficulties the nation will face should it explore space alone.

29
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – Solvency – Cooperation/Economy


US space technology restrictions make international space cooperation and competition impossible –
ITAR needs to be changed in order to save the economy and foster cooperation
Andhra Pradesh, Indian PressWire, 9/27/07, “US regulations restrict space industry growth” <
http://www.indiaprwire.com/businessnews/20070927/24683.htm>
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) of the US are a major hurdle in the growth of new space industry actors in
the global market, said speakers from emerging space nations at the 58th International Astronautical Congress (IAC 2007)
here.
They also made a strong case for change in the rules to facilitate cooperation and healthy competition in the global space
industry.
The speakers were unanimous that both cooperation and competition were necessary to ensure growth of the space industry,
especially among emerging nations and new players.
While China said US policy was the biggest hurdle in growth of new actors, India said there was more risk to non-US players
because of ITAR rules, which govern the space industry, among other sectors.
'The US policy is the biggest hurdle and it needs to be changed,' said Hua Changzhi, vice president, China Great Wall Corp.
Pointing out that US satellite manufacturers had lost market share in recent years, he remarked, 'This is the price paid by US
policy'.
'ITAR is the most challenging and difficult regulation we have to contend with. On the issue of licences, there is more risk to
non-US players,' said K.R. Sridhara Murthy, executive director, Antrix Corp Ltd, the commercial arm of Indian Space
Research Organisation (ISRO).
Ray A. Williamson, research professor, Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in the US, said change in
ITAR would make it easier for international space industry to operate. 'Unfortunately, given the current political situation in the
US, I don't think ITAR regime will change for the next five to 10 years,' he said.
'For this to change, a political change is required in US Congress, where the law was passed,' he added.
Murthy called for addressing certain issues at the political level, especially with regard to the export policies of advanced
countries. 'Satellite parts come from different countries and when we export satellites for launch in a third country, we often
face bottlenecks,' he said.
He also called for a unified licensing system for space services and complementary ground services like terrestrial services.
Murthy underlined the need to change policy and regulations to facilitate easy access to remote sensing data.
He voiced concern over the merger of smaller companies with the big players, saying dominant players would hurt the market
and consumers. Another factor affecting the industry was the fact that orbit and spectrum resources were in the hands of
government, he added.

30
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – A2 China Not Ready


Despite some weaknesses in China’s technology, the US can gain a lot from cooperating with them over
space technology – this can help us develop our own market
Guo Xiaobing, researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations and visiting scholar at the University of Georgia’s Center for
International Trade and Security, 2007, < http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf>

After Shenzhou V successfully carried China’s first taikonaut into space, Sun Laiyan, director of the China National space
Administration, expressed China’s sincere desire to cooperate with America during his U.S. visit. However, this idea was met
with skepticism; the United States insists that since China lags behind by more than 20 years in terms of space capabilities, it is
not in a position to cooperate with the United States.
The truth of the matter is that while China still has some weak points in space development, it also has many areas of strength
and thus the two countries can, at the very least, engage in fruitful cooperation in two main respects
Second, the United States should take advantage of China’s low-cost space launch capability and jointly develop the
international commercial satellite market. Some industry experts believe that if the United States made full use of China’s
launch capacity in the next five years, it would be possible to bring $8 billion worth of benefits and 16,000 job opportunities to
the U.S. space industry.
15

31
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – A2 Kills US Business


China’s technology isn’t ready to compete with ours yet
Guo Xiaobing, researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations and visiting scholar at the University of Georgia’s Center for
International Trade and Security, 2007, < http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf>

The United States harbors two major concerns about using Chinese space firms. The first is that Chinese rockets will take
business away from U.S. space launch companies. In fact, China’s Long March (LM) rocket series is not yet in a position to
compete on the international market with the U.S. Delta or Hercules rockets, Europe’s Ariane or Russia’s Proton. The LM
series is only a competitor to Japan’s H-2A and India’s GSLV. Also, the orders that China can acquire have a thin profit
margin and will not cause an impact on U.S. space launch companies’ client base

