West Coast 2013June Update

West Coast – June 2013 Policy Update

West Coast 2013June Update

Table Of Contents

West Coast – June 2013 Policy Update....................................................................................................1Table Of Contents................................................................................................................................2

ESTF DA....................................................................................................................................................31NC ESTF DA 1/3..................................................................................................................................41NC ESTF DA 2/3..................................................................................................................................51NC ESTF DA 3/3..................................................................................................................................6No ESTF – New Drilling Key..................................................................................................................7AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms Link For Drilling.....................................................................................8Link – Plan Causes Drilling...................................................................................................................9Link – Plan Causes GOP Horsetrade...................................................................................................10Internal Link – Drilling ESTF...........................................................................................................11Internal Link – New Drilling Key.........................................................................................................12Internal Link – Horsetrading Key ESTF...............................................................................................13AT: Status Quo Drilling Triggers Link..................................................................................................14AT: Drilling Funds Plan, Not ESTF.......................................................................................................15ESTF Bad – Economy..........................................................................................................................16ESTF Bad – Carbon Tax.......................................................................................................................17ESTF Bad – Advanced Biofuels Link....................................................................................................18ESTF Bad – Key To R&D......................................................................................................................19Advanced Biofuels Bad – Extinction...................................................................................................20Advanced Biofuels Bad – Food/Environment....................................................................................21Advanced Biofuels Bad – Bioweapons...............................................................................................22AT: Biofuels Good – Warming............................................................................................................23Drilling Bad – Methane......................................................................................................................24Drilling Bad – Oil Spills.......................................................................................................................25Drilling Bad – Ocean Bio-D.................................................................................................................26

ESTF DA Answers...................................................................................................................................27Yes Transportation Spending.............................................................................................................28Drilling Inevitable...............................................................................................................................29No Link – Drilling Not Enough Revenue For Plan...............................................................................30Democrats Will Block Drilling.............................................................................................................31Obama Will Block Drilling..................................................................................................................32ESTF Not Key Carbon Tax...................................................................................................................33ESTF Not Key Alternative Energy.......................................................................................................34ESTF Not Key Biofuels........................................................................................................................35Biofuel Investment Inevitable............................................................................................................36Biofuels Good – Oil Wars...................................................................................................................37AT: Methane Hydrates Impact...........................................................................................................38AT: Oil Spills Impact...........................................................................................................................39AT: Ocean Bio-D Impact.....................................................................................................................40

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF DA

West Coast 2013June Update

1NC ESTF DA 1/3

Obama’s Energy Security Trust Fund won’t pass now because Obama won’t agree to expanded oil and gas drillingBen Geman, 4-18-2013, “Murkowski: Obama’s energy plan dead without wider drilling,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/294827-murkowski-obamas-energy-plan-dead-without-wider-drilling, da 5-1-2013Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) warned the Obama administration Thursday that its proposal to steer federal oil-and-gas revenues into a green energy fund won’t fly unless it's paired with opening new areas to drilling. President Obama is pushing Congress to create an “Energy Security Trust,” which would steer $2 billion in revenues from offshore development into technologies that wean cars and trucks off of oil. Murkowski – the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee – said Thursday that White House resistance to opening currently off-limits areas will sink a plan that could otherwise gain political traction. “If that is the approach the administration is going to take on this, it is not going to go anywhere,” she said at a hearing on the Energy Department’s proposed fiscal year 2014 budget. She said the overall concept of using oil-and-gas revenue to support green energy is an area where “we should be able to find some agreement.” Murkowski has similarly floated creation of an

“Advanced Energy Trust Fund” to seed initiatives on renewable power, advanced vehicles and other green tech with leasing and royalty revenues. But her plan has a crucial difference: It gives the oil industry access to areas where drilling is now banned. “Under my Advanced Energy Trust Fund proposal, new production on previously-closed federal lands could provide a substantial source of new revenue to fund research on the most promising new energy technologies, while paying down the national

debt,” she said in February.

The plan breaks the deadlock – normal means is for the plan to be funded with royalties from expanded oil and gas drilling – fiat means that House Republicans would force compromise that removes the only barrier to the ESTFBurgess Everett, 3-27-2013, “Energy revenue for infrastructure: A ‘natural link’?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/energy-revenue-for-infrastructure-a-natural-link-89352.html, da 5-1-2013As Congress continues to hunt for ever-elusive money to rebuild roads, bridges and transit systems, House

Republicans are likely once again to turn to black gold . In the tax-averse and conservative-heavy conference, transportation interest groups’ ideas about raising the gasoline tax or looking at distance-based fees are a tough sell. But expanding oil and gas drilling and using those revenues for infrastructure improvements represent what Speaker John Boehner has called a

“ natural link .” On the other hand, that idea could threaten the bipartisan spring for Congress’s transportation committees, where House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) are singing each other’s praises. The harmony could fade if Congress takes another crack at linking infrastructure and energy production ahead of the 2014 transportation bill deadline. The House tried the controversial issue when tackling the previous transportation bill in 2012. Is it a conflict worth fighting? Only if the energy

revenues can bring in enough money to stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, which faces yearly shortfalls approaching $15 billion, said one influential transportation lobbyist. “If you can’t come up with some sort of guaranteed level of revenue that will actually make the Highway Trust Fund

solvent, you could end up with a really divisive battle,” the lobbyist said. There is broad disagreement over how much money expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could bring. The House tried to link a package of energy bills to the previous transportation bill, but the infrastructure component crumbled as the energy bills passed the chamber, drawing 20 Democrats in support.

West Coast 2013June Update

1NC ESTF DA 2/3

An ESTF would collapse economic recovery Brigham McCown, Principal and Managing Director of United Transportation Advisors LLC, 2-15-2013 “Security Trust Fund Equals Massive Tax,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/02/sizing-up-obamas-state-of-the.php, da 5-1-2013In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a program to divert revenues from federal oil-and-gas drilling into research for alternative energy solutions. How would that be done? Well, by raising taxes and creating another new government program. The proposed program carries the name “Energy Security Trust Fund” as a nod to the economic woes facing many families across the nation. The idea builds upon numerous proposals, one by Securing America’s Future Energy, or SAFE. The plan is also similar to

one introduced by Representative John. Larson featuring a carbon tax to fund R&D for alternative energy solutions. It remains unclear whether Rep. Larson considers his bill inspiration for the Presidents plan, as his office did not respond to requests for comment. SAFE however did reach out, Larson’s plan was pitched as a solution to reduce household gasoline expenses, which have spiked numerous times this past year. Interestingly, the plan will only increase costs to families who can least afford it. The current idea is to create a government run fund that would be

overseen by thought leaders opposed to fossil fuel. The money received by taxing the oil and gas industry would then be spent by the government to support research for electric vehicles, biofuels, solar, and hydrogen fuel cells . The end goal is to eventually

replace gasoline and diesel fuel from cars and trucks. While we do not know the details, Larson’s original bill would impose a per-unit tax on the carbon dioxide content of fossil fuels, beginning at a rate of $15 per metric ton of CO2. Just for reference, the average passenger car obtains 20.3 miles per gallon. Therefore, a car driven 12,000 miles per year would roughly be responsible for generating 5.5 metric tons of CO2 per year. Naturally commercial motor vehicles, buses and the like would generate even more on a per unit basis. Airlines would face an even higher cost

on a per unit basis. Aside from the obvious fact that any such tax would be passed along to consumers in the form of even higher fuel costs, such an artificial increase to the operating costs of every personal, business and construction vehicle used in the country would have a chilling effect on our fragile economic recovery. Airlines struggling to avoid bankruptcy would potentially fare worse , and let’s not forget that the vast majority of trains run on fuel that would be affected by this government imposed tax.

Nuclear war Michael O’Hanlon, Ph.D., senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, specializing in defense and foreign policy issues and Kenneth Lieberthal, Ph.D., senior fellow in Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 7-3-2012, “The real national security threat: America's debt,” LA Times, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/03/opinion/la-oe-ohanlon-fiscal-reform-20120703, da 5-1-2013Lastly, American economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely.

West Coast 2013June Update

1NC ESTF DA 3/3

ESTF will be used to fund advanced biofuels Roland Hwang, Natural Resources Defense Council, 2-13-2013, “Ending oil subsidies can pay for Energy Security Trust,” NRDC, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhwang/ending_oil_subsidies_to_pay_fo.html, da 5-1-2013In his State of the Union speech, President Obama proposed the creation of an “Energy Security Trust” to find clean alternatives to fuel our nation’s cars and trucks. We think that’s an excellent idea. One way to support this goal is to simply eliminate the staggering $8 billion we as taxpayers have to fork-over to the over-subsidized oil and gas industry every year and use a portion of the

savings to fund the trust. Oil companies do not need or deserve help from the government. With the five largest oil companies (BP, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips) earning an astounding $118 billion in profits last year, clearly these companies are too mature and too profitable to justify $8 billion in government support. What a waste. Momentum is growing to end these wasteful programs and not a minute to soon. Just today, U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) reintroduced legislation with 16 cosponsors that would repeal tax subsidies for the “Big 5” oil companies and raise $24 billion in savings over 10 years. Last week Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Ranking Democratic Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced similar legislation, HR 601. Our dependence on oil is the largest source of our carbon pollution for the U.S.. Besides fueling unpredictable and dangerous weather events, oil is at the root of $50 billion in annual heath costs and another $515 million in property damage from oil spills. High and volatile oil prices drain our pocketbooks and drag down economic growth. More unnecessary waste.

Since the transportation sector is responsible for 70 percent of our oil dependence to reduce high costs to health and property, we must make our cars and trucks more fuel efficient and replace oil with cleaner fuels. The good news is options are available now, like electricity and advanced biofuels that do not compete with food. Last year, the President took the single biggest step to cut our nation's oil dependence and carbon pollution when he doubled fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. Ending oil subsidies and funding clean alternative is the common sense next step to reduce our dangerous oil dependence and put taxpayer dollars to better use.

Extinction Tad Patzek, professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC-Berkeley, 2008, “Can the Earth Deliver the Biomass-for-Fuel we Demand,” in Biofuels, Solar, and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems, ed. Pimentel, p. 36-44Therefore, the DOE/USDA proposal to produce 130 billion gallons of ethanol from 1400 million tonnes of biomass (Perlack et a!., 2005) each year - and year-after-year-, would consume 32% of the remaining above-ground NPP in the US. see Fig. 2.20. if one assumes a 52% energy-efficiency of the conversion.~ At the current 26% overall efficiency of the corn-ethanol cycle (Patzek, 2006a), roughly 64% of all AG NPP in the US would have to be consumed to achieve this goal with zero harvest losses.23 To use more than half of all accessible above-ground plant growth in all forests, rangeland. pastureland and agriculture in the US to produce agrofuels would be a continental-scale ecologic and economic disaster of biblical proportions .24 2.6 Conclusions I have

shown that the Earth simply cannot produce the vast quantities of biomass we want to use to prolong our unsustainable lifestyles, while slowly committing suicide as a global human civilization. In passing- I have noted

that the "cellulosic biomass" refineries are very inefficient, currently impossible to scale, and incapable of ever catching up with the runaway need to feed one billion gasoline- and diesel-powered cars and trucks.

West Coast 2013June Update

No ESTF – New Drilling Key

ESTF won’t happen now – Obama’s push will fail without additional areas for drillingPhil Taylor, E&E Reporter, 2-13-2013, “Obama's energy trust doesn't include expanded drilling,” http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2013/02/13/1, da 5-1-2013President Obama's proposed energy trust aimed at weaning the U.S. auto fleet from oil won't require expanded drilling, a White House aide said today. That is likely to come as a relief for conservationists who have opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and along the Atlantic and Pacific

coasts, but it will disappoint some lawmakers and energy groups that argue new access is needed to increase revenues . Obama prominently featured the proposed Energy Security Trust in his hourlong State of the Union speech last night as he also pledged to take executive steps to curb global warming gases and speed drilling and renewable energy production on public lands. "I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good," Obama said. "If a nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we." He was referring to the group Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), which last December proposed such a trust be funded by revenues from drilling in frontier areas including the Atlantic, Pacific,

ANWR and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. But the White House said the trust would be funded by drilling that currently occurs on public lands and waters. The administration will propose that $200 million be set aside each year for the next decade to support the transition to electric- and natural gas-powered vehicles and homegrown biofuels. The proposal assumes an increase in production on public lands. The White House in its fiscal 2014 budget plans to propose a 20 percent increase for the Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas program, which would support faster approvals of leasing and drilling on public lands in the West. Obama's energy trust proposal drew support from key

lawmakers, business and military officials, and at least one conservationist, even as some Republicans criticized it as another wasteful spending program. But without new revenues from expanded drilling, it is unclear whether Congress would authorize a portion of oil and gas money that currently goes to the U.S. Treasury to be siphoned for research into new vehicle technologies and biofuels.

ESTF can’t pass without funding from new drillingPhil Taylor, E&E Reporter, 2-13-2013, “Obama's energy trust doesn't include expanded drilling,” http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2013/02/13/1, da 5-1-2013Such legislation may be a difficult sell as Congress tackles the nation's deficit woes. "CBO is going to have a fit if you try to spend it twice," said Robert Dillon, spokesman for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Committee. "This is just more rhetoric unfortunately, and it's disappointing." Murkowski this morning released a statement praising the

president's trust proposal, noting that her energy blueprint earlier this month proposed a similar Advanced Energy Trust Fund , which would use new energy revenues to support renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternative fuels and advanced vehicles. But that proposal also assumes new drilling access is allowed in places including ANWR. "New production on previously closed federal lands could provide a substantial source of new revenue to fund research on the most promising new energy technologies,

while paying down the national debt," Murkowski said. "I intend to get to work on this as soon as possible." And SAFE, in pitching the Energy Security Trust in a report last

December, said money should come from drilling in frontier areas currently off limits , which it estimates could raise roughly $88

billion over the next 20 years from new leasing bids and royalties. Such a proposal would be strongly opposed by environmentalists and many Democrats. It would take an act of Congress to open the eastern Gulf or ANWR and a major shift in administrative policy to allow drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific, which the Interior Department has barred until at least 2017.

ESTF can’t pass Congress because Obama didn’t open new drillingJesse Jenkins, MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow, 3-19-2013, “How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?,” http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/200436/how-serious-are-president-obama-and-congressional-republicans-about-energy-secur, da 5-1-2013Nick Juliano at E&E News ($ubscription required) puts several key White House and Congressional figures on the record on their stance towards expanded drilling and possible revenues

for the Energy Trust, illustrating the tough road this proposal must walk to become a reality : White House energy adviser Heather Zichal was clear yesterday that new drilling was not part of the president's proposal, which was first outlined in his State of the

Union address and reiterated in a heavily promoted speech last week. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is "off the table," and the approach envisions using revenue from the administration's "existing" outer continental shelf exploration plan and "nothing more," she said (Greenwire, March 19). The proposal already was facing resistance in Congress -- especially among House Republicans -- and Zichal's

reiteration that new drilling would not be considered puts another nail in the coffin .

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Uniqueness Overwhelms Link For Drilling

Uniqueness doesn’t overwhelm – Obama’s opposition to new drilling is part of a negotiation tacticNick Juliano, E&E Reporter, 3-20-2013, “White House opposition to drilling dims prospects for energy trust,” E&E News, http://eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2013/03/20/1, da 5-1-2013The trust fund idea was a central recommendation from Securing America's Future Energy, a coalition of military and business leaders focused on reducing oil dependence, and it was included in an energy blueprint rolled out last month by Alaska

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. But both pitches envisioned expanding oil and gas drilling to currently inaccessible areas to generate revenues for the trust fund. The Senate may have an opportunity to weigh in on the split later this week, as Murkowski is considering offering an amendment to the budget resolution that would pay for the trust fund by expanding oil companies' access to federal lands and waters, a spokesman for the senator, Robert Dillon, said yesterday. Timing for an expected series of amendment votes to the nonbinding budget resolution remains in flux. The Senate last night was running out the clock on necessary debate time for a pending continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested a weekend session may be necessary to finish work on

the budget before adjourning for a two-week recess. It remains to be seen whether the administration's opposition to new drilling is a true line in the sand or just an opening gambit in coming negotiations with Congress. In the same vein, observers wonder whether Murkowski would accept alternate funding arrangements, such as a slight boost in royalty rates, rather than new drilling.

