Neg Fuel Standards

8/14/2019 Neg Fuel Standards

1/67

Michigan 7 Week Seniors 2008 LCFS NEG

1

LCFS NEG INDEX

lcfs neg index..................................................................................................................................................................1lcfs cannot solve oil shock...........................................................................................................................................3lcfs cannot solve data Burden......................................................................................................................................4lcfs cannot solve companies move...............................................................................................................................5

lcfs cannot solve- emissions............................................................................................................................................6lcfs cannot solve- emissions............................................................................................................................................7lcfs cannot solve- emissions............................................................................................................................................8lcfs cannot solve- emissions............................................................................................................................................9lcfs cannot solve no infrastructure.............................................................................................................................10lcfs cannot solve increases food prices.......................................................................................................................11lcfs cannot solve innovation impossible....................................................................................................................12lcfs cannot solve other nations overwhelm c02.........................................................................................................13lcfs cannot solve mid-east oil.....................................................................................................................................14lcfs cannot solve mid-east oil ....................................................................................................................................15cellulosic bad - long time frame....................................................................................................................................16cellulosic bad - emissions.............................................................................................................................................17cellulosic bad biodiversity.........................................................................................................................................18

cellulosic bad not enough fuel...................................................................................................................................19cellulosic bad deforestation........................................................................................................................................20corn good at: food prices............................................................................................................................................21biofuels do not cause food price hikes..........................................................................................................................22biofuels do not cause food price hikes..........................................................................................................................23no impact food prices....................................................................................................................................................24corn causes gm Crops...................................................................................................................................................25corn declining now........................................................................................................................................................26no peak oil less demand.............................................................................................................................................27no peak oil myth.........................................................................................................................................................28no peak oil reserves....................................................................................................................................................29no peak oil - reserves....................................................................................................................................................30no peak oil - reserves....................................................................................................................................................31

no peak oil deep water solves....................................................................................................................................32no peak oil saudi arabia will solve.............................................................................................................................33no peak oil market self correcting..............................................................................................................................34no peak oil market self correcting..............................................................................................................................35no peak oil market self correcting..............................................................................................................................36no peak oil - temporary.................................................................................................................................................37no peak oil reserves....................................................................................................................................................38no peak oil at: hurts the economy..............................................................................................................................39no peak oil at: china war............................................................................................................................................40no peak oil at: china impacts......................................................................................................................................41no peak oil long time frame.......................................................................................................................................42oil not bad foreign policy remains flexible................................................................................................................43anwr solves oil dependence...........................................................................................................................................44

anwr solves oil dependence...........................................................................................................................................45link lcfs: increases natural gas use................................................................................................................................46link lcfs: spending.........................................................................................................................................................47carbon tax cp - solvency................................................................................................................................................48states cp solve lcfs......................................................................................................................................................49states cp solves modeling...........................................................................................................................................50states cp solves modeling...........................................................................................................................................51states cp solves modeling...........................................................................................................................................52states cp solves modeling...........................................................................................................................................53winning war on terror now............................................................................................................................................54

Kathleen, Sasha, Pratusha, Brittany, Ross, Joe, Mitch, JHeidt


2/67


2

winning war on terror now............................................................................................................................................55 politics - energy reform partisan...................................................................................................................................56 politics energy reform partisan...................................................................................................................................57 politics - lcfs partisan....................................................................................................................................................58 politics corn ethanol unpopular..................................................................................................................................59 politics lcfs bipartisan................................................................................................................................................60 politics obama supports ethanol.................................................................................................................................61 politics obama supports lcfs.......................................................................................................................................62 politics - democrats support lcfs...................................................................................................................................63 politics mccain supports lcfs......................................................................................................................................64politics bipartisan rhetoric on lcfs hollow..................................................................................................................65 politics lcfs popular with businesses..........................................................................................................................66politics lcfs unpopular with businesses......................................................................................................................67



3/67


3

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE OIL SHOCK

LCFS creates industry confusion that undermines alternative fuel production and will cause oil shocks.

