Aprpa e Addendum

LMDIT 2008 ARPA E Aff Addendum (___/___)
Serving Utah Since. . .Now
INDEX
TERRORISM ADD-ON ……………………………..2-3

INHERENCY……………………………………….4-5
SCIENCE INVESTMENT DECREASING……6-8
OTHER NATIONS CATCHING UP…………..9
FUNDING KEY TO EFFECTIVENESS……..10
ECON INTERNALS-Market Harmonization..11
ECON INTERNALS-Competitiveness………12-17
ECON INTERNALS-Job Creation…….18-21
ECON INTERNALS-Oil Prices………22-23
GENERAL SOLVENCY…………..24
LEADERSHIP INTERNALS…….25
IMPACT EXTENSION-ECON…………26-27
IMPACT EXTENSION-Leadership….28-30
IMPACT EXTENSION-Terrorism……31-35
NON UNIQUE-Increasing Incentives Now…36
AT-SQ Incentives Solve………………..37
AT-Oil Supplies OK…………………….38-39
Now Key Time………………………….40
AT-Trades Off With DOE Research….41
AT-No Shortterm Solvency………….42
AT-Alternatives Fail………………43
AT-T Government Research………44
AT-Plan Unpopular………………45
AT-Science Bad………………….46-49
1
Terrorism Add-On
Programs that train new scientists and aim at longterm discovery are critical to homeland
security and fighting terrorism
NAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering and
National Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id)
Scientific and engineering research demonstrated its essential role in the nation’s defense
during World War II. Research led to the rapid development and deployment of the
atomic bomb, radar and sonar detectors, nylon that revolutionized parachute use, and
penicillin that saved battlefield lives. Throughout the Cold War the United States relied
on a technological edge to offset the larger forces of its adversaries and thus generously
supported basic research. The US military continues to depend on new and emerging
technologies to respond to the diffuse and uncertain threats that characterize the 21st
century and to provide the men and women in uniform with the best possible equipment
and support.37 Just as Vannevar Bush described a tight linkage between research and
security,38 the Hart–Rudman Commission a half-century later argued that security can be
achieved only by funding more basic research in a variety of fields.39 In the wake of the
9/11 attacks and the anthrax mailings, it is clear that innovation capacity and homeland
security are also tightly coupled. There can be no security without the economic vitality
created by innovation, just as there can be no economic vitality without a secure
environment in which to live and work.40 Investment in R&D for homeland security has
grown rapidly; however, most of it has been in the form of development of new
technologies to meet immediate needs. Human capacity is as important as research
funding. As part of its comprehensive overview of how science and technology could
contribute to countering terrorism, for example, the National Research Council
recommended a human-resources development program similar to the post-Sputnik
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958.41 A Department of Defense proposal
to create and fund a new NDEA is currently being examined in Congress.42
2
Terrorism Add-On
TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION
Alexander in 2003
Yonah Alexander, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director, 2003
[The Washington Times, "Terrorism myths and realities," 8/28]
Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have

once again illustrated dramatically that the international community
failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications
of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even
the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard
terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical
strategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not
surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans were
stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists
striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial
and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite the
collapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of
terrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three
years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of
intensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process
through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why are
the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries
affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by
new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, including
misunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to
terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition of
terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality,
weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by
terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historical
counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of
violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats and
impact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future
terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism
[e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its
serious implications concerning national, regional and global security
concerns.
3
Inherency-Not Funded Now
Despite Congressional support the administration has refused to fund ARPA-E

Sternstein in 2006 (Aliya [staff] Federal Computer Week, May 1, 2006
http://www.fcw.com/print/12_15/news/94203-1.html)
Gordon said the innovation portion of the president’s fiscal 2007 budget request might
have been inspired by the NAS report, but the budget addresses only a limited number of
the report’s recommendations. The NAS report recommends the creation of a new agency
modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Department
agency that created ArpaNet, which predated the Internet. House Science Committee
members held a hearing in March to discuss whether developing a new organization
within DOE — dubbed ARPA-E — could advance U.S. energy competitiveness. Several
innovation bills promote ARPA-E as a program that could help wean the country of its
dependence on foreign oil. Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.),
Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced an R&D package
in January that authorizes the creation of ARPA-E. That package, the Protect America’s
Competitive Edge Act, includes three bills to implement the NAS report
recommendations.
4
Inherency-Not Funded Now

Despite signing legislation that funds ARPA-E, the Administration has refused to request
funding for the past two years. Despite an independent staff and funding mandate, he
claims it would trade off with existing research
Inside Energy August 13, 2007
President Bush signed legislation last week that will create a major new research agency
at the Energy Department. But Bush said he would not call for full funding for the office
over concerns that it would siphon resources away from existing DOE programs.
The America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the House and Senate passed earlier
this month, calls for DOE to establish an "Advanced Research Projects Agency ?
Energy," to pursue high-risk research that could lead to the development of break-through
energy technologies to address the country's energy security concerns.
In a signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Thursday, Bush praised parts of the bill that
will boost funding for math and science education, among other things. But later that day,
the White House issued a statement saying Bush is "concerned" about ARPA-E and other
provisions in the bill.
The Bush administration has been opposed to the ARPA-E concept since it was
introduced in 2005 as part of a National Academies report. It fears that the agency would
take away congressionally appropriated funds from DOE's Science Office and other
energy programs.
White House science advisor John Marburger told Platts in a recent interview that his
"concern has always been that creation of all new programs in DOE will compete with
our efforts to get research funding in the Office of Science, which has been badly in need
of new resources." He added that the department does not "need a lot of other missions to
spend money on right now."
The new law, however, puts the science office on track to double its budget. It also
separates ARPA-E monies from the rest of DOE. The law calls for the department's
science program to receive $4.5 billion in fiscal 2008, compared with $3.8 billion in
fiscal 2007. It authorizes $300 million for ARPA-E in fiscal 2008.
The statement that the White House issued last week said Bush is "concerned that the
legislation includes excessive [funding] authorizations and new duplicative programs."
The research that ARPA-E will take on, the White House said, is "more appropriately left
to the private sector."
Accordingly, Bush will request funding in his 2009 budget for provisions in the bill that
he supports, but not for provisions that would require "excessive or duplicative funding,
the White House said
5
Science Investment Decreasing
Both private and public sources of research funding are drying up

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11463&page=R1)
In 2001 (the most recent year for which data are available), US industry spent
more on tort litigation than on research and development.37
In 2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporate
recipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.38
Beginning in 2007, the most capable high-energy particle accelerator on Earth
will, for the first time, reside outside the United States.39Federal funding of research in
the physical sciences, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 45% less in
fiscal year (FY) 2004 than in FY 1976.40 The amount invested annually by the US
federal government in research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering
combined equals the annual increase in US healthcare costs incurred every 20 days.41
Private sector R&D is aimed at near term products eroding the entire research structure
The US research structure that evolved after World War II was a self-reinforcing triangle
of industry, academe, and government. Two sides of that triangle—industrial research and
government investment in R&D as a fraction of gross domenstic product (GDP) have
changed dramatically. Some of the most important fundamental research in the 20th
century was accomplished in corporate laboratories—Bell Labs, GE Research, IBM
Research, Xerox PARC, and others. Since that time, the corporate research structure has
been significantly eroded. One reason might be the challenge of capturing the results of
research investments within one company or even a single nation on a long-term basis.
The companies and nation can, however, capture high-technology discoveries at least for
the near term (5-10 years) and enhance the importance of innovation in jobs.35 For
example, the United States has successfully capitalized on research in monoclonal
antibodies, network systems, and speech recognition. As a result, corporate funding of
certain applied research has been enhanced at such companies as Google and Intel and at
many biotechnology companies. Nonetheless, the increasing pressure on corporations for
short-term results has made investments in research highly problematic.
6

Current government R&D investment is aimed at short-term gains preventing tech
breakthroughs that would create entire industries
Although support for research in the life sciences increased sharply in the 1990s and
produced remarkable results, funding for research in most physical sciences,
mathematics, and engineering has declined or remained relatively flat—in real
purchasing power—for several decades. Even to those whose principal interest is in
health or healthcare, that seems short-sighted: Many medical devices and procedures—
such as endoscopic surgery, “smart” pacemakers, kidney dialysis, and magnetic
resonance imaging— are the result of R&D in the physical sciences, engineering, and
mathematics. The need is to strengthen investment in the latter areas while not
disinvesting in those areas of the health sciences that are producing promising results.
Many believe that federal funding agencies—perhaps influenced by the stagnation of
funding levels in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering—have become
increasingly risk-averse and focused onshort-term results. For example, even the
generally highly effective Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has
been criticized in this regard in congressional testimony.36 Widespread, if anecdotal,
evidence shows that even the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) have changed their approach in this regard. A recent National Academies
study37 revealed that the average age at which a principal investigator receives his or her
first grant is 42 years—partly because of requirements for evidence of an extensive “track
record” to reduce risk to the grant-makers.38 But reducing the risk for individual research
projects increases the likelihood that breakthrough, “disruptive” technologies will not be
found—the kinds of discoveries that often yield huge returns. History also suggests that
young researchers make disproportionately important discoveries. The NIH roadmap39
established in fiscal year (FY) 2004, recognizes this concern, but the amount of funds
devoted to long-term, high-payoff, high-risk research remains very limited.
7