32
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Counterplan – A2 China Gets US Tech Secrets


Satellite agreements and Chinese self-reliance moot any risk of the Chinese getting our technology secrets
Guo Xiaobing, researcher at the China Institute of Contemporary International
Relations and visiting scholar at the University of Georgia’s Center for
International Trade and Security, 2007, < http://www.wsichina.org/attach/cs2_7.pdf>

The second concern is that China will use trade in the space sector to obtain U.S. ‘technology’ secrets.’ However, several
factors have made this increasingly irrelevant. A guiding principle of China’s space program development is self-reliance and
attaining independent intellectual property rights for space technology. China’s achievements in manned space flight and
satellite research and development have amply demonstrated its independent R&D prowess.
China does not need to rely on U.S. technology to make progress. Furthermore, it would be difficult to integrate outside
technology with China’s own, as China has developed its own standards for rockets and satellites.
Finally, the satellite launch agreements signed by China and the United
States during the late 1990s contained strict regulations regarding technology safeguards. If these regulations are adhered to,
the chances of unsanctioned technology transfer can be minimized. Those companies that made a procedural error in 1996 have
already learned their lessons and strengthened their internal compliance system. Thus, chances for repeat mistakes are very
slim

33
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan

NASA funding is popular- Congress overwhelmingly comes through when NASA is in need.
The Citizen, subsidiary newspaper of the Houston Community Newspapers organization, 6/19/ ‘8, [“Extra $2.6
billion for NASA soars through House”,http://www.hcnonline.com/site/news.cfm?
newsid=19786294&BRD=1574&PAG=461&dept_id=639002&rfi=6]

Despite the threat of a veto from President Bush, the House easily passed the huge increase in NASA’s yearly budget yesterday that
local Rep. Nick Lampson has been pushing for all year long. The measure passed the House with a 409-15 vote, well over the two-
thirds majority required for overriding a presidential veto.
President Bush had approved a $17.6 billion budget for NASA earlier this year, and promised this week that the space agency would
not get any more, but Lampson and other representatives, including members of the Senate, continued to lobby for $2.6 billion more
in funding. Lampson said the extra funding is necessary to close the gap between when the shuttles are retired and when the
Constellation program begins excursions to the moon, by giving NASA enough money for a couple extra shuttle missions.
With the current schedule, NASA is set to retire the shuttles in 2010 and begin flights with the Constellation program in 2015.
Lampson and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson have both warned that the five-year gap is dangerous to the security of the United States
and the progress of its space program, which would become reliant on Russia for flights to the International Space Station.
“I’ll continue to build support for NASA and work to provide America with a space program that will continue to inspire the world,”
Lampson said in a press release. “Additional funding illustrates success we’ve had in building momentum for NASA and will further
American science, preserve current jobs, and create new ones in industries directly and indirectly related to NASA.”

34
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan


NASA funding popular- overwhelming support from both parties prove.
Aero News, News service tailoring to aviation and space interests, 6/19/ ‘8, [“House Approves $20.2 Billion
NASA Budget’, http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=fd897c96-047a-432d-98dd-
41d242bfa3a6]
It's a major win for NASA... but still far short of a decisive victory. On Wednesday the US House of Representatives approved a $20.2
billion NASA spending bill for fiscal year 2009 that includes funds for one more shuttle flight before the fleet's retirement, as well as
more money for development of the Constellation program.
The Associated Press reports the 2.8 percent increase in funds over FY2008 includes money for one last mission to the International
Space Station, so that NASA can fulfill its commitment to deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer. NASA pledged to deliver the
15,000-pound instrument -- to be used to search for unusual matter in space -- early in the ISS program, but shelved those plans
following the 2003 loss of Columbia.
"We ought to make good on our original commitment to fly this expensive instrument to the ISS," said Texas congressman Ralph
Hall, the top Republican on the Science Committee, during debate on the measure last week. Sixteen countries contributed some $1.5
billion to develop the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer for the US Department of Energy.
House lawmakers approved reinstatement of that mission by an overwhelming -- and likely veto-proof -- 409-15 vote. The latter is
important, as the Bush Administration opposes spending a dime more than originally budgeted for the shuttle program , now slated for
retirement in 2010. The White House penned a $17.6 billion budget for NASA for FY2009.