Drevna, 2007 (Charlie, Executive Vice-President of National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, NPRAsTestimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.060707.Drevna-testimony.pdf, June 7)

The proposed legislation seems to embrace the enthusiasm for a 35 billion gallon program shared by theAdministration and the Senate, although the draft does provide a longer, less frontloaded timeframe. However, byplacing an overlapping carbon limit on alternative fuels, the aperture through which industry must travel to complymay be much too narrow. As a result, there is a fundamental tension between the yearly expansion of the alternativefuels mandate in the AFP and the restraints placed on qualifying fuels under the LCFS. It would be very confusingand difficult for industry to comply simultaneously with an increasing AFP and a decreasing LCFS. The impact onobligated parties would be compliance strategies that could change frequently because the LCFS changes every year.An obligated party would have to adjust compliance strategies annually. Therefore, interest in particular alternativefuels may quickly wane, since formulations may qualify under LCFS for only a few years. Thus, the obligated partywould seek a different mix of alternative fuels for later years. This lack of stability would hinder thecommercialization of some alternative fuels. To the extent that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)exercises its authority to regulate some fuels based on lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, it alters the economics ofthese fuels. To reconcile these provisions, EPA should be able to decrease the AFP mandate requirements by the

same volume of fuel rendered ineligible for satisfying the LCFS. Without this ability, the LCFS could unwittinglydisrupt fuel supply to consumers.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.060707.Drevna-testimony.pdfhttp://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-eaq-hrg.060707.Drevna-testimony.pdf


4/67


4

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE DATA BURDEN

LCFS is impossible to implementthe data burden is just too high.

Geesman 08 (John - Commissioner on the California Energy Commission in 2002. "Green Energy War: A formerCalifornia Energy Commissioner digests global climate and energy politics." May 1, 2008http://greenenergywar.com/2008/05/01/biofuels-low-carbon-fuel-standard-to-the-rescue/)

As with many policy objectives in the Green Energy War, it is exponentially easier to advocate than to accomplish.In the words of the California researchers, who advocated pushing forward: One major concern is developmentof appropriate frameworks for analyzing and regulating the land use impacts of fuel production. Current approaches are static, extremely simple, and based on old data. One possible solution would be to develop a meta-model thatlinks lifecycle assessment and macroeconomic models to predict indirect land-use changes However, this seems adaunting task, given the enormous data gaps, model uncertainty, deep uncertainties about future policies, prices andtechnologies. In particular, this approach is likely to have very limited application in a regulatory context. Therefore,better methods for the analysis and regulation of indirect land use change effects are required. Daunting data andmodeling challenges are a familiar presence on the climate front, but those in the trenches of the transition awayfrom petroleum dependence would do well to remember they have somewhat more simplistic, but no less valiant,allies on the energy security and economic development fronts of the Green Energy War.



5/67


5

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE COMPANIES MOVE

Companies will respond to the plan by moving out of the country this results in a shift to less efficient fuels

which increases CO2 emissions.

Koetzle, 05 (William Koetzle, Ph.D. Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research.IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-

boucher-white-paper/)Emissions leakage occurs when GHG emissions shift or leak from one locality, state, region or nation to anotherlocality because of the presence of a GHG emissions reduction program (i.e. a cap or a tax) in the one area without acorresponding program in the other. Emission leaks can occur when either a GHG reduction program in one localityraises the cost of production (especially in the case of energy-intensive industries) vis-a-vis production in otherlocalities; or when a reduction program in one area increases the price of carbon-intensive fuels (i.e. coal, oil) thusreducing the demand in that locality. This, however, has the net effect of lowering world prices thereby increasingdemand for these products in areas without a reduction effort.[15] The effect of leakage then can be either no netreduction in GHG emissions or, possibly, an increase in net emissions if the economic activity moves to an areawith a more carbon-intensive fuel mix or uses energy in a less efficient manner. The problem of emission leakage isa critical factor that must be considered when attempting to judge the appropriate roles of various levels ofgovernment in a GHG reduction program. Local, State, regional, or even national efforts to reduce GHG could beoffset, or even surmounted if these efforts are undermined by leakage. Emissions leakage from the United States to

China, for example, is already occurring - even in the absence of a national GHG reduction program because of costof production differentials. Research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that Americanemissions of carbon dioxide in 2003 would have been 6% higher if the United States had manufactured the productsthat it imported from China. Meanwhile, Chinas 2003 emissions would have been 14% lower had it not producedgoods for the United States.[16] Thus, because of the fuel mix of China (more heavily reliant upon coal) productsproduced in China for export to the United States resulted in greater GHG emissions than had these same productsbeen produced in the United States. The authors of the study argue: These results show the importance of worldtrade in accounting for the emissions that drive climate change.



6/67


6

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE- EMISSIONS

Growing new biofuels trades off with wilderness and releases carbon into the atmosphere.