Genuine risk of compromise on ESTFMark Muro, Senior Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, 3-18-2013, “Flow Oil and Gas Revenues to Cleantech R&D: Common Ground on Energy?,” http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2013/03/18-clean-energy-research-development-funding-muro, da 5-1-2013Now comes President Obama’s modest proposal to capitalize an Energy Security Trust fund to support research into de-

carbonizing the vehicle sector. To be funded with $2 billion over 10 years drawn from royalties the government receives from offshore drilling on the Outer Shelf, the new proposal—

first aired in Obama’s State of the Union address last month—represents an important check point on the potential for constructive action through compromise in Congress. To be sure, the proposed research fund is tiny, given the scale of the nation’s cleantech research needs. And yes, it’s focused only on the transportation sector. And yes, the proposal is quite vague and so hard to gauge. But even so, the energy trust concept represents a significant bid to test the potential for

advancing energy policy. Research on clean energy technologies remains a critical priority. Locating funding for it remains a critical challenge. And the president’s proposal probes an area of genuine potential for convergence. For one thing a modest bargain on energy research and oil and gas royalties has always had a sound intellectual grounding. Through such an architecture the costs of investment would be internalized across the energy sector, and the revenues of “dirty” exploitation would be used to fund clean innovation. That just makes sense.

A deal can get done on both sidesMark Muro, Senior Fellow and Policy Director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, 3-18-2013, “Flow Oil and Gas Revenues to Cleantech R&D: Common Ground on Energy?,” http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/the-avenue/posts/2013/03/18-clean-energy-research-development-funding-muro, da 5-1-2013Beyond that there is the fact that the concept has some authentic bipartisan lineage and maybe traction . Some of that comes from the support for the idea by a group of retired military and business leaders, including some Republicans, called Securing America’s Future Energy. More importantly, Sen. Lisa

Murkowski (R-Alaska), the top Republican on the Senate Energy Committee, has proposed a similar idea (albeit one focused on drilling on lands now off-limits, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska). This convergence might well mean there is room to negotiate a deal that pleases both sides, especially with royalty growth likely in the coming years. Or, maybe not. Perhaps the Energy Security Trust is just

another illusion of plausible potential compromise, soon to evaporate. Yet, there is encouragement in something called the American Energy Act, the 2009 energy plan

introduced by House Republicans under the leadership of Rep. John Boehner, now speaker of the House. At the center of that plan was a proposed bargain that would have paired expanded oil and gas drilling and nuclear development with new investments in renewable and alternative energy. To fund the latter the bill proposed putting hundreds of billions of anticipated new oil and gas royalties into a trust fund to

accelerate clean energy innovation. Sound familiar? That proposal may have been mostly a rhetorical counter to the big Democratic push on cap-and-trade legislation, but it was discussed widely by GOP leadership and represents a useful precedent for a new deal now .

West Coast 2013June Update

Link – Plan Causes Drilling

Expanded drilling is a likely result of expanded transportation fundingBurgess Everett, 3-27-2013, “Energy revenue for infrastructure: A ‘natural link’?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/energy-revenue-for-infrastructure-a-natural-link-89352.html, da 5-1-2013In the end, though, the proposal’s success will be determined by money. A financing package that includes some drilling revenues as a way to pay for a robust infrastructure program is perhaps more palatable than calling for a higher gas tax or introduction of a distance-based fee system. Top Transportation Committee Democrat Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) predicts that whatever lawmakers come up with when it comes to the drilling-infrastructure link, it’s not going to solve the great debate over transportation revenues. Shuster, too, has called the idea just “part of

the solution.” Rahall, a former House Natural Resources chairman, said the idea is certainly “in the mix” of options but that it’s unrealistic to think oil and gas production can provide commuters a free lunch.

Republicans will only allow the plan through by linking it to drilling expansionFawn Johnson, 10-31-2011, “Paying for Roads With Drilling,” National Journal, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2011/10/paying-for-roads-with-drilling.php, da 5-1-2013If you dismissed as a political stunt House Speaker John Boehner's suggestion to fund a highway bill with expanded drilling, as I did, you and I both missed a critical development in Republicans'

thinking on transportation. House Republicans now believe that current federal spending levels for roads, bridges, and runways are an appropriate use taxpayer dollars. In practical terms, that means they will accept a six-year, $300 billion surface

transportation measure as long as the spending is offset. Leaving the critical pay-for problem aside for the moment, Boehner's proposal signals two important things--it marks a departure from Republicans' standard "cut government" party line, and it offers the most specific statement to date from House GOP leaders on how

infrastructure fits into their governing philosophy. Boehner's remarks in September at the Economic Club of Washington were a deliberate concession,

according to House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica, R-Fla. Boehner's idea removed the "primary obstacle" to a six-year surface

transportation bill--a proposed one-third cut to highway spending, Mica said last week. Democrats, as well as people in the business and transportation communities, found that cutback untenable.

GOP empirically links transportation infrastructure to drilling expansion – lack of money in the highway trust fund means the plan has to find a new revenue streamAshley Halsey III, 11-17-2011, “House GOP proposes expanded oil drilling to fund transportation spending,” Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-17/local/35282695_1_long-term-transportation-trust-fund-revenue-senate-democrats, da 5-1-2013House Republicans on Thursday proposed an expansion of domestic oil production to fund a long-term transportation spending bill, a plan that sets the stage for a showdown with Senate Democrats who don’t want highway funding coupled with drilling for new oil. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he hopes to pass a multi-

year surface transportation bill by year’s end that would serve as the centerpiece of a GOP jobs plan. He said expanded drilling could “provide a new revenue stream for infrastructure repair and improvement.” “Our bill links job creating, energy production and infrastructure together,” Boehner said. The Republicans had committed in August to finding new funding to augment the rapidly dwindling Highway Trust Fund, the traditional source of surface transportation revenue that relies on the 18.4-cents-per-gallon federal gas tax. Although details of their plan to raise new revenue through expanded drilling were not released, it was anticipated to take the form of a wellhead tax on new wells. The House proposal drew immediate reaction from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), whose Environment and Public Works Committee approved a surface transportation bill last week. “The proposal by Republican leadership would mire a very popular surface transportation bill in controversy, and it would directly threaten many thousands of fishing, tourism and recreation-related jobs,” Boxer said. “In addition, I am told by financial experts

that this proposal would fall billions short.” While the Senate has the ability to augment the Highway Trust Fund revenue with money from the general fund, the House is boxed in by a rule it

passed in the opening moments of the congressional session. That rule stipulated that transportation spending must be limited to trust fund revenue unless new revenue can be found. A $12 billion gap exists between the trust fund revenue and the almost $80 

billion that the Senate bill proposes to spend over two years, a gap that will have to be closed before the bill can win final Senate approval.

West Coast 2013June Update

Link – Plan Causes GOP Horsetrade

Republicans will demand a horsetrade on drilling for the planPeter Lehner, 12-5-2011, “Plan to Drill for Transportation Funding is Full of Holes,” National Resources Defense Council, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/plan_to_drill_for_transportati.html, da 5-1-2013More than one year after the Gulf oil spill, Congress has yet to pass a single law that will make drilling safer. Yet the GOP continues its reckless push for an expansion of domestic oil

drilling, this time disguising it as a jobs and transportation infrastructure plan . House Republican leaders have finally come around to the idea that investing in our

crumbling transportation infrastructure, which has slipped from the being envy of the world to 23rd in the World Economic Forum's rankings, is a smart way to create jobs and help Americans save time and money. But their plan for funding transportation work by expanding oil drilling is so nonsensical, it's drawing fire from all over the political spectrum. Linking transportation funding to expanded oil drilling needlessly politicizes an issue where there is much common ground . Prominent conservatives and liberals agree that our national transportation program is dysfunctional, and that fixing it requires increased efficiency, less

dependence on oil, and new sources of revenue. Yet the Republican plan fails to address any of these issues. Their plan is a giveaway to polluters that will further entangle us in oil dependence, and won't even

generate enough revenue to fund their own transportation bill. (And it won't create as many jobs as clean energy investment, either. According to a report by UMass-Amherst, investments in clean energy will create three times as many jobs as investments in the fossil fuel industry.)

Republicans empirically demand oil drilling expansion for transportation infrastructure spending – other funding options for the plan are off the tableTaxpayers for Common Sense, 9-29-2011, “Republicans Have Their Own Plan to Pay for Infrastructure Jobs: Oil Drilling,” http://www.taxpayer.net/media-center/article/republicans-have-their-own-plan-to-pay-for-infrastructure-jobs-oil-drilling, da 5-1-2013Republicans have a different idea, though: oil drilling. Several GOP representatives have introduced bills to expand fossil fuel extraction and use the proceeds to fund transportation infrastructure . Somehow, whatever the problem is in Washington,

Democrats want to solve it by raising taxes on the wealthy, and Republicans want to solve it with oil drilling . When it comes to funding a quick jolt to the economy, it’s pretty clear that oil drilling won’t really cut

it. “Any royalties from any new energy development wouldn’t start flowing to the Treasury for years,” said Erich Zimmerman of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Essentially this would be like spending money now to be paid for with revenues that may or may not be realized at some future time. Sounds like a recipe for a doubling down on our current deficit mess.” Some speculate that a GOP oil drilling plan would explain the recent news that House transportation leader John Mica, with permission from his party’s leadership, is looking to raise transportation funding levels

by an extra $15 billion a year in his proposed six-year reauthorization bill. After all, they’ve said that raising the gas tax is off the table .

The GOP empirically ties drilling to transportation infrastructure – the only way fiat can overcome their inherency is a horsetradeKiley Kroh, Assoc. Dir. Oceans Comm. @ Center for American Progress, 2-1-2012, “Spill, Baby, Spill: House Transportation Bill Is Another Giveaway to Big Oil,” Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/01/416245/house-transportation-bill-giveaway-to-big-oil/?mobile=nc, da 5-1-2013Today the House Natural Resources Committee will take up a trio of “drill, baby, drill” bills that would partially pay for the House surface transportation reauthorization bill, designed to fund

our nation’s programs for trains and automobiles. As it stands right now, the bill would last four years and cost $260 billion. Unfortunately, the House Republicans’ version of the transportation bill would throw open protected pristine places for dirty petroleum production. One proposal opens Alaska’s pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. Another measure opens the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to be drilled and mandates more drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. The third proposal makes available millions of acres in the western U.S. to oil shale development.

Despite Boehner’s characterization of the measure as a “job creation package,” it seems to be little more than another Republican giveaway to Big Oil. Transportation advocates have sought

a long-term reauthorization of highway and transit programs, which currently expire on March 31. Traditionally, improvements to roads, bridges, and public transportation are funded by the federal gasoline tax, but GOP leaders in the House are taking the unprecedented step to tie funding to an unnecessary and ineffective increase in fossil fuel production. As CAP’s Donna Cooper writes, “Congressional Republicans are making this push

so they can block movement to create jobs and rebuild our infrastructure while sounding like they are in favor of policies that do both.” Here are the key reasons this package is no solution to repair our nation’s aging transportation infrastructure.

West Coast 2013June Update

Internal Link – Drilling ESTF

Additional energy revenues would get pushed into an ESTF – won’t happen nowBurgess Everett, 3-27-2013, “Energy revenue for infrastructure: A ‘natural link’?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/energy-revenue-for-infrastructure-a-natural-link-89352.html, da 5-1-2013But Lankford sees a silver lining in the Obama administration’s embrace of an Energy Security Trust proposal that calls for directing $200 million for 10 years in annual energy lease revenues toward research on vehicle technology like fuel

cells and natural gas cars. That’s a step toward “common ground,” Lankford said, because it shows the White House wants to invest energy dollars in transportation. But he prefers that the money go to roads and bridges. “I don’t see a great gain … for us to say, ‘Let’s use oil and gas revenues from expanded exploration to go into inventing new cars that won’t drive on oil and gas,’ when we have a transportation infrastructure system that’s falling apart,” Lankford explained. “To me, that does two things: One, it increases vehicles that don’t pay a gas tax [for roads]. And No. 2, it continues to add things on the roads that are currently crumbling.” Another

wrinkle: The White House plan doesn’t include any expansion of drilling , and White House energy adviser Heather Zichal has specifically said ANWR is “off the table.”

New drilling revenue would be used for an ESTFJohn Hannah, Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2-19-2013, “In Obama's waning America, a glimmer of hope on energy security,” Foreign Policy, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/19/in_obamas_waning_america_a_glimmer_of_hope_on_energy_security, da 5-1-2013Dismal as it was, there was a section of the president's address that may hold unexpected promise. Though wrapped in a bright green bow of climate change, Obama's discussion of energy could have important national security consequences. Of particular note was his embrace of an energy security trust fund. The proposal is the brainchild of an organization called Securing America's Future Energy

(SAFE) and its Energy Security Leadership Council (ESLC) -- the "nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals" that the

president highlighted in his speech. In a report issued last December, SAFE and the ESLC called for the establishment of an energy security trust that would be funded by royalties derived from expanded drilling for oil and gas on federal lands . The trust would have one purpose only: supporting R&D on technologies designed to break oil's stranglehold over America's transportation sector, which accounts for about 70 percent of overall U.S. consumption.

Expanded drilling is a sufficient condition for the ESTF – gets the GOP on boardJohn Hannah, Senior Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2-19-2013, “In Obama's waning America, a glimmer of hope on energy security,” Foreign Policy, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/02/19/in_obamas_waning_america_a_glimmer_of_hope_on_energy_security, da 5-1-2013The weight of the argument certainly favors Republicans . Economically, expanding oil production will serve as a huge boon to a still faltering U.S.

economy. Strategically, it can play a vital role in stabilizing nervous global markets, especially in light of the looming showdown over Iran's nuclear weapons program. And politically,

the reality is that no deal on an energy security trust is likely to get done unless Republicans get something significant on expanded drilling. Addressing that central pillar in the GOP's energy platform is

probably an essential trade-off if Republicans are expected to overcome their deep-seated skepticism and go along with yet more funding for the Democrats' favorite hobby horse of green energy research . Of course, it was

the prospect of a win-win compromise that represented the genius of the SAFE/ESLC proposal in the first place. Republicans get expanded drilling.

Democrats get more money for green energy. And in a single package, the sometimes competing goals of economic growth, reducing oil

dependence, and lowering carbon emissions could all be addressed in a reasonable way. Something for everyone. That's the basis for broad consensus on a bipartisan energy deal that might actually do the country considerable good. If President Obama turns out to be truly serious about it, Republicans should be prepared to meet him half way.

West Coast 2013June Update

Internal Link – New Drilling Key

New drilling is the key internal link to the ESTFAndrew Restuccia, energy reporter for POLITICO Pro, 3-20-2013, “Energy Security Trust faces big sticking point,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/offshore-drilling-energy-plan-faces-roadblock-89098.html, da 5-1-2013President Barack Obama will face an uphill climb in Congress with his bipartisan proposal to steer offshore drilling revenue into research on green energy and natural gas, key observers signaled Tuesday. Their comments come just days after Obama used a speech at a national research laboratory to pitch his Energy Security Trust proposal, which he described as a plan to protect the public from high gasoline prices. A major sticking point: the administration’s unwillingness to expand drilling to areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as Republicans have proposed. A former top energy aide to Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) cast doubt Tuesday on whether policymakers can come to an agreement given that gap.

Only the plan resulting in new drilling causes the ESTF – otherwise it won’t happenNick Juliano, E&E Reporter, 3-20-2013, “White House opposition to drilling dims prospects for energy trust,” E&E News, http://eenews.net/public/EEDaily/2013/03/20/1, da 5-1-2013President Obama and his advisers thought they had finally hit on an idea that could gain bipartisan support on Capitol Hill and end a years-long drought in energy policymaking: Use revenues from oil drilling to fund clean energy research. But a bright line in the sand against opening new lands and waters to exploration seems likely to doom the proposal's chances in Congress, where Republican support would be necessary to create the

envisioned "energy security trust fund." White House energy adviser Heather Zichal was clear yesterday that new drilling was not part of the president's proposal, which was first outlined in his State of the Union address and reiterated in a heavily

promoted speech last week. Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is "off the table," and the approach envisions using revenue from the administration's "existing" outer continental shelf exploration plan and "nothing more," she said (Greenwire, March 19).

New drilling is key – would cause the ESTFJesse Jenkins, MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow, 3-19-2013, “How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?,” http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/200436/how-serious-are-president-obama-and-congressional-republicans-about-energy-secur, da 5-1-2013Given these bipartisan bonafides, one might think this concept was a slam dunk . The tricky situation though is

that each of the Republican proposals envision dedicating royalty revenues from expanded domestic production of oil and gas, including opening up new areas previously closed to production in the Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) and places like the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). So both the CBO budget procedures and the GOP's position on using royalties for an energy R&D trust fund means that if President Obama wants to secure truly bipartisan support for this new Energy Security Trust proposal and ensure it doesn't increase the deficit, he's ultimately going to have to offer a real trade: new oil and gas production areas for new revenues dedicated to clean energy R&D.