NASA funding popular- empirics prove.


Elaine Povich,journalist and veteran Washington correspondent for Chicago Tribune and Newsday, 6/23/ ‘5,
[“Senate panel approves funding for NASA”, http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0605/062305tdpm2.htm]

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on Thursday unanimously approved a bill aimed at assuring that the
United States is able to continuously fly in space while the space shuttle is retired and a new vehicle brought on line.
The committee voted 22-0 to send to the full Senate a bill governing the activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) through 2010. Earlier proposals called for a gap in human space-flight capability, but the committee did not
agree.
The bill would authorize a 3 percent increase in funding for NASA from fiscal 2006 through fiscal 2010, or a budget of $16.6 billion
in fiscal 2006 and growing to $18.5 billon.
"Our national policy will determine the nation's role in future space exploration and its contribution to broad research and our national
security," said Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, chairwoman of the Science and Space Subcommittee. "The possibility of a
gap in space flight must be eliminated if the [United States] wants to be a leader in space exploration."

35
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – NASA Funding Bipartisan


NASA popular- empirical funding proves.
AP, international news wire, 6/19/ ‘8, [“House votes for extra shuttle flight in next NASA budget”,
http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=8522612]

CAPITOL HILL (AP) - The House has voted to give NASA more money next year than President Bush wants.
The $20-billion bill includes cash for an extra shuttle flight to take a magnetic spectrometer into space. It's part of an international
project to learn more about the Universe.
The bill also includes $1 billion to speed up development of the next generation of spacecraft -- the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle,
and the Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle. NASA plans to use them to return to the moon and fly to Mars.
The president had requested $17.6 billion for NASA in the next fiscal year, saying that's enough to meet its goals. But there's been no
threat of a veto.

There is overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress for NASA


Houston Chronicle. Stately news wire, 5/18/ ‘8, [“Defying Bush, House approves more for NASA”,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5845232.html]

The House of Representatives defied the White House on Wednesday by overwhelmingly approving a $20.2 billion budget for NASA
— $2.9 billion more than sought by President Bush.
With Houston-area lawmakers leading the way, House members crossed party lines to send a strong message to the White House by
approving the measure on a vote of 409 to 15 — far exceeding the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a possible
presidential veto.
A total of 181 Republicans joined 228 Democrats to approve the measure. Fifteen Republicans voted no.
The White House did not respond to Wednesday's vote. Instead, a spokesman referred questioners to an administration statement last
week that it "strongly opposed" the funding plan because it was "inconsistent with the administration's fiscal policies."
That argument was not persuasive on Capitol Hill. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said today was "no time to be shortchanging
the space program" of needed funds.
NASA efforts have been "accelerating critical medical breakthroughs, revealing shortcuts to vexing human problems and recruiting
the next generation of Americans into science, math and engineering careers," he argued.
House members worked across party lines to "ensure that NASA continues to be the world's premier space agency," said Rep. Gene
Green, D-Houston. "The price we pay to fund NASA is a bargain."
The plan now goes to the Senate. A committee hearing on the matter is scheduled for next Tuesday.

36
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – Solar Power Popular


Solar power is gaining popularity- kills their link.
Webwire,6/24/ ‘8, [Summer Is The Time To Go Solar, http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?
aId=68621]

With solar power systems gaining popularity these days, homeowners now have quite a few choices of both system sizes and
styles. AATH informs that homeowners need to discuss their desires and needs with a professional before starting their project.
Varying solar systems can just provide a share of the power for your home or completely get rid of your current electric bill by taking
you “off the grid” entirely.