Pratt 2008 (Andrew Plemmons, Associate professor in Energy and Resources Group at the University of CaliforniaBerkely, The Path to Better Biofuels, an Interview with Alex Farrell on the Latest Land Use Studies Center for

American Progress, February 13)The most important thing is to think about land. Using land to produce biofuels essentially competes with using landfor food production or keeping land in wilderness. We have three possible ways to use land: wilderness, fuelproduction, and food production. The way we produce biofuels today, if you do one, you dont really get a chance todo the other. You have to account for wildernessrainforests, or even grasslands here in the United Statesbecausethese lands have a lot of stored carbon in them. So when you convert the wildernessweather its grassland orrainforestinto an agricultural operation of some sort, you release a lot of this carbon. Usually, youre burning thematerial on the surface, and turning over the soil so it gets oxidized. Its the release of carbon dioxide from theconversion of the wilderness to agricultural production that is the problem.

Ethanol only reduces GHG minimally other environmental harms like pesticides and excess water use

outweigh.

Lieberman and Loris 08 (Ben and Nick, Senior Policy Analyst for The Heritage Foundation and Heritage scholar,

May 15, 2008, Time to Repeal the Ethanol Mandate,http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm1925.cfm)Ethanol was promoted in part for its claimed environmental benefits: lower pollution and reduced greenhouse gasemissions relative to gasoline. That is why the growing chorus of environmentalist criticism of the mandate isparticularly noteworthy. Many environmental organizations have raised concerns about the increased inputs ofenergy, pesticides, and fertilizer needed to grow more corn.[6] The same is true for the stress on water supplies,especially now that corn production is being expanded in locales where rainfall is insufficient and irrigation isneeded.[7] Even land that is now protected under federal conservation programs may soon be cleared for corn.[8] Inaddition, the facilities that turn corn into ethanol create emissions issues of their own. The goal of the ethanolmandate was to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but after taking into account the carbon dioxide emitted fromethanol production, the reduction in emissions is modest.[9] These effects on the land, air, and water have alreadyraised serious concerns, and we are only one-quarter of the way toward the eventual 36 billion-gallon target. Clearly,the food and fuel impacts cannot be justified by environmental benefits. Even worse is the turnabout on the major

environmental issue of the day: climate change. Proponents of ethanol and other biofuels claimed that they areresponsible for lower carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions than the gasoline they displace, but severalrecent studies challenge this assertion and argue that biofuels increase such emissions.[10] Oxfam, an internationalaid organization, argues that "large-scale growth in biofuels demand has pushed up food prices and so far there islittle evidence that it is reducing overall carbon emissions."[11]



7/67


7


LCFS increases total GHG emissionsmore fuel will be burned overall so even if some of it is less carbon

intensive, the net effect is worse for warming.

Wolak 08 (Frank, Holbrook Working Professor of Commodity Price Studies in the Economics Department at

Stanford University and the Chairman of the Market Surveillance Committee of the California Independent SystemOperator, May 2008, Low Carbon Fuel Standards: Do They Really Work?,ftp://zia.stanford.edu/pub/papers/lcfs_wolak.pdfThe cost-effectiveness of the LCFS as a GHG-emissions reduction policy is reduced by the fact that it subsidizes theproduction of corn-based ethanol and other fuels with GHG emissions contents below the standard. This subsidy hasan environmental cost because the consumption of biofuels also produces GHG emissions, just not at the same rateper BTU of energy consumed as gasoline. Nevertheless, corn-based ethanol has the political benefit that it isproduced domestically. This tax and subsidy equivalence of the LCFS explains why it can lead to an increase in totalGHG emissions and why it is an extremely costly way to achieve a given reduction in total GHG emissions. Thereare two ways to achieve compliance with the LCFS: reducing the production of high-GHG-emissions fuels orincreasing the production of low-GHG-emissions fuels. Depending on the relative prices of the two fuels, suppliersmay find it optimal to increase the production of both fuels to meet the standard in a way that increases total GHGemissions. Although recent research demonstrates that a national LCFS is unlikely to lead to increased GHG

emissions, the average cost per ton of CO2 reduced is substantially higher than the average cost of a policy designedto reduce total GHG emissions from the transportation sector. Specifically, this research estimates that the averagecost per ton of CO2 reduced under a 10 percent national LCFS is three to four times higher than the least-cost policyfor achieving the same national total CO2 emissions reduction. This research also finds that the lowest estimatedaverage cost per ton of CO2 reduced under a 10 percent national LCFS is higher than most estimates of theenvironmental damage per ton of CO2 emitted, which implies that a 10 percent LCFS imposes more costs onproducers and consumers than the environmental damage it prevents.



8/67


8


LCFS doesnt actually reduce GHG emissions the standard will be relaxed through bureaucratic discretion.