Current public investment in research is only medical. Must invest in physical sciences.
Public funding for science and engineering rose through the 1990s, but virtually all of the
increase went to biomedical research at NIH. Federal spending on the physical sciences
remained roughly flat, and increases for mathematics and engineering only slightly
surpassed inflation (Figure 3-13). Funding for important areas of the life sciences—plant
science, ecology, environmental research—supported by agencies other than NIH also
has leveled off. The lack of new funding for research in the physical sciences,
mathematics, and engineering raises concern about the overall health of the science and
engineering research enterprise, including that of the health sciences. Yet, these are
disciplines that lead to innovation across the spectrum of modern life.49
8
Other Countries Catching Up

Research funding increasing worldwide threatening US dominance
It is no surprise that as the value of research becomes more widely understood, other
nations are strengthening their own programs and institutions. If imitation is flattery, we
can take pride in watching as other nations eagerly adopt major components of the US
innovation model.13 Their strategies include the willingness to increase public support
for research universities, to enhance protections for intellectual property rights, to
promote venture capital activity, to fund incubation centers for new businesses, and to
expand opportunities for innovative small companies.14 Many nations have made
research a high priority. To position the European Union (EU) as the most competitive
knowledge-based economy in the world and enhance its attractiveness to researchers
worldwide, EU leaders are urging that, by 2010, member nations spend 3% of gross
domestic product (GDP) on research and development (R&D).15 In 2000, R&D as a
percentage of GDP was 2.72 in the United States, 2.98 in Japan, 2.49 in Germany, 2.18 in
France, and 1.85 in the United Kingdom.16 Many nations also are investing more
aggressively in higher education and increasing their public investments in R&D (Figure
3-1). Those investments are stimulating growth in the number of research universities in
those countries; the number of researchers; the number of papers listed in the Science
Citation Index; the number of patents awarded; and the number of doctoral degrees
granted (Table 3-1, Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4).17 China is emulating the US system as well.
The Chinese Science Foundation is modeled after our National Science Foundation, and
peer review methodology and startup packages for junior faculty are patterned on US
practices. In China, national spending in the past few years for all R&D activities rose
500%, from $14 billion in 1991 to $65 billion in 2002. USR&D spending increased
140%, from $177 billion to $245 billion, in the same period.18The rapid rise of South
Korea as a major science and engineering power has been fueled by the establishment of
the Korea Science Foundation—funded primarily by the national sports lottery—to
enhance public understanding, knowledge, and acceptance of science and engineering
throughout the nation.19 Similarly, the government uses contests and prizes specifically
to stimulate the scientific enterprise and public appreciation of scientific knowledge.
Other nations also are spending more on higher education and providing incentives for
students to study science and engineering. To attract the best graduate students from
around the world, universities in Japan, Switzerland, and elsewhere are offering science
and engineering courses in English. In the 1990s, both China and Japan increased the
number of students pursuing science and engineering degrees, and there was steady
growth in South Korea.20 Some consequences of this new global science and engineering
activity are already apparent—not only in manufacturing but also in services. India’s
software services exports rose from essentially zero in 1993 to about $10 billion in
2002.21 In broader terms, the US share of global exports has fallen in the past 20 years
from 30 to 17%, while the share for emerging countries in Asia grew from 7 to 27%.22
The United States now has a negative trade balance even for high-technology products
(Figure 3-5). That deficit raises concern about our competitive ability in important areas
of technology.23
9
Funding Key To Effectiveness
Adequate funding key to ARPA-E research

House of Representatives Press Office in 2008 (April 9, 2008
http://science.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2151)
"I want to congratulate the men and women of DARPA who have been on the vanguard
of our nation’s technological superiority for a half century. Historically, DARPA defied
conventional thinking and pursued cutting-edge and, some might say, ‘far out’ research
for the Department of Defense which resulted in some of the most transformational
technologies of our time," said Gordon. "It is the culture of innovation at DARPA that has
made it so successful and unique, and the talented and passionate staff is the heart of that
culture. It’s time we take the DARPA model and apply it to the most pressing challenge
we face today – energy. With adequate funding and forward-thinking leadership, ARPA-E
might be celebrating the same level of revolutionary results 50 years from now."
10
Econ Internals-European Market Harmonization

Encouraging alternative energy production harmonizes US and European markets. This
is crucial to continuing US access to 55% of the world economy and the continuation of
transatlantic trade
Graffy in 2008 (Colleen [Deputy Asst. Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs]
State Department Press Release, May 19, 2008)
So, when I am posed the question: "Does America have friends in Europe with regard to
trade and climate change?" I would say not only does the U.S. have friends, the U.S. also
has partners.
Let's remember that the transatlantic market today makes up nearly 55 percent of global
GDP and about 40 percent of world trade. So there is a strong incentive to work together
as friends and partners.
Both the United States and Europe believe in strong and effective regulation to protect
our citizens and the environment. However, in some cases, unnecessary differences in our
regulatory approaches have made our companies less competitive, raised consumer costs,
reduced consumer choice and slowed job creation.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope believe that if we could align our
economies better, we could generate $10 billion in saved costs and potential growth for
the transatlantic economy.
And so, working together, we are trying to do exactly that, by creating the Transatlantic
Economic Council (TEC), which met for the second time today in Brussels. The TEC
was created in April 2007, under the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic
Integration, and was signed by President Bush, Chancellor Merkel and European
Commission President Barroso during the U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, DC. The goal
of the TEC is to promote regulatory cooperation, eliminate barriers to transatlantic trade,
advance capital market liberalization, and strengthen support for open investment
regimes. In short, it is trying to reduce barriers to trade and investment.
In the area of the environment, the Transatlantic Economic Council is recommending that
the June 2008 U.S.-EU Summit consider joint efforts in clean energy technologies that
will help us address our shared concerns about energy security and climate change.
11
Econ Internals-Competitiveness
The current approach emphasizes oil over alternative incentives, rising comparative costs
crush US competitiveness
Levin in 2008 (Carl [Senator, Michigan] States News Service, May 12, 2008)
One of the major causes of our energy crisis is the failed policies of the current
Administration. The chickens have come home to roost on seven years of a business-as-
usual energy policy, paired with fiscal and foreign policies that have pushed our growing
energy problem close to a breaking point. Because the Administration has proved itself
unable and unwilling to take the necessary steps to provide affordable energy supplies to
the American people, it is up to the Congress to try to jumpstart a comprehensive solution
to skyrocketing energy prices.
The price of crude oil recently reached a record high price of about $126 per barrel. Sky-
high crude oil prices have led to record highs in the price of other fuels produced from
crude oil, including gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The national average
price of gasoline is at a record high of about $3.70 per gallon. Jet fuel costs nearly $3.40
per gallon. The price of diesel fuel, which is normally less expensive than gasoline, has
soared to a record high of nearly $4.25 per gallon.
Rising energy prices increase the cost of getting to work and taking our children to
school, traveling by car, truck, air and rail, and growing the food we eat and transporting
it to market. Rising energy prices increase the cost of producing the medicines we need
for our health, heating our homes and offices, generating electricity, and manufacturing
countless industrial and consumer products. The relentless increase in jet fuel prices has
contributed to airline bankruptcies, mergers, fare increases, and service cuts. "If fuel
continues to go up, this industry cannot survive in current form," the president of the Air
Transport Association said recently. Rising diesel prices have placed a crushing burden
upon our nation's truckers, farmers, manufacturers, and other industries. To make matters
worse, our energy costs are rising much more quickly than energy costs in other
countries, directly threatening our global competitiveness.
12
Science investment key to US competitiveness

