aprpa e addendum

8/14/2019 Aprpa e Addendum

1/49

LMDIT 2008 ARPA E Aff Addendum (___/___)Serving Utah Since. . .Now

INDEX

TERRORISM ADD-ON ..2-3

INHERENCY.4-5

SCIENCE INVESTMENT DECREASING6-8

OTHER NATIONS CATCHING UP..9

FUNDING KEY TO EFFECTIVENESS..10

ECON INTERNALS-Market Harmonization..11

ECON INTERNALS-Competitiveness12-17

ECON INTERNALS-Job Creation.18-21

ECON INTERNALS-Oil Prices22-23

GENERAL SOLVENCY..24

LEADERSHIP INTERNALS.25

IMPACT EXTENSION-ECON26-27

IMPACT EXTENSION-Leadership.28-30IMPACT EXTENSION-Terrorism31-35

NON UNIQUE-Increasing Incentives Now36

AT-SQ Incentives Solve..37

AT-Oil Supplies OK.38-39

Now Key Time.40

AT-Trades Off With DOE Research.41

AT-No Shortterm Solvency.42

AT-Alternatives Fail43

AT-T Government Research44AT-Plan Unpopular45

AT-Science Bad.46-49

1


2/49


Terrorism Add-On

Programs that train new scientists and aim at longterm discovery are critical to homelandsecurity and fighting terrorismNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and

Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id)

Scientific and engineering research demonstrated its essential role in the nations defenseduring World War II. Research led to the rapid development and deployment of theatomic bomb, radar and sonar detectors, nylon that revolutionized parachute use, andpenicillin that saved battlefield lives. Throughout the Cold War the United States reliedon a technological edge to offset the larger forces of its adversaries and thus generouslysupported basic research. The US military continues to depend on new and emergingtechnologies to respond to the diffuse and uncertain threats that characterize the 21stcentury and to provide the men and women in uniform with the best possible equipmentand support.37 Just as Vannevar Bush described a tight linkage between research andsecurity,38 the HartRudman Commission a half-century later argued that security can be

achieved only by funding more basic research in a variety of fields.39 In the wake of the9/11 attacks and the anthrax mailings, it is clear that innovation capacity and homelandsecurity are also tightly coupled. There can be no security without the economic vitalitycreated by innovation, just as there can be no economic vitality without a secureenvironment in which to live and work.40 Investment in R&D for homeland security hasgrown rapidly; however, most of it has been in the form of development of newtechnologies to meet immediate needs. Human capacity is as important as researchfunding. As part of its comprehensive overview of how science and technology couldcontribute to countering terrorism, for example, the National Research Councilrecommended a human-resources development program similar to the post-SputnikNational Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958.41 A Department of Defense proposalto create and fund a new NDEA is currently being examined in Congress.42

2


3/49


Terrorism Add-On

TERRORISM RISKS EXTINCTION

Alexander in 2003

Yonah Alexander, Inter-University for Terrorism Studies Director, 2003

[The Washington Times, "Terrorism myths and realities," 8/28]

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

once again illustrated dramatically that the international communityfailed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications

of the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Eventhe United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard

terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a criticalstrategic challenge to their national security concerns. It is not

surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001, Americans werestunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists

striking a devastating blow at the center of the nation's commercial

and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite thecollapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts ofterrorism triggered by the second intifada that began almost three

years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time ofintensive diplomatic efforts to revive the moribund peace process

through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Why arethe United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries

affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by

new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, includingmisunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to

terrorism's expansion, such as lack of a universal definition ofterrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality,

weak punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by

terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare. Unlike their historicalcounterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of

violence in terms of conventional and unconventional threats andimpact. The internationalization and brutalization of current and future

terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism[e.g. biological, chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its

serious implications concerning national, regional and global securityconcerns.

3


4/49


Inherency-Not Funded Now

Despite Congressional support the administration has refused to fund ARPA-ESternstein in 2006 (Aliya [staff] Federal Computer Week, May 1, 2006http://www.fcw.com/print/12_15/news/94203-1.html)

Gordon said the innovation portion of the presidents fiscal 2007 budget request mighthave been inspired by the NAS report, but the budget addresses only a limited number ofthe reports recommendations. The NAS report recommends the creation of a new agencymodeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Defense Departmentagency that created ArpaNet, which predated the Internet. House Science Committeemembers held a hearing in March to discuss whether developing a new organizationwithin DOE dubbed ARPA-E could advance U.S. energy competitiveness. Severalinnovation bills promote ARPA-E as a program that could help wean the country of itsdependence on foreign oil. Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.),Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) introduced an R&D packagein January that authorizes the creation of ARPA-E. That package, the Protect AmericasCompetitive Edge Act, includes three bills to implement the NAS reportrecommendations.

4
http://www.fcw.com/print/12_15/news/94203-1.htmlhttp://www.fcw.com/print/12_15/news/94203-1.html


5/49


Inherency-Not Funded Now

Despite signing legislation that funds ARPA-E, the Administration has refused to requestfunding for the past two years. Despite an independent staff and funding mandate, heclaims it would trade off with existing research

Inside Energy August 13, 2007

President Bush signed legislation last week that will create a major new research agencyat the Energy Department. But Bush said he would not call for full funding for the officeover concerns that it would siphon resources away from existing DOE programs.The America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), which the House and Senate passed earlierthis month, calls for DOE to establish an "Advanced Research Projects Agency ?Energy," to pursue high-risk research that could lead to the development of break-throughenergy technologies to address the country's energy security concerns.In a signing ceremony in the Oval Office on Thursday, Bush praised parts of the bill thatwill boost funding for math and science education, among other things. But later that day,the White House issued a statement saying Bush is "concerned" about ARPA-E and otherprovisions in the bill.

The Bush administration has been opposed to the ARPA-E concept since it wasintroduced in 2005 as part of a National Academies report. It fears that the agency wouldtake away congressionally appropriated funds from DOE's Science Office and otherenergy programs.White House science advisor John Marburger told Platts in a recent interview that his"concern has always been that creation of all new programs in DOE will compete withour efforts to get research funding in the Office of Science, which has been badly in needof new resources." He added that the department does not "need a lot of other missions tospend money on right now."The new law, however, puts the science office on track to double its budget. It alsoseparates ARPA-E monies from the rest of DOE. The law calls for the department'sscience program to receive $4.5 billion in fiscal 2008, compared with $3.8 billion infiscal 2007. It authorizes $300 million for ARPA-E in fiscal 2008.The statement that the White House issued last week said Bush is "concerned that thelegislation includes excessive [funding] authorizations and new duplicative programs."The research that ARPA-E will take on, the White House said, is "more appropriately leftto the private sector."Accordingly, Bush will request funding in his 2009 budget for provisions in the bill thathe supports, but not for provisions that would require "excessive or duplicative funding,the White House said

5


6/49


Science Investment Decreasing

Both private and public sources of research funding are drying upNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11463&page=R1)

In 2001 (the most recent year for which data are available), US industry spentmore on tort litigation than on research and development.37

In 2005, only four American companies ranked among the top 10 corporaterecipients of patents granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.38

Beginning in 2007, the most capable high-energy particle accelerator on Earthwill, for the first time, reside outside the United States.39Federal funding of research inthe physical sciences, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 45% less infiscal year (FY) 2004 than in FY 1976.40 The amount invested annually by the USfederal government in research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineeringcombined equals the annual increase in US healthcare costs incurred every 20 days.41

Private sector R&D is aimed at near term products eroding the entire research structureNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11463&page=R1)

The US research structure that evolved after World War II was a self-reinforcing triangleof industry, academe, and government. Two sides of that triangleindustrial research andgovernment investment in R&D as a fraction of gross domenstic product (GDP) havechanged dramatically. Some of the most important fundamental research in the 20thcentury was accomplished in corporate laboratoriesBell Labs, GE Research, IBMResearch, Xerox PARC, and others. Since that time, the corporate research structure hasbeen significantly eroded. One reason might be the challenge of capturing the results of

research investments within one company or even a single nation on a long-term basis.The companies and nation can, however, capture high-technology discoveries at least forthe near term (5-10 years) and enhance the importance of innovation in jobs.35 Forexample, the United States has successfully capitalized on research in monoclonalantibodies, network systems, and speech recognition. As a result, corporate funding ofcertain applied research has been enhanced at such companies as Google and Intel and atmany biotechnology companies. Nonetheless, the increasing pressure on corporations forshort-term results has made investments in research highly problematic.