"Homeowners also have a choice of the location of their solar cells, which can have a big effect on the aesthetics of their home" says
All Around the Home Partner Ryan Corey.

All Around the Home’s blog, which can be accessed at http://blog.allaroundthehome.com/, allows homeowners to discuss their
personal experiences and gain more knowledge of everything solar power based.

Once homeowners know exactly what they want with their new solar energy system, the question is which installation expert to use?
Because more and more residents are looking to help cut back on our non-renewable energy resources, solar power is now becoming
a fairly popular alternative. This also means that there are more and more professional solar contractors to choose from. Contractor
referral sites like All Around the Home - http://www.allaroundthehome.com/ - help homeowners make that hard decision. AATH
matches its visitors with up to four solar installation experts so that homeowners can compare their area’s highest quality professionals
to find the right one for their next home improvement project.

Because solar power is gaining popularity, sites like All Around the Home, who help match interested homeowners with pre-
screened, licensed and fully insured contractors are key to helping the industry grow. It’s simple these days with these great, easy-to-
use online contractor referral sites. So we see no end in sight to All Around the Home and the solar power industry.

37
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – NASA Funding Partisan


NASA unpopular-budget cuts for the next five years are indicative of NASA’s unpopularity in congress.
Dennis Overbye, syndicated New York Times Staff Writer, 3/2/ ‘6, [“Budget Cuts Back Much-Promoted
NASA Missions”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/science/space/02nasa.html?
_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin]

Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled
under the agency's new budget, despite its administrator's vow to Congress six months ago that not "one thin dime" would be taken
from space science to pay for President Bush's plan to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
The cuts come to $3 billion over the next five years, even as NASA's overall spending grows by 3.2 percent this year, to $16.8 billion.
Among the casualties in the budget, released last month, are efforts to look for habitable planets and perhaps life elsewhere in the
galaxy, an investigation of the dark energy that seems to be ripping the universe apart, bringing a sample of Mars back to Earth and
exploring for life under the ice of Jupiter's moon Europa — as well as numerous smaller programs and individual research projects
that astronomers say are the wellsprings of new science and new scientists.
The agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, says NASA needs the money to keep the space shuttle fleet aloft, complete the
International Space Station and build a new crew exploration vehicle to replace the shuttle.
That transition has produced an unexpected shortfall of money, but, Mr. Griffin told the House Science Committee last month, to
postpone it would be more damaging than to put off some space science projects.
"We're delaying some missions," he told the committee, "but we're not abandoning them."
Yesterday, Mary Cleave, NASA's associate administrator for science, said she took Dr. Griffin at his word that the cuts were a one-
time event. "There was no money available anyplace else," Dr. Cleave said. "We took a hit."

38
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – NASA Funding Unpopular


While the public likes NASA they are unwilling to pay taxes to fund it
Houston Chronicle. Stately news wire, 5/17/ ‘8, [“NASA popular, but tax hike for funding isn't, poll finds,
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/space/5843539.html]

WASHINGTON — Key arguments being made by supporters of increased NASA funding are not resonating with the American
public, a new Gallup Poll released Tuesday found.
The poll conducted for a business group called the Coalition for Space Exploration found that voters strongly approve of the venerable
space agency's work but are reluctant to pay more taxes to finance new initiatives.
The Gallup survey — released just a day before the House is scheduled to vote on adding $2.9 billion to the NASA budget —
undercut a key argument being used by Texas lawmakers in their bid to persuade Congress to boost spending: that more money is
needed to compete in space against China and to close a five-year gap in manned U.S. space operations between retirement of the
shuttle fleet in 2010 and launch of the Constellation program in 2015.
The Gallup survey of 1,002 adults found that two of three Americans were not alarmed by the prospect that China plans to send
astronauts to the moon by 2017 — at least one year ahead of the first scheduled U.S. lunar mission since 1972.
Congressional supporters and space agency officials said that public opinion should not be the guiding force behind NASA spending.
"The international challenge to our dominance in space and the impending gap in our domestic program pose serious concerns which
must be addressed head-on by increasing funding for NASA," said Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford.
"It is my hope that it will not take another Sputnik moment for America to reignite the spirit of exploration that changed the world half
a century ago and put man on the moon."
Lampson is working with other Houston-area lawmakers to increase President Bush's proposed $18.2 billion budget for NASA. The
bipartisan measure is expected to pass, over White House objections.
NASA supports the president's smaller budget request but will carry out its missions "based upon the budget that ultimately is
approved by Congress," said David Mould, NASA's assistant administrator for public affairs. He says the agency "does not and cannot
modify its missions and activities in response to polls."