President George W. Bush has said “Science and technology have never been more
essential to the defense of the nation and the health of our economy.”5A letter from the
leadership of the National Science Foundation to the President’s Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology put the case even more bluntly:6Civilization is on the brink of a
new industrial order. The big winners in the increasingly fierce global scramble for
supremacy will not be those who simply make commodities faster and cheaper than the
competition. They will be those who develop talent, techniques and tools so advanced
that there is no competition.
Major economic changes mean some nations will lose and pay the economic
consequences. Training new scientists is key to avoid the loss of US competitiveness
It has also been argued that in a period of tectonic change such as the one that the global
community is now undergoing, there will inevitably be nations and individuals that are
winners or losers. It is the view of this committee that the determining factors in such
outcomes are the extent of a nation’s commitment to get out and compete in the global
marketplace.New generations of US scientists and engineers, assisted by progressive
government policies, could lead the way to US leadership in the new, flatter world—as
long as US workers remain among the best educated, hardest-working, best trained, and
most productive in the world.
13
Jobs, competitiveness healthcare and wages are all dependent on taking action to match
the research efforts of developing countries across the world
A common denominator of the concerns expressed by many citizens is the need for and
use of knowledge. Well-paying jobs, accessible healthcare, and high-quality education
require the discovery, application, and dissemination of information and techniques. Our
economy depends on the knowledge that fuels the growth of business and plants the seeds
of new industries, which in turn provides rewarding employment for commensurately
educated workers. Chapter 2 explains that US prosperity since World War II has
depended heavily on the excellence of its “knowledge institutions”: high-technology
industries, federal R&D agencies, and research universities that are generally
acknowledged to be the best in the world.The innovation model in place for a half-
century has been so successful in the United States that other nations are now beginning
to emulate it. The governments of Finland, Korea, Ireland, Canada, and Singapore have
mapped and implemented strategies to increase the knowledge base of students and
researchers, strengthen research institutions, and promote exports of high-technology
products—activities in which the United States has in the past excelled.46 China formally
adopted a pro-R&D policy in the middle of the 1990s and has been moving rapidly to
raise government spending on basic research, to reform old structures in a fashion that
supports a market economy, and to build indigenous capacity in science and
technology.47 The United States is now part of a connected, competitive world in which
many nations are empowering their indigenous “brainware” and building new and
effective performance partnerships—and they are doing so with remarkable focus, vigor,
and determination. The United States must match that tempo if it hopes to maintain the
degree of prosperity it has enjoyed in the past.
14
Loss of research and science leadership would crush 40% of the US economy
Central to prosperity over the last 50 years has been our massive investment in science
and technology. Government spending on research and development (R&D) soared after
World War II, and government spending on R&D as a percentage of the gross domestic
product (GDP) reached a peak of 1.9% in 1964 (it has since fallen to 0.8%2). By 1970,
the United States enrolled 30% of all postsecondary students in the world, and more than
half the world’s science and engineering doctorates were awarded here.3 Today, with just
5% of the world’s population, the United States employs nearly one-third of the world’s
scientific and engineering researchers, accounts for 40% of all R&D spending, publishes
35% of science and engineering articles, and obtains 44% of science and engineering
citations.4 The United States comes out at or near the top of global rankings for
competitiveness. The International Institute for Management Development ranks the
United States first in global competitiveness; the World Economic Forum puts us second
(after Finland) in overall competitiveness and first in technology and innovation.5
Leadership in science and technology has translated into rising standards of living.
Technology improvements have accounted for up to one-half of GDP growth and at least
two-thirds of productivity growth since 1946.6 Business Week chief economist Michael
Mandel argues that, without innovation, the long-term growth rate of the US economy
would have been closer to 2.5% annually rather than the 3.6% that has been the average
since the end of World War II. If our economy had grown at that lower rate over the last
50 years, he says, it would be 40% smaller today, with corresponding implications for
jobs, wages, and the standard of living.7
15
Research solves the economy multiple ways
The relative competitive lead enjoyed by the United States will almost certainly shrink as
other nations rapidly improve their science and technology capacity. That means greater
challenges for the United States, but it also presents an opportunity to raise living standards and improve quality
of life around the world and to create a safer world. The United States might have a smaller share of the world’s
economy, but the economy itself will be larger. For that reason, the success of other nations need not imply the
failure of the United States. But it does require that the United States maintain and extend
its capacity to generate value as part of a global innovation system. If we increase our
commitment to leadership in science and technology, there are several likely results:
Although the US share of total scientific output continues to decline, the United
States maintains leadership across key areas.
US researchers become leaders of global research networks.
The US education system sets the standard for quality and innovation, giving
graduates a competitive edge over the larger number of lower wage scientists and
engineers trained in the developing world.
Our universities and national laboratories act as centers for regional innovation,
attracting and anchoring investment from around the world.
Our economy generates sufficient growth to reduce our trade imbalances, reduce
the federal budget deficit, and support an aging population.
Investors continue to find it attractive to place their funds in US firms seeking to
innovate and generate jobs in America.
US leadership in science and technology supports our military leadership and
addresses the major challenges of homeland security.
The rapid worldwide development that has resulted from advances in science and
technology has raised global standards of living, but it also spawned a range of
challenges that, paradoxically, will have to be solved through appropriate investments in
research:
To maintain its current rate of growth, by 2020 China will need to boost energy consumption by
150%, and India will need to do so by 100%.60 It will be essential to develop clean, affordable, and reliable
energy.
The increased movement of people around the world will lead to more outbreaks of communicable
diseases. Meanwhile, aging populations will require new treatments for chronic diseases.
As the means to develop weapons of mass destruction become more widely available, security
measures must advance.
In an increasingly interconnected economy, even small disruptions to communications, trade, or
financial flows can have major global consequences. Methods to manage complex systems and respond quickly
to emergencies will be essential.
The strains of managing global growth will require global collaboration. Around the world, the growing scale
and sophistication of science and technology mean that we are much more likely to be able to solve those and
other problems that will confront us. Advances in information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology
will improve life for billions of people. The leadership of the United States in science and technology will make
a critical contribution to those efforts and will benefit the lives of Americans here at home. Each challenge
offers an opportunity for the United States to position itself as the leader in the markets that will be created for
solutions to global challenges in such fields as energy, healthcare, and security.
It is important to recognize that all nations in the global economy are now inextricably linked. Just as global
health, environmental, and security issues affect everyone, so are we all dependent on the continued growth of
other economies. It is clearly in America’s interest for China, India, the EU, Japan, and other nations to succeed.
Their failure would pose a far greater threat to US prosperity and security than would their success. In the
global economy, no nation can prosper in isolation. However, it is the thesis of this report
that it is important that such global prosperity be shared by the citizens of the United
States.
16
A more detailed scenario for economic and competitive collapse without science
leadership
In Scenario 1, the United States continues to invest enough to maintain current trends in
science and technology education and performance, leading to a slow decline in
competitiveness. Scenario 2 considers what might happen if the commitment to science
and technology were to lessen. Although that would run counter to our national history,
several factors might lead to such an outcome:
Rising spending on social security, Medicare, and Medicaid (now 42% of
federal outlays compared with 25% in 1975) limit federal and state resources available
for science and technology.58 In 2005, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid
accounted for 8.4% of GDP. If growth continuesat the current rate, the federal
government’s total spending for Medicare and Medicaid alone would reach 22% of GDP
by 2050. The war on terrorism refocuses government resources on short-term survival
rather than long-term R&D. Increasingly attractive opportunities overseas draw industrial
R&D funding and talented US scientists and engineers away from the United States.
Higher US effective corporate tax rates discourage companies from investing in new
facilities and research in the United States. Excessive regulation of research institutions
reduces the amount of money available for actual research.
Those possibilities would exacerbate and accelerate the trends noted in Scenario 1:
The availability of scientists and engineers could drop precipitously if foreign
students and workers stop coming in large numbers, either because immigration
restrictions make it more difficult or because better opportunities elsewhere reduce the
incentives to work in the United States.
US venture capitalists begin to place their funds abroad, searching for higher
returns.
Short-term cuts in funding for specific fields could lead to a rapid decline in the
number of students in those disciplines, which could take decades to reverse.
If they were faced with a lack of qualified workers, multinational corporations
might accelerate their overseas hiring, building the capabilities of other nations while the
US innovation system atrophies.
Multinationals from China, India, and other developing nations, building on
success in their domestic markets and on supplies of talented, low-cost scientists and
engineers, could begin to dominate global markets, while US-based multinationals that
still have a large percentage of their employees in the United States begin to fail,
affecting jobs and the broader economy.
Financing the US trade deficit, now more than $600 billion or about 6% of GDP,
requires more than $2 billion a day of foreign investment. Many economists argue that
such an imbalance is unsustainable in the long term.59 A loss of competitiveness in key
export industries could lead to a loss of confidence in the US ability to cover the debt,
bringing on a crisis. As innovation and investment move overseas, domestic job creation
and wage growth could stall, lowering the overall standard of living in the United
States.The rapid pace of technological change and the increasing mobility of capital
knowledge and talent mean that our current lead in science and technology could
evaporate more quickly than is generally recognized if we fail to support it. The
consequences would be enormous, and once lost, our lead would be difficult to regain.
17
Econ Internals-Job Creation
Incentives for alternative resources key to preserve the US economy in two ways. First
cushion for peak oil, second investments trickle down gauaranteeing massive local
investment and job creation
PR Newswire May 15, 2008
Mesa Power is hopeful that the Pampa Wind Project will qualify for the Federal
Production Tax Credits in 2010 and 2011 when the project will begin commercial
operations. "I believe that Congress will recognize that it is critical not only to this
project, but to renewable energy in this country, that they enact a long-term extension of
the Production Tax Credits," Pickens said.
"The development of alternative energy projects, especially renewable resources such as
wind power, is critical for the future of the country in the face of declining world oil
resources," he said.
"You find an oilfield, it peaks and starts declining, and you've got to find another one to
replace it," said Pickens, who once operated one of the largest independent oil and gas
production companies. "It can drive you crazy. With wind, there's no decline curve."
The Panhandle, with its wide-open space, low population and steady winds, is a logical
location for wind-generated energy. Studies show the Texas Panhandle winds are optimal
for such a project, blowing much of the time in the middle of the day when electric
demand is at its peak.
Mesa Power has leased land in Carson, Gray, Hemphill, Roberts and Wheeler counties,
where the landowners will receive annual royalties for the wind turbines operating on
their property.
Development of the region's wind resources will also create an economic bonus similar to
the boom the three largest wind farms in America have created around Sweetwater in
Nolan County. While other towns in West Texas struggle with plummeting house prices
and job losses, Sweetwater is in the midst of a construction explosion. Two new
companies opened in the past month, one servicing the blades of the county's 2,000
turbines, another renting out cranes used in erecting new turbines. Tax revenues from the
wind energy companies are bringing jobs, new roads and houses, and renovating local
schools and hospitals there.
An Austin-based Resource Inc. economic impact study, commissioned by Mesa Power,
projects that the Mesa Power wind farm will bring significant increases in jobs and
income for the five counties of the project investment zone (Carson, Gray, Hemphill,
Roberts and Wheeler counties).
The study forecast the project would generate an estimated 1,500 jobs during the
construction phase, and 720 during a typical year of the operation phase; personal income
in the project investment zone will rise by $68.7 million per year during the construction
phase, and $120 million during the operation phase. The more significant impact during
the operation phase is largely due to lease payments to be made to landowners in the
project area amounting to $65.3 million per year.
18