Wolak 08 (Frank, Holbrook Working Professor of Commodity Price Studies in the Economics Department atStanford University and the Chairman of the Market Surveillance Committee of the California Independent System

Operator, May 2008, Low Carbon Fuel Standards: Do They Really Work?,ftp://zia.stanford.edu/pub/papers/lcfs_wolak.pdf )The LCFS resembles another controversial intensity-based standard in the transportation sector the CorporateAverage Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard. The CAFE standard imposes an upper bound on the sales weightedaverage fuel economy in miles per gallon (mpg) of a manufacturers fleet of passenger cars or light trucks sold in theU.S. The CAFE standard is an inefficient mechanism relative to a gasoline tax, for reducing gasoline consumptionfor the same reasons that the LCFS is a costly way to reduce total GHG emissions. A number of CAFE standardcompliance issues have analogues for an LCFS, and these are likely to undermine significantly the effectiveness ofan LCFS at producing lower GHG emissions. The first compliance issue under the CAFE standard is the process fordetermining the fuel economy of each vehicle sold by an automobile manufacturer. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) uses either test data provided by the manufacturer or obtains a vehicle and tests it in anEPA facility to collect vehicle-level fuel economy data. The analogous issue for the LCFS is the process fordetermining the GHG emissions intensity of a fuel. The full fuel cycle GHG emissions content of a fuel cannot be

determined by burning it in a test facility. This would only provide an estimate of the GHG emissions for the fuel atthe consumption stage. Estimates of the emissions produced in upstream production and extraction of the energyresource, refining of the resource, and transport of the fuel to final consumers must all be compiled to compute thefull fuel cycle GHG emissions. Scientifically defensible differences in modeling assumptions can yield sizeabledifferences in the GHG emissions estimates for each stage of the full fuel cycle. For example, there is considerablescientific debate whether the full fuel cycle GHG emissions for corn-based ethanol are lower than those for gasoline.However, because corn-based ethanol is the major domestically produced alternative transportation fuel, it isdifficult to see how a regulatory process subject to federal or state government oversight would produce a full fuelcycle GHG emissions content greater than or equal to that of gasoline for the purposes of the LCFS, regardless ofthe best available scientific evidence on this issue. The process of computing the rates used to convert othergreenhouse gases produced in the full fuel cycle into CO2 equivalents is also plagued by scientific uncertainty. Foreach fuel, plausible differences in modeling assumptions will yield significantly different rates for converting eachGHG into a CO2-equivalent magnitude. All of these sources of uncertainty imply that determining the GHG

emissions rates for each fuel is likely to be an extremely contentious process subject to much more bureaucraticdiscretion than the one used to determine the fuel economy of vehicles under a CAFE standard. The experience of the CAFE standard with dual-fuel vehicles is a prime example of howbureaucratic discretion can effectively relax a standard. The fuel economy of a dual fuel vehicle that can burn gasoline or an alternative fuel is computed as the average of the fuel economy usinggasoline and an administratively determined fuel economy in gasoline-equivalent miles per gallon for the alternative fuel. This administrative mechanism combined with the assumption that thedual-fuel vehicle will use the alternative fuel 50 percent of the time implies a roughly 65 percent increase in the fuel economy credited to dual-fuel vehicles. For example, in 2006 a 19-mpg FordF-150 pickup truck that could also burn E85 (a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline)received a 31-mpg rating for the purposes of Fords CAFE standard compliance. Theassumption of equally likely gasoline and E85 consumption directly contradicts government survey data that reveals a very small frequency of alternative fuel use and the fact that a very small

fraction of the more than 200,000 gas stations in the United States sell E85. For example, in California there are currently four stations open to the public selling E85. The experiencewith the dual-fuel credit under the CAFE standard suggests that there will be ample opportunities in the full fuelcycle GHG emissions determination process to set the GHG content of alternative fuels to ensure compliance withthe LCFS without ever achieving tangible GHG emissions reductions.



9/67


9


LCFS cant solve GHG emissions it still results in excessive CO2 consumption.