6


7/49



Current government R&D investment is aimed at short-term gains preventing techbreakthroughs that would create entire industriesNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and

Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11463&page=R1)

Although support for research in the life sciences increased sharply in the 1990s andproduced remarkable results, funding for research in most physical sciences,mathematics, and engineering has declined or remained relatively flatin realpurchasing powerfor several decades. Even to those whose principal interest is inhealth or healthcare, that seems short-sighted: Many medical devices and proceduressuch as endoscopic surgery, smart pacemakers, kidney dialysis, and magneticresonance imaging are the result of R&D in the physical sciences, engineering, andmathematics. The need is to strengthen investment in the latter areas while notdisinvesting in those areas of the health sciences that are producing promising results.Many believe that federal funding agenciesperhaps influenced by the stagnation of

funding levels in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineeringhave becomeincreasingly risk-averse and focused onshort-term results. For example, even thegenerally highly effective Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) hasbeen criticized in this regard in congressional testimony.36 Widespread, if anecdotal,evidence shows that even the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes ofHealth (NIH) have changed their approach in this regard. A recent National Academiesstudy37 revealed that the average age at which a principal investigator receives his or herfirst grant is 42 yearspartly because of requirements for evidence of an extensive trackrecord to reduce risk to the grant-makers.38 But reducing the risk for individual researchprojects increases the likelihood that breakthrough, disruptive technologies will not befoundthe kinds of discoveries that often yield huge returns. History also suggests thatyoung researchers make disproportionately important discoveries. The NIH roadmap39established in fiscal year (FY) 2004, recognizes this concern, but the amount of fundsdevoted to long-term, high-payoff, high-risk research remains very limited.

7


8/49



Current public investment in research is only medical. Must invest in physical sciences.NAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id)

Public funding for science and engineering rose through the 1990s, but virtually all of theincrease went to biomedical research at NIH. Federal spending on the physical sciencesremained roughly flat, and increases for mathematics and engineering only slightlysurpassed inflation (Figure 3-13). Funding for important areas of the life sciencesplantscience, ecology, environmental researchsupported by agencies other than NIH alsohas leveled off. The lack of new funding for research in the physical sciences,mathematics, and engineering raises concern about the overall health of the science andengineering research enterprise, including that of the health sciences. Yet, these aredisciplines that lead to innovation across the spectrum of modern life.49

8


9/49


Other Countries Catching UpResearch funding increasing worldwide threatening US dominanceNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id)

It is no surprise that as the value of research becomes more widely understood, othernations are strengthening their own programs and institutions. If imitation is flattery, wecan take pride in watching as other nations eagerly adopt major components of the USinnovation model.13 Their strategies include the willingness to increase public supportfor research universities, to enhance protections for intellectual property rights, topromote venture capital activity, to fund incubation centers for new businesses, and toexpand opportunities for innovative small companies.14 Many nations have maderesearch a high priority. To position the European Union (EU) as the most competitiveknowledge-based economy in the world and enhance its attractiveness to researchersworldwide, EU leaders are urging that, by 2010, member nations spend 3% of grossdomestic product (GDP) on research and development (R&D).15 In 2000, R&D as apercentage of GDP was 2.72 in the United States, 2.98 in Japan, 2.49 in Germany, 2.18 in

France, and 1.85 in the United Kingdom.16 Many nations also are investing moreaggressively in higher education and increasing their public investments in R&D (Figure3-1). Those investments are stimulating growth in the number of research universities inthose countries; the number of researchers; the number of papers listed in the ScienceCitation Index; the number of patents awarded; and the number of doctoral degreesgranted (Table 3-1, Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-4).17 China is emulating the US system as well.The Chinese Science Foundation is modeled after our National Science Foundation, andpeer review methodology and startup packages for junior faculty are patterned on USpractices. In China, national spending in the past few years for all R&D activities rose500%, from $14 billion in 1991 to $65 billion in 2002. USR&D spending increased140%, from $177 billion to $245 billion, in the same period.18The rapid rise of SouthKorea as a major science and engineering power has been fueled by the establishment ofthe Korea Science Foundationfunded primarily by the national sports lotterytoenhance public understanding, knowledge, and acceptance of science and engineeringthroughout the nation.19 Similarly, the government uses contests and prizes specificallyto stimulate the scientific enterprise and public appreciation of scientific knowledge.Other nations also are spending more on higher education and providing incentives forstudents to study science and engineering. To attract the best graduate students fromaround the world, universities in Japan, Switzerland, and elsewhere are offering scienceand engineering courses in English. In the 1990s, both China and Japan increased thenumber of students pursuing science and engineering degrees, and there was steadygrowth in South Korea.20 Some consequences of this new global science and engineeringactivity are already apparentnot only in manufacturing but also in services. Indiassoftware services exports rose from essentially zero in 1993 to about $10 billion in2002.21 In broader terms, the US share of global exports has fallen in the past 20 yearsfrom 30 to 17%, while the share for emerging countries in Asia grew from 7 to 27%.22The United States now has a negative trade balance even for high-technology products

(Figure 3-5). That deficit raises concern about our competitive ability in important areasof technology.23

9


10/49


Funding Key To Effectiveness

Adequate funding key to ARPA-E researchHouse of Representatives Press Office in 2008 (April 9, 2008http://science.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2151)

"I want to congratulate the men and women of DARPA who have been on the vanguardof our nations technological superiority for a half century. Historically, DARPA defiedconventional thinking and pursued cutting-edge and, some might say, far out researchfor the Department of Defense which resulted in some of the most transformationaltechnologies of our time," said Gordon. "It is the culture of innovation at DARPA that hasmade it so successful and unique, and the talented and passionate staff is the heart of thatculture. Its time we take the DARPA model and apply it to the most pressing challengewe face today energy. With adequate funding and forward-thinking leadership, ARPA-Emight be celebrating the same level of revolutionary results 50 years from now."