Alternative energy investments create clusters of businesses that linked to one another
creating sustainable longterm growth in US cities. This is crucial to reviving the US
economy and competitiveness
Dayton Daily News May 11, 2008
Development experts, politicians and academics call them clusters. The concept - similar
businesses locating near and trading with one another, sharing laborers, driving university
research and training - is nothing new. Think Hollywood and entertainment, New York
and finance or, of course, Dayton and automotive manufacturing.
But a recent study by the Brookings Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, says
clusters remain critical to the economic growth and competitiveness of the country and
metropolitan areas such as Dayton. Karen Mills, the study's co-author and a venture
capitalist, said the federal government can support their growth by providing data and
funding.
John Blair, an economics professor with Wright State University who has studied the
issue locally, said both ideas hold promise.
Having money to conduct feasibility studies and other research could help regions find
ways to fix deficiencies they may have. But he cautions that any data gathered needs to
be tempered with information provided by local experts in the public and private sector to
give meaning to the numbers. Regions need to look at what businesses and support
services they already have and build upon those, Blair said.
"There's a big tendency in people who practice economic development to jump on the
bandwagon," he said. "You're much better off to study your local economy and think
rigorously about what things have a natural advantage in your area rather than just
reading what's in the newspaper and picking what's popular."
The establishment of interdependent businesses also helps keep companies in the area, he
said.
"Once they are here, once they are all reinforcing each other, it's hard for any of them to
leave," he said. "You're building a more lasting economic base."
David Swenson is vice president of business initiatives with the Edison Materials
Technology Center, an organization that assists manufacturers. He said industry clusters
related to advanced materials and alternative energy offer potential for growth in the state
and the region. Manufacturers often require capital to buy new equipment and training for
their workers in order to tap into these areas, he said.
19
Only tech investment can guarantee the job creation needed for US economic stability
Forrester Research estimates that 3.4 million US jobs could be lost to offshoring by
2015.27 Ashok Bardhan and Cynthia Kroll calculate that more than 14 million US jobs
are at risk of being sent offshore.28 The Information Technology Association of America
(ITAA), Global Insight,29 and McKinsey and Company30 all argue that those losses will
be offset by net gains in US employment—presuming that the United States takes the
steps needed to maintain a vibrant economy. Many experts point out that the number of
jobs lost to offshoring is small compared with the regular monthly churning of jobs in the
US economy. McKinsey, for example, estimates that about 225,000 jobs are likely to be
sent overseas each year, a small fraction of the total annual job churn. In 2004, the private
sector created more than 30 million jobs and lost about 29 million; the net gain was 1.4
million jobs.31 Once again, this suggests that the US economy will continue to create
new jobs at a constant rate, an assumption that in turn depends on our continued
development of new technologies and training of workers for the jobs of the 21st century.
Economists and others actively debate whether outsourcing or, more generally, free trade
with low-wage countries with rapidly improving innovation capacities will help or hurt
the US economy in the long term.32 The optimists and the pessimists, however, agree on
two fundamental points: in the short term, some US workers will lose their jobs and face
difficult transitions to new, higher skilled careers; and in the long term, America’s only
hope for continuing to create new high-wage jobs is to maintain our lead in innovation.
20

Scientific investment effectively combats offshoring. Language barriers etc. prevent the
offshoring of high-tech industries.
A recent McKinsey and Company study45 reported that the supply of young
professionals (university graduates with up to 7 years of experience) in low-wage
countries vastly outstrips the supply in high-wage countries. There were 33 million
people in that category in 28 low-wage countries, and 15 million in 8 high-wage
countries, including 7.7 million in the United States.46 With opportunities to study or
work abroad or to work at home for a multinational corporation, workers in low-wage
countries increasingly will be in direct competition with workers from developed nations.
The same study estimates, however, that only 13% of the potential talent supply in low-
wage nations is suited to work for multinational corporations because these individuals
lack language skills, because of low-quality domestic education systems, and because of
a lack of cultural fit. For the United States to compete, then, its workers can and must
bring to the workplace not only technical skills and knowledge but other valuable skills,
including knowledge of other cultures, the ability to interact comfortably with diverse
clientele, and the motivation to apply their skills. US workers also must be able to
communicate effectively orally and in writing, lead teams, manage projects, and solve
problems. Although much of our education system is working to teach those skills, there
is much to do to prepare US students for work in a more competitive global economy—
as well as to provide the rudimentary skills needed in any economy.
21
Econ Internals-Oil Prices
Only US investment in alternative energy sources can drive down oil prices. Incentives
are crucial to tech breakthroughs
I have long been advocated advanced automotive technologies such as hybrid electric,
advanced batteries, hydrogen and fuel cells and promoted development of these
technologies through federal research and development and through joint government-
industry partnerships. We need a significant infusion of federal dollars into these efforts
to make revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technologies. Such an investment
will make technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles affordable to the American public,
and reduce our dependence on oil and reduce prices at the pump.
We need an equally strong investment in development of alternative fuels that can replace
gasoline. I have strongly supported efforts to increase our production of renewable fuels
and to do that in a way that will also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We need a
strong push toward biofuels produced from cellulosic materials, which requires a
significantly greater federal investment in biofuels technologies. Cellulosic ethanol has
enormous potential for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but additional
federal support is required to make this technology financially viable. We need expanded
federal research and development grants as well as increased tax incentives and federal
loan guarantees to make cellulosic ethanol a viable replacement for gasoline. The federal
government must do its part first to develop these technologies so that they will then in
turn be within reach of the American public.
22
Econ Internals-Oil Prices

Decreasing dependence is crucial to forcing an OPEC price decrease
SENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (Congressional Documents
and Publications, May 5, 2008 )
U.S. Oil Dependence Allows OPEC to Set and Sustain High Oil Prices. "Global oil
reserves are concentrated in a volatile region of the world, with 60% of reserves in the
Persian Gulf region. Partly as a consequence of this concentration of low cost reserves,
OPEC producers are able to exercise market power, functioning as an imperfect
("clumsy") cartel and at times maintaining oil price well above estimated competitive
levels. The strength and influence of this cartel grows and declines, largely in relation to
cycles of growth in global import demand and OPEC market share. Nonetheless, OPEC's
production or pricing decisions can impose sustained economic costs over many years
and can exacerbate, or ameliorate, short-run supply shocks." [U.S. Department of Energy,
Estimating the Energy Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports, 2/28/07]
23
General Solvency-Private Gov’t Coop Key
Government inentives that encourage cooperation across government, educational and

business institutions are the best way to solve. Crucial to breathrough tech.
Bodman in 2008 (Samuel [US Secretary of Energy] Energy Department Documents and
Publications May 13, 2008)
First, governments have a critical role in funding the research that will help to lessen the
world's dependence on fossil fuels and harness the tremendous power of clean, alternative
energy technologies.
In the United States, under President Bush's leadership, we are aggressively funding
programs - for both basic science and applied RandD - to hasten the type of
transformational discoveries we need, the breakthroughs that truly change the nature of
our thinking and fundamentally alter how we produce, deliver and use energy.
At the same time, we're actively pursing new approaches to getting beneficial
technologies out into the marketplace quickly by employing a range of collaborative
models, including cost-sharing partnerships and loan guarantees, as well as establishing
innovative programs to bring venture capital-sponsored entrepreneurs into our National
Laboratories to help commercialize new technologies.
What we're trying to do is look at this challenge in a new way -- to try to incentivize the
collaboration that is necessary between government and the private sector.
Because the key to unlocking our energy future is ensuring that the innovation cycle
continues at a rapid pace across the spectrum - in our government laboratories, at our
universities, and especially in the private sector.
24
Leadership Internals-Energy Dependence
US leadership is being crushed by dependence on foreign oil subsidies key to

competitiveness
McFeatters in 2008 (Ann [National Columnist, Scripp Howard News Service] Plain
Dealer (Cleveland), May 18, 2008)
We are being strangled by our need for foreign oil. We have been foolish and profligate
with energy. The Clinton and Bush administrations stuck their heads in the sand, and now
we're in trouble. We must create a rational plan for energy independence. We must invest
in alternative energy sources.
Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, pipelines, water tanks, ports, sewers, water mains and other
structures that make our nation work are all in need of costly repairs, upgrading and replacement. The Clinton
and Bush administrations ignored the problem. We no longer have that luxury.
The public education system that made us the envy of the world is broken. Our students do not know as much
and are not learning as much as those in many Third World countries. The No Child Left Behind Act did not
work. We have to start from scratch.
Our military is stretched to the breaking point. We have to take care of our veterans and rethink our place in the
world and what we are willing to do to boost our armed services. We need a national service plan to involve our
youth and give them a stake in their country's future.
We have the power to destroy the delicate ecosystem that makes life on Earth possible. We must get serious
about environmental protection and cleanup and global warming. Every federal agency that deals with the
environment needs to be overhauled. The United States stopped leading on this front; it must pick up the reins
again.
About 47 million Americans do not have health care. If they get sick or injured, their lives become a nightmare
some will never escape. It is time to create a rational, workable, affordable universal health care system.
Terrorism is a fact of life. We have to be vigilant and secure in our borders. We must reform our immigration
system without giving up our civil liberties or slamming our doors.
We have to redouble our efforts to be innovative, respond to technological challenges and
stay competitive in a changing world.
We are still the most impressive nation on Earth, but we've gotten off track. We've
forgotten the sacrifices and hard work that made this nation great. It's time to remember
and insist our leaders remember.
25
Impact Extensions-Economy
A prolonged US recesssion will spread globally and cause

conflicts that slaughter millions
Business World 1/8/98
A global recession will make the 1929 depression in the US look like a
sari-sari store closing down. Global recession will lay off millions across
the planet, and trigger a stoppage of production in all types of
industries. Industry-based nations with little or no agrarian economy,
such as Singapore, will be the first to feel the pinch. Moving out of
recession takes time and while the crisis continues, despair will negate
further efforts towards growth and induce more crimes and war. In
other words, a protracted recession will make it harder to get out of it
and may cause a depression. A global depression can kill more people
at a shorter time than a protracted regional war. The IMF-World Bank
bailout of beleaguered Asian economies, especially South Korea, is
urgent since the ongoing regional recession may indeed spread out to
affect even the more stable American economy. An American recession
will surely trigger a global recession. The South Korea $50 billion
bailout, the biggest ever, bigger than the Mexican bailout, hints how
urgent the situation is.
Economic Decline Causes War