West Coast 2013June Update

Internal Link – Horsetrading Key ESTF

Horsetrading is key to the ESTFCharles K. Ebinger, Director of the Foreign Policy and Energy Security Initiatives and Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, 2-13-2012, “A 180 Degree Shift in Energy Policy?,” http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/02/12-obama-energy-policy-shift-ebinger, da 5-1-2013Industry critics will counter that the president’s threat to use executive actions to attack climate change if

Congress fails to act represents regulatory overreach which will only add to energy production costs. However, such a view misses the president’s willingness to horse trade by allowing new oil and gas production on federal lands while at the same time creating an “Energy Security Trust” which would use a portion of the enhanced oil and natural gas royalties accruing from the accelerated opening of federal lands to fund research to get

our cars and trucks running on non petroleum fuels. If this was not an open endorsement for the natural gas industry to replace diesel in our 18-wheel trucks, locomotives, delivery vehicles, and marine transportation then it is hard to imagine what else the gas industry could want from the president.

Horsetrading is likely – congress is looking to strike a grand bargainCoral Davenport, energy and environment correspondent, National Journal, 12-6-2012, “How Obama and Congress Could Find Common Ground on Energy,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/how-obama-and-congress-could-find-common-ground-on-energy-20121206, da 5-1-2013Meanwhile, the partisan impasse may be about to end. Quietly, lawmakers and lobbyists say they can envision a grand bargain on energy and climate change—cutting fossil- fuel use and investing in clean energy in exchange for new offshore drilling or approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. The biggest if, and the heaviest lift, will be getting Congress to enact the policy that economists say would do the most to transform the nation’s energy economy: taxing or pricing fossil carbon pollution. A price on carbon, say economists across the ideological spectrum, will increase the price of fossil fuels and decisively drive the free market toward clean energy. Yet any lawmaker who supports the plan could be accused of supporting an energy tax. Still, a combination of events—including more droughts, floods, and extreme weather like superstorm Sandy—has increased the sense of urgency. The recent explosion in domestic oil and natural-gas production has helped to create jobs and prop up

the recovery while bringing together oil companies and the Obama White House in alliances that could pave the way for new agreements on energy policy. And as Washington grapples with the deficit, many in the capital are more open to the carbon tax as a way to raise revenue.

Expanded drilling is the price Republicans will force Obama to pay for the planDavid Friedman, Deputy Director, Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2-15-2013, “President’s Proposed Energy Security Trust Could Help, But Much More Needed to Address Oil Use,” http://blog.ucsusa.org/presidents-proposed-energy-security-trust-could-help-but-much-more-needed-to-address-oil-use/, da 5-1-2013The trust sets up an interesting paradigm: funding R&D on ways to cut oil use but using oil money to do it. Could this funding structure bring with it unintended consequences of increasing pressure for drilling? The Administration noted that the money would come from drilling that currently occurs on public lands and

waters, though the proposal does assume some increased drilling as part of business as usual. Still, there seems a real risk that the price of putting guaranteed money in for the trust could be a demand by some to increase drilling in return. For example, Senator Murkowski has also proposed a trust in her 20/20 Energy Blueprint, but the money is

explicitly tied to increased drilling. That would be a mistake too.

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Status Quo Drilling Triggers Link

Current drilling expansions aren’t enough to cause the ESTF – Obama won’t get credit for past actions Jesse Jenkins, MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow, 3-19-2013, “How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?,” http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/200436/how-serious-are-president-obama-and-congressional-republicans-about-energy-secur, da 5-1-2013The tricky situation though is that each of the Republican proposals envision dedicating royalty revenues from expanded domestic production of oil and gas, including opening up new areas previously closed to production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and

places like the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). So both the CBO budget procedures and the GOP's position on using royalties for an energy R&D trust fund means that if President Obama wants to secure truly bipartisan support for this new Energy Security Trust proposal and ensure it doesn't increase the deficit, he's ultimately going to have to offer a real trade: new oil and gas production areas for new revenues dedicated to clean energy R&D. Unfortunately, Obama already agreed to open up new areas of the OCS for offshore oil and gas production in April 2010 -- and he did so

without demanding any concessions from the GOP regarding the use of revenues for advanced energy R&D.

He's unlikely to get any credit for his previous actions in any new negotiations with Republicans, and even if he did,

CBO's scoring would now take into account revenues from these areas in the budget baseline. In short, the president missed a big chance to put this energy trust fund into action in 2010. To get another chance now, he'll have to find some new carrot to entice GOP cooperation .

Current drilling levels are insufficient to get the fund Steve LeVine, Quartz's Washington correspondent, writes about the intersection of energy, technology and geopolitics, 3-15-2013, “Obama talked oil, but meant batteries,” http://qz.com/63724/obama-talked-oil-but-meant-batteries/, da 5-1-2013In all this, Obama was practically inviting opposition . Republicans, along with oil companies, have advocated the right to drill offshore from the US East Coast, and onshore and offshore in Alaska. The president said in his speech that he

was encouraging more oil and gas production, but made clear that he did not plan to open up more federal land for drilling . Instead, he suggested that his

administration would try to nudge companies into drilling more efficiently within their current leases. Republicans and the oil lobby, however, are likely to push for more drilling rights in exchange for agreeing to the Energy Security Trust. In a statement after Obama spoke, the Independent Petroleum Association urged him to open up eastern sections of the Gulf of Mexico to drilling. “If the President wants to garner more federal revenue ,” the association said, “opening up federal lands and waters is the best way to do so.” It also urged him to approve the export of US liquefied natural gas; that, of course, would increase demand and prices for the gas, thus making the case for even more drilling.

Even if the GOP supports the ESTF in theory, they won’t agree without more drilling Evan Lehmann, E&E Reporter, 3-15-2013, “Obama to ask Congress for help to end future oil use,” E&E News, http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2013/03/15/1, da 5-1-2013President Obama will urge Congress today to approve a policy providing $2 billion for battery and transportation research meant to end the use of oil in the United States. Speaking this

afternoon from the Energy Department's Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, the president will make the case for using oil and gas drilling in federal waters to fund the Energy Security Trust for 10 years. The trust, which is a concept supported by key Republicans , would use industry royalties to help develop cars that in the future would use less and less gasoline, and then none. "The Energy Security Trust does have a

specific goal associated with trying to get us off of oil," a White House official said yesterday on a conference call with reporters. Obama's request comes as the United States inches away from its love affair with petroleum. In 2011, foreign oil imports stood at 45 percent of the nation's consumption, the lowest level since 1995. More efficient cars, changing driving habits and high gasoline prices during troubled economic times are nibbling away at the United States' use of oil, experts say. Today, Obama will seek to build on those changes by asking money-weary lawmakers to adopt a plan that the White House says will benefit states seeking oil and gas jobs while providing new research that doesn't add to the deficit. The administration did not assess the trust's impact on climate change yesterday, but an official pointed to longer-lasting batteries, better natural gas technologies and new biofuel uses in transportation as future results of its research. Even so, a second White House official tempered expectations about the program's swiftly achieving the no-oil goal. "We're practical about the time horizon and the notion that we would be able to completely back out all the oil from our economy," the official said. "By the end of our term is not necessarily practical." Reid on climate legislation: 'Someday' Obama's request at Argonne, whose advanced battery research led to applications in electric cars like

the Chevrolet Volt, might find an agreeable ear among some Senate Republicans. Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, proposed a similar idea earlier this year,

an Advanced Energy Trust Fund. It would be funded from revenue derived from new drilling resulting in "dramatic increases in domestic energy production," according to her energy

blueprint. That parts ways with Obama's energy trust, which is based on the administration's existing five-year plan for offshore drilling. "The president hit on a good idea when he called for a trust fund to promote energy innovation," said Robert

Dillon, a spokesman for Murkowski. But he noted that Obama's plan "would not enable new energy production to pay for it." That means Murkowski disagrees with assertions by the White House that the trust would not add to the deficit, since Obama's plan is using royalties that Dillon says are already factored into the budget.

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Drilling Funds Plan, Not ESTF

Expanded drilling can fund multiple programs – could fund both the plan and ESTFEmil H. Frankel, Scholar @ Bipart. Policy Center, 10-31-2011, “Paying for Roads With Drilling,” National Journal, http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2011/10/paying-for-roads-with-drilling.php, da 5-1-2013It is difficult to know how seriously to take the Republican Leadership's proposal to fund transportation programs with oil and gas revenues: there are many hurdles to new domestic oil and gas exploration, and there will be many claims on these funds (not excluding

the need to address the huge annual deficits in the federal general fund). But, if the Speaker means to suggest that we should look to the oil and gas industry, not only for royalties under the existing regime from new sources, but also for new taxes or fees and/or revenues, resulting from a

reversal of the substantial "tax expenditures" (various credits, deductions, and other tax benefits), enjoyed by this industry, than it is possible that we could have uncovered a promising source of new investment capital for transportation infrastructure .

The ESTF would only take SOME of the revenue from drillingPhil Taylor, E&E Reporter, 2-13-2013, “Obama's energy trust doesn't include expanded drilling,” http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2013/02/13/1, da 5-1-2013Obama prominently featured the proposed Energy Security Trust in his hourlong State of the Union speech last night as he also pledged

to take executive steps to curb global warming gases and speed drilling and renewable energy production on public lands. "I propose we use some of our oil and gas revenues to fund an Energy Security Trust that will drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good," Obama said. "If a nonpartisan coalition of CEOs and retired generals and admirals can get behind this idea, then so can we." He was referring to the group Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE), which last December proposed such a trust be funded by revenues from drilling in frontier areas including the Atlantic, Pacific, ANWR and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

ESTF doesn’t use all revenue from drilling – still some left to pay the debt or the planPhil Taylor, E&E Reporter, 2-13-2013, “Obama's energy trust doesn't include expanded drilling,” http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2013/02/13/1, da 5-1-2013Obama's energy trust proposal drew support from key lawmakers, business and military officials, and at least one conservationist, even as some Republicans criticized it as another wasteful

spending program. But without new revenues from expanded drilling, it is unclear whether Congress would authorize a portion of oil and gas money that currently goes to the U.S. Treasury to be siphoned for research into new vehicle technologies and biofuels. Such legislation may be a difficult sell as Congress tackles the nation's deficit woes. "CBO is going to have a fit if you try to spend it twice ," said Robert Dillon, spokesman

for Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "This is just more rhetoric unfortunately, and it's disappointing." Murkowski this morning released a statement praising the president's trust proposal, noting that her energy blueprint earlier this month proposed a similar Advanced Energy Trust Fund, which would use new energy revenues to support renewable energy, energy

efficiency, alternative fuels and advanced vehicles. But that proposal also assumes new drilling access is allowed in places including ANWR. "New production on previously closed federal lands could provide a substantial source of

new revenue to fund research on the most promising new energy technologies, while paying down the national debt ," Murkowski

said. "I intend to get to work on this as soon as possible."

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Bad – Economy

ESTF would wreck the economy – raises consumer costsBrigham McCown, Principal and Managing Director of United Transportation Advisors LLC, 2-15-2013 “Security Trust Fund Equals Massive Tax,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/02/sizing-up-obamas-state-of-the.php, da 5-1-2013In essence, the “Energy Security Trust Fund” is an attempt to levy a new national tax affecting everything we purchase in this country.

That Starbucks cup of coffee didn’t just materialize; the coffee, equipment and even plastic lids were transported to your neighborhood location. It would be somewhat untenable to suggest that the actual operating costs would not in turn, be passed along to consumers. Given the government’s less than stellar track record at say, running any other governmental program, it is difficult to imagine how this program would result in any benefit to the average taxpayer . At worse, it is simply another attempt to artificially manipulate the winners the losers in the energy industry by raising costs on one form of energy products while subsidizing another . Instead of trying to control the markets, the President should be looking at ways for renewables to compete on a level playing field with fossil fuels.

That’s not to say that the government shouldn’t pursue R&D, but there’s a real difference between initial investment in experimental research and subsidizing a go-to-market strategy for private companies. Real change will occur when renewables can compete with fossil fuels. Opponents point out that the oil and gas industry, the nuclear industry, and many other industries received favorable treatment when they were in their infancy. That is a true statement, but then again, this isn’t the early 1900s, or even the 1950s when we were locked in a cold war

against the Soviet Union. Moreover, the country was not staggering under a $16 trillion dollar deficit either. Mr. President, instead of trying to push big government policies that actually stifle economic expansion and productivity, maybe it is time for the government to get out of the way. Successful economic expansion is not really that difficult a principle to master and utilize successfully. A free market economy

requires the government to set a level playing field, enact succinct regulations to keep competition fair, and then sit back and allow private competition and market forces drive the economy . Such an approach places the consumer in charge

by allowing each American to purchase the goods and services they desire. That’s how winners and losers are chosen in business, and that simple fact has always been the recipe for American success.

Increasing taxes like the ESTF on oil companies would undermine their profitabilityWilliam O’Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, 11-29-2012, “O’KEEFE: Real solutions for the ‘fiscal cliff’,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/29/real-solutions-for-the-fiscal-cliff/, da 5-1-2013What will happen is anyone’s guess, but Democratic leaders on both sides of the Hill already have made increasing taxes on the oil and gas industry part of their opening salvo. For many on the left, the oil industry represents an easy target . With profits so high,

they say, it’s only fair for the industry to pay more in taxes. Why would it be fair? That is the real question. Would it be fair because oil and gas companies make too much money? Would it be fair because they pay too few taxes? Has the industry failed to pull its own weight? That’s hardly

the case. Reality suggests that calls to tax oil and gas are rooted in politics or a desire to punish one source of energy for not being politically favored (in other words, “clean”) — and little else. Americans should take a closer look at the logic deployed in support of these new taxes. According to the president and others in his party,

new taxes on oil companies are fair because the companies can afford them — their profits are high enough to withstand new taxes. This makes little sense. Companies such as Apple, Starbucks, General Electric and countless others have profit margins every bit as high — or even higher — but remain favored by the president and his allies. They seemingly are immune to higher taxes or even

increased scrutiny. The president and his allies also have sought to justify new energy taxes by painting the industry as a tax-free rider, the recipient of direct handouts from federal coffers. They have cast this as a game of semantics, referring to the standard business deductions used by the industry as “subsidies” — very different objects in the U.S. tax code. Let’s be absolutely clear: The oil industry does not receive favored tax treatment. Though this is a convenient oratory modification, in reality, the “subsidies” the president balks at are often the same tax provisions used by all American manufacturers in hopes of helping our economy. The Section 199 manufacturing deduction, for instance, was put in place as a means of keeping jobs in the United States. Protections against double taxation on foreign income, known as dual-capacity provisions, are

in place to allow firms — such as oil companies — to be competitive in a cutthroat global marketplace. Despite the consequences of raising energy taxes — chief among them rising gasoline prices and decreased U.S. access to oil — the president continues to target “Big Oil,” even though it pays some of the highest taxes of any U.S. industry .

That wrecks the economyWilliam O’Keefe, CEO of the George C. Marshall Institute, 11-29-2012, “O’KEEFE: Real solutions for the ‘fiscal cliff’,” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/29/real-solutions-for-the-fiscal-cliff/, da 5-1-2013In 2011, the oil and gas industry paid an average tax rate of more than 40 percent. The average Standard & Poor’s company paid about 25 percent, and some paid in the single digits. In fact, every day, oil and gas companies pay $86 million in taxes.Mr. Obama is right when he suggests the corporate tax rate should be reduced. Lowering the rate would simplify what has become one of the most complex tax systems in the world, and it automatically would close a number of tax loopholes that are in the current code. The exercise of

reform, in other words, is eminently worthwhile — provided the process is executed in a manner that seeks to simplify our code while simultaneously making our economy more appealing for job creators. We often hear that our economy is at a breaking point. Clearly, things are difficult, and new measures to correct financial mistakes and jump-start our system are needed. We need to be fair in practice, not just in theory or in talking points . We need to be

reasonable. We need to incentivize the industries and segments of our economy that contribute significantly to its success — not use them as ATMs or scapegoats.

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Bad – Carbon Tax

ESTF would cause a carbon taxChristopher Helman, 3-15-2013, “Why Obama's 'Energy Security Trust' Is A Bad Idea,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/15/why-obamas-energy-security-trust-is-a-bad-idea/In an event today at the Argonne National Laboratory President Obama will be talking up his proposal, first mentioned in his State of the Union address, to create something called the Energy Security Trust. This trust would be funded by royalties from oil and gas operations on federal lands and in the Gulf of Mexico. Today those royalties are simply directed to the U.S. Treasury like all our other federal tax

payments. What the president proposes is to divert some $2 billion of those oil and gas revenues into a special account over the next decade. Out of this account he proposes to subsidize research on alternative energy sources. According to a senior administration official interviewed by

the New York Times, this trust fund is a central part of the president’s economic strategy. In short, this is a terrible idea — and a backdoor to the imposition of a nationwide carbon tax — that congress should not allow to pass.