39
Space Neg
DDW 2008
Risha, Bill

Politics – Solar Power Unpopular

Even if solar power itself isn’t unpopular with the public, people hate it when all the money is earmarked
just for solar power.
LA Times, 6/27/ ‘5, [“Governor’s Solar Plan Is
Generating Opposition”,http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/27/business/fi-solar27]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plan to spend billions of dollars to put electricity-producing solar panels on a million
California rooftops could be running into stormy weather.
For the second year running, the governor is sponsoring legislation that would put photovoltaic solar systems at the head of the line for
the bulk of state alternative energy funding.
For Schwarzenegger and his backers in the environmental community and the solar industry, a massive push to use abundant
“free power” from the sun is an easy call.
“Today, in California, where we are famous for the sun, we are going to put the positive benefits of that sun to good use,”
Schwarzenegger said in February, announcing his personal support for SB 1, the solar power bill.
Schwarzenegger is thinking big: He wants to increase the state’s total solar output from about 101 megawatts to 3,000 megawatts by
2018. That’s enough nonpolluting power to run about 2.25 million homes and eliminate the need to build six large natural gas-fired
generating plants.
The governor isn’t the only Hollywood star backing sun power. Actors Edward Norton and Ed Begley Jr., both well-
known environmental activists, spoke at a recent media event in South Central Los Angeles in support of SB 1.
But the bill, despite such high-profile backing and a bipartisan 30-5 vote in the state Senate, is facing potential difficulties in the
Assembly. Opposition from business lobbies, utilities, unions and even consumer groups is setting the stage for what could be a close
vote. The first hint of how the bill will fare in the Assembly is expected to come today when it faces its first hearing in the Assembly
Utilities and Commerce Committee.
Most of the complaints about the governor’s solar program center on its estimated 10-year, $2-billion-to-$3-billion price tag. Much of
that would be paid by power users in the form of surcharges imposed by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Proponents estimate that the annual rate hike would be about $15 per residential customer. But business groups – usually among
Schwarzenegger’s staunchest supporters – complain that increases for large power users such as big-box retailers and
industrial operations would be much higher – a key point in a state that already has the highest electricity rates in the continental
United States.
The governor’s solar plan is “so expensive that it’s not cost-effective,” said Joseph Lyons, an energy lobbyist for the California
Manufacturers and Technology Assn.
“Our members need rate relief, and this goes in the other direction,” Lyons said.
Southern California Edison Co., the state’s second-largest investor-owned utility, is also skeptical, saying the governor’s bill favors
rooftop solar systems over what it says are more cost-effective centralized solar generating stations.|
Even fans of solar power – who view photovoltaic panels as a crucial part of the state’s alternative energy mix – question the
wisdom of earmarking the bulk of funding for one source, to the detriment of less-glamorous energy efficiency
and conservation programs.
“Solar is not even close to competitive,” said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California Energy Institute in Berkeley.
He noted that solar power’s long-run, average production cost of 25 cents to 30 cents per kilowatt hour, not including government
subsidies or tax credits, is much higher than the 5 cents to 9 cents for wind power and 6 cents to 7 cents for modern, natural-gas-fired
generation plants.

40