Mead, 1998
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the
Council on Foreign
Relations, The Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998
Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial
markets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest
immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the
mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that
started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged a
rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow
Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted,
thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people
lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the
biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on world
history--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The
Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power in
Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph
Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the
country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant
war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about
depressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world
economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing
"The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."
26
Impact Extensions-Economy
Economic growth solves crime, famine, AIDS, war, and all kinds
of other bad things.
Leonard Silk Winter 1993 (prof. of economics @ Pace U.), Foreign

Affairs
Like the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the
fires of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world.
Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political
pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed back
on economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with
such global problems as environmental pollution, the production and
trafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues.
Growth will not solve all of these problems by itself. But economic
growth – and growth alone – creates the additional resources that
make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living
standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment,
and more liberal and open economies and societies.
Economic decline leads to wars of all kind

Bernardo V. Lopez, BusinessWorld, 9/10/98 L/N
What would it be like if global recession becomes full bloom? The
results will be catastrophic. Certainly, global recession will spawn wars
of all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling
food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-
Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt
such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in
some Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may take
advantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the
countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Famine
can be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea,
Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots and
the breakdown of law and order are possibilities.
CONTINUES...
Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may
have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarian
base is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of
stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-wide
brownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities. Such looting in this
most affluent nation is not impossible.
The weapons industry may also grow rapidly because of the ensuing
wars. Arms escalation will have Primacy over food production if wars
escalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse
its economy back to health. This will further induce wars and conflicts
which will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US may
depend more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get its
ways internationally.
27
Impact Extensions-Leadership
Loss of US Leadership sparks multiple nuclear wars

Khalilzad 95 Zalmay, the amazing, Washington Quarterly, Spring
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global
leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to
multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-
term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an
end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises
leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global
environment would be more open and more receptive to American
values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a
world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the
world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of
regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally,
U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global
rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global
cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive
to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system.
28
Decline in US gurantees worldwide nuclear war
Khalizhad in 95
Zalmay Khalilzad, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the
World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly Reader, Order and
Disorder after the Cold War (ed. Brad Roberts) 1995, p.60
In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified
struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, both
sought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich
states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely to
retain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis
might seek to acquire, perhaps purchase, their own nuclear weapons.
If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world
supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S.
and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have
vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build
military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States and
other oil-importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by either
Iran or Iraq would bring he rest of the Arab Middle East under its
influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power.
Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would
be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between the
Arabs and the Israelis.
The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East
Asia, Europe, and the PErsian Gulf would harm the economy of the
United States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid
involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reduce
the U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe wold force
major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing
U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in these
regions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of
the U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustments
might be high.
The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase the
likelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
and means of their delivery. Already several rogue states such as
North Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range
missiles. That danger would only increase if the United States
withdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous
world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihood
of their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the
security of every nation in the world, including the United States,
would be harmed.
29
Loss of US leadershiop results in multiple scenarios for major war

throughout the world
Prager, 2004.
(Prager, Dennis. Ph.D. Law. Pepperdine University. Fellow. School of
International Affairs. Columbia University. “This Year’s Ingrate of the
Year Award Goes To…” Jewish World Review. August 31, 2004.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/prager1.asp.)
Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it is

ingratitude that characterizes much of the world's — including many
Americans' — attitude toward the United States. Think about it.
Without America:
The world would collapse into economic and moral chaos. Cruelty and
economic depression would dominate the planet. Vast unemployment
and social dislocation would ensue, followed by various forms of
secular and religious totalitarianism.
No one would stop the Chinese from conquering Taiwan.
No one would come to Israel's aid when Iran and other Muslim states
attempted to destroy that country.
No one would come to South Korea's aid as North Korea invaded and
probably prevailed over South Korea, making it a formidable Stalinist
force in East Asia.
Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter
emboldened Korea and China.
Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors.
Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially — everywhere,
including inside Europe — as its only real opposition disappeared.
It is American idealism coupled with its dominant economic and
military power that alone prevents evil from drowning the world. The
many fools of the Left who devote their lives to curbing American
power — from those who manage editorial pages and the news media,
to the academics who warn generations of students against American
power, to leftist billionaires like George Soros — do not understand
this.
30
Impact Extensions-Terrorism
Another major terror attack leads to worldwide war

Ignatieff 2004 [Michael Ignatieff, Canadian scholar, Liberal Member
of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons, "Lesser Evils," New
York Times Magazine, May 2 2004]
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped...ytm_050204.htm
Consider the consequences of a second major attack on the mainland
United States - the detonation of a radiological or dirty bomb, perhaps,
or a low-yield nuclear device or a chemical strike in a subway. Any of
these events could cause death, devastation and panic on a scale that
would make 9/11 seem like a pale prelude. After such an attack, a pall
of mourning, melancholy, anger and fear would hang over our public
life for a generation. An attack of this sort is already in the realm of
possibility. The recipes for making ultimate weapons are on the
Internet, and the materiel required is available for the right price.
Democracies live by free markets, but a free market in everything –
enriched uranium, ricin, anthrax -- will mean the death of democracy.
Armageddon is being privatized, and unless we shut down these
markets, doomsday will be for sale. Sept. 11, for all its horror, was a
conventional attack. We have the best of reasons to fear the fire next
time. A democracy can allow its leaders one fatal mistake -- and that's
what 9/11 looks like to many observers -- but Americans will not
forgive a second one. A succession of large - scale attacks would pull
at the already-fragile tissue of trust that binds us to our leadership and
destroy the trust we have in one another. Once the zones of
devastation were cordoned off and the bodies buried, we might find
ourselves, in short order, living in a national-security state on
continuous alert, with sealed borders, constant identity checks and
permanent detention camps for dissidents and aliens. Our
constitutional rights might disappear from our courts, while torture
might reappear in our interrogation cells. The worst of it is that
government would not have to impose tyranny on a cowed populace.
We would demand it for our own protection. And if the institutions of
our democracy were unable to protect us from our enemies, we might
go even further,<take> taking the law into our own hands. We have a
history of lynching in this country, and by the time fear and paranoia
settled deep in our bones, we might repeat the worst episodes from
our past, killing our former neighbors, our onetime fiends. That is what
defeat in a war on terror looks like. We would survive, but we would no
longer recognize ourselves. We would endure, but we would lose our
identity as free peoples.
31
Terrrorists will relentlessly attack the US we must search out and kill
them
Epstein 2005, (Alex, Jr. Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Muslim
Opinion Be Damned," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Sept 12, 2005,
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...s_iv_ctrl=1021)
This is the latest example of the apologies and hand-wringing that occur anytime there
is any widespread display of Muslim anger. To listen to most of our foreign-
policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today is the
fact that many Muslims are mad at us. "Whatever one's views on the [Iraq]
war," writes a "New York Times" columnist, "thoughtful Americans need to consider . . .
the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world." In response to
Abu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, "We have become the most hated nation in the
world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons." Muslim anger over America's
support of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism. We face,
these commentators say, a crisis of "Muslim opinion." We must, they say, win the
"hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting
down Guantanamo, by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terrorist
Palestinian Authority--and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim
world. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion," we are told, we will drive even more to
become terrorists. All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being
heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue of
treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of
war in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields, trying to
kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and
torture--real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid--that are official policy and daily
practice throughout the Middle East. Or consider "Muslim opinion" over the United
States' handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accused
of not being "hard enough" on Israel--a free nation with laws that protect all citizens,
Jew and Arab alike--for Israel's supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet "Muslim
opinion" reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians
of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and
executes peaceful dissenters. So-called Muslim opinion is not the
unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the
irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and
their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us
not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because
they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion--
one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly
pleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the
rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim), they seek a world in
which the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam. The
proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as
our ideological and political enemies--and dispense justice accordingly.
In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them--
especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for
the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually
CONTINUED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
32
CONTINUED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism.