ESTF would spill over to a carbon taxChristopher Helman, 3-15-2013, “Why Obama's 'Energy Security Trust' Is A Bad Idea,” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/03/15/why-obamas-energy-security-trust-is-a-bad-idea/So where does this idea for an Energy Security Trust come from? As far as I can tell, it’s from this ill-fated house bill from 2009 that sought to tax carbon dioxide emissions and direct the tax into a trust fund that would pay for alternative energy research and (bizarrely) offset payroll taxes for poor families. It looks unlikely that President Obama will try to propose a national

carbon cap-and-trade regime again. But this Energy Security Trust could well serve as the tip of a wedge that could some day lever open a new carbon tax. This is not far-fetched . Connecticut Congressman John Larson, who backed that original 2009 bill, said in this Q&A that the very purpose of the Energy Security Trust fund was to serve as a conduit for the collection of carbon taxes. It’s a natural extension: first Obama would will say he just wants to

direct a portion of the $10 billion a year in federal oil and gas royalties into this special fund. Later it will be all of the federal royalties. And then when gasoline prices go up he’ll propose that oil companies pay a special windfall profits tax into the fund. And in summertime when it’s really

hot outside, so hot that it must be global warming, he’ll propose that oil and gas and coal companies start paying a carbon tax into the fund. In a few years what started as a special account for oil and gas royalties could become a vehicle for the backdoor imposition of a carbon tax.

Carbon tax wrecks the US economyDavid W. Kreutzer, PhD and Kevin Dayaratna, 4-11-2013, “Boxer–Sanders Carbon Tax: Economic Impact,” Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/boxer-sanders-carbon-tax-economic-impactTherefore, a tax on CO2 would be a tax on the 85 percent of energy derived from hydrocarbons and would increase energy costs broadly. The higher energy costs would ripple through the economy, driving up costs of production of virtually all goods and services. Faced with higher costs for energy and other goods, consumers would cut consumption, translating into a reduction in sales and a marked decline in employment . Though rebating the tax

partially offsets these impacts, there would still be a net loss of income and jobs. The energy-intensive sectors of the economy would generally suffer greater losses since the higher energy costs affect them disproportionately. For example, the following table shows the

percentage employment losses (compared to the baseline without a carbon tax): The past six years have seen repeated legislative attempts to restrict CO2 emissions, most

notably the various cap-and-trade bills. As with those bills, Boxer–Sanders would tax trillions of dollars from energy consumers. If 90 percent of carbon emissions are subject to the tax, Boxer–Sanders would extract over $100 billion from the private sector in its very first year (2014) and over $200 billion in 2030 (after adjusting for inflation). The total revenue for the years 2014 through 2030 is nearly $3 trillion.

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Bad – Advanced Biofuels Link

ESTF is key to breakthroughs on advanced biofuelsAP, 3-15-2013, “Obama wants research to wean vehicles off oil,” p. npPresident Barack Obama is pushing Congress to authorize $200 million a year for research into clean energy technologies that can wean automobiles off oil. Obama proposed the idea of an energy security trust last month in his State of the Union address, but he was putting a price tag on the idea during a trip Friday to the Argonne National Laboratory outside Chicago $2 billion over 10 years. The White House said the research would be paid for with revenue from federal oil

and gas leases on offshore drilling and would not add to the deficit. The money would fund research on "breakthrough" technologies

such as batteries for electric cars and biofuels made from switch grass or other materials . Researchers also would look to improve use of natural gas as a fuel for cars and trucks. Obama got a firsthand look at some of the cutting-edge vehicle research in a tour of an Argonne's lab, including a room that can go to extreme temperatures to test the impact on fuel efficiency. He talked to engineers working on electric car batteries and on an engine that runs on diesel and gasoline to reduce fuel costs. "We want to keep on funding them," the president said as he looked at the engine, developed with public and private funding from Chrysler. "That's what I'm trying to tell Congress." The proposal is modeled after a plan submitted by a group of business executives and former military leaders who are committed to reducing U.S. oil dependence. The group, called Securing America's Future Energy or SAFE, is headed by FedEx Corp. Chairman and CEO Frederick W. Smith and retired Marine Corps Gen. P.X. Kelley. The nonpartisan group says its goal is to "break oil's stranglehold on the transportation sector" through alternatives such as electric cars and heavy-duty trucks fueled by natural gas, but it had proposed a much larger $500 million annual investment.

Creation of the trust would require congressional approval at a time of partisan divide over energy issues. Republicans have pushed to expand oil and gas drilling on federal land and water, while Obama and

many Democrats have worked to boost renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. Obama tried to appeal to both parties by pitching the trust plan not just as an environmental issue but as a job-creation plan that would help the United States remain a technology leader .

ESTF is key to clean tech research – breakthroughs won’t happen without itKent Bernhard, Upstart Business Journal Money & Finance Editor, 3-18-2013, “Can Obama fill the cleantech funding gap?,” http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/technology/2013/03/18/can-obama-fill-the-cleantech-funding.html?page=all, da 5-1-2013President Barack Obama's proposal to create a $2 billion energy security trust fund couldn't come at a better time if you're an upstart with an idea for freeing people from gasoline. That's because there's a funding gap in financing for alternative energy startups and the government could help fill it. "Where I think there is lack and where there's need is in these nascent sort of startups," Mike Lorusso, Group Head CIT Energy, told me. His company finances energy projects from wind farms to drilling operations. It takes a long time for an upstart to get to the point of getting money for a project from a company like Lorusso's. First an entrepreneur has to have interesting enough technology and team members to attract angel investors or venture capitalists, then it has to start making

money. It's in the early stage, before and in tandem with VCs that the government can help, Lorusso said. Obama, in a speech at Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago Friday, pushed for the creation of a $2 billion energy security trust fund over the next 10 years to fund research by scientists and companies into alternatives to

gasoline. Offshore gas and oil leases would provide the money for the trust fund. "The private sector on its own will not invest in this research

because it's too expensive, it's too risky," said Obama. The trust fund would be paid for through increases in revenue from offshore oil and gas leasing, and comes at a welcome time for startups in the cleantech space.

ESTF is key to alternative fuel researchKent Bernhard, Upstart Business Journal Money & Finance Editor, 3-18-2013, “Can Obama fill the cleantech funding gap?,” http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/technology/2013/03/18/can-obama-fill-the-cleantech-funding.html?page=all, da 5-1-2013That's because a new government fund, if approved by Congress, would be put in place at a time of dwindling support from venture capitalists for companies involved in alternative fuels . Ben Bixby, co-founder and CEO of

MyEnergy, a startup focused on home energy management and efficiency, said more cash for research could boost companies like his that are working on energy issues. "It's big. This could be a real shot in the arm," he said. "It benefits all of us in the

sense of a rising tide lifting all boats. Whenever new capital is sort of directed into the market…it results in more action." And cleantech companies can use some new action from investors. Global VC investing in cleantech, the overarching category that includes alternative fuels as well as solar and energy efficiency, fell in 2012 to $6.46 billion from $9.61 billion in 2011. "Unless they get some support now they're never going to get off the drawing board or out of the laboratory," Lorusso said. "I think if this is done properly it certainly could jumpstart development and potential success of new technologies."

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Bad – Key To R&D

R&D that causes our impacts won’t happen without the ESTF – sequestration means no federal fundingMartin LaMonica, contributing editor at MIT Technology Review, 3-15-2013, “Obama Stumps for Energy Research Through Trust Fund,” http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512571/obama-stumps-for-energy-research-through-trust-fund/, da 5-1-2013Having the government fund research generally receives support from politicians in all parties . But the

automatic federal budget cuts known as sequestration are expected to take a significant toll on ongoing research efforts, unless a new budget that gives higher priority to scientific research is passed. (See, R&D Faces its Own Fiscal Cliff.) Given those cuts for federal research, new funding mechanism such as the Energy Security Trust Fund appear to be one of the few ways that energy research and development programs can be increased . (See, Energy R&D Faces a Cliff.) In his talk, Obama said the energy security trust was part of the administration’s “all

of the above” energy strategy and a way to better prepare the country for the future. He specifically called out an Argonne National Labs researcher who began work two decades ago on lithium ion batteries, now used in commercial plug-in vehicles, using federal grants. The private sector cannot undertake these sorts of risky and expensive research efforts because it would hurt their bottom line, Obama said. But the federal government can play that role in funding scientitsts who develop innovations that have an impact in the future, he said. “That has been the American story,” he said.

ESTF is key to additional R&D – breakthroughs won’t happen without itJames Greenberger, 3-15-2013, “Funding Outside the Box: The Energy Security Trust,” http://naatbatt.org/naatbatt-blog/funding-outside-the-box-the-energy-security-trust/, da 5-1-2013The Energy Security Trust is a good idea. It is a good idea, not just because it will fund important energy research, including research in advanced battery technology, but because it is scrappy: it identifies a novel way to generate revenue for an important public purpose, which revenue might not otherwise exist. The President was specific in

crediting the Washington advocacy group Securing America’s Future Energy with the idea of the Trust (NAATBatt can bask in some reflected glory; until recently we shared some office space with the group). Finding money for energy technology development from new and creative sources will need to be an important priority in the federal budget-constrained world of the future. In a round-about way, the President made a similar point in his address at Argonne. In his remarks, the President heavily criticized the current federal budget sequester, citing a recent article in The Atlantic magazine co-authored by Eric Isaacs, Argonne’s Laboratory Director. The article outlines how the sequester will do great, long-term harm to important scientific research. While the President confined his point to criticism of the sequester and his antagonists in Congress, the issue is, in fact, a larger one that just the sequester. The

development and deployment of new energy technology in the United States has been chronically underfunded. As the American Energy Innovation Council recently noted, the U.S. government spent about $5 billion on energy research in 2010 (including one-time stimulus funding) compared to about $30 billion for medical research and $80 billion for defense

research. Moreover, that underfunding promises to become even more severe as Congress moves to address the federal deficit and as growing entitlement obligations increasing squeeze discretionary outlays , such as energy research, for remaining government funds.

Only the ESTF causes predictable funding of advanced biofuelsClifton Yin, Clean Energy Policy Analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, MPP with a focus on environmental and regulatory policy from the Georgetown Public Policy Institute, 3-20-2013, “Energy Security Trust Fund an Important Policy Pilot for Supporting Innovation,” http://www.innovationfiles.org/energy-security-trust-fund-an-important-policy-pilot-for-supporting-innovation/, da 5-1-2013Last Friday, President Obama reiterated his support for the creation of an Energy Security Trust Fund during a speech at the Argonne National Laboratory, something he first proposed in his 2013 State of the Union address. Specifically,

according to a fact sheet released by the White House, the fund would provide $2 billion over ten years for research on cleaner transportation alternatives such as advanced biofuels

and advanced batteries for electric vehicles, derived from royalty revenues from federal oil and gas development. The Energy Collective’s Jesse Jenkins and Brookings Institution senior fellow Mark Muro have already

provided thoughtful commentary on the proposal (here and here, respectively), but here are a few important takeaways. Tying next-generation transportation energy R&D to a dedicated revenue source is a welcome step towards consistently funding energy R&D overall. Federal energy research and development is severely underfunded . For years, energy policy experts and stakeholders have advocated for an annual federal energy R&D budget of $15 billion or

more. Yet according to the Energy Innovation Tracker, federal funding for energy R&D totaled just $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2012. In comparison, the Defense Department’s R&D budget that year was $72.3 billion, or more than 20 times as much. Furthermore, energy

West Coast 2013June Update

R&D has long been hampered by inconsistent, start-stop funding from Congress . Thus, increasing funding for R&D – even by just $200 million a year – and dedicating it to a critical endeavor like decarbonizing transportation, is a welcome move.

West Coast 2013June Update

Advanced Biofuels Bad – Extinction

Using up biomass for advanced biofuels would cause extinctionTad Patzek, Engineering prof @ Berkeley, 2008, “Can the Earth Deliver the Biomass-for-Fuel we Demand,” in Biofuels, Solar, and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems, ed. Pimentel, p. 36-44Therefore, in order to export biomass (mostly water, but also carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and a plethora of nutrients) an ecosystem must import equivalent quantities of the chemical elements it lost, or decline irreversibly. Carbon comes from the atmospheric CO2 and water flows in as rain, rivers and irrigation from mined

aquifers and lakes. The other nutrients, however, must be rapidly produced from ancient plant matter transformed into methane, coal, petroleum, phosphates.17 etc., as well as from earth minerals (muriate of potash, dolomites, etc.), - all irreversibly mined by humans. Therefore, to the extent that humans are no longer integrated with the ecosystems in which they live, they are doomed to extinction by exhausting all planetary stocks of minerals, soil and clean water . The question is not if, but how fast. It

seems that with the exponentially accelerating mining of global ecosystems for biomass, the time scale of our extinction is shrinking with each crop harvest. Compare this statement with the feverish proclamations of sustainable biomass and agrofuel production that flood us from the confused media outlets , peer-reviewed journals,

and politicians.

Cellulosic ethanol is unsustainable and causes environmental collapseTad Patzek, Engineering prof @ Berkeley, 2008, “Can the Earth Deliver the Biomass-for-Fuel we Demand,” in Biofuels, Solar, and Wind as Renewable Energy Systems, ed. Pimentel, p. 36-44Business as usual will lead to a complete and practically immediate crash of the technically advanced societies and, perhaps, all humanity. This outcome will not be much different from a collapse of an overgrown colony of bacteria on a petri dish when its sugar food runs out and waste products build up. Today, the human “petri dish” is Earth’s surface in Fig. 2.5, and “food” is the living matter and water we consume and the ancient plant products and minerals (oil, natural gas, coal, etc.) we mine and burn. The Earth

operates in endless cycles as in Fig. 2.9, and modern humans race along short line segments, as in Fig. 2.10 and 2.7. At each turn of her cycles, the Earth renews herself, but humans are about to wake up inside a huge toxic waste dump with nowhere to go. 2.3 Plan of Attack As you are beginning to suspect, it is not sufficient to limit ourselves just to discussing liquid transportation fuels and their future biological sources. These transportation fuels intrude upon every other aspect of life on the Earth: Availability of clean water to drink and clean air to breathe, healthy soil

and healthy food supply, destruction of biodiversity and essential planetary services in the tropics, acceleration of global climate change, and so on. As with many important policy-making decision processes, I start from the end, here the cellulosic ethanol refineries. This is where most public money, attention, and hope are. I show that these refineries are inefficient compared with the existing petroleum- and corn-based refineries, and are difficult to scale up. Then I return

to the beginning and show that even if the cellulosic biomass refineries were marvels of efficiency , they still could not maintain our current lifestyles by a long stretch , simply because the Earth will not give us the extra biomass needed to keep on existing as we do . For a while we might continue to rob this biomass from the poor tropics, but the results are already disastrous for all humanity, see Fig. 2.11.

Cellulosic ethanol destroys soil decomposers – extinctionJohn Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics at the University of Missouri, June 24, 2008, “Rethinking the Meaning of Waste in Relation to Energy, Food, and Climate,” online: http://web.missouri.edu/ikerdj/papers/Lake%20Ozark%20-%20Rethinking%20Waste.htm, da 5-1-2013Everything we do affects everything else , including us. When we generate energy from wood wastes or sawdust, we are depriving the decomposers in forest soils of food and thus deprive food from forests of the future. When we generate energy from crop residues, animal manure, and other agricultural wastes, we are depriving the decomposers in agricultural soils of the food they need to make soil nutrients available for plants of the future. We humans are biological beings; we eat other biological organisms. We can’t eat the sun or digest the electricity

generated by windmills, falling water, or photovoltaic cells. If wastes equivalent to ten percent of our current fossil energy use were diverted from the agricultural waste stream, it would deprive the decomposers of about 75-percent o f so-called wasted

energy they use to help feed agricultural crops . When we generate energy from agricultural residues and wastes, we are depriving people of food just as surely as when we generate bioenergy from food

crops; the process is just a bit more complex.The same basic ethical and ecological questions are raised by using agricultural wastes to produce biofuels and biomaterials as are raised by using corn and soybeans to produce ethanol and biodiesel. In addition, depriving the soil decomposers of their life’s energy may represent an even more serious threat to the future of humanity than does depleting the earth’s remaining fossil energy. Even if we deplete the earth of fossil energy, humanity might still learn to live from the daily inflow of new

solar energy – we would still have biological sources of food. If we starve the biological foundation of the earth’s living pyramid, the decomposers, we may well have deprived future humanity of their only significant source of biological energy – their only source of food.

West Coast 2013June Update

Advanced Biofuels Bad – Food/Environment

Advanced biofuels will use genetic modifications that collapse the global food supplyAnnie Shattuck, Food First, degree in Environmental Studies concentrated in Plant Biology from the University of California, April 2008, “The Agrofuels Trojan Horse: Biotechnology and the Corporate Domination of Agriculture,” online: http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2111, da 5-1-2013Once in the field, there is no way to prevent GM fuel crops from contaminating their food-crop cousins .