Wolak 08 (Frank, Holbrook Working Professor of Commodity Price Studies in the Economics Department atStanford University and the Chairman of the Market Surveillance Committee of the California Independent System

Operator, May 2008, Low Carbon Fuel Standards: Do They Really Work?,ftp://zia.stanford.edu/pub/papers/lcfs_wolak.pdf )Everyone has heard of fad diets claiming to make weight loss easier. Consider a diet that promises weight loss byallowing the participant to eat as much food as they would like as long as the average calories per pound of foodeaten is less than some standard. Unless the average calories per pound of food eaten standard is set extremely low,this diet is unlikely to work. The only proven way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories or increase physical activityso that the amount of calories burned exceeds the amount eaten. Reducing the average calorie content of foods eatenwill not work unless this inequality is satisfied. Replacing calories by GHG emissions and pounds of food byBTUs of energy produces the LCFS. Policymakers wanting to reduce transportation- sector GHG emissionsshould take note. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the only way to reduce atmospheric CO2concentration is to consume less CO2-producing fuels or increase carbon sequestration activity so that the netamount of CO2 released to the atmosphere is reduced. Before more jurisdictions adopt an LCFS, there should besome demonstration of its efficacy in increasing the amount of effort devoted to these two proven mechanisms for

achieving GHG emissions reductions.



10/67


10

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE NO INFRASTRUCTURE

Biofuel production will be slow infrastructure takes too long to develop.

Duncan 08 (Alexander, assistant editor for Platts Inside Energy, May 19, 2008, Aggressive biofuels mandate couldcause ripples across economy, API chief warns, Lexis)

High-ranking officials in the oil industry and the Environmental Protection Agency expressed serious concern lastweek that biofuels-production targets mandated by law last year might not be met, creating a serious strain on theeconomy. The head of the American Petroleum Institute and a career EPA official were cautiously optimistic, butsaid technological gaps and a lack of critical infrastructure could impede the targets from being met. The so-calledrenewable fuels standard that became law in December calls for 36 billion gallons of biofuels to be producedannually by 2022. The gradually increasing targets in the bill (H.R.6) are heavily dependent on thecommercialization of cellulosic ethanol, a technology that involves taking fibrous biomass, such as wood, andturning it into liquid fuel. Red Cavaney, API's president, said Monday that "it's very difficult to make a totallysuccessful change [to biofuels] overnight." Cavaney, speaking at a conference hosted by the Society of AutomotiveEngineers International, said oil companies would like to see Congress incorporate some "flexibility" into thefederal biofuels mandate as the 36-billion-gallon target approaches in 2022. Cavaney noted that at present, the vastmajority of the biofuels that are being produced are coming from corn. It will not be easy to make the switch to

cellulosic ethanol, he warned. "It's not yet clear that the second generation biofuels will be fully available at thescale, magnitude, and the distribution necessary to meet the timetables that are in there," Cavaney said.



11/67


11

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE INCREASES FOOD PRICES

The question is not cellulose vs. ethanol--biofuel require fertilizers that threaten the food supply for tens of

millions.

Bradsher and Martin, 08 (Keith and Andrew, NYT reporters, April 30, 2008, Shortages Threaten Farmers Key

Tool: Fertilizer, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/business/worldbusiness/30fertilizer).

Then the widespread use of inexpensive chemical fertilizer, coupled with market reforms, helped power anagricultural explosion here that had already occurred in other parts of the world. Yields of rice and corn rose, anddiets grew richer. Now those gains are threatened in many countries by spot shortages and soaring prices forfertilizer, the most essential ingredient of modern agriculture. Some kinds of fertilizer have nearly tripled in price inthe last year, keeping farmers from buying all they need. That is one of many factors contributing to a rise in foodprices that, according to the United Nations World Food Program, threatens to push tens of millions of poor peopleinto malnutrition. Protests over high food prices have erupted across the developing world, and the stability ofgovernments from Senegal to the Philippines is threatened. In the United States, farmers in Iowa eager to replenishnutrients in the soil have increased the age-old practice of spreading hog manure on fields. In India, the cost ofsubsidizing fertilizer for farmers has soared, leading to political dispute. And in Africa, plans to stave off hunger byincreasing crop yields are suddenly in jeopardy. The squeeze on the supply of fertilizer has been building for

roughly five years. Rising demand for food and biofuels prompted farmers everywhere to plant more crops. Asdemand grew, the fertilizer mines and factories of the world proved unable to keep up.



12/67


12

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE INNOVATION IMPOSSIBLE

Cellulosic ethanol cannot be genetically engineered to fulfill fuel needstech will not improve.

Friedemann, 2007 (Alice, Biologist from University of Illinois, Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels areunsustainable and a threat to America April 10

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1)

The success of cellulosic ethanol depends on finding or engineering organisms that can tolerate extremely highconcentrations of ethanol. Augenstein argues that this creature would already exist if it were possible. Organismshave had a billion years of optimization through evolution to develop a tolerance to high ethanol levels (Benemann2006). Someone making beer, wine, or moonshine would have already discovered this creature if it could exist.The range of chemical and physical properties in biomass, even just corn stover (Ruth 2003, Sluiter 2000), is achallenge. Its hard to make cellulosic ethanol plants optimally efficient, because processes cant be tuned to suchwide feedstock variation.