Such a
policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as
irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to support
our ideals and emulate our ways. President Bush, like most politicians and
intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "Muslim opinion": appeasement.
Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he
has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands--e.g., sacrificing American
soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists by
defeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the
destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion"
and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead
of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including, most notably,
Iran--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners." Such
measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us.
"Condemn America," they have learned, "and American leaders will praise your ideals
and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states and
movements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but
redouble its efforts to buy your love." Every attempt to appease "Muslim
opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every
concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause.
Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time
to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage
to identify and defeat our enemies--"Muslim opinion" be damned. They should begin by
declaring that militant groups and states that threaten anti-Western violence in response
to free speech will be met, not with appeasement, but with destruction.
33
A single terrorist attack would devastate the world’s economy and
ecosystem
Wasserman, 2002
Harvey Wasserman, Greenpeace, From the Earth Island Journal,
www.earthisland.org
A terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of
molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer
and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows of
horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square
miles would be saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created;
depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infants
and small children would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would
spontaneously abort or give birth to horribly deformed offspring.
Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin of
millions. Heart attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill
thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat
or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence,
asthma and blindness would afflict hundreds of thousands, if not
millions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas,
tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to be
invented. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die
trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than
800,000 Soviet draftees forced through Chernobyl's seething remains
in a futile attempt to clean it up are still dying from their exposure. At
Indian Point, the molten cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeks
and years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? The
immediate damage from an Indian Point attack (or a domestic
accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City an
apocalyptic wasteland. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of
farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would be
permanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically,
financially and ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is
what we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we
are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are
103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US.
They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since its
deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15
percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the
reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates,
Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, a
form of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in
case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously?
Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking
reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all
future generations must be shut down
34
Terrorism would crush the economy
Biddle 2005 (Stephen D. Biddle, Associate Professor of National
Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies
Institute. AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY AFTER 9/11: AN ASSESSMENT
April 2005)
By contrast, some may argue that terrorism does so much damage to
economies, and creates such communities of interest among great
powers, that these tensions are more apparent than real. After all, the
9/11 attackers claim to have inflicted $1 trillion in economic damage
on the United States;73 if so, a series of such attacks (or worse) could
do greater damage to American economic growth than would the
elevated defense expenditures needed to prevent them. And terrorism
threatens every great power; this common threat could in theory drive
the great powers together in opposition to Islamist fundamentalism,
rather than driving them apart or spurring competition among them.
35
Non-Uniques-Increasing Incentives Now
DOE increasing water power subsidies now

Scoggins in 2008 (Jennifer [DOE Public Affairs Officer] Energy Department Documents
and Publications, May 5, 2008)
WASHINGTON, DC - As part of the Bush Administration's ongoing commitment to

invest in clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced up to
$7.5 million in federal funding for research and development to help advance the viability
and cost-competitiveness of advanced water power systems. Through this Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA), DOE seeks partnerships with U.S. industry and
universities to develop innovative and effective technologies capable of harnessing water
power energy resources, including ocean wave, tidal, current and other water-based
resources.
"Water covers more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface. Using environmentally
responsible technologies, we have a tremendous opportunity to harness energy produced
from ocean waves, tides or ocean currents, free flowing water in rivers, and other water
resources to advance the Administration's comprehensive energy strategy and provide
clean and reliable power in the United States," Andy Karsner, DOE Assistant Secretary
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said. "The U.S. Department of Energy is
aggressively pursuing the development of next-generation technologies that are capable
of increasing the use of clean, renewable energy to further our energy security and help
meet the President's goal to stop greenhouse gas emissions growth by 2025."
Through public-private partnerships, the FOA seeks to advance water research and
development projects in support of water power technology. DOE plans to award
industry-led partnerships to research, develop and/or field test advanced water power
technologies to further the President's Advanced Energy Initiative, which dramatically
increases clean-energy research funding to develop cleaner, lower cost, and more reliable
alternative energy sources. Successful applicants will be required to develop
collaborative project teams involving at least one other industry, university or national
laboratory partner and a minimum 50 percent non-federal cost share is required.
36
AT-SQ Incentives Solve
All current alternative energy incentives are jokes. They are aimed at lining the pockets
of home state interest groups and won’t decrease consumption. Leadership now is crucial
to preserving US competitiveness
Yaro in 2008 (Robert [President of the Regional Plan Association] Hartford Courant, May
11, 2008)
It's now been 35 years since the first Arab oil embargo provided America with a wake-up
call about the dangers associated with the nation's over-reliance on oil imports from
countries that don't really like us.
Since then, Americans have been in a permanent state of denial about the dangers that our
energy profligacy has created for our economy and environment. We now know that our
excess fuel consumption is undermining not only our national defense, the value of the
dollar and the well-being of the U.S. economy, but the health of the world's climate as
well.
So what have our policy responses been to this challenge? Over the past three decades,
cars and trucks have gotten larger and less fuel efficient, total vehicle-miles traveled have
burgeoned, and we have taken virtually no steps to develop alternative fuels or
alternatives to ever-longer commutes on increasingly crowded highways.
Consequently, the nation's energy supply has gone from one-third to two-thirds reliant on
foreign oil. America's energy and tax policies have been stuck in the 1950s, when we
were the world's largest petroleum exporter, instead of the largest importer that we are
today.
With oil hovering around $120 per barrel and gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon, political
leaders are looking for scapegoats, not real solutions, to the mess that is our national
energy policy.
Most are blaming greedy oil companies and commodity speculators for high prices, not
the nation's wasteful use of energy, growing consumption, and competition from China
and India for scarce resources.
Presidents and Congresses from both parties can fairly share the blame for ducking this
issue and continuing to pander to voters instead of proposing real solutions. The last
serious presidential candidate to propose raising gas taxes to limit consumption and fund
alternative energy research and mass transit was Sen. Paul Tsongas in his 1992
presidential bid. His campaign ended in the Michigan primary, when voters resoundingly
rejected his proposed 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax increase.
Since then, we've gotten only gauzy promises for increased ethanol production or energy
independence from both Republican and Democratic candidates - responses based largely
on results of focus groups, not on the urgent need to reduce the nation's overconsumption
of imported oil.
The bipartisan failure of leadership on this issue reached a new level this month with the
announcement that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was joining John McCain in
calling for a "gas tax holiday" for the summer.
This "holiday" will save the average U.S. family anywhere from $0 to $70 over the
course of the summer, depending on whose estimate you use, and speed the bankruptcy
of the transportation trust fund, already expected to move into deficit by the end of 2009.
It won't do a thing to focus the nation on what we really need: national energy and related
tax policies designed to reduce oil consumption and oil imports and put us on the track to
an alternative energy future.
This isn't just a national issue. Proposals to suspend state gas or petroleum taxes have
circulated in the legislatures of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. What America
and the region really need is leadership, not pandering on an issue that is fundamental to
the nation's future security, competitiveness and the success of global efforts to manage
climate change.
37
AT-Oil Supplies OK
a/t oil supplies good- It’s not a question of total oil supply. A speculative bubble
guarantees that oil prices will continue to rise.
The President and CEO of Marathon Oil recently said, "$100 oil isn't justified by the
physical demand in the market. It has to be speculation on the futures market that is
fueling this." Mr. Fadel Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company describes the
oil market as "a farce." "The speculators have seized control and it's basically a free-for-
all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut down unless and until responsible
governments step in." In January of this year, as oil hit $100 barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil
analyst for Citigroup, wrote "the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not support a
further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower price levels." At the joint hearing
on the effects of speculation we held last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial
market analyst, testified, "Of course financial trading, speculation affects the price of oil
because it affects the price of everything we trade. . . It would be amazing if oil somehow
escaped this effect." Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation, "There is a
bubble in oil prices."
A fair price for a commodity is a price that accurately reflects the forces of supply and
demand for the commodity, not the trading strategies of speculators who only are in the
market to make a profit by the buying and selling of paper contracts with no intent to
actually purchase, deliver, or transfer the commodity. As we have all too often seen in
recent years, when speculation grows so large that it has a major impact on the market,
prices get distorted and stop reflecting true supply and demand.
38
AT-Oil Supplies OK
Currency weakness, increased 3rd world demand and rampant future speculation
guarantee that prices will continue to spike
Besides the weak dollar, there are other factors at work that account for soaring energy
prices. Some are beyond our control; others we can do something about. In global
markets, for example, the combination of increasing demand from developing countries,
coupled with a variety of political problems in supplier countries, has contributed to price
increases. Growing demand for oil and gas in China, India, and other developing
countries is contributing to an overall increase in global demand for crude oil. On the
supply side, many oil producing countries are politically unstable, and have not been
fully reliable suppliers. For example, in Nigeria, which is a major oil producing country,
for several years tribal gangs have been sabotaging production and pipelines.
While we can't do much about some causes of sky high gas prices, a number of causes
can be addressed. Another key factor in price spikes of energy is rampant speculation in
the energy markets. Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record
amounts, creating a paper demand that is driving up prices and increasing price volatility
solely to take a profit. Overall, the amount of trading of futures and options in oil on the
New York Mercantile Exchange has risen six-fold in recent years, from 500,000
outstanding contracts in 2001, to about 3 million contracts now. [Chart 1]. [PDF]
Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to speculation. Speculators in the
oil market do not intend to use crude oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil
just to make a profit from the changing prices. The number of futures and options
contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in 2001, which was
20% of the total number of outstanding contracts, to 1.2 million contracts currently held
by speculators, which represents almost 40% of the outstanding futures and options
contracts in oil on NYMEX [Chart 2]. [PDF]
There is now 12 times as many speculative holdings as there was in 2001, while holdings
of non-speculative futures and options is up but 3 times. [Chart 3]. [PDF]
Not surprisingly, this massive speculation that the price of oil will increase has, in fact,
helped increase the price of oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the
traditional forces of supply and demand.
39
High Oil Prices=Now Key Time
High oil prices providwe a unique opportunity for alternatives development. Now is the
window for investments that provide long term relief
The Charleston post and Courier in 2008 (April 23, 2008)
The price of crude oil closed at a record $119.18 per barrel Tuesday on the New York
Mercantile Exchange. In a related development, the U.S. retail price of regular gasoline
hit a record $3.51 per gallon. In another related development, the financial incentive for
alternative-energy development continues to soar.
That rising need for making wind, solar and other non-oil energy economically viable for
electricity generation is on clear display in Texas, the state traditionally known as
America's "oil patch."
As the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported last week, the Texas Legislature has approved a
"Competitive Renewable Energy Zone" program that "will lead to the construction of $3
billion to $6.4 billion in transmission lines" for wind power.
Those lines will be funded by Texas electricity rate-payers over the next several years, at
up to $320 each. The goal: motivating utility companies to produce another 5,150
megawatts of electricity from wind turbines - enough to power 2.6 million homes.
That's a high price to pay. Yet it could ultimately prove a positive investment for residents
of Texas, which has passed California as the nation's top wind-power state.
California, meanwhile, has made a major commitment to solar power. Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed the "Million Solar Roof Plan" into law in 2006, making his state
the national leader in trying to convert energy from the sun into cost-efficient electricity.
That initiative's $3.3 billion price tag, to be funded by an estimated charge of $86 per
Californian, aims to increase the state's solar-power output by 3,000 megawatts in the
next decade - enough power for about 1.5 million homes.
Scientists and economists debate which state has made the best energy move. But Ryan
Wiser, chief of renewable-energy research at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
in Berkeley, Calif., told the Star-Telegram: "You get more bang for your buck from wind
energy than from solar energy."
That's apparently true as of now. Then again, as rapidly ascending gas prices have
demonstrated anew, the economics of energy, like the economics of other goods, services
and commodities, are subject to dramatic change. And just as the Lone Star State's
frequently windy conditions and vast open spaces make it a natural for wind power, the
Golden State's generally bright climate ("sunny California") makes it a natural for solar
power.
Alternative energy sources remain prohibitively expensive in many areas. However,
continued elevation in the costs of fossil fuels inevitably lowers the cost barriers that have
made wind, solar and even an expansion of nuclear energy impractical in this nation - so
far.
The spike in oil prices now inflicts financial hardships on Americans. But the emerging
alternative-energy market, given a fair chance to reach its potential, could provide long
term relief.
40
AT-Trades off With DOE Research
Claims that ARPA is duplicative are wrong. Little DOE research has energy
technology applications and its advanced tech funding was cut in 1998
Adee in 2007 (Sarah [IEEE Editor] IEEE Forum, September 2007
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/5484)
Testifying at the first of many hearings on the ARPA-E bill, former DOE advisor
Melanie Kenderdine, now an associate director at the MIT Energy Initiative, said
that ARPA-E’s objective is not easy to distinguish from that of the DOE’s Office of
Science, which funds basic research across a broad array of fields. But House
Science staffer Christopher King, who worked on the ARPA-E legislation, argues
that little of that office’s research has energy technology applications.
The energy department once had an Advanced Energy Projects division, which,
until it was abolished in 1998, was the incubator for cutting-edge energy research.
Started in 1977, it funded what Ryszard Gajewski calls the “infants and orphans” of
energy research. Gajewski, a former director of the division, says that the time from
proposal to funding was sometimes as little as two months, even though the division
relied on peer review of proposals, which DARPA does not do.
ARPA-E funding wouldn’t trade off with DOE funding. It is funded independently
from discontinued petroleum subsidies
Adequate funding, of course, will be crucial to ARPA-E’s success. Since 2006,