Cases of genetic contamination are commonplace. In the past 2 years alone, there were at least 73 publicly documented cases of genetic contamination.xxvi Proving contamination can be difficult, making the actual amount of genetic pollution hard to judge, but likely much higher than

reported. GM corn traits were even found in native corn varieties in the mountains of Oaxaca, Mexico, where GM corn was never legally grown.xxxii In fact, every commercial fuel crop so far is under consideration or has been approved for human consumption in the U.S. without long term independent testing . This includes Syngenta's fuel corn with traits from a deep

sea bacteria that has never come in contact with humans, much less entered our food chain.xxxiii xxxiv The danger of an agronomically flat, GMO world is that it leaves our food systems vulnerable to climate change events and pest and disease outbreaks. Agrofuels based on GMOs and controlled by a handful of corporate giants does not lessen our vulnerability, it worsens it. Once GM agrofuels have entered the agricultural gates they will soon escape into the wild, contaminating food crops across the globe . Nothing short of a sustained, coordinated (and expensive) international eradication campaign will reign them in.

Civilization will collapseLester R. Brown , founder of the Worldwatch Institute and the Earth Policy Institute, May 2009, “Can Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?,” Scientific American, p. npThe biggest threat to global stability is the potential for food crises in poor countries to cause government collapse. Those crises are brought on by ever worsening environmental degradation One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past.

Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today's economic crisis. For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire--and how

would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos--and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too! For many years I

have studied global agricultural, population, environmental and economic trends and their interactions. The combined effects of those trends and the political tensions they generate point to the breakdown of governments and societies. Yet I, too, have resisted the idea that food shortages could bring down not only individual

governments but also our global civilization. I can no longer ignore that risk. Our continuing failure to deal with the environmental declines that are undermining the world food economy--most important, falling water tables, eroding soils and rising temperatures--forces me to conclude that such a collapse is possible.

Advanced biofuels will wreck the environmentJeremy Hance, writer for Mongabay, 10-16-2008, “An interview with Scot Quandra of the Dogwood Alliance: Cellulosic biofuels endanger old-growth forests in the southern U.S.,” Mongabay, http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1016-hance_quaranda_interview.html, da 5-1-2013Cellulosic biofuel is on its way. This second generation biofuel — so-called because it does not involve food crops — has excited many researchers and policymakers who hope for a sustainable energy source that lowers carbon emissions. However, some believe that cellulosic biofuel may prove less-than-perfect. Just as agricultural biofuels have gone from being considered 'green' to an environmental disaster, some think the new rush to cellulosic biofuel will follow the same course. Scot Quaranda is one of those concerned about cellulosic biofuel’s impact on the environment. Campaign director at the Dogwood Alliance, which he describes as "the only organization in the Southern US holding corporations accountable for the impact of their industrial forestry practices on our forests and our communities", Quaranda condemns cellulosic biofuels as dangerous to forests “by its very definition”.

West Coast 2013June Update

Advanced Biofuels Bad – Bioweapons

Cellulosic biofuels cause the development of synthetic bioweaponsBrian Tokar, Director of the Institute for Social Ecology, and Rachel Smolker, Co-Director of BiofuelWatch, Ph.D. in behavioral ecology from the University of Michigan and worked as a field biologist, 2-24-2009, “Biofuels: Promise or Threat?,” http://ww4report.com/node/6926, da 5-1-2013The newly emerging technique of "Synthetic Biology" is focused on developing microbes that can efficiently produce enzymes for fuel production. If genetic modification has raised biosafety concerns, those pale in comparison to the safety

and ecological risks of synthetic organisms. Unlike earlier genetic engineering where genes are sourced from existing organisms, synthetic DNA sequences may have no known analogue in nature , and numerous pathways are combined . The consequences of contamination by such organisms are entirely unpredictable . Currently, the push for microbes for agrofuel production is driving the Synthetic Biology industry forward, making the ability to build dangerous and deadly microbes including bioweapons, cheaper, easier and harder to control . (Extreme Genetic Engineering:

an introduction to synthetic biology. ETC Group [22])

Advanced biofuels cause public acceptance of synthetic bioweaponsAgriculture Defense Coalition, January 2007, “Extreme Genetic Engineering: An Introduction to Synthetic Biology,” http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/agriculture_57/57M%202010%20ETC%20Group%20Extreme%20Genetic%20Engineering%20An%20Introductory%20Report%20January%202007.pdf, da 5-1-2013The proliferation of synbio techniques means that the threat of bioterror (or bioerror, as Martin Rees, the UK’s Astronomer Royal, has called an unintentional but nonetheless deadly biotech mishap)140 is

constantly evolving, challenging the abilities of the international Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and civil society weaponswatchdogs to monitor and prevent biowarfare. Synbio’s rapidly changing nature will also affect the way that nations conduct war. Drew Endy, one of the leaders in the field of synthetic

biology, has warned about what he calls “the remilitarization of biology”141 that could follow from developments in synbio-technologies. II. The New Synthetic Energy Agenda – Rebooting Biofuels

“Something I’m really excited about are the synthetic biology projects they’re working on to create new kinds of fuels so we can reduce our dependence on oil and protect our environment.” – Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California146 When genetically modi fied organisms were

first commercialised in the mid 1990s the controversy was largely focused on agriculture and food. A decade later, as fledgling companies seek to move synthetic organisms from lab to marketplace, agriculture is once again on center stage – only this time the spotlight isn’t shining on agri-food, but on agri-energy. Synthetic biology’s promoters are hoping that the promise of a very “green” techno-fix – synthetic microbes that manufacture biofuels cheaply or put a chill on climate change – will prove so seductive that the technology will win public acceptance despite its risks and dangers.

Synthetic bioweapons outweigh nuclear war – cause extinctionAnders Sandberg, Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford/, et al, 9-8-2008, “How can we reduce the risk of human extinction?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/how-can-we-reduce-the-risk-of-human-extinction, da 5-1-2013The risks from anthropogenic hazards appear at present larger than those from natural ones. Although great progress has been made in reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world, humanity is still threatened by the

possibility of a global thermonuclear war and a resulting nuclear winter. We may face even greater risks from emerging technologies. Advances in synthetic biology might make it possible to engineer pathogens capable of extinction-level pandemics. The knowledge, equipment, and materials needed to engineer pathogens are more accessible than those needed to build nuclear weapons. And unlike other weapons, pathogens are self-replicating, allowing a small arsenal to become exponentially destructive . Pathogens have been implicated in the extinctions of many wild species.

Although most pandemics "fade out" by reducing the density of susceptible populations , pathogens with wide host ranges in multiple

species can reach even isolated individuals. The intentional or unintentional release of engineered pathogens with high transmissibility, latency, and lethality might be capable of causing human extinction . While such an event seems unlikely today, the likelihood may increase as biotechnologies continue to improve at a rate rivaling Moore's

Law.

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Biofuels Good – Warming

Biofuels cause more warming than they stop – nobel prize winning scientistsGeorge Monbiot, PhD, 11-5-2007, “The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world,” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/nov/06/comment.biofuels, da 5-1-2013In principle, burning biofuels merely releases the carbon the crops accumulated when growing. Even when you take into account the energy costs of harvesting, refining and transporting the fuel, they produce less net carbon than petroleum products. The law the British government

passed a fortnight ago - by 2010, 5% of our road transport fuel must come from crops - will, it claims, save between 700,000 and 800,000 tonnes of carbon a year. It derives this figure by framing the question carefully. If you count only the

immediate carbon costs of planting and processing biofuels, they appear to reduce greenhouse gases . When you look at the total impacts, you find they cause more warming than petroleum . A recent study by the Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen

shows that the official estimates have ignored the contribution of nitrogen fertilisers . They generate a greenhouse gas - nitrous oxide - that is 296 times as powerful as CO2. These emissions alone ensure that ethanol from maize

causes between 0.9 and 1.5 times as much warming as petrol , while rapeseed oil (the source of more than 80% of the world's biodiesel) generates 1-1.7 times the impact of diesel. This is before you account for the changes in land use . A paper published in the journal Science three months ago suggests that protecting uncultivated land saves , over 30

years, between two and nine times the carbon emissions you might avoid by ploughing it and planting biofuels. Last year the research

group LMC International estimated that if the British and European target of a 5% contribution from biofuels were to be adopted by the rest of the world, the global acreage of cultivated land would expand by 15%. That means the

end of most tropical forests. It might also cause runaway climate change .

Biofuels cause warmingKate McMahon, and Victoria Witting, Friends of the Earth, July 2011, “Corn Ethanol and Climate Change,” http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/80/0/542/Corn_ethanol_and_climate_change.pdf, da 5-1-2013“Land use change” is simply defined as the conversion of land for one purpose into that for another purpose. Land use change can occur directly or indirectly. In the context of biofuels, land use change occurs when land currently used for food (or fiber or feed) production is converted into land for biofuel production . The result is that

supply falls short for food (or fiber or feed) demand and the price for those commodities goes up . Indirect land use change occurs internationally when landholders around the world respond to this market price signal, and

produce more to meet demand. As a result, natural ecosystems are converted around the world — and greenhouse gas emissions are emitted — to grow more food (or feed or fiber) in response to market pressure to expand agricultural production. One example of indirect land use change is when deforestation occurs in Brazil in order to grow more soybeans in response to a decrease in U.S. supply of soybeans for food and grain as soybean fields in the U.S. are converted to corn for ethanol.

That deforestation in Brazil represents significant greenhouse gas emissions . Shortly after the enactment of RFS2 scientific evidence showed that the

emissions from indirect land use change from biofuels were greater than was anticipated, and that these emissions could actually indicate that biofuels were worse for the climate than conventional fossil fuels (for example, Searchinger et al. 2008; Fargione et al. 2008). This was particularly true for corn ethanol due to its low yield, large

land-footprint and likelihood to compete with food production for land. The EPA completed its Regulatory Impact Analysis of RFS2 in 2010, and made public its data that included projections on the greenhouse gas emissions for biofuels for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. These three years were chosen as near–, short– and long–term target dates for EPA’s complete lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis of corn ethanol from an array of current and potential future production scenarios. EPA’s analysis found that the percent of corn ethanol lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from indirect land use change goes down from 60 percent in 2012, to 52 percent in 2017 and 38 percent in 2022. However, despite the decreasing percentage, the contribution that indirect land use change has on total emissions remains significant for the duration of RFS2 (Image A).

Err neg – Biofuels can’t solve energy problemsRichard Matthews, consultant, eco-entrepreneur, green investor, owner of THE GREEN MARKET, a leading sustainable business blog, 2-22-2012, “The Biofuels Pipedream,” online: http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2012/02/22/the-biofuels-pipedream/, da 5-1-2013In the absence of a proven feedstock or production process, biofuels have been oversold by industry and politicians. Biofuels cannot solve all our energy problems on their own and the belief that they will leads to a false sense of security. The unwarranted faith in biofuels detracts from crucially important efficiency initiatives and undermines efforts to ramp-up abundant, truly renewable sources of energy like wind, solar and geothermal.

West Coast 2013June Update

Drilling Bad – Methane

Expanded drilling causes methane hydrate release and extinctionTamsin Carlisle, 5-27-2011, “The drilling danger of releasing giant bubbles of methane gas,” The National, http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/industry-insights/energy/the-drilling-danger-of-releasing-giant-bubbles-of-methane-gas, da 5-1-2013The "burps of death" are what can ensue when drillers mess with the planet's least accessible stores of natural gas. The trouble with gas hydrates, as those ice-like deposits in the Arctic and under ocean beds

are known, is that they lock up high concentrations of methane in a notoriously unstable crystalline lattice. Change the temperature and pressure just a bit, and the whole thing collapses, releasing giant bubbles of potentially explosive methane gas in a fit of geological indigestion . Some scientists theorise that a global firestorm resulting from one such outburst may have barbecued the dinosaurs. Another ancient oceanic burp, which did not ignite, may have triggered an equally lethal spurt of global warming linked to mass extinctions.

Status quo drilling doesn’t trigger the impact – only the plan’s expansionCory Morningstar, 3-27-2011, “Destination – Hell. Are we there yet?” Huntington News, http://www.huntingtonnews.net/2768, da 5-1-2013US Department of Energy meeting summary: "Alternatively, an undersea earthquake today, say off the Blake Ridge or the coast of Japan or California might loosen and cause some of the sediment to slide down the

ridge or slump, exposing the hydrate layer to the warmer water . That in turn could cause a chain reaction of events, leading to the release of massive quantities of methane . Another possibility is drilling and other activities related to exploration and

recovery of methane hydrates as an energy resource. The hydrates tend to occur in the pores of sediment and help to bind it together. Attempting to remove the hydrates may cause the sediment to collapse and release the hydrates. So, it may not take thousands of years to warm the ocean and the sediments enough to cause massive releases, only lots of drilling rigs. Returning to the 4 GtC release scenario, assume such a release occurs over a one-year period sometime in the next 50

years as result of slope failure. According to the Report of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, “Catastrophic slope failure appears to be necessary to release a sufficiently large quantity of methane rapidly enough to be transported to the atmosphere without significant oxidation or dissolution.” In this event, methane will enter the atmosphere as methane gas. It will have a residence time of several decades and a global warming potential of 62 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. This would be the equivalent of 248 GtC as carbon dioxide or 31 times the annual man-made GHG emissions of today. Put another way, this would have the impact of nearly 30 years worth of GHG warming all at once. The result would almost certainly be a rapid rise in the average air temperature, perhaps as much as 3°F immediately. This might be tolerable if that’s as far as things

go. But, just like 15,000 years ago, if the feedback mechanisms kick in, we can expect rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice and an overall temperature increase of 30°F."

Expanded oil drilling releases methane hydratesRichard Embleton, Author of “Oilephant Down: Canada at the end of Cheap Oil,” thirty years of experience in computer systems with the oil and petrochemical industry, 8-2-2010“Methane Hydrate Risk in our Pursuit of Energy,” http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2010/08/methane-hydrate-risk-in-our-pursuit-of.html, da 5-1-2013If deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or, more seriously, in the fragile Arctic Ocean, continues to push into Methane Hydrate zones, the risk of massive hydrate destabilization grows with each well. Once a deposit of Methane Hydrates is destabilized, if changes in temperature or pressure are sufficient to support it, the whole deposit can release its methane. That release could be gradual but there is just

as strong a probability that it could be explosive and massive. Remember, methane is concentrated at 168 times the density of the gas in hydrate form, meaning it will expand 168 times when it reverts back into a gas. This can cause an explosive uplift in the seafloor overlaying the hydrate formation. It could result in a collapse of that area of seafloor. In either case, if rapid and explosive enough, the release could trigger a tsunami. The resulting environmental damage of such an event in the Arctic, or the serious potential of risk for residents

living along the gulf shore on the Gulf of Mexico should such an event happen there, should cause both governments and energy companies to take serious pause following the current Gulf oil spill. A simple question needs to dominate all such discussions and considerations. Is our thoughtless energy greed worth the rapidly escalating risks that our pursuit of that energy is causing us to take?

West Coast 2013June Update

Drilling Bad – Oil Spills

More drilling causes oil spillsJeff Goodyear, Ph.D., an accomplished oceanographer and marine ecologist with over twenty-five years of experience August 2012, “Environmental Risks with Proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Development off Alaska’s North Slope”, http://www.nrdc.org/land/alaska/files/drilling-off-north-slope-IP.pdf, da 5-1-2013It is premature to proceed with oil and gas exploratory drilling and other oil and gas activities in the Beaufort and

Chukchi Seas. Scientists still have much to learn about the remote area where Shell and other oil corporations want to drill. The intricate workings of Arctic Alaska’s unique ecology remain mysterious in many ways. Perhaps even less is known about the likely effects of accidents that would result from large-scale oil and gas drilling. But there will be accidents; nowhere on Earth has oil development occurred without spills and other incidents. Even if there were no

such calamities, vessel traffic and other commercial activity generated by oilfield development would take a toll on the environment and the Alaska Natives tied to the natural world. In addition, it would be ironic, as well as tragic, for this nation to undertake a project that will exacerbate climate change in the very place where the dangerous impacts of this phenomenon are most obvious.