10
http://science.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2151http://science.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2151


11/49


Econ Internals-European Market Harmonization

Encouraging alternative energy production harmonizes US and European markets. Thisis crucial to continuing US access to 55% of the world economy and the continuation oftransatlantic tradeGraffy in 2008 (Colleen [Deputy Asst. Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs]

State Department Press Release, May 19, 2008)

So, when I am posed the question: "Does America have friends in Europe with regard totrade and climate change?" I would say not only does the U.S. have friends, the U.S. alsohas partners.Let's remember that the transatlantic market today makes up nearly 55 percent of globalGDP and about 40 percent of world trade. So there is a strong incentive to work togetheras friends and partners.Both the United States and Europe believe in strong and effective regulation to protectour citizens and the environment. However, in some cases, unnecessary differences in ourregulatory approaches have made our companies less competitive, raised consumer costs,reduced consumer choice and slowed job creation.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope believe that if we could align our

economies better, we could generate $10 billion in saved costs and potential growth forthe transatlantic economy.And so, working together, we are trying to do exactly that, by creating the TransatlanticEconomic Council (TEC), which met for the second time today in Brussels. The TECwas created in April 2007, under the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic EconomicIntegration, and was signed by President Bush, Chancellor Merkel and EuropeanCommission President Barroso during the U.S.-EU Summit in Washington, DC. The goalof the TEC is to promote regulatory cooperation, eliminate barriers to transatlantic trade,advance capital market liberalization, and strengthen support for open investmentregimes. In short, it is trying to reduce barriers to trade and investment.In the area of the environment, the Transatlantic Economic Council is recommending thatthe June 2008 U.S.-EU Summit consider joint efforts in clean energy technologies thatwill help us address our shared concerns about energy security and climate change.

11


12/49


Econ Internals-Competitiveness

The current approach emphasizes oil over alternative incentives, rising comparative costscrush US competitivenessLevin in 2008 (Carl [Senator, Michigan] States News Service, May 12, 2008)

One of the major causes of our energy crisis is the failed policies of the currentAdministration. The chickens have come home to roost on seven years of a business-as-usual energy policy, paired with fiscal and foreign policies that have pushed our growingenergy problem close to a breaking point. Because the Administration has proved itselfunable and unwilling to take the necessary steps to provide affordable energy supplies tothe American people, it is up to the Congress to try to jumpstart a comprehensive solutionto skyrocketing energy prices.The price of crude oil recently reached a record high price of about $126 per barrel. Sky-high crude oil prices have led to record highs in the price of other fuels produced fromcrude oil, including gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The national averageprice of gasoline is at a record high of about $3.70 per gallon. Jet fuel costs nearly $3.40per gallon. The price of diesel fuel, which is normally less expensive than gasoline, hassoared to a record high of nearly $4.25 per gallon.

Rising energy prices increase the cost of getting to work and taking our children toschool, traveling by car, truck, air and rail, and growing the food we eat and transportingit to market. Rising energy prices increase the cost of producing the medicines we needfor our health, heating our homes and offices, generating electricity, and manufacturingcountless industrial and consumer products. The relentless increase in jet fuel prices hascontributed to airline bankruptcies, mergers, fare increases, and service cuts. "If fuelcontinues to go up, this industry cannot survive in current form," the president of the AirTransport Association said recently. Rising diesel prices have placed a crushing burdenupon our nation's truckers, farmers, manufacturers, and other industries. To make mattersworse, our energy costs are rising much more quickly than energy costs in othercountries, directly threatening our global competitiveness.

12


13/49



Science investment key to US competitivenessNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and


President George W. Bush has said Science and technology have never been moreessential to the defense of the nation and the health of our economy.5A letter from theleadership of the National Science Foundation to the Presidents Council of Advisors onScience and Technology put the case even more bluntly:6Civilization is on the brink of anew industrial order. The big winners in the increasingly fierce global scramble forsupremacy will not be those who simply make commodities faster and cheaper than thecompetition. They will be those who develop talent, techniques and tools so advancedthat there is no competition.

Major economic changes mean some nations will lose and pay the economic

consequences. Training new scientists is key to avoid the loss of US competitivenessNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11463&page=R1)

It has also been argued that in a period of tectonic change such as the one that the globalcommunity is now undergoing, there will inevitably be nations and individuals that arewinners or losers. It is the view of this committee that the determining factors in suchoutcomes are the extent of a nations commitment to get out and compete in the globalmarketplace.New generations of US scientists and engineers, assisted by progressivegovernment policies, could lead the way to US leadership in the new, flatter worldaslong as US workers remain among the best educated, hardest-working, best trained, andmost productive in the world.

13


14/49



Jobs, competitiveness healthcare and wages are all dependent on taking action to matchthe research efforts of developing countries across the worldNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and


A common denominator of the concerns expressed by many citizens is the need for anduse of knowledge. Well-paying jobs, accessible healthcare, and high-quality educationrequire the discovery, application, and dissemination of information and techniques. Oureconomy depends on the knowledge that fuels the growth of business and plants the seedsof new industries, which in turn provides rewarding employment for commensuratelyeducated workers. Chapter 2 explains that US prosperity since World War II hasdepended heavily on the excellence of its knowledge institutions: high-technologyindustries, federal R&D agencies, and research universities that are generallyacknowledged to be the best in the world.The innovation model in place for a half-century has been so successful in the United States that other nations are now beginning

to emulate it. The governments of Finland, Korea, Ireland, Canada, and Singapore havemapped and implemented strategies to increase the knowledge base of students andresearchers, strengthen research institutions, and promote exports of high-technologyproductsactivities in which the United States has in the past excelled.46 China formallyadopted a pro-R&D policy in the middle of the 1990s and has been moving rapidly toraise government spending on basic research, to reform old structures in a fashion thatsupports a market economy, and to build indigenous capacity in science andtechnology.47 The United States is now part of a connected, competitive world in whichmany nations are empowering their indigenous brainware and building new andeffective performance partnershipsand they are doing so with remarkable focus, vigor,and determination. The United States must match that tempo if it hopes to maintain thedegree of prosperity it has enjoyed in the past.

14


15/49



Loss of research and science leadership would crush 40% of the US economyNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,


Central to prosperity over the last 50 years has been our massive investment in scienceand technology. Government spending on research and development (R&D) soared afterWorld War II, and government spending on R&D as a percentage of the gross domesticproduct (GDP) reached a peak of 1.9% in 1964 (it has since fallen to 0.8%2). By 1970,the United States enrolled 30% of all postsecondary students in the world, and more thanhalf the worlds science and engineering doctorates were awarded here.3 Today, with just5% of the worlds population, the United States employs nearly one-third of the worldsscientific and engineering researchers, accounts for 40% of all R&D spending, publishes35% of science and engineering articles, and obtains 44% of science and engineeringcitations.4 The United States comes out at or near the top of global rankings forcompetitiveness. The International Institute for Management Development ranks the

United States first in global competitiveness; the World Economic Forum puts us second(after Finland) in overall competitiveness and first in technology and innovation.5Leadership in science and technology has translated into rising standards of living.Technology improvements have accounted for up to one-half of GDP growth and at leasttwo-thirds of productivity growth since 1946.6 Business Week chief economist MichaelMandel argues that, without innovation, the long-term growth rate of the US economywould have been closer to 2.5% annually rather than the 3.6% that has been the averagesince the end of World War II. If our economy had grown at that lower rate over the last50 years, he says, it would be 40% smaller today, with corresponding implications forjobs, wages, and the standard of living.7

15


16/49



Research solves the economy multiple waysNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,


The relative competitive lead enjoyed by the United States will almost certainly shrink asother nations rapidly improve their science and technology capacity. That means greaterchallenges for the United States, but it also presents an opportunity to raise living standards and improve qualityof life around the world and to create a safer world. The United States might have a smaller share of the worldseconomy, but the economy itself will be larger. For that reason, the success of other nations need not imply the

failure ofthe United States. But it does require that the United States maintain and extendits capacity to generate value as part of a global innovation system. If we increase ourcommitment to leadership in science and technology, there are several likely results:

Although the US share of total scientific output continues to decline, the UnitedStates maintains leadership across key areas.

US researchers become leaders of global research networks.The US education system sets the standard for quality and innovation, giving

graduates a competitive edge over the larger number of lower wage scientists andengineers trained in the developing world.

Our universities and national laboratories act as centers for regional innovation,attracting and anchoring investment from around the world.

Our economy generates sufficient growth to reduce our trade imbalances, reducethe federal budget deficit, and support an aging population.

Investors continue to find it attractive to place their funds in US firms seeking toinnovate and generate jobs in America.

US leadership in science and technology supports our military leadership andaddresses the major challenges of homeland security.The rapid worldwide development that has resulted from advances in science andtechnology has raised global standards of living, but it also spawned a range ofchallenges that, paradoxically, will have to be solved through appropriate investments in

research: To maintain its current rate of growth, by 2020 China will need to boost energy consumption by150%, and India will need to do so by 100%.60 It will be essential to develop clean, affordable, and reliableenergy.

The increased movement of people around the world will lead to more outbreaks of communicablediseases. Meanwhile, aging populations will require new treatments for chronic diseases.

As the means to develop weapons of mass destruction become more widely available, securitymeasures must advance.

In an increasingly interconnected economy, even small disruptions to communications, trade, orfinancial flows can have major global consequences. Methods to manage complex systems and respond quicklyto emergencies will be essential.The strains of managing global growth will require global collaboration. Around the world, the growing scaleand sophistication of science and technology mean that we are much more likely to be able to solve those andother problems that will confront us. Advances in information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnologywill improve life for billions of people. The leadership of the United States in science and technology will makea critical contribution to those efforts and will benefit the lives of Americans here at home. Each challengeoffers an opportunity for the United States to position itself as the leader in the markets that will be created forsolutions to global challenges in such fields as energy, healthcare, and security.It is important to recognize that all nations in the global economy are now inextricably linked. Just as globalhealth, environmental, and security issues affect everyone, so are we all dependent on the continued growth ofother economies. It is clearly in Americas interest for China, India, the EU, Japan, and other nations to succeed.

Their failure would pose a far greater threat to US prosperity and security than would their success. In theglobal economy, no nation can prosper in isolation. However, it is the thesis of this reportthat it is important that such global prosperity be shared by the citizens of the UnitedStates.

16


17/49



A more detailed scenario for economic and competitive collapse without scienceleadershipNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and


In Scenario 1, the United States continues to invest enough to maintain current trends inscience and technology education and performance, leading to a slow decline incompetitiveness. Scenario 2 considers what might happen if the commitment to scienceand technology were to lessen. Although that would run counter to our national history,several factors might lead to such an outcome:

Rising spending on social security, Medicare, and Medicaid (now 42% offederal outlays compared with 25% in 1975) limit federal and state resources availablefor science and technology.58 In 2005, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaidaccounted for 8.4% of GDP. If growth continuesat the current rate, the federalgovernments total spending for Medicare and Medicaid alone would reach 22% of GDP

by 2050. The war on terrorism refocuses government resources on short-term survivalrather than long-term R&D. Increasingly attractive opportunities overseas draw industrialR&D funding and talented US scientists and engineers away from the United States.Higher US effective corporate tax rates discourage companies from investing in newfacilities and research in the United States. Excessive regulation of research institutionsreduces the amount of money available for actual research.Those possibilities would exacerbate and accelerate the trends noted in Scenario 1:

The availability of scientists and engineers could drop precipitously if foreignstudents and workers stop coming in large numbers, either because immigrationrestrictions make it more difficult or because better opportunities elsewhere reduce theincentives to work in the United States.

US venture capitalists begin to place their funds abroad, searching for higherreturns.

Short-term cuts in funding for specific fields could lead to a rapid decline in thenumber of students in those disciplines, which could take decades to reverse.

If they were faced with a lack of qualified workers, multinational corporationsmight accelerate their overseas hiring, building the capabilities of other nations while theUS innovation system atrophies.

Multinationals from China, India, and other developing nations, building onsuccess in their domestic markets and on supplies of talented, low-cost scientists andengineers, could begin to dominate global markets, while US-based multinationals thatstill have a large percentage of their employees in the United States begin to fail,affecting jobs and the broader economy.

Financing the US trade deficit, now more than $600 billion or about 6% of GDP,requires more than $2 billion a day of foreign investment. Many economists argue thatsuch an imbalance is unsustainable in the long term.59 A loss of competitiveness in keyexport industries could lead to a loss of confidence in the US ability to cover the debt,

bringing on a crisis. As innovation and investment move overseas, domestic job creationand wage growth could stall, lowering the overall standard of living in the UnitedStates.The rapid pace of technological change and the increasing mobility of capitalknowledge and talent mean that our current lead in science and technology couldevaporate more quickly than is generally recognized if we fail to support it. Theconsequences would be enormous, and once lost, our lead would be difficult to regain.

17


18/49


Econ Internals-Job Creation

Incentives for alternative resources key to preserve the US economy in two ways. Firstcushion for peak oil, second investments trickle down gauaranteeing massive localinvestment and job creationPR Newswire May 15, 2008

Mesa Power is hopeful that the Pampa Wind Project will qualify for the FederalProduction Tax Credits in 2010 and 2011 when the project will begin commercialoperations. "I believe that Congress will recognize that it is critical not only to thisproject, but to renewable energy in this country, that they enact a long-term extension ofthe Production Tax Credits," Pickens said."The development of alternative energy projects, especially renewable resources such aswind power, is critical for the future of the country in the face of declining world oilresources," he said."You find an oilfield, it peaks and starts declining, and you've got to find another one toreplace it," said Pickens, who once operated one of the largest independent oil and gasproduction companies. "It can drive you crazy. With wind, there's no decline curve."The Panhandle, with its wide-open space, low population and steady winds, is a logical

location for wind-generated energy. Studies show the Texas Panhandle winds are optimalfor such a project, blowing much of the time in the middle of the day when electricdemand is at its peak.Mesa Power has leased land in Carson, Gray, Hemphill, Roberts and Wheeler counties,where the landowners will receive annual royalties for the wind turbines operating ontheir property.Development of the region's wind resources will also create an economic bonus similar tothe boom the three largest wind farms in America have created around Sweetwater inNolan County. While other towns in West Texas struggle with plummeting house pricesand job losses, Sweetwater is in the midst of a construction explosion. Two newcompanies opened in the past month, one servicing the blades of the county's 2,000turbines, another renting out cranes used in erecting new turbines. Tax revenues from thewind energy companies are bringing jobs, new roads and houses, and renovating local

schools and hospitals there.An Austin-based Resource Inc. economic impact study, commissioned by Mesa Power,projects that the Mesa Power wind farm will bring significant increases in jobs andincome for the five counties of the project investment zone (Carson, Gray, Hemphill,Roberts and Wheeler counties).The study forecast the project would generate an estimated 1,500 jobs during theconstruction phase, and 720 during a typical year of the operation phase; personal incomein the project investment zone will rise by $68.7 million per year during the constructionphase, and $120 million during the operation phase. The more significant impact duringthe operation phase is largely due to lease payments to be made to landowners in theproject area amounting to $65.3 million per year.

18


19/49



Alternative energy investments create clusters of businesses that linked to one anothercreating sustainable longterm growth in US cities. This is crucial to reviving the USeconomy and competitivenessDayton Daily News May 11, 2008

Development experts, politicians and academics call them clusters. The concept - similarbusinesses locating near and trading with one another, sharing laborers, driving universityresearch and training - is nothing new. Think Hollywood and entertainment, New Yorkand finance or, of course, Dayton and automotive manufacturing.But a recent study by the Brookings Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, saysclusters remain critical to the economic growth and competitiveness of the country andmetropolitan areas such as Dayton. Karen Mills, the study's co-author and a venturecapitalist, said the federal government can support their growth by providing data andfunding.John Blair, an economics professor with Wright State University who has studied theissue locally, said both ideas hold promise.Having money to conduct feasibility studies and other research could help regions find

ways to fix deficiencies they may have. But he cautions that any data gathered needs tobe tempered with information provided by local experts in the public and private sector togive meaning to the numbers. Regions need to look at what businesses and supportservices they already have and build upon those, Blair said."There's a big tendency in people who practice economic development to jump on thebandwagon," he said. "You're much better off to study your local economy and thinkrigorously about what things have a natural advantage in your area rather than justreading what's in the newspaper and picking what's popular."The establishment of interdependent businesses also helps keep companies in the area, hesaid."Once they are here, once they are all reinforcing each other, it's hard for any of them toleave," he said. "You're building a more lasting economic base."David Swenson is vice president of business initiatives with the Edison MaterialsTechnology Center, an organization that assists manufacturers. He said industry clustersrelated to advanced materials and alternative energy offer potential for growth in the stateand the region. Manufacturers often require capital to buy new equipment and training fortheir workers in order to tap into these areas, he said.

19


20/49



Only tech investment can guarantee the job creation needed for US economic stabilityNAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering andNational Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and


Forrester Research estimates that 3.4 million US jobs could be lost to offshoring by2015.27 Ashok Bardhan and Cynthia Kroll calculate that more than 14 million US jobsare at risk of being sent offshore.28 The Information Technology Association of America(ITAA), Global Insight,29 and McKinsey and Company30 all argue that those losses willbe offset by net gains in US employmentpresuming that the United States takes thesteps needed to maintain a vibrant economy. Many experts point out that the number ofjobs lost to offshoring is small compared with the regular monthly churning of jobs in theUS economy. McKinsey, for example, estimates that about 225,000 jobs are likely to besent overseas each year, a small fraction of the total annual job churn. In 2004, the privatesector created more than 30 million jobs and lost about 29 million; the net gain was 1.4

million jobs.31 Once again, this suggests that the US economy will continue to createnew jobs at a constant rate, an assumption that in turn depends on our continueddevelopment of new technologies and training of workers for the jobs of the 21st century.Economists and others actively debate whether outsourcing or, more generally, free tradewith low-wage countries with rapidly improving innovation capacities will help or hurtthe US economy in the long term.32 The optimists and the pessimists, however, agree ontwo fundamental points: in the short term, some US workers will lose their jobs and facedifficult transitions to new, higher skilled careers; and in the long term, Americas onlyhope for continuing to create new high-wage jobs is to maintain our lead in innovation.

20


21/49



Scientific investment effectively combats offshoring. Language barriers etc. prevent theoffshoring of high-tech industries.NAS in 2007 (National Academy of Sciences with National Academy of Engineering and

National Academy of Medicine, Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing andEmploying America for a Brighter Economic Future,http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id)

A recent McKinsey and Company study45 reported that the supply of youngprofessionals (university graduates with up to 7 years of experience) in low-wagecountries vastly outstrips the supply in high-wage countries. There were 33 millionpeople in that category in 28 low-wage countries, and 15 million in 8 high-wagecountries, including 7.7 million in the United States.46 With opportunities to study orwork abroad or to work at home for a multinational corporation, workers in low-wagecountries increasingly will be in direct competition with workers from developed nations.The same study estimates, however, that only 13% of the potential talent supply in low-wage nations is suited to work for multinational corporations because these individuals

lack language skills, because of low-quality domestic education systems, and because ofa lack of cultural fit. For the United States to compete, then, its workers can and mustbring to the workplace not only technical skills and knowledge but other valuable skills,including knowledge of other cultures, the ability to interact comfortably with diverseclientele, and the motivation to apply their skills. US workers also must be able tocommunicate effectively orally and in writing, lead teams, manage projects, and solveproblems. Although much of our education system is working to teach those skills, thereis much to do to prepare US students for work in a more competitive global economyas well as to provide the rudimentary skills needed in any economy.

21


22/49


Econ Internals-Oil Prices

Only US investment in alternative energy sources can drive down oil prices. Incentivesare crucial to tech breakthroughsLevin in 2008 (Carl [Senator, Michigan] States News Service, May 12, 2008)

I have long been advocated advanced automotive technologies such as hybrid electric,advanced batteries, hydrogen and fuel cells and promoted development of thesetechnologies through federal research and development and through joint government-industry partnerships. We need a significant infusion of federal dollars into these effortsto make revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technologies. Such an investmentwill make technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles affordable to the American public,and reduce our dependence on oil and reduce prices at the pump.We need an equally strong investment in development of alternative fuels that can replacegasoline. I have strongly supported efforts to increase our production of renewable fuelsand to do that in a way that will also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We need astrong push toward biofuels produced from cellulosic materials, which requires asignificantly greater federal investment in biofuels technologies. Cellulosic ethanol hasenormous potential for significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions but additional

federal support is required to make this technology financially viable. We need expandedfederal research and development grants as well as increased tax incentives and federalloan guarantees to make cellulosic ethanol a viable replacement for gasoline. The federalgovernment must do its part first to develop these technologies so that they will then inturn be within reach of the American public.

22


23/49


Econ Internals-Oil Prices

Decreasing dependence is crucial to forcing an OPEC price decreaseSENATE DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (Congressional Documentsand Publications, May 5, 2008 )

U.S. Oil Dependence Allows OPEC to Set and Sustain High Oil Prices. "Global oilreserves are concentrated in a volatile region of the world, with 60% of reserves in thePersian Gulf region. Partly as a consequence of this concentration of low cost reserves,OPEC producers are able to exercise market power, functioning as an imperfect("clumsy") cartel and at times maintaining oil price well above estimated competitivelevels. The strength and influence of this cartel grows and declines, largely in relation tocycles of growth in global import demand and OPEC market share. Nonetheless, OPEC'sproduction or pricing decisions can impose sustained economic costs over many yearsand can exacerbate, or ameliorate, short-run supply shocks." [U.S. Department of Energy,Estimating the Energy Security Benefits of Reduced U.S. Oil Imports, 2/28/07]

23


24/49


General Solvency-Private Govt Coop Key

Government inentives that encourage cooperation across government, educational andbusiness institutions are the best way to solve. Crucial to breathrough tech.Bodman in 2008 (Samuel [US Secretary of Energy] Energy Department Documents andPublications May 13, 2008)

First, governments have a critical role in funding the research that will help to lessen theworld's dependence on fossil fuels and harness the tremendous power of clean, alternativeenergy technologies.In the United States, under President Bush's leadership, we are aggressively fundingprograms - for both basic science and applied RandD - to hasten the type oftransformational discoveries we need, the breakthroughs that truly change the nature ofour thinking and fundamentally alter how we produce, deliver and use energy.At the same time, we're actively pursing new approaches to getting beneficialtechnologies out into the marketplace quickly by employing a range of collaborativemodels, including cost-sharing partnerships and loan guarantees, as well as establishinginnovative programs to bring venture capital-sponsored entrepreneurs into our NationalLaboratories to help commercialize new technologies.

What we're trying to do is look at this challenge in a new way -- to try to incentivize thecollaboration that is necessary between government and the private sector.Because the key to unlocking our energy future is ensuring that the innovation cyclecontinues at a rapid pace across the spectrum - in our government laboratories, at ouruniversities, and especially in the private sector.

24


25/49


Leadership Internals-Energy Dependence

US leadership is being crushed by dependence on foreign oil subsidies key tocompetitivenessMcFeatters in 2008 (Ann [National Columnist, Scripp Howard News Service] PlainDealer (Cleveland), May 18, 2008)

We are being strangled by our need for foreign oil. We have been foolish and profligatewith energy. The Clinton and Bush administrations stuck their heads in the sand, and nowwe're in trouble. We must create a rational plan for energy independence. We must investin alternative energy sources.Our infrastructure is crumbling. Our roads, bridges, pipelines, water tanks, ports, sewers, water mains and otherstructures that make our nation work are all in need of costly repairs, upgrading and replacement. The Clintonand Bush administrations ignored the problem. We no longer have that luxury.The public education system that made us the envy of the world is broken. Our students do not know as muchand are not learning as much as those in many Third World countries. The No Child Left Behind Act did notwork. We have to start from scratch.Our military is stretched to the breaking point. We have to take care of our veterans and rethink our place in theworld and what we are willing to do to boost our armed services. We need a national service plan to involve ouryouth and give them a stake in their country's future.We have the power to destroy the delicate ecosystem that makes life on Earth possible. We must get seriousabout environmental protection and cleanup and global warming. Every federal agency that deals with the

environment needs to be overhauled. The United States stopped leading on this front; it must pick up the reinsagain.About 47 million Americans do not have health care. If they get sick or injured, their lives become a nightmaresome will never escape. It is time to create a rational, workable, affordable universal health care system.Terrorism is a fact of life. We have to be vigilant and secure in our borders. We must reform our immigrationsystem without giving up our civil liberties or slamming our doors.

We have to redouble our efforts to be innovative, respond to technological challenges andstay competitive in a changing world.We are still the most impressive nation on Earth, but we've gotten off track. We'veforgotten the sacrifices and hard work that made this nation great. It's time to rememberand insist our leaders remember.

25


26/49


Impact Extensions-Economy

A prolonged US recesssion will spread globally and cause

conflicts that slaughter millionsBusiness World 1/8/98A global recession will make the 1929 depression in the US look like a

sari-sari store closing down. Global recession will lay off millions acrossthe planet, and trigger a stoppage of production in all types of

industries. Industry-based nations with little or no agrarian economy,such as Singapore, will be the first to feel the pinch. Moving out of

recession takes time and while the crisis continues, despair will negate

further efforts towards growth and induce more crimes and war. Inother words, a protracted recession will make it harder to get out of it

and may cause a depression. A global depression can kill more people

at a shorter time than a protracted regional war. The IMF-World Bankbailout of beleaguered Asian economies, especially South Korea, is

urgent since the ongoing regional recession may indeed spread out toaffect even the more stable American economy. An American recession

will surely trigger a global recession. The South Korea $50 billionbailout, the biggest ever, bigger than the Mexican bailout, hints how

urgent the situation is.

Economic Decline Causes War

Mead, 1998Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the

Council on ForeignRelations, The Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998

Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financialmarkets, not the terrorist training camps that pose the biggest

immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about themother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that

started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to collapse in October, staged arally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow

Jones industrial average had lost 90% of its value. Wages plummeted,thousands of banks and brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people

lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories worldwide. But the

biggest impact of the Depression on the United States--and on worldhistory--wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The

Depression brought Adolf Hitler to power inGermany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph

Stalin's power in Russia, and convinced the Japanese military that the

country had no choice but to build an Asian empire, even if that meant

war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing aboutdepressions. They aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the worldeconomy crash far enough, and the rules change. We stop playing

"The Price is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."

26


27/49


Impact Extensions-Economy

Economic growth solves crime, famine, AIDS, war, and all kindsof other bad things.

Leonard Silk Winter 1993 (prof. of economics @ Pace U.), ForeignAffairsLike the Great Depression, the current economic slump has fanned the

fires of nationalist, ethnic and religious hatred around the world.Economic hardship is not the only cause of these social and political

pathologies, but it aggravates all of them, and in turn they feed backon economic development. They also undermine efforts to deal with

such global problems as environmental pollution, the production andtrafficking of drugs, crime, sickness, famine, AIDS and other plagues.

Growth will not solve all of these problems by itself. But economicgrowth and growth alone creates the additional resources that

make it possible to achieve such fundamental goals as higher living

standards, national and collective security, a healthier environment,and more liberal and open economies and societies.

Economic decline leads to wars of all kindBernardo V. Lopez, BusinessWorld, 9/10/98 L/N

What would it be like if global recession becomes full bloom? The

results will be catastrophic. Certainly, global recession will spawn warsof all kinds. Ethnic wars can easily escalate in the grapple for dwindling

food stocks as in India-Pakistan-Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Indonesia. Regional conflicts in key flashpoints can easily erupt

such as in the Middle East, Korea, and Taiwan. In the Philippines, as in

some Latin American countries, splintered insurgency forces may takeadvantage of the economic drought to regroup and reemerge in the

countryside. Unemployment worldwide will be in the billions. Faminecan be triggered in key Third World nations with India, North Korea,

Ethiopia and other African countries as first candidates. Food riots andthe breakdown of law and order are possibilities.

CONTINUES...Unemployment in the US will be the hardest to cope with since it may

have very little capability for subsistence economy and its agrarianbase is automated and controlled by a few. The riots and looting of

stores in New York City in the late '70s because of a state-widebrownout hint of the type of anarchy in the cities. Such looting in this

most affluent nation is not impossible.The weapons industry may also grow rapidly because of the ensuing

wars. Arms escalation will have Primacy over food production if warsescalate. The US will depend increasingly on weapons exports to nurse

its economy back to health. This will further induce wars and conflictswhich will aggravate US recession rather than solve it. The US may

depend more and more on the use of force and its superiority to get itsways internationally.

27


28/49


Impact Extensions-Leadership

Loss of US Leadership sparks multiple nuclear warsKhalilzad 95 Zalmay, the amazing, Washington Quarterly, SpringUnder the third option, the United States would seek to retain global

leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return tomultipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-

term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as anend in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises

leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the globalenvironment would be more open and more receptive to American

values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such aworld would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the

world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats ofregional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally,

U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile globalrival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global

cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global

nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conduciveto global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power

system.

28


29/49



Decline in US gurantees worldwide nuclear warKhalizhad in 95

Zalmay Khalilzad, "Losing the Moment? The United States and the

World After the Cold War," Washington Quarterly Reader, Order andDisorder after the Cold War (ed. Brad Roberts) 1995, p.60In the Persian Gulf, U.S. withdrawal is likely to lead to an intensified

struggle for regional domination. Iran and Iraq have, in the past, bothsought regional hegemony. Without U.S. protection, the weak oil-rich

states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) would be unlikely toretain their independence. To preclude this development, the Saudis

might seek to acquire, perhaps purchase, their own nuclear weapons.If either Iraq or Iran controlled the region that dominates the world

supply of oil, it could gain a significant capability to damage the U.S.and world economies. Any country that gained hegemony would have

vast economic resources at its disposal that could be used to build

military capability as well as gain leverage over the United States andother oil-importing nations. Hegemony over the Persian Gulf by eitherIran or Iraq would bring he rest of the Arab Middle East under its

influence and domination because of the shift in the balance of power.Israeli security problems would multiply and the peace process would

be fundamentally undermined, increasing the risk of war between theArabs and the Israelis.

The extension of instability, conflict, and hostile hegemony in East

Asia, Europe, and the PErsian Gulf would harm the economy of theUnited States even in the unlikely event that it was able to avoid

involvement in major wars and conflicts. Higher oil prices would reducethe U.S. standard of living. Turmoil in Asia and Europe wold force

major economic readjustment in the United States, perhaps reducing

U.S. exports and imports and jeopardizing U.S. investments in theseregions. Given that total imports and exports are equal to a quarter of

the U.S. gross domestic product, the cost of necessary adjustmentsmight be high.

The higher level of turmoil in the world would also increase thelikelihood of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)

and means of their delivery. Already several rogue states such asNorth Korea and Iran are seeking nuclear weapons and long-range

missiles. That danger would only increase if the United Stateswithdrew from the world. The result would be a much more dangerous

world in which many states possessed WMD capabilities; the likelihoodof their actual use would increase accordingly. If this happened, the

security of every nation in the world, including the United States,would be harmed.

29


30/49



Loss of US leadershiop results in multiple scenarios for major warthroughout the world

Prager, 2004.

(Prager, Dennis. Ph.D. Law. Pepperdine University. Fellow. School ofInternational Affairs. Columbia University. This Years Ingrate of theYear Award Goes To Jewish World Review. August 31, 2004.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/prager1.asp.)

Yet its awfulness is only exceeded by its ubiquity. In fact, it isingratitude that characterizes much of the world's including many

Americans' attitude toward the United States. Think about it.Without America:

The world would collapse into economic and moral chaos. Cruelty andeconomic depression would dominate the planet. Vast unemployment

and social dislocation would ensue, followed by various forms of

secular and religious totalitarianism.No one would stop the Chinese from conquering Taiwan.No one would come to Israel's aid when Iran and other Muslim states

attempted to destroy that country.No one would come to South Korea's aid as North Korea invaded and

probably prevailed over South Korea, making it a formidable Stalinistforce in East Asia.

Japan would rearm and probably seek nuclear weapons to counter

emboldened Korea and China.Russia would probably recommence imposing its will on its neighbors.

Islamic terrorism would increase exponentially everywhere,including inside Europe as its only real opposition disappeared.

It is American idealism coupled with its dominant economic and

military power that alone prevents evil from drowning the world. Themany fools of the Left who devote their lives to curbing American

power from those who manage editorial pages and the news media,to the academics who warn generations of students against American

power, to leftist billionaires like George Soros do not understandthis.

30
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/prager1.asphttp://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/prager1.asp


31/49


Impact Extensions-Terrorism

Another major terror attack leads to worldwide warIgnatieff 2004 [Michael Ignatieff, Canadian scholar, Liberal Memberof Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons, "Lesser Evils," New

York Times Magazine, May 2 2004]http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/oped...ytm_050204.htm

Consider the consequences of a second major attack on the mainlandUnited States - the detonation of a radiological or dirty bomb, perhaps,

or a low-yield nuclear device or a chemical strike in a subway. Any ofthese events could cause death, devastation and panic on a scale that

would make 9/11 seem like a pale prelude. After such an attack, a pallof mourning, melancholy, anger and fear would hang over our public

life for a generation. An attack of this sort is already in the realm ofpossibility. The recipes for making ultimate weapons are on the

Internet, and the materiel required is available for the right price.Democracies live by free markets, but a free market in everything

enriched uranium, ricin, anthrax -- will mean the death of democracy.

Armageddon is being privatized, and unless we shut down thesemarkets, doomsday will be for sale. Sept. 11, for all its horror, was a

conventional attack. We have the best of reasons to fear the fire nexttime. A democracy can allow its leaders one fatal mistake -- and that's

what 9/11 looks like to many observers -- but Americans will notforgive a second one. A succession of large - scale attacks would pull

at the already-fragile tissue of trust that binds us to our leadership and

destroy the trust we have in one another. Once the zones ofdevastation were cordoned off and the bodies buried, we might find

ourselves, in short order, living in a national-security state oncontinuous alert, with sealed borders, constant identity checks and

permanent detention camps for dissidents and aliens. Our

constitutional rights might disappear from our courts, while torturemight reappear in our interrogation cells. The worst of it is thatgovernment would not have to impose tyranny on a cowed populace.

We would demand it for our own protection. And if the institutions ofour democracy were unable to protect us from our enemies, we might

go even further, taking the law into our own hands. We have ahistory of lynching in this country, and by the time fear and paranoia

settled deep in our bones, we might repeat the worst episodes fromour past, killing our former neighbors, our onetime fiends. That is what

defeat in a war on terror looks like. We would survive, but we would nolonger recognize ourselves. We would endure, but we would lose our

identity as free peoples.

31
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htmhttp://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htm


32/49



Terrrorists will relentlessly attack the US we must search out and kill

them

Epstein 2005, (Alex, Jr. Fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "Muslim

Opinion Be Damned," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Sept 12, 2005,

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?pa...s_iv_ctrl=1021)This is the latest example of the apologies and hand-wringing that occur anytime there

is any widespread display of Muslim anger. To listen to most of our foreign-

policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today is thefact that many Muslims are mad at us. "Whatever one's views on the [Iraq]war," writes a "New York Times" columnist, "thoughtful Americans need to consider . . .the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world." In response toAbu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, "We have become the most hated nation in theworld, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons." Muslim anger over America'ssupport of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism. We face,these commentators say, a crisis of "Muslim opinion." We must, they say, win the"hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shuttingdown Guantanamo, by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terroristPalestinian Authority--and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslimworld. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion," we are told, we will drive even more to

become terrorists. All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred beingheaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue oftreatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners ofwar in Iraq and at Guantanamo--many of whom were captured on battlefields, trying to

kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions andtorture--real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid--that are official policy and dailypractice throughout the Middle East. Or consider "Muslim opinion" over the UnitedStates' handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accusedof not being "hard enough" on Israel--a free nation with laws that protect all citizens,Jew and Arab alike--for Israel's supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet "Muslim

opinion" reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestiniansof every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and

executes peaceful dissenters. So-called Muslim opinion is not theunanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the

irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists andtheir legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us

not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but becausethey are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion--

one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldlypleasures as the height of depravity. They do not seek respect for the

rights of the individual (Muslim or non-Muslim), they seek a world inwhich the rights of all are sacrificed to the dictates of Islam. The

proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them asour ideological and political enemies--and dispense justice accordingly.

In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them--especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as forthe rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually

CONTINUED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

32
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11771&news_iv_ctrl=1021http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11771&news_iv_ctrl=1021


33/49



CONTINUED>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

policy would make us safe, expose Islamic anti-Americanism as

irrational and immoral, and embolden the better Muslims to supportour ideals and emulate our ways. President Bush, like most politicians and

intellectuals, has taken the opposite approach to "Muslim opinion": appeasement.Instead of identifying anti-American Muslims as ideological enemies to be discredited, he

has appealed to their sensibilities and met their demands--e.g., sacrificing American

soldiers to save Iraqi civilians and mosques. Instead of seeking to crush the Islamists bydefeating the causes they fight for--such as Islamic world domination and the

destruction of Israel--he has appeased those causes, declaring Islam a "great religion"and rewarding the Palestinian terrorist Jihad with a promised Palestinian state. Instead

of destroying terrorist regimes that wage war against the West--including, most notably,Iran--he has sought their "cooperation" and even cast some as "coalition partners." Such

measures have rewarded our enemy for waging physical and spiritual war against us."Condemn America," they have learned, "and American leaders will praise your ideals

and meet your demands." "Attack America via terrorist proxy," terrorist states andmovements have been taught, "and America will neither blame you nor destroy you, but

redouble its efforts to buy your love." Every attempt to appease "Muslimopinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every

concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause.Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time

to execute the next Sept. 11. America needs honest leadership with the courageto identify and defeat our enemies--"Muslim opinion" be damned. They should begin by

declaring that militant groups and states that threaten anti-Western violence in responseto free speech will be met, not with appeasement, but with destruction.

33


34/49



A single terrorist attack would devastate the worlds economy and

ecosystem

Wasserman, 2002Harvey Wasserman, Greenpeace, From the Earth Island Journal,

www.earthisland.orgA terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs ofmolten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer

and the river. Striking water, they would blast gigantic billows ofhorribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Thousands of square

miles would be saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created;

depositing relentless genetic poisons that would kill forever. Infantsand small children would quickly die en masse. Pregnant women would

spontaneously abort or give birth to horribly deformed offspring.

Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would afflict the skin ofmillions. Heart attacks, stroke and multiple organ failure would kill

thousands on the spot. Emphysema, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat

or drink or swallow, diarrhea and incontinence, sterility and impotence,asthma and blindness would afflict hundreds of thousands, if notmillions. Then comes the wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas,

tumors and hellish diseases for which new names will have to beinvented. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die

trying. Attempts to quench the fires would be futile. More than800,000 Soviet draftees forced through Chernobyl's seething remains

in a futile attempt to clean it up are still dying from their exposure. AtIndian Point, the molten cores would burn uncontrolled for days, weeks

and years. Who would volunteer for such an American task force? Theimmediate damage from an Indian Point attack (or a domestic

accident) would render all five boroughs of New York City anapocalyptic wasteland. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of

farm and wild animals died in heaps, natural ecosystems would bepermanently and irrevocably destroyed. Spiritually, psychologically,

financially and ecologically, our nation would never recover. This iswhat we missed by a mere 40 miles on September 11. Now that we

are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are103 of these potential Bombs of the Apocalypse operating in the US.

They generate a mere 8 percent of our total energy. Since its

deregulation crisis, California cut its electric consumption by some 15percent. Within a year, the US could cheaply replace virtually all the

reactors with increased efficiency. Yet, as the terror escalates,

Congress is fast-tracking the extension of the Price-Anderson Act, aform of legal immunity that protects reactor operators from liability in

case of a meltdown or terrorist attack. Do we take this war seriously?Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking

reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of allfuture generations must be shut down

34
http://www.earthisland.org/http://www.earthisland.org/


35/49


Impact Extensions-TerrorismTerrorism would crush the economy

Biddle 2005 (Stephen D. Biddle, Associate Professor of National

Security Studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic StudiesInstitute. AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY AFTER 9/11: AN ASSESSMENT

April 2005)

By contrast, some may argue that terrorism does so much damage toeconomies, and creates such communities of interest among greatpowers, that these tensions are more apparent than real. After all, the

9/11 attackers claim to have inflicted $1 trillion in economic damageon the United States;73 if so, a series of such attacks (or worse) could

do greater damage to American economic growth than would theelevated defense expenditures needed to prevent them. And terrorism

threatens every great power; this common threat could in theory drivethe great powers together in opposition to Islamist fundamentalism,

rather than driving them apart or spurring competition among them.

35


36/49


Non-Uniques-Increasing Incentives Now

DOE increasing water power subsidies nowScoggins in 2008 (Jennifer [DOE Public Affairs Officer] Energy Department Documentsand Publications, May 5, 2008)

WASHINGTON, DC - As part of the Bush Administration's ongoing commitment toinvest in clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand while reducinggreenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has announced up to$7.5 million in federal funding for research and development to help advance the viabilityand cost-competitiveness of advanced water power systems. Through this FundingOpportunity Announcement (FOA), DOE seeks partnerships with U.S. industry anduniversities to develop innovative and effective technologies capable of harnessing waterpower energy resources, including ocean wave, tidal, current and other water-basedresources."Water covers more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface. Using environmentallyresponsible technologies, we have a tremendous opportunity to harness energy producedfrom ocean waves, tides or ocean currents, free flowing water in rivers, and other waterresources to advance the Administration's comprehensive energy strategy and provide

clean and reliable power in the United States," Andy Karsner, DOE Assistant Secretaryfor Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said. "The U.S. Department of Energy isaggressively pursuing the development of next-generation technologies that are capableof increasing the use of clean, renewable energy to further our energy security and helpmeet the President's goal to stop greenhouse gas emissions growth by 2025."Through public-private partnerships, the FOA seeks to advance water research anddevelopment projects in support of water power technology. DOE plans to awardindustry-led partnerships to research, develop and/or field test advanced water powertechnologies to further the President's Advanced Energy Initiative, which dramaticallyincreases clean-energy research funding to develop cleaner, lower cost, and more reliablealternative energy sources. Successful applicants will be required to developcollaborative project teams involving at least one other industry, university or nationallaboratory partner and a minimum 50 percent non-federal cost share is required.

36


37/49


AT-SQ Incentives Solve

All current alternative energy incentives are jokes. They are aimed at lining the pocketsof home state interest groups and wont decrease consumption. Leadership now is crucialto preserving US competitivenessYaro in 2008 (Robert [President of the Regional Plan Association] Hartford Courant, May

11, 2008)

It's now been 35 years since the first Arab oil embargo provided America with a wake-upcall about the dangers associated with the nation's over-reliance on oil imports fromcountries that don't really like us.Since then, Americans have been in a permanent state of denial about the dangers that ourenergy profligacy has created for our economy and environment. We now know that ourexcess fuel consumption is undermining not only our national defense, the value of thedollar and the well-being of the U.S. economy, but the health of the world's climate aswell.So what have our policy responses been to this challenge? Over the past three decades,cars and trucks have gotten larger and less fuel efficient, total vehicle-miles traveled haveburgeoned, and we have taken virtually no steps to develop alternative fuels or

alternatives to ever-longer commutes on increasingly crowded highways.Consequently, the nation's energy supply has gone from one-third to two-thirds reliant onforeign oil. America's energy and tax policies have been stuck in the 1950s, when wewere the world's largest petroleum exporter, instead of the largest importer that we aretoday.With oil hovering around $120 per barrel and gas prices exceeding $4 per gallon, politicalleaders are looking for scapegoats, not real solutions, to the mess that is our nationalenergy policy.Most are blaming greedy oil companies and commodity speculators for