various legislative incarnations of the bill authorized annual appropriations
anywhere from US $300 million to $1 billion. Where will that money come from?
“I would guess that an ARPA-E will have to be funded at the expense of existing
DOE programs,” says William Happer, who ran science programs at the DOE in the
early 1990s. But King notes that a bill adopted in January would set up a fund for
clean energy research—including ARPA-E—using money from discontinued oil
and gas subsidies.
41
AT-NO Short Term Solvency
Even if research has no immediate results it supports longterm discovery and industry
The visible products of research, however, are made possible by a large enterprise mostly
hidden from public view—fundamental and applied research, an intensively trained
workforce, and a national infrastructure that provides risk capital to support the nation’s
science and engineering innovation enterprise. All that activity, and its sustaining public
support, fuels the steady flow of knowledge and provides the mechanism for converting
information into the products and services that create jobs and improve the quality of
modern life. Maintaining that vast and complex enterprise during an age of competition
and globalization is challenging, but it is essential to the future of the United States.
Medical research proves that long term research pays off. We cannot forsee the benefits
One straightforward way to view the practical application of research is to compare US

life expectancy (Figure 2-7) in 1900 (47.3 years)23 with that in 1999 (77 years).24 Our
cancer and heart-disease survival rates have improved (Figure 2-8), and accidental-death
rates and infant and maternal mortality (Figure 2-9) have fallen dramatically since the
early 20th century.25 Improvements in the nation’s health are, of course, attributable to
many factors, some as straightforward as the engineering of safe drinking-water supplies.
Also responsible are the large-scale production, delivery, and storage of nutritious foods
and advances in diagnosis, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and treatment methods.26
Medical research also has brought economic benefit. The development of lithium as a
mental-health treatment, for example, saves $9 billion in health costs each year. Hip-
fracture prevention in postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporosis saves $333 million
annually. Treatment for testicular cancer has resulted in a 91% remission rate and annual
savings of $166 million.27
42
AT-Alternatives Fail
Should force alternatives even if they fail, it has an aggregate effect

Minneapolis Star Tribune May 5, 2008
Smyrl will be watching to make sure recovering from that kind of pressure doesn't
compromise the life or efficiency of the battery. If all goes well, he estimates that the
huge new chemical batteries could be out to market in as little as five years.
But that's only 12 years away from the statewide deadline to have 25 percent of our
energy from renewable sources. Even with such a short timetable, Smyrl says it is good
to challenge power companies to explore ways to sustain alternative energies, regardless
of the outcome.
"Why not have a challenge like that, even if we only came in at half [12 percent], that's a
start," he said.
43
AT-T You Sponsor Gov’t Research
Arpa-e would be an independent agency reporting to the DOE and funding

University and industry research
DARPA—famously credited with helping develop the Internet, weather satellites,

and GPS—was established in 1958 as part of the U.S. response to the Soviet
Union’s launch of the Sputnik satellite. The agency is a svelte 240 employees
within the DOD behemoth. Legislators envision ARPA-E as a similarly small,
autonomous agency whose personnel will be replaced about every four years to
discourage bureaucratic lethargy. Like DARPA, ARPA-E will fund both university
and industry programs. The agency’s director will bypass all the usual protocols to
report directly to the Secretary of Energy. Program managers will be given a great
deal of autonomy to jump-start promising projects and terminate failing ones just as
quickly.
44
AT-Plan Unpopular
Americans heart jobs.

Does the public truly see the challenge to our prosperity? In recent months, polls have
indicated persistent concern not only about the war in Iraq and issues of terrorism but
also, and nearly equally, about jobs and the economy. One CBS-New York Times poll
showed security leading economic issues by only 1%;41 another42 showed that our
economy and job security are of slightly greater concern to respondents than are issues of
national security and terrorism. On the eve of the 2004 presidential election, the Gallup
organization asked respondents what issues concerned them most. Terrorism was first,
ranked “extremely important” by 45% of respondents; next came the economy (39%),
health care (33%), and education (32%).43 Only 35% say that now is a good time to find
a high-quality job; 61% say that it is not.44 Polls, of course, only provide a snapshot of
America’s thinking, but presumably one can conclude that Americans are generally
worried about jobs—if not for themselves then for their children and grandchildren.
Investors are worried, too. According to a Gallup poll, 83% percent of US investors say
job outsourcing to foreign countries is currently hurting the investment climate “a lot”
(61%) or “a little” (22%). The numbers who are worried about outsourcing are second
only to the numbers who are worried about the price of energy, according to a July 2005
Gallup poll on investor concerns.45
45
AT- Science Bad
Tech good for the environment and humans multiple proofs

Advances in our understanding of the environment have led to better systems to promote
human health and the health of our planet. Weather satellites, global positioning systems,
and airborne-particle measurement technologies also have helped us to monitor and
mitigate unexpected environmental problems. Unfortunately, some of these problems
have been the consequence of unexpected side-effects of technological advances.
Fortunately, in many cases additional technological understanding was able to overcome
unintended consequences without forfeiting the underlying benefits.
Water Quality
Early in the 20th century, when indoor plumbing was rare, wastewater often was dumped
directly into streets and rivers. Waterborne diseases— cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery,
and diarrhea—were rampant and among the leading causes of death in the United States.
Research and engineering for modern sewage treatment and consequent improvements in
water quality have dramatically affected public and environmental health. Water-
pollution controls have mitigated declines in wildlife populations, and research into
wetlands and riparian habitats has informed the process of engineering water supplies for
our population.
Automobiles and Gasoline
In the 1920s, engineers discovered that adding lead to gasoline caused it to burn more
smoothly and improved the efficiency of engines. However, they did not predict the
explosive growth of the automobile industry. The widespread use of leaded gasoline
resulted in harmful concentrations of lead in the air,28 and by the 1970s the danger was
apparent. New formulations developed by petrochemical researchers not requiring the use
of lead have resulted in vastly reduced emissions and improved air quality (Figure 2-10).
Parallel advances in petroleum refining and the adoption and improvement of catalytic
converters increased engine efficiency and removed harmful byproducts from the
combustion process. Those achievements have reduced overall automobile emissions by
31%, and carbon monoxide emissions per automobile are 85% lower than in the 1970s.29
Refrigeration
In the early 1920s, scientists began working on nontoxic, nonflammable replacements for
ammonia and other toxic refrigerants then in use. In 1928, Frigidaire synthesized the
world’s first chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), trademarked as Freon. By the 1970s, however, it
had become clear that CFCs contribute to losses in the atmosphere’s protective layer of
ozone. In 1974, scientists identified a chain reaction that begins with CFCs and sunlight
and ends with the production of chlorine atoms. A single chlorine atom can destroy as
many as 100,000 ozone molecules. The consequences could be long-lasting and severe,
including increased cancer rates and global warming.30 In 1987, the Montreal Protocol
began a global phase-out of CFC production. That in turn provided the market force that
fueled the development of new, non-CFC refrigerants. Although the results of CFC use
provide an example of the unintended negative consequences of technology, the response
demonstrates the influence of science in diagnosing problems and providing effective
solutions.
46
AT- Science Bad