Unchecked oil spills crush marine oxygenPaul Stephen Dempsey, Law Prof @ Denver, Summer 1984, “Oil Pollution of the Marine Environment by Ocean Vessels,” 6 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 459, p. npAlthough large amounts of oil remain on the surface, much of it is mixed into the water column, either through wave action or the use of dispersants applied to oil slicks. Unfortunately, as the spill breaks up, the environmental hazard does not disappear; it increases. Dissolved oil and oil globules fall through the water column, growing more toxic as

they approach bottom. Concentrations of dissolved oil from 0.2 to 1 part per billion, a harmful level already found in coastal waters near many cities, can skyrocket to as high as 250 parts per billion. n26 [*467] High levels of dissolved oil increase the concentration of

toxic chemicals in commercial fish and severely disrupt the marine food chain . Oil pollution reduces the ocean's phytoplankton in coastal areas, where most of the world's commercial fish and oxygen are produced. Sea

beds, an essential source of food for bottom dwelling commercial fish, become contaminated and sterile. The ramifications of introducing such high concentrations of petroleum pollution into the oceans are severe. Oil pollution disrupts phytoplankton, the microscopic plant life in the ocean that forms algae and serves an important function in the ecosystem. First, oil interferes with phytoplankton photosynthesis. Such interference may eventually

reduce the oxygen output and the carbon dioxide uptake of ocean. Moreover, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may cause a "greenhouse effect," such that

heat will not be allowed to radiate into space, causing an increase in global temperatures. As a long term effect, the ice caps could eventually melt, causing the sea level to increase up to 200 feet, submerging most coastal cities. n27

ExtinctionDonald A. Bryant, Dep. Biochem @ Penn. State, 2003, “The Beauty in small things revealed,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, http://www.pnas.org/content/100/17/9647.full, da 5-1-2013Oxygenic photosynthesis accounts for nearly all the primary biochemical production of organic matter on Earth. The byproduct of this process, oxygen, facilitated the evolution of complex eukaryotes and supports their/our continuing existence. Because macroscopic plants

are responsible for most terrestrial photosynthesis, it is relatively easy to appreciate the importance of photosynthesis on land when one views the lush green diversity of grasslands or forests. However, Earth is the “blue planet,” and oceans cover nearly 75% of its surface. All life on Earth equally depends on the photosynthesis that occurs in Earth's oceans. A rich diversity of marine phytoplankton, found in the upper 100 m of oceans,

accounts only for ≈1% of the total photosynthetic biomass, but this virtually invisible forest accounts for nearly 50% of the net primary productivity of the biosphere (1). Moreover, the importance of these organisms in the biological pump, which traps CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in the deep sea, is increasingly recognized as a major component of the global geochemical carbon cycle (2). It seems obvious that it is as important to understand marine photosynthesis as terrestrial photosynthesis, but the contribution of marine photosynthesis to the global carbon cycle was grossly underestimated until recently. Satellite-based remote sensing (e.g., NASA sea-wide field sensor) has allowed more reliable determinations of oceanic photosynthetic productivity to be made (refs. 1 and 2; see Fig. 1).

West Coast 2013June Update

Drilling Bad – Ocean Bio-D

Drilling will destroy ocean biodiversity Michael Gravitz, Oceans advocate for Environment America, 4-6-2009, “Statement at the Department of Interior Hearing On Offshore Ocean Energy Development,” http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/department-interior-hearing-offshore-ocean-energy-development-atlantic-city-new-jersey, da 5-1-2013Many people look at the ocean and see it as a pretty, shiny surface. They may imagine a few fish swimming below the surface and a plain featureless bottom. This is not an accurate picture of the ocean in most places. Unless the bottom is sandy and continually disturbed by wind, wave or current the bottom of the ocean is filled with communities of diverse creatures. Depending on depth, penetration of light, type of bottom (i.e., muddy, sandy, pebbles, boulders) and other factors, the ocean’s floor is teaming with diverse communities of plants, invertebrates, shellfish, crustaceans and fish. Numerous kinds of fish live on the bottom. Other fish swim above the bottom in the water column at different levels. Thousands of types of phytoplankton, zooplankton and larvae at the base of most food chains ‘float’ around. Marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds spend most of their time at or near the surface of the ocean. All of these creatures are sensitive to the impacts of oil and pollution from oil and gas drilling; some are more sensitive than others. But none are immune to the short or long term effects of oil.

ExtinctionRobin Kundis Craig, Law Prof @ Indiana, 2003, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, p. 155The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate ." n19

Drilling wrecks marine biodiversityNatural Resources Defense Council, March 2012, “Deep Sea Treasures Protecting the Atlantic Coast's Ancient Submarine Canyons and Seamounts,” http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/canyons/, da 5-1-2013After the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez disasters, we now all know the widespread ecological devastation that results from a well blow-out or a catastrophic spill. Even small oil spills can kill marine organisms and disrupt marine ecosystems. Marine mammals like dolphins and whales can also inhale oil when they surface to

breathe, which causes damage to mucous membranes and airways and can be fatal.12 Aside from posing a spill risk, each drilled well also

generates drilling muds and cuttings, and produces water that contains toxic metals , such as lead, chromium,

mercury, and carcinogens like toluene and benzene.13 The Atlantic’s Submarine Canyons and Seamounts Need Our Protection We have a unique opportunity now to protect the rich and vulnerable resources of the Atlantic canyons and seamounts before irreversible harm is done. To date, only four of these canyons have been protected from bottom trawling.

None of the canyons or seamounts are protected from oil and gas exploration activities. We need to fully protect these special

places for the future before it is too late.

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF DA Answers

West Coast 2013June Update

Yes Transportation Spending

Transportation spending will happen nowBurgess Everett, 3-18-2013, “WRDA draft out - Obama makes Labor pick; Transportation next?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/morningtransportation/0313/morningtransportation10241.html, da 5-1-2013BLUMENAUER: OBAMA ‘ COMMITTED’ TO TRANSPO INVESTMENT : The Oregon congressman continues to be heartened by the president’s infrastructure leadership as Barack Obama tries to piece together a balanced bargain. “The president has talked about it repeatedly and I think he’s committed to it. And it’s important it be on

the table, because if we’re going to have a bigger wrap around mini bargain — let alone a grand bargain — it ought to be including infrastructure investment,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer told MT. Blumenauer said Rep. Peter DeFazio’s “double indexation” idea has “real merit” — now the Oregon duo is waiting to hear back from the president as he studies the proposal.

Transportation infrastructure spending will happen nowJustin Sink, 3-29-2013, “Obama calls on Congress to approve $21B infrastructure bill”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/291007-obama-calls-on-congress-to-approve-21b-infrastructure-bill, da 5-1-2013President Obama on Friday called for Congress to approve a $21 billion package aimed at building public-private partnerships to improve the

nation's crumbling infrastructure.¶ “Let's get this done. Let's rebuild this country we love. Let's make sure we're staying on the cutting edge,” Obama told a boisterous crowd on a platform overlooking the Port of Miami.¶ ¶ The platform provided a view of a $2 billion tunnel project intended to improve congestion and allow for quicker trade. Obama said the project, funded by both public and private dollars, was a template for the rest of the nation.¶ “We can do this not just here in Miami Dade, but we can do this all across the country,” Obama said, calling for a “partnership to rebuild America.”¶ Obama suggested creating an infrastructure bank that could help seed major projects, and White House officials say they want Congress to allocate $10 billion for the program.¶ The president also unveiled a $4 billion investment program in support of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). The program, expanded in last year’s transportation bill, is intended to leverage private and nonfederal funding for projects of regional or national significance through loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit.¶ “Instead of picking projects based on pork barrel politics, we'll pick them based on how good they are for the economy,” Obama said.¶ Obama additionally called for a set of $7 billion in tax incentives meant to support state and municipal bonds for projects. Among them is a measure that would do away with penalties, sometimes totaling up to 35 percent, on foreign

investment in U.S. real estate and infrastructure projects.¶ The president suggested there was a bipartisan consensus for his proposals, noting the

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the nation's largest labor organization both back infrastructure spending.

Even the GOP is on board for more transportation spending – big push nowTanya Snyder, 4-15-2013, “Could Transportation Spending Become a Core Conservative Value?” DC Streets, http://dc.streetsblog.org/2013/04/15/could-transportation-spending-become-a-core-conservative-value/Sen. James Inhofe has always said that, although he’s one of the most conservative members of the Senate, he’s a “big spender” on two things: national security and infrastructure. An influential conservative group appears to be humming the same tune. The American Conservative Union is the 50-year-old organization behind the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) and a highly influential rating system for members of Congress. The group’s new effort, the American Strength Program, is dedicated to lobbying Congress to increase spending – words they must have trouble getting their mouths around – on transportation and defense. Their interest in transportation appears to stem from their belief that transportation helps “foster personal

freedom” by “facilitating a robust market economy.” “While it is part of our heritage to question the role and size of government,” reads the group’s proposal, “defense and transportation infrastructure activities are national in scope and require federal leadership and investment .” The proposal was published last week by the New York Times, which broke the story. The ACU plans to build conservative leadership around the issue to educate Congress and the public, and it plans to start including infrastructure votes in its legislative scorecards. That’s a huge shift – for the “gold standard” of conservative accountability for lawmakers to start rewarding votes for spending and punishing excessive attention to deficits.

West Coast 2013June Update

Drilling Inevitable

Expanded offshore drilling inevitable now – Obama supports itJohn M. Broder and Clifford Krauss, 5-23-2012, “New and Frozen Frontier Awaits Offshore Oil Drilling,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0The president’s preoccupation with the Arctic proposal, even as the nation was still reeling from the BP spill, was the first hint that Shell’s audacious plan to drill in waters previously considered untouchable had gone from improbable to inevitable . Barring a successful last-minute legal challenge by environmental

groups, Shell will begin drilling test wells off the coast of northern Alaska in July, opening a new frontier in domestic oil exploration and accelerating a global rush to tap the untold resources beneath the frozen ocean. It is a moment of major promise and considerable danger. Industry experts and national

security officials view the Alaskan Arctic as the last great domestic oil prospect, one that over time could bring the country a giant step closer to cutting its dependence on foreign oil. But

many Alaska Natives and environmental advocates say drilling threatens wildlife and pristine shorelines, and perpetuates the nation’s reliance on dirty fossil fuels. In blessing Shell’s move into the Arctic, Mr. Obama continues his efforts to balance business and environmental interests, seemingly project by project. He pleased environmentalists by delaying the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada and by adopting tough air standards for power plants, yet he has also delighted business concerns by rejecting an ozone standard deemed too costly to the economy. And now,

the president is writing a new chapter in the nation’s unfolding energy transformation, in this case to the benefit of fossil fuel producers. “We never would have expected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club.

Obama supports arctic drilling – it’s already proceedingJohn M. Broder and Clifford Krauss, 5-23-2012, “New and Frozen Frontier Awaits Offshore Oil Drilling,” NYT, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0But the president concluded that the reward was worth the risk, and created an unusual interagency group, overseen by Heather Zichal, who was an environmental adviser to the Obama campaign,

to clear Shell’s path through the often fractious federal regulatory bureaucracy . Mr. Obama has long viewed offshore oil resources as insurance against global supply disruption as well as a component of an energy strategy that includes renewable sources, conservation and

innovative technologies. The move also provides the president a measure of political cover. “Alaska tends to be a litmus test for the energy debate,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, director of energy policy research at Rice University. “When Romney says the president is anti-drilling and causes

high gas prices, Obama can turn around and say, ‘I approved drilling in Alaska.’ ” Other oil companies are already lining up to join Shell in the Arctic, which company

executives say could eventually yield a million barrels a day of crude — or more than 10 percent of current domestic output. Among the Inupiat who live closest to the proposed drilling, the project continues to generate tension and debate. Although they depend on oil production for jobs and tax revenue, they rely on the ocean for much of their food and culture.

All their impacts are inevitable in the long run – offshore reserves will inevitably be exploited – too much demand pressureEd Crooks and Sheila McNulty, 1-12-2011, “Rejecting oil is not an option, says report,” Financial Times, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55501ab4-1db4-11e0-aa88-00144feab49a.html#axzz2H7HYuiJVIn its assessment of the future of offshore drilling in the US, the National Commission on the BP spill agrees with the oil industry about the ends but disagrees on the means. The commission’s report, 306 pages plus appendices and an index, boils down to one conclusion: US offshore oil and gas reserves will inevitably be exploited, and the only issue is how to minimise the risk of that

development. Weaning the US off oil, the report says, “would take decades to effect even if we agreed on the course of action tomorrow”. More than half of US oil

consumption is already imported, exposing the economy to threats of disruption of foreign supplies, and creating a trade deficit for oil and gas that, as the report points out, typically exceeds the much-publicised deficit with China. With oil production onshore and in shallow water in long-

term decline, although now being boosted by the development of “unconventional” resources such as the Eagle Ford shale in Texas, the US will have to exploit its deep-water and Arctic reserves if it is not to become even more dependent on imports . As William Reilly, one of the co-chairmen of the commission, put it: “We simply cannot walk away from these

resources.” That much the industry agrees on. Marvin Odum, the head of the Americas oil and gas production business of Royal Dutch Shell, said oil and gas from offshore areas, including Alaska, where Shell wants to drill,

were “a fundamental part of the US energy supply and economy”.

West Coast 2013June Update

No Link – Drilling Not Enough Revenue For Plan

Drilling wouldn’t raise enough for the plan – disproves the thesis of the linkKiley Kroh, Assoc. Dir. Oceans Comm. @ Center for American Progress, 2-1-2012, “Spill, Baby, Spill: House Transportation Bill Is Another Giveaway to Big Oil,” Think Progress, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/01/416245/house-transportation-bill-giveaway-to-big-oil/?mobile=nc, da 5-1-2013Proposed drilling bills wouldn’t generate enough revenue to meet transportation needs : As Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, emphasizes, the current funding shortfall to just keep our bridges, roads, airports and other existing transportation elements running is $12 billion for the next two years, and more than $75 billion over the next six years – “even using the most optimistic projections, Republican drilling proposals would generate, at most, a little more than $5 billion over 10 years. This is well short of the revenue needed to just to maintain inadequate current investment levels.” More importantly, the revenue from increased drilling isn’t even guaranteed. At a hearing late last year, Ryan Alexander of the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense spoke strongly against relying on “speculative” future revenue, stating, “Paying for a couple of years of transportation funding with expected revenues from an increase in oil and gas drilling that will likely take many years to get rolling is not a responsible budget approach … It’s like buying the Ferrari tomorrow because you are sure a raise is coming sometime in the future.”

No link – the money from leases wouldn’t be enough to fund the planBurgess Everett, 3-27-2013, “Energy revenue for infrastructure: A ‘natural link’?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/energy-revenue-for-infrastructure-a-natural-link-89352.html, da 5-1-2013The House legislation also barely scratched the surface of the amount of money lawmakers are looking for. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the bills would bring about $4.3 billion over 10 years. House leaders are certain that’s too low. “The CBO killed us on that,” Shuster told a gathering of

state transportation experts last month. “I’ve talked to a number of experts that said it’s much larger.” The idea has legs above Shuster’s head. “Boehner still likes the idea,” a spokesman for the speaker said, as does Republican Policy Committee Chairman James Lankford (R-Okla.). Former Transportation and Infrastructure Committee member Lankford said his

chamber is probably going to try again to link energy and transportation, and he agreed the CBO’s estimates were “very low.” The Institute for Energy Research and Louisiana State University professor Joseph Mason have also criticized CBO for “lowball” estimates, including an August CBO report that ventured beyond the 10-year window CBO used for the House legislation. The August report estimated that from 2023 to 2035, ANWR royalties would range from $2 billion to $4 billion per year, calling that number a “very

uncertain” estimate. But that money wouldn’t be available immediately. And even if it were, it would pay for only a fraction of the money the federal transportation program will need annually beginning in 2014.

Drilling wouldn’t raise enough to pay for the plan, and drilling revenues take yearsPeter Lehner, 12-5-2011, “Plan to Drill for Transportation Funding is Full of Holes,” National Resources Defense Council, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/plehner/plan_to_drill_for_transportati.html, da 5-1-2013Yet the Republican plan fails to address any of these issues. Their plan is a giveaway to polluters that will further entangle us in oil dependence, and won't even generate enough revenue to fund their own transportation bill. (And it won't create as many jobs as clean energy investment, either. According to a report by UMass-Amherst, investments in clean energy will create three times as many jobs as investments in the fossil fuel industry.) Fiscal conservatives and taxpayer groups

deride the plan's economic philosophy, which departs from the traditional system in which users pay for the upkeep of the transportation system, through tolls and

the gas tax, and relies instead on speculative royalties from the oil and gas industry to fund transportation work. Relying on royalties is problematic because revenue from new oil and gas drilling takes years to roll in,

according to the Congressional Budget Office. And no one can put a finger on exactly how much revenue will be generated from the industrialization of our coastlines, Western lands, and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Estimates range from $1 billion to $7 billion annually. The Republicans need about $15 billion a year to fund their plan.

West Coast 2013June Update

Democrats Will Block Drilling

Drilling will never happen – democrats will blockJesse Jenkins, MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow, 3-19-2013, “How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?,” http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/200436/how-serious-are-president-obama-and-congressional-republicans-about-energy-secur, da 5-1-2013In short, the president missed a big chance to put this energy trust fund into action in 2010. To get another chance now, he'll have to find some new carrot to entice GOP cooperation. A rock and a hard place Presumably the president already knows all of this. So perhaps this is simply his opening bid, and he's fully prepared in the future to make this a real deficit neutral proposal by offering new areas for oil & gas production in exchange for support from Congressional Republicans. I don't doubt that Senator Murkowski would demand something like that, and the House GOP most certainly would. So maybe, for once, President Obama hasn't pre-capitulated and is saving his cards for the negotiating table. But it's not clear. Even if he can find a proposal palatable to the GOP, the idea may be doomed on his own side of the aisle. Given the current uproar over Canada's tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline as well as past pitched battles over expanded oil and gas production, I have a hard time imagining Congressional Democrats or their environmentalist supporters getting behind the idea of opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling.

Democrats wouldn’t agree to drilling, even for transportation fundingBurgess Everett, 3-27-2013, “Energy revenue for infrastructure: A ‘natural link’?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/energy-revenue-for-infrastructure-a-natural-link-89352.html, da 5-1-2013A separate issue is friction with Democrats like Boxer, who can find common ground with Republicans on infrastructure but is unlikely to do so on drilling in ANWR. Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, a key Democratic transportation voice, said it’s a fissure not worth opening, for both monetary and political reasons. “The kind of money we need for transportation is not feasible under any scenario I can envision for revenues from offshore oil leases,” said DeFazio, who prefers a plan indexing taxes on gasoline sales, which he recently pitched to President Barack Obama. “It certainly wouldn’t be helpful with a lot of people on my side of the aisle. And it wouldn’t be helpful with the White House.”

Wouldn’t make it past democrats or the oil industryJesse Jenkins, MIT Energy Initiative Energy Fellow and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow, 3-19-2013, “How Serious Are President Obama and Congressional Republicans About an Energy Security Trust Fund?,” http://theenergycollective.com/jessejenkins/200436/how-serious-are-president-obama-and-congressional-republicans-about-energy-secur, da 5-1-2013A royalty increase of less than 16 cents per barrel could raise the necessary revenue for the trust fund, said Jesse Jenkins, an energy researcher pursuing a master's degree at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But such an approach likely would generate sharp resistance from the oil industry and its allies in Congress who would dub it another tax increase on energy production. At the same time, expanding drilling would face head winds on Capitol Hill from environmentalists in the Democratic caucus. "That's why I question how serious this proposal is," Jenkins said, "because if they're serious about it, they're going to have to cross one of those two bridges."

West Coast 2013June Update

Obama Will Block Drilling

Obama would never agree to new drillingZack Colman, 4-10-2013, “White House proposes royalty, permitting changes on energy development,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/292987-white-house-proposes-raising-fees-on-federal-energy-productionThe fiscal 2014 White House budget proposal released Wednesday seeks to raise Interior Department revenues through higher royalty rates on energy production and bolstering enforcement of lease terms. The Obama administration has put a renewed emphasis on the $2.5 billion it predicts the alterations would raise through 10 years. That’s

because a portion of those funds would go toward President Obama’s plan for a research fund for alternative fuel and vehicle technology, which faces an uphill slog against Republican opposition. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called the so-called "Energy Security Trust" a "critical proposal by the president." The trust would create a dedicated basic research fund designed to spur innovations to wean the transportation sector off oil. The administration wants $2 billion from offshore oil-and-gas revenues through the next decade for the trust, which Salazar said would be offset by other revenues. Those funds would come from the proposed permitting and royalty changes, already scheduled offshore leases and

anticipated oil-and-gas price increases. Despite Salazar's promise of offsets, Republicans are unlikely to agree to let those funds go to the trust rather than the general Treasury, which is their current destination. The GOP would probably require the administration to expand

federal oil-and-gas drilling as a condition for approving the trust. But the White House has said it won't do that, even as a compromise to secure approval for the trust.

Philosophical differences mean no energy-transportation funding linkageBurgess Everett, 3-27-2013, “Energy revenue for infrastructure: A ‘natural link’?” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/energy-revenue-for-infrastructure-a-natural-link-89352.html, da 5-1-2013Philosophical difficulties also exist on the idea of steering energy profits to interstates and transit systems, which until about 10 years ago were paid for on a federal level with gas tax receipts. Getting away from that “user-pay” system irks many transportation experts because the gas tax rewards fuel-efficient drivers and forces frequent drivers to pay more for the roads they use. Economist Rick Geddes, who served on a revenue-study panel after the 2005 transportation law, worries that reliance on drilling revenue not only would erode that user fee, but that it also would be susceptible to raids in a way that the Highway Trust Fund is not.

“When I hear about a tax on drilling that’s going to pay for infrastructure or something like that, I just see that thing

diverted over time,” Geddes said.

Obama will never approve expanded drilling for the ESTFKimberley A. Strassel, 3-21-2013, “Obama's Energy Security Trap,” WSJ, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578373533477269360.html, da 5-1-2013SAFE did indeed first float the idea of a dedicated fund—but Mr. Obama quickly twisted it for his own political purposes while sapping it of bipartisan appeal. The SAFE idea is specific: Revenue for a dedicated fund should be tied to new energy development—from drilling

new areas in the Atlantic, the Pacific and Alaska (including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge). Yet within a day of Mr. Obama's State of the Union mention, the White House was insisting that there would be no new drilling. ¶ Instead, new revenue would come from "growth" in royalties from existing leases. Yet, as the White House knows, it is dramatically cutting back on existing drilling, so there will be

no increased royalties. Royalty money would instead be diverted away from the general Treasury, where it now flows. Mr. Obama's "bipartisan" proposal thus conforms to the usual pattern: The GOP gives him yet more deficit spending and gets nothing in return.

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Not Key Carbon Tax

Carbon tax can’t pass congressBen Geman, 7-16-2012, “GOP leaders slam the door on carbon taxes”, The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/238111-boehner-mcconnell-slam-door-on-carbon-taxes, da 5-1-2013Capitol Hill's most powerful Republicans say advocates who have been discussing a carbon tax behind closed

doors are wasting their breath. ¶ House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.),

speaking through aides, have stated their opposition to the concept in recent days.¶ Boehner spokesman Michael

Steel had a one-word answer when asked, on Friday, whether the Speaker would ever consider a carbon tax to

help address climate change and the deficit: “No.”¶ Similarly, McConnell spokesman John Ashbrook said Monday that “Leader McConnell opposes a national energy tax.”¶ While their positions are no surprise, the categorical opposition underscores the hurdles facing an ad hoc, left-right coalition of activists and policy wonks who have held a series of meetings in private to discuss the idea.

GOP won’t allow new carbon taxKenneth Johnson, 8-2-2012, “Revisiting a U.S. Carbon Tax”, WSJ, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/02/revisiting-a-carbon-tax/, da 5-1-2013The concept is as simple as it is politically sensitive—place a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions, which will help drive them down. Use the proceeds to cut taxes elsewhere or reduce the deficit.¶ On Thursday, Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.) is set to introduce a carbon bill in the House that sets a target for reduction in emissions and instructs the executive branch to impose a tax sufficient to meet that target. The bill is designed to cut emissions of greenhouse gases and raise tens of billions of dollars that could help pay down the deficit.¶ That bill probably isn’t going anywhere, despite being designed for cross-aisle appeal. While Democrats hope

that reducing the deficit or lowering corporate or personal income taxes would attract Republican support, achieving those goals by creating a new tax is anathema to many in the GOP. Energy companies say taxing emissions could choke off growth even as the U.S. discovers big new supplies of oil and natural gas.

No way Obama could get a carbon taxReihan Salam, 6-12-2012, “OP-ED: FEVER DREAM”, The Daily, http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/12/061212-opinions-column-second-term-salam-1-2/, da 5-1-2013And while it is certainly true that climate change has been a flashpoint for Democrats and Republicans, it is not at all clear that the president’s views are in the mainstream while those of his GOP critics are not. Yes, the House

narrowly passed a cap-and-trade bill early in the Obama presidency over the objections of congressional Republicans. Yet the bill was opposed by a small but crucial number of Senate Democrats, many of whom hailed from states heavily dependent on coal-fired electricity. Remember also that in recent years, Americans across the political spectrum have grown enthusiastic about the potential of domestic shale gas and oil supplies, the exploitation of which could shrink the U.S. trade deficit and create jobs in hard-hit regions of the country. The promise of new job creation is also part of why large numbers of Democrats joined with Republicans in Congress to back the Keystone XL pipeline over Obama’s objections. So despite the president’s attacks the GOP for its alleged radicalism on energy, there is reason to believe that his devotion to carbon pricing and green industrial policy is more out of step with the national mood.

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Not Key Alternative Energy

ESTF wouldn’t work to encourage alternative energy – no link to their impactsNicolas Loris, Fellow @ Heritage, 3-25-2013, “Trust Fund or Slush Fund? Energy Security Trust Has Fatal Flaws,” Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/energy-security-trust-fatal-flaws-in-alternative-fuel-subsidies, da 5-1-2013In a recent speech at Argonne National Laboratory, President Obama reiterated his desire for an Energy Security Trust .[1] Under the President’s proposal, the trust would divert billions of

dollars of revenues generated from oil and gas production on federal lands to subsidize alternative fuel technologies. The Administration’s plan has three fatal flaws. First, it neglects expanding oil and gas production

on federal lands and off America’s coasts. Second, it would duplicate already-tried-and-failed attempts to subsidize energy technologies. Third, it ignores that

competition in the marketplace is most effective in driving technological innovation. Congress should reject the creation of a new pot of money for subsidies—whether tied to new exploration or not. Instead of promoting more of what does not work, Congress and the Administration should

expand opportunities for energy production on federal lands and provide states with a larger percentage of the royalty revenue to use at their own discretion.

ESTF isn’t key to clean tech – new revenue would just decrease other funding David Friedman, Deputy Director, Clean Vehicles, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2-15-2013, “President’s Proposed Energy Security Trust Could Help, But Much More Needed to Address Oil Use,” http://blog.ucsusa.org/presidents-proposed-energy-security-trust-could-help-but-much-more-needed-to-address-oil-use/, da 5-1-2013During President Obama’s State of the Union address, he spoke to the importance of cutting America’s oil use. As part of that, he proposed the creation of an Energy Security Trust that

would use revenues from oil and gas production to invest in research for clean vehicle technology. The goal: to “shift our cars and trucks off oil for good” and “free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.” ¶ So, would a proposed trust help or hurt efforts to cut oil use? Or is it too soon to tell?¶ It’s complicated¶ A blueprint released by the White House outlined the research areas that

may benefit from the trust. Based on that, the trust fund could help provide much-needed resources to improve technologies, like hydrogen fuel cell and battery electric vehicles and low-carbon biofuels, that can curb oil use in our cars and trucks. But I want to lay out a few key questions

that need to be addressed if the concept moves forward. ¶ Will the trust really bring new R&D money?¶ Historically, energy research and development (R&D) has gotten much less funding compared to areas like defense, health, and space exploration—especially when it comes to R&D for renewable energy

and efficiency. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act helped deliver a temporary boost in renewables and efficiency R&D, but the challenges of climate change, volatile gas prices, and the other high costs of our oil use continue to loom large. So, more R&D money would help. ¶

Based on a White House official cited in a New York Times blog, the trust could raise $200 million a year for the Department of Energy . Given that the DoE’s main energy efficiency and renewable energy research office (EERE) has a potential 2013 budget of about $2 billion, the trust could represent a 10 percent increase overall , and a 25 percent boost if you look only at their transportation related budget . ¶ A 25 percent boost in transportation R&D seems like a big step forward, but the EERE might never see that money even if the trust idea gains traction . Why? Well, in the current fiscal atmosphere, I could easily see some in Congress arguing to cut EERE appropriations by the exact same amount generated by the trust. That would be a mistake, resulting in no real benefit for clean energy/tech development.

ESTF isn’t key to commercialize alternative energyNicolas Loris, Fellow @ Heritage, 3-25-2013, “Trust Fund or Slush Fund? Energy Security Trust Has Fatal Flaws,” Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/energy-security-trust-fatal-flaws-in-alternative-fuel-subsidies, da 5-1-2013Not only would creating an Energy Security Trust to fund alternative vehicle technologies be duplicative; it would likely be inefficient and wasteful. Subsidies funnel taxpayer money to technologies that would have either become market viable on their own or would not survive without the government’s help. Oil’s

dominance as a transportation fuel is not because a government program is lacking or because more taxpayer investments are needed to jumpstart a transformation in the fuel industry. At present, even with the dramatic spikes in prices, oil is the most efficient and economic source of transportation fuel. Americans spent $481 billion on gasoline in 2011.[10] Globally, the transportation fuels market is a multi-trillion-dollar one. If any alternative

fuel technology captured a mere slice of that market, it would capture billions of dollars in profit annually. The market demand for transportation fuel is incentive enough to spur competition in the industry. Markets adapt to changes in resource demand and supply through the price mechanism. If vehicles powered by natural gas, electric, or biofuel become economically competitive, consumers would respond, and alternative-fuel vehicle and necessary supporting infrastructure would be built . But it would not be as a result of a government program or a politician in Washington thinking he knows which is

the best alternative to a gas-powered car. Subsidies create dependence on government , crowd out private-sector investments to distribute benefits to favored industries, and disperse the costs among

taxpayers.[11]

West Coast 2013June Update

ESTF Not Key Biofuels

ESTF’s not key to biofuels – lots of other policies support Brent Erickson, Executive Vice President, Industrial & Environmental Division, Biotechnology Industry Organization, 2-19-2013, “Captive Consumers,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/02/sizing-up-obamas-state-of-the.php, da 5-1-2013One of the President’s major policy proposals calls for an Energy Security Trust fund that will “drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good” and “free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.” Achieving energy security for the nation must also achieve these goals, since American households are

captive consumers to a single source of transportation fuel – which is also where most of our oil imports are used. And Americans continue to face higher costs at the pump each year, even as they cut back driving to use less. The fact is there is already a long-

term policy in place to displace reliance on foreign oil in our transportation sector, and it’s one of the keys to the current projections of energy self-sufficiency in the future. The Renewable Fuel Standard has been very successful in driving new research and technology in oil alternatives. And the industry is on the cusp of a commercial breakthrough for cellulosic biofuels, with first-of-a-kind

biorefineries under construction and starting production. Staying the course on this policy will ensure the public reaps dividends on the multi-year investment already made. By lowering oil prices and reducing imports of oil, the RFS will contribute $144 billion annually to U.S. GDP by 2022. Many additional policies that the Obama administration

has championed have paid measurable dividends. The energy title of the Farm Bill , for instance. Since 2008, Farm Bill energy programs have supported 6,600 U.S. projects,

employed 15,000 people, and generated or saved more than 7.3 billion kilowatt hours of energy. The programs have supported more than 860 growers in 188 counties across 12 states who are converting nearly 60,000 underutilized acres of land to energy crops. The programs have also educated consumers about more than 25,000 biobased products made by 3,100 companies, which employ nearly 100,000 people. These programs deserve to be renewed, expanded and funded.

Other policies outweigh – drilling revenue would take years to make a differenceTaxpayers for Common Sense, 9-29-2011, “Republicans Have Their Own Plan to Pay for Infrastructure Jobs: Oil Drilling,” http://www.taxpayer.net/media-center/article/republicans-have-their-own-plan-to-pay-for-infrastructure-jobs-oil-drilling, da 5-1-2013When it comes to funding a quick jolt to the economy, it’s pretty clear that oil drilling won’t really cut it. “Any royalties from any new energy development wouldn’t start flowing to the Treasury for years,” said

Erich Zimmerman of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “Essentially this would be like spending money now to be paid for with revenues that may or may not be realized at some future time. Sounds like a recipe for a doubling down on our current deficit mess.”

US is already funding biofuel researchNicolas Loris, Fellow @ Heritage, 3-25-2013, “Trust Fund or Slush Fund? Energy Security Trust Has Fatal Flaws,” Heritage, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/energy-security-trust-fatal-flaws-in-alternative-fuel-subsidies, da 5-1-2013The U.S. already has several programs in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) that promote the commercialization of alternative vehicle technologies, including: Hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and fuel cell technologies[6];

Bioenergy research in feedstocks, conversion, biorefineries, and infrastracture [7]; and Vehicle technologies research in hybrid and

vehicle systems, energy storage, power electronics and electrical machines, advanced combustion engines, fuels and lubricants, and materials technologies.[8] In addition to these programs, the DOE conducts research in the Office of Science on hydrogen and battery storage and bioenergy with the end goal of advancing alternative fuel technologies. The DOE also has an Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program in which the agency provided $8.4 billion in loans since 2009 to develop advanced vehicle

technologies and associated equipment.[9] On top of all these government programs, federal and state incentives exist for alternative vehicles, as does a mandate to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022.

West Coast 2013June Update

Biofuel Investment Inevitable

Other investments in biofuels inevitable – ESTF not key Brent Erickson, Executive Vice President, Industrial & Environmental Division, Biotechnology Industry Organization, 2-19-2013, “Captive Consumers,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/02/sizing-up-obamas-state-of-the.php, da 5-1-2013One of the President’s major policy proposals calls for an Energy Security Trust fund that will “drive new research and technology to shift our cars and trucks off oil for good” and “free our families and businesses from the painful spikes in gas prices we’ve put up with for far too long.” Achieving energy security for the nation must also achieve these goals, since American

households are captive consumers to a single source of transportation fuel – which is also where most of our oil imports are used. And Americans continue to face higher costs at the pump each year, even as they cut back driving to use less. The fact is there is

already a long-term policy in place to displace reliance on foreign oil in our transportation sector, and it’s one of the keys to the current projections of energy self-sufficiency in the future.

The Renewable Fuel Standard has been very successful in driving new research and technology in oil alternatives. And the industry is on the cusp of a commercial breakthrough for cellulosic biofuels, with first-of-a-kind biorefineries

under construction and starting production. Staying the course on this policy will ensure the public reaps dividends on the multi-year investment already made. By lowering oil prices and reducing imports of oil, the RFS will contribute $144 billion annually to U.S. GDP by 2022. Many additional policies that the Obama administration has championed have paid measurable dividends. The energy title of the Farm Bill , for instance. Since 2008, Farm Bill energy programs have supported 6,600 U.S. projects, employed 15,000 people, and

generated or saved more than 7.3 billion kilowatt hours of energy. The programs have supported more than 860 growers in 188 counties across 12 states who are converting nearly 60,000 underutilized acres of land to energy crops. The programs

have also educated consumers about more than 25,000 biobased products made by 3,100 companies, which employ nearly 100,000 people. These programs deserve to be renewed, expanded and funded.

Biofuels investment is inevitableRon Kotrba, ed. Biodiesel Magazine, 12-5-2012, “Why 2013 will be a good year for biodiesel,” Biodiesel Mag. http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/blog/article/2012/12/why-2013-will-be-a-good-year-for-biodiesel, da 5-1-2013Much sensationalized chatter has circulated in recent news reports about biodiesel demand slowing down this quarter, despite

production volumes released by the EPA indicate that 83 million gallons of U.S. biodiesel was produced in October. While this is a decline from earlier months, it’s not in my mind the makings of sordid tales by misinformed journalists overzealously ringing the alarm bells about the so-called downfall of the biodiesel industry. It is, rather, simple market-based economics driving the temporary slowdown.¶ We are still looking at strong year-to-date totals of 925 million gallons with two months left in the calendar year. While it is possible, if not likely, demand and production will

remain unimpressive until the end of the reporting year (Feb. 28), I list below six reasons why 2013 could be a very good year for biodiesel .¶

1) RFS intact. The renewable fuel standard (RFS) has been under attack all year as several states backed by very strong lobby organizations petitioned EPA to waive the RFS. After serious consideration, EPA denied those requests, leaving the RFS intact—even if it’s only “for now”—providing certainty to the renewable fuel markets.

Brazil makes cellulosic investment inevitableVinod Sreeharsha, January 2013, “Brazil Doubles Down on Biofuel,” IEEE Spectrum, http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/brazil-doubles-down-on-biofuel, da 5-1-2013Still, it’s a bold gamble, given cellulosic ethanol’s history. Several attempts at large-scale production have ended up in failure in the United States, Canada, and other locations. GraalBio is confident in the success of its first plant. So confident, in fact, that it’s already planning to build five more plants by 2017. The Brazilian government will help with financing. The Brazilian Development Bank recently tripled its budget for advanced biofuels to $1.5 billion and approved projects from 25 companies, GraalBio among them. “People spent a lot of money on [cellulosic ethanol] and have not seen any results ,” says Arnaldo Vieira de Carvalho, a senior energy specialist at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, D.C. More recently, he adds, the technology has gotten cheaper, so new plants have a better chance at succeeding. “But given past experience, I take the wait-and-see approach.”

West Coast 2013June Update

Biofuels Good – Oil Wars

Biofuels solve oil warsMichael Ventura, Essayist and cultural critic @ Austin Chronicle, 10-19-2012, “Letters at 3AM: A Big Picture and a Long Game,” Austin Chronicle, http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2012-10-19/letters-at-3am-a-big-picture-and-a-long-game/, da 5-1-2013Predictably, "the biofuel program has struck a nerve among Republicans," who are trying to limit military biofuel use by law (The New York Times online, Aug. 27).

Their Big Oil donors know that if a military market makes biofuels cheap, then America's airlines, railways, and truckers will want it too, and other oil-dependent nations will follow our lead.¶ Mostly for the sake of oil, the

Obama administration's strategies extend U.S. military reach beyond practical limits—limits that Mitt Romney, if elected,

plans to strain still further. But the military has come up with an elegant solution: Strategically and environmentally, a U.S. military powered by biofuels could be a 21st century game-changer that ends the oil wars and drains

Big Oil's political dominance.¶ That is a real possibility. It is also possible that, walking a map bigger than a basketball court, our

commanders will bump into one another indefinitely, attempting to defend an indefensible strategy .

Goes nuclearMichael Meacher, Labour MP, 6-29-2008, “The era of oil wars,” Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/29/oil.oilandgascompanies, da 5-1-2013The US maintains 737 military bases in 130 countries under cover of the "war on terror" to defend American economic interests, particularly access to oil. The principal objective for the continued existence and expansion of Nato post-cold war is the encirclement of Russia and the pre-emption of China dominating access to oil and gas in the Caspian Sea and Middle East regions. It is only the beginning of the unannounced titanic global resource struggle between the US and China , the world's largest importers of oil (China overtook Japan in 2003). Islam has been

dragged into this tussle because it is in the Islamic world where most of these resources lie, but Islam is only a secondary player. In the case of Russia, the recent pronounced stepping up of western attacks on Putin and claims he is undermining democracy

are ultimately aimed at securing a pro-western government there, and access to Russian oil and gas when Russia has more of these two hydrocarbons together than any other country in the world.

The struggle has also spilled over into West Africa , reckoned to hold some 66 billion barrels of oil typically low in sulphur and thus ideal for refining. In 2005 the US imported more oil from the Gulf of

Guinea than from Saudi and Kuwait combined, and is expected over the next 10 years to import more oil from Africa than from the Middle East. In step with this, the Pentagon is setting up a new unified military command for the continent

named Africom. Conversely, Angola is now China's main supplier of crude oil , overtaking Saudi Arabia last year. There is no doubt that Africom, which will greatly increase the US military presence in Africa, is aimed at the growing conflict with China over oil supplies. As Joe Lieberman, former US presidential candidate, put it, efforts by the US and China to use imports to meet growing demand "may escalate competition for oil to something as hot and dangerous as the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union".

Biofuls are key to military readinessRobert Gardner, Junior Fellow @ American Security Project, 6-21-2012, “Budgeting for Biofuels: The Military’s Dependence on Petroleum Must be Mitigated,” American Security Project, http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/budgeting-for-biofuelsthe-militarys-dependence-on-petroleum-must-be-mitigated/, da 5-1-2013Along with rising prices, the short term volatility of oil prices poses substantial risks for DoD budgeting and operations . Secretary of

the Navy Ray Mabus has stated that every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of petroleum costs the Navy about $31 million of unbudgeted funding annually. DoD reports have found that a 10% increase from the FY2011 price of fuel would cost the DoD as a whole an additional $1.7 billion a year.¶ Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted that unbudgeted fuel costs could force operational cuts in Air Force flying hours, Navy steaming days, and training for home-stationed Army troops. These cuts pose serious security risks for military operations. While testifying on military budgeting for 2013 Secretary Mabus stated that “we would be irresponsible if we did not reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”¶ Steps Forward¶

Steep increases and fluctuations in petroleum spending emphasize the need for the DoD to hedge its bets against rising petroleum prices. The Navy and Air Force have set forth 2020 goals to reduce their oil usage by

West Coast 2013June Update

50%, by using alternative fuels. Secretary Mabus and others have stated that efforts toward biofuel development will increase the security of the energy supplies and reduce the service’s vulnerability to price shocks .

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Methane Hydrates Impact

Hydrate drilling is inevitable – JapanJeff Siegel, Managing Editor of Energy & Capital and contributing analyst for the Energy Investor, 3-20-2013, “Flammable Ice Investing, Bigger than Fracking!” Energy and Capital, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/flammable-ice-investing/3176, da 5-1-2013According to a 2010 International Energy Agency report, it's estimated methane hydrates — also known as “flammable ice,” because it's essentially a frozen gas — contain almost twice as much energy as all the world's resources of gas, oil, and coal combined.¶ Let that sink in for a moment...¶ Now consider this: Japan is a country entirely dependent upon other countries for oil and gas — even more so now,

as the fight rages on to shut down most of the nation's nuclear power plants .¶ Bottom line: Japan is in a very tight spot when it comes to energy, so it's no wonder so much time, money, and effort has been spent on what

has long been considered an exercise in futility.¶ Truth is most experts have long considered flammable ice little more than a theoretical

possibility for future generations.¶ As John Kemp from Reuters wrote: “Outside of Japan, where hydrates have the potential to provide energy security, flammable ice will remain an interesting curiosity — a last reserve of fossil fuels if humanity should ever need them in centuries to come when other, far easier hydrocarbon resources are nearing exhaustion.”¶ Maybe...¶ Maybe not.¶ Awash in Hydrates¶ Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation (JOGMEC), the state-owned company that's responsible for

extracting natural gas from flammable ice, claims it can have a commercially viable model of this operation ready to go by 2019.

Japan will inevitably drill methane hydratesMartin LaMonica, Ed. @ MIT Tech. Review, 3-15-2013, “Will Methane Hydrates Fuel Another Gas Boom?” MIT Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512506/will-methane-hydrates-fuel-another-gas-boom/, da 5-1-2013Still, given the relative high price of natural gas in Japan—this week it hit over $16 per million metric BTU, compared to around $3.50 in the United States—the country has plenty of motivation to make the technology work. “Given the current momentum and significant funding of the Japanese Gas Hydrate program, it is very possible that [Japan] could be first to commercially produce natural gas from hydrates offshore,” says Carolyn Koh, professor at the

Colorado School of Mines’ Center for Hydrate Research.

No timeframe to the impact – Methane hydrate commercialization would take decadesJeff Siegel, Managing Editor of Energy & Capital and contributing analyst for the Energy Investor, 3-20-2013, “Flammable Ice Investing, Bigger than Fracking!” Energy and Capital, http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/flammable-ice-investing/3176, da 5-1-2013Either way, climate change concerns or not, it is highly unlikely that Japan will not go full force on this.¶ Figuring Conservatively¶ Now JOGMEC claims it can have commercial operations up and running by 2019 . I actually think that's very optimistic, but for now, we'll give them the benefit of the doubt. If this is accomplished, it will likely take another decade before all the technological hurdles are overcome and new deployments are green-lighted.¶ Figuring conservatively and assuming this technology proves economically viable, significant expansion in the waters of Japan is probably at least twenty to thirty years away.

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Oil Spills Impact

Regulations solve oil spillsEric R.A.N. Smith, professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, 8-30-2010, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/30/think_again_offshore_drilling, da 5-1-2013"We Shouldn't Drill Until the Government Gets Its Act Together."¶ No. A retooling of the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS), which oversees offshore drilling, is certainly in order, but

waiting for a perfect world makes no sense. The regulatory problems are well on their way to being solved. The blitz of publicity given to oil-industry regulation after the spill and the first round of bureaucratic reforms announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in May are already having a huge impact. The people in charge of safety and environmental protection are now in a separate agency, which no longer reports to the administrators who are under pressure to increase oil revenues. They are also getting more money for inspections and more time to conduct them. Their work is also being monitored by reporters looking for a sensational story. Together,

these changes will make offshore oil a lot safer.

Past spills just prove they’re less likely to happen againEric R.A.N. Smith, professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, 8-30-2010, Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/30/think_again_offshore_drilling, da 5-1-2013But all that ended when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and collapsed into the Gulf of Mexico. The world started watching MMS, Congress held hearings, and Obama reorganized the agency. The attention did the trick. There will be no more skipped inspections, waived reviews, or delayed repairs. In the aftermath of the disaster, both the oil companies and the newly reorganized and renamed Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement will do anything they can to avoid another major spill. Just as with airline security after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Gulf waters became a lot safer the day after catastrophe struck.¶ There will no doubt

be more reform of the rules and agencies regulating offshore oil drilling, including in the energy bill coming out of Congress. Given the first response from the White House and the close attention from the news media, however, there is little safety gain to be had from maintaining the moratorium on offshore drilling.

Natural seeps and transportation outweigh David Holt, President of Consumer Energy Alliance, 5-1-2012, “Technology is the Antidote to Risk,” National Journal, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/04/what-more-can-be-done-to-ensur.php, da 5-1-2013But, what’s really missing from this question is how we, as a nation, balance risk with reward. The risk of a catastrophic blowout remains very, very small. In over forty years of offshore drilling, the United States has suffered two very large oil spills resulting from a blowout – the Santa Barbara blowout in 1969 and Deepwater Horizon in 2010. In fact, since 1979, for every 130 billion barrels of oil produced worldwide, one well incident resulting in a large oil spill has occurred. Of these incidents, one-third was the result of military action. In the United States, from 1971-2009, over 41,500 wells (exploratory

and production wells) were drilled in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), producing nearly 16 billion barrels of oil. Of these 41,500 wells, fifty well control incidents caused the release of oil. In effect, out of the billions of oil produced from the U.S. OCS, about 0.00001147% of the volume was spilled. For comparison sake, natural seeps account for approximately 63 percent of oil in the oceans while another 33 percent of oil in the ocean comes from cars, boats and planes .

West Coast 2013June Update

AT: Ocean Bio-D Impact

Tons of alternate causes to ocean bio-diversity and the scientists are on itDanielle Torrent, University of Florida News, 4-11-2013, “Scientists stress need for national marine biodiversity observation network,” http://news.ufl.edu/2013/04/11/marine-biodiversity-network/, da 5-1-2013With ocean life facing unprecedented threat from climate change, overfishing, pollution, invasive species and habitat destruction, a University of Florida researcher is helping coordinate national efforts to monitor marine biodiversity. Humans depend on the ocean for food, medicine, transportation and recreation, yet little is known about how these vast ecosystems spanning 70 percent of the Earth’s surface are functioning and changing. Following a workshop sponsored by U.S. federal agencies in 2010, researchers at eight institutions have proposed a blueprint for establishing a cooperative marine biodiversity observation network to monitor trends in marine ecosystem health and the distribution and abundance of oceanic life. The research will appear online in BioScience Thursday and in the journal’s May print issue. Biodiversity observation networks are indispensible tools, allowing scientists to follow and predict ecosystem changes to facilitate proactive responses to environmental pressures, said study co-author Gustav Paulay, invertebrate zoology curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History on the UF campus.

Lots of other threats to ocean biodiversityConvention on Biological Diversity, 2013, “Marine and Coastal Biodiversity,” http://www.cbd.int/marine, da 5-1-2013The oceans occupy more than 70% of the Earth’s surface and 95% of the biosphere. Life in the sea is roughly 1000 times older than the genus Homo. There is broad recognition that the seas face unprecedented human-induced threats from industries such as fishing and transportation, the effects of waste disposal, excess nutrients from agricultural runoff, and the introduction of exotic species. If we fail to understand both the vulnerability and resilience of the living sea, the relatively brief history of the human species will face a tragic destiny.

Oceans are resilientNASA, September 2003, “Understand the principles that will shape the future of life, both on Earth and beyond,” http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/roadmap/g6.html, da 5-1-2013Life on Earth is based upon networks of biochemical reactions that interact with the crust, oceans and atmosphere to maintain a biosphere that has been remarkably resilient to environmental challenges. These networks of metabolic reactions developed within self-organized microbial ecosystems that collectively responded to environmental changes in ways that apparently stabilized the biosphere. Evolutionary biologists are working to understand how such biological and environmental processes have shaped specific ecosystems in Earth's history. However, it is far more difficult to employ such principles to formulate accurate predictions about the state of future ecosystems, especially when changes in planetary conditions are faster than the tempo of evolution. Predictions of this nature will require improved models of the biogeochemical cycling of critical elements, as these cycles represent the first-order interplay between the metabolic sequences of life and the surrounding physical world.