13/67


13

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE OTHER NATIONS OVERWHELM C02

Modeling is irrelevant growing emissions in developing countries make CO2 reduction impossible.

Koetzle, 05 (William Koetzle, Ph.D. Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research.IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-boucher-white-paper/)

For example, if the United States were to unilaterally reduced emissions by 30% or 40% below 2004 levels[8] by2030; net global CO2 emissions would still increase by more than 40%. The reason is straightforward: either ofthese reduction levels is offset by the increases in CO2 emissions in developing countries. For example, a 30% cutbelow 2004 levels by 2030 by the United States offsets less than 60% of Chinas increase in emissions during thesame period. In fact, even if the United States were to eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2030, without anycorresponding actions by other countries, world-wide emissions would still increase by 30%. If the United Stateswere joined by the other OECD countries in a CO2 reduction effort, net emissions would still significantlyincrease. In the event of an OCED-wide reduction of 30%, global emissions increase by 33%; a reduction of 40%still leads to a net increase of just under 30%. Simply put, in order to hold CO2 emissions at 2004 levels, absent anyreductions by developing nations like China and India, all OECD emissions would have to cease.[9] The lack ofparticipation by all significant sources of GHGs not only means it is unlikely that net reductions will occur; it alsomeans that the cost of meaningful reductions is increased dramatically. Nordhous (2007) for example, argues that forthe importance of near-universal participation to reduce greenhouse gases.[10] His analysis shows that GHG

emission reduction plans that include, for example, 50% of world-wide emissions impose additional costs of 250percent. Thus, he finds GHG abatement plans like Kyoto (which does not include significant emitters like theUnited States, China, and India) to be seriously flawed and likely to be ineffective. [11] Even if the UnitedStates had participated, he argues that Kyoto would make but a small contribution to slowing global warming, andit would continue to be highly inefficient.[12]The data on emissions and economic analysis of reduction programsmake it clear that GHG emissions are a global issue. Actions by localities, sectors, states, regions or even nations areunlikely to effectively reduce net global emissions unless these reductions are to a large extent mirrored by allsignificant emitting nations.



14/67


14

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE MID-EAST OIL

LCFS stops refining of Canadian oil sands, increasing dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And, they cant

solve CO2 emissions because Canada will just sell oil to other countries. Tanks relations with Canada, too.

Koetzle, 05 (William Koetzle, Ph.D. Senior Vice President of Public Policy at the Institute for Energy Research.

IER Rebuttal to Boucher White Paper http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2008/04/13/ier-rebuttal-to-boucher-white-paper/)Obviously the production of oil sands is more difficult than that of traditional petroleum. The production, extraction, separation, and upgrading the bitumen of oil sands requires significantly

more energy than that of conventional oil.[36] Because of the greater energy used to produce these resources, the lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands isgreater than that of conventional oil. Estimates of the increase in lifecycle emissions range from 14-70%.[37] Statelow carbon fuel standards and/or prohibitions against using transportation fuels produced from non-conventionalsources, therefore, have the potential to negatively impact Canadian oil imports and the United States energysecurity. For example, in the case of a low carbon fuel standard, fuel producers could achieve significant globalwarming intensity reductions by fuel switching from sources like Canadian oil sands to conventional petroleumproducts. This generates the perverse outcome whereby the United States ends up importing more petroleum fromunsecure foreign sources such as western Africa and the Middle East; while, at the same time, doing nothing toreduce GHG emissions on a net basis, since the Canadian oil will simply flow to other markets such as China.[38] Obviously such anoutcome is a negative viewed either through the prism of a GHG emission reduction program or for our energy security. Language like that contained in Section 526 of P.L. 110-140 is similarlysuspect from a GHG emission reduction and/or energy security perspective. A plain reading of the language - No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative orsynthetic fuel, including a fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any mobility-related use - could be read in such a wa y that an agency of the federal government, theDepartment of Defense for example, may not be able enter into a contract to purchase oil from a refinery that uses Canadian oil sands. Again, this makes little sense from a GHG perspective - this

oil will be consumed by the world market - and makes no sense for Americas long term energy security since mostof the worlds conventional reserves of oil are located in unsecure regions. In fact, this language has generatedsignificant concern within the Canadian government . Recently, Canadas ambassador to the United States, Michael Wilson, wrote to Secretary of DefenceRobert Gates about Section 526 arguing that there is little fuel on the U.S. market that is 100% petroleum extracted only by conventional methodology and that interpreting Section 526 toapply to all commercially-available fuel made in part from non- conventional petroleum could exclude all fuel commercially available in the United States from being eligible for purchase by theUnited States government. This would result in the United States being seen as preferring off-shore crude from other countries over fuel made in part from United States and Canadian

sources. [39] Beyond just an impact on Canadian oil, however, such initiatives imperil technological innovations designed to increase theproductivity of existing oil wells in the United States as well. Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) are methods by whichthe additional reserves from existing fields can be produced; with the potential to increase the recovery of oil fromthese reservoirs to a rate as high as 60%.[40] These methods fall into the unconventional category in that theyinvolve the use of additional steps (such as the introduction of heat in thermal recovery) and extraction efforts. Onesuch method, CO2 injection, which uses the pressure of gas to push more oil to the well bore, is supported by DOEresearch[41] as both a way to increase the productivity of existing American oil fields and as a way to capture and

sequester CO2. Employing EOR technology, such as CO2 injection, could increase the recoverable reserves of theUnited State by as much as 20 billion barrels.[42] Like oil sands, however, EOR is both unconventional and mayhave a slightly higher lifecycle emissions profile then conventional oil (some estimate that EOR emissions are between 2 and 19% higher).[43]This could produce the perverse outcome whereby the United States Government, following the prohibition found in Sec. 526 of P.L. 110-140, would be prevented from entering into a contract topurchase American-produced oil that was the product of American government funded research. Such an outcome makes little sense from an environmental or energy policy perspective. These

examples underscore the more general point that actions which attempt to reduce GHG emissions that do not include the participationby all significant emitters, or that is blind to other considerations such as energy security, are likely to result inoutcomes that do not serve the stated aim to stabilize global concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the exampleshere, the best result of such programs merely shifts emissions to other parts of the globe; the worst: result is thatit makes the United States more dependent on un-secure sources of foreign energy.



15/67


15

LCFS CANNOT SOLVE MID-EAST OIL

LCFSs force greater dependence on the Middle East because it has the lowest carbon lifecycle.

The Washington Times, June 20, 2008 (McCain oil plan relies on Middle Easthttp://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/)

The presumed Republican presidential nominee called last year to expand California's low carbon fuel standard,which measures the amount of greenhouse gases needed to produce fuel and punishes use of "dirty" heavy crude oilin favor of conventional light crude or alternative fuels. Expanding that plan nationwide would force U.S. refiners tobuy less American and Canadian oil - which come increasingly from dirty sources like shale and tar sands - andinstead use more oil from the Middle East. "We are likely to increase our dependence on just those very countries weall worry about," said William Koetzle, senior vice president of public policy at the Institute for Energy Research, athink tank that promotes free-market solutions. "If you create disincentives for the use of Canadian oil, it'll have tobe replaced with oil from another place, and that probably means oil from OPEC."

Ethanol cant solve oil dependence.

Breining, 2007 (Greg, January 11, University of Minnesota Magazine, Jan-Feb issue, Five Reasons Corn EthanolWont Save the Planet, Breining writes for several publications, including the New York Times, NationalGeographic Traveler, and Wildlife Conservation.)

Twelve percent of the U.S. corn crop is converted to ethanol, which replaces less than 2 percent of U.S. gasolineusage. Diverting all our corn to ethanol production (which would mean no more corn flakes, marbled beef, fructose-sweetened soda, or any other corn product), would reduce gasoline consumption by only 12 percent. But, accordingto Hills study, even that dismal statistic is overly sanguine. Because so much fossil fuel is burned just to makeethanol, turning our entire corn crop to ethanol production would reduce our fossil fuel use by just 2.4 percent.

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/20/mccain-oil-plan-fosters-reliance-on-middle-east/


16/67


16

CELLULOSIC BAD - LONG TIME FRAME

Cellulosic ethanol wont be economically viable for years to come, our evidence cites government studies.

Philpott 2007 (Grist's food editor and founder ofMaverick Farms, a sustainable-agriculture non-profit, Tom,September 13, The USDA goes all lukewarm on cellulosic ethanol)So the USDA's analysts should know something about the prospects for mass production of cellulosic ethanol,

hailed by its boosters as a panacea that can wean us not only from oil, but also from corn as an ethanol feedstock. Sowhat's the latest from USDA analysts on this miracle fuel? From areportreleased last week: Although cellulosic-based production of renewable fuels holds some longer-term promise, much research is needed to make itcommercially economical and expand beyond the 250-million-gallon minimum specified for 2013 in the EnergyPolicy Act of 2005. What? Okay, let's break this statement down. "Some longer term promise," huh? I realize thatgovernment analysts like to affect a dry, phlegmatic tone, but that's hardly the sort of language boosters want to seefrom the agency most responsible for nurturing a technology. Then there's this bit: The analyst doubts cellulosic canbe "commercially economical" enough to get beyond 250 million gallons by 2013. According to the same report,corn-based ethanol producers churned out 5 billion gallons in '06 and will likely hit 10 billion by '09. What theresearcher is saying is thatsix years from now, in 2013, cellulosicstillwon't be economically viable. For decadesnow, cellulosic boosters have been promising a major breakthrough within five years. And the future cellulosicutopia keeps receding ever-further into the future.

http://maverickfarms.org/http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September07/Features/Ethanol.htmhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September07/Features/Ethanol.htmhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September07/Features/Ethanol.htmhttp://maverickfarms.org/http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/September07/Features/Ethanol.htm


17/67


17

CELLULOSIC BAD - EMISSIONS

Cellulosic ethanol is a horrible alternative it produces more greenhouse gases and the tech is not ready.

Milloy 08 ("Junk Science: A New 'Green' Body Count Begins" Steven - columnist for Fox News and a paidadvocate for Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil. Fox News. April 17, 2008http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html)

Biofuel proponents hope the reliance on food crops to produce biofuels is temporary, and they point to a futurewhere non-food biomass (such as corn stalks and grasses) is used to produce so-called cellulosic ethanol. But inaddition to the fact that the technology for producing cellulosic ethanol on a cost-effective basis is nowhere nearready for prime time, the greenhouse gas footprint of cellulosic ethanol likely will be far worse than that of corn-based ethanol. Its one thing to transport relatively compact corn kernels to be processed into ethanol; its quiteanother to transport bulky biomass. The bulk problem would require a multitude of cellulosic ethanol plants to bebuilt around the country a project that could be quite costly and difficult to locate given the phenomenon ofNIMBY-ism and the problem of plant emissions making it more difficult for states to comply with federal air qualitystandards. States that dont meet those standards dont get their much-needed federal highway funds. Food riots areonly the tip of the green iceberg. We might also expect energy riots to erupt one day.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.htmlhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351590,00.html


18/67


18

CELLULOSIC BAD BIODIVERSITY

Cellulosic ethanol accelerates soil erosion, water depletion, pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Friedemann, 2007 (Alice, Biologist from University of Illinois, Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels areunsustainable and a threat to America April 10

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=1)

Crop residues are essential for soil nutrition, water retention, and soil carbon. Making cellulosic ethanol from cornresidues -- the parts of the plant we dont eat (stalk, roots, and leaves) removes water, carbon, and nutrients(Nelson, 2002, McAloon 2000, Sheehan, 2003). These practices lead to lower crop production and ultimatelydeserts. Growing plants for fuel will accelerate the already unacceptable levels of topsoil erosion, soil carbon andnutrient depletion, soil compaction, water retention, water depletion, water pollution, air pollution, eutrophication,destruction of fisheries, siltation of dams and waterways, salination, loss of biodiversity, and damage to humanhealth (Tegtmeier 2004).



19/67


19

CELLULOSIC BAD NOT ENOUGH FUEL

Cellulosic ethanol isnt a viable fuel source.

Bryce, 2008 (Robert, fellow at the Institute for Energy Research, The Washington Post, 5 Myths About BreakingOur Foreign Oil Habit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452_pf.html 1/13)

So what about cellulosic ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that can be produced from grass, wood and other plantsources? Many in Congress believe that it will ride to the rescue. But the commercial viability of cellulosic ethanolis a bit like the tooth fairy: Many believe in it, but no one ever actually sees it. After all, even with heavy federalsubsidies, it took 13 years before the corn-ethanol sector was able to produce 1 billion gallons of fuel per year. Twoand a half decades elapsed before annual corn-ethanol production reached 5 billion gallons, as it did in 2006. Butnow Congress is demanding that the cellulosic-ethanol business magically produce many times that volume of fuelin just 15 years. It's not going to happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452_pf.html%201/13http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452_pf.html%201/13http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452_pf.html%201/13http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452_pf.html%201/13


20/67


20

CELLULOSIC BAD DEFORESTATION