Science key to understanding human behavior
Today, an extraordinary scientific effort is being devoted to the mind and the brain, the
processes of thinking and learning, the neural processes that occur during thought and
learning, and the development of competence. The revolution in the study of the mind
that has occurred in recent decades has important implications for education.36 A new
theory of learning now coming into focus will lead to very different approaches to the
design of curriculum, teaching, and assessment from those generally found in schools
today. Research in the social sciences has increased understanding of the nature of
competent performance and the principles of knowledge organization that underlie
people’s abilities to solve problems in a wide variety of fields, including mathematics,
science, literature, social studies, and history. It has also uncovered important principles
for structuring learning experiences that enable people to use what they have learned in
new settings. Collaborative studies of the design and evaluation of learning environments
being conducted by cognitive and developmental psychologists and educators are
yielding new knowledge about the nature of learning and teaching in a variety of settings.
47
AT- Science Bad

Tech Good, it solves multiple scenarios for human misery and death and environmental
destruction
Agricultural Mechanization
Advances in agriculture have vastly increased farm productivity and food production.
The food supply for the world’s population of more than 6 billion people comes from a
land area that is 80% of what was used to feed 2.5 billion people in 1950. However,
injudicious application of mechanization also led to increased soil erosion. Since 1950,
20% of the world’s topsoil has been lost—much of it in developing countries. Urban
sprawl, desertification, and over-fertilization have reduced the amount of arable land by
20%.31 Such improvements as conservation tillage, which includes the use of sweep
plows to undercut wheat stalks but leave roots in place, have greatly reduced soil erosion
caused by traditional plowing and have promoted the conservation of soil moisture and
nutrients. Advances in agricultural biotechnology have further reduced soil erosion and
water contamination because they have reduced the need for tilling and for use of
pesticides.
Improvements attributable to declining mortality and better environmental monitoring are
compounded by gains made possible by other advances in technology. The result has
been a general enhancement in the quality of life in the United States as viewed by most
observers.
Electrification and Household Appliances
Advances in technology in the 20th century resulted in changes at home and in the
workplace. In 1900, less than 10% of the nation was electrified; now virtually every
home in the United States is wired (Figure 2-11).32 Most of us give little thought to the
vast array of electrical appliances that surround us.
Transportation
As workers left farms to move to cities, transportation systems developed to get them to
work and home again. Advances in highway construction in turn fueled the automotive
industry. In 1900, one-fourth of US households had a horse, and many in urban areas
relied on trolleys and trams to get to work and market. Today, more than 90% of US
households own at least one car (Figure 2-12). Improvements in refrigeration put a
refrigerator in virtually every home, and the ability to ship food across the country made
it possible to keep those refrigerators stocked. The increasing speed, safety, and reliability
of aircraft spawned yet another global industry that spans commercial airline service and
overnight package delivery.
Communication
At the beginning of the 20th century slightly more than 1 million telephones were in use
in the United States. The dramatic increase in telephone calls per capita over the
following decades was made possible by advances in cable bundling, fiber optics, touch-
tone dialing, and cordless communication (Figure 2-13). Cellular-telephone technology
and voice-over-Internet protocols have added even more communication options. At the
beginning of the 21st century, there were more than 300 million telephone
communication devices and cellular telephone lines in the United States.
Radio and television revolutionized the mass media, but the Internet has provided
altogether new ways of communicating. Interoperability between systems makes it
possible to use one device to communicate by telephone, over the Internet, in pictures, in
voice, and in text. The “persistent presence” that those devices make possible and the
eventual widespread availability of wireless and broadband services will spawn another
revolution in communication. At the same time, new R&D will be needed to
Disaster Mitigation
48
Structural design, electrification, transportation, and communication come together in
coordinating responses to natural disasters. Earthquake engineering and related
technologies now make possible quake-resistant skyscrapers in high-risk zones. The 1989
AT- Science Bad
CONTINUED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Loma Prieta earthquake in central California caused 60 deaths and more than $6 billion in
property damage, but occupants of the 49-story Transamerica Pyramid building in San
Francisco were unharmed, as was the building itself, even though its top swayed from
side to side by more than 1 foot for more than a minute.33 In December 1988, an
earthquake in Georgia in the former USSR of the same magnitude as Loma Prieta led to
the deaths of 22,000 people—illustrating the impact of the better engineered building
protection available in California.
A US Geological Survey radio system increases safety for cleanup crews during
aftershocks. After Loma Prieta, workers in Oakland were given almost a half hour notice
of aftershocks 50 miles away, thanks to the speed differential between radio and seismic
waves.34
Weather prediction, enabled by satellites and advances in imaging technology, has helped
mitigate losses from hurricanes. Early-warning systems for tornadoes and tsunamis offer
another avenue for reducing the effects of natural disasters—but only when coupled with
effective on-the-ground dissemination. As is the case for many technologies, this last step
of getting a product implemented, especially in underserved areas or developing
countries, can be the most difficult. Furthermore, as hurricane Katrina in New Orleans
demonstrated, early warning is not enough—sound structural design and a coordinated
human response are also essential.
Energy Conservation
The last century saw demonstrations of the influence of technology in every facet of our
lives. It also revealed the urgent need to use resources wisely. Resource reduction and
recycling are expanding across the United States. Many communities, spurred by
advances in recycling technologies, have instituted trash-reduction programs. Industries
are producing increasingly energy-efficient products, from refrigerators to automobiles.
Today’s cars use about 60% of the gasoline per mile driven that was used in 1972. With
the advent of hybrid automobiles, further gains are now being realized. Similarly,
refrigerators today require one-third of the electricity that they needed 30 years ago. In
the 1990s, manufacturing output in the United States expanded by 41%, but industrial
consumption of
electricity grew by only 11%. The introduction and use of energy-efficient products have
enabled the US economy to grow by 126% since 1973 while energy use has increased by
only 30% (Figure 2-14).35 Those improvements in efficiency are the result of work in a
broad spectrum of science and engineering fields.
49

Aprpa e Addendum

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Aprpa e Addendum

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

LMDIT 2008 ARPA E Aff Addendum (___/___)

Serving Utah Since. . .Now

TERRORISM ADD-ON ……………………………..2-3

Last week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have

Inherency-Not Funded Now

Despite Congressional support the administration has refused to fund ARPA-E

Inherency-Not Funded Now

Science Investment Decreasing

Both private and public sources of research funding are drying up

Science Investment Decreasing

Science Investment Decreasing

Other Countries Catching Up

Funding Key To Effectiveness

Adequate funding key to ARPA-E research

Econ Internals-European Market Harmonization

Science investment key to US competitiveness

Econ Internals-Job Creation

Econ Internals-Job Creation

Econ Internals-Job Creation

Econ Internals-Job Creation

Econ Internals-Oil Prices

Econ Internals-Oil Prices

General Solvency-Private Gov’t Coop Key

Government inentives that encourage cooperation across government, educational and

Leadership Internals-Energy Dependence

US leadership is being crushed by dependence on foreign oil subsidies key to

A prolonged US recesssion will spread globally and cause

Economic Decline Causes War

Leonard Silk Winter 1993 (prof. of economics @ Pace U.), Foreign

Economic decline leads to wars of all kind

Loss of US Leadership sparks multiple nuclear wars

Loss of US leadershiop results in multiple scenarios for major war

Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it is

Another major terror attack leads to worldwide war

discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism.

Non-Uniques-Increasing Incentives Now

DOE increasing water power subsidies now

WASHINGTON, DC - As part of the Bush Administration's ongoing commitment to

AT-SQ Incentives Solve

High Oil Prices=Now Key Time

AT-Trades off With DOE Research

Adequate funding, of course, will be crucial to ARPA-E’s success. Since 2006,

AT-NO Short Term Solvency

One straightforward way to view the practical application of research is to compare US

Should force alternatives even if they fail, it has an aggregate effect

AT-T You Sponsor Gov’t Research

Arpa-e would be an independent agency reporting to the DOE and funding

DARPA—famously credited with helping develop the Internet, weather satellites,

Americans heart jobs.

AT- Science Bad

Tech good for the environment and humans multiple proofs

AT- Science Bad

AT- Science Bad

AT- Science Bad

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

LMDIT 2008 ARPA E Aff Addendum (_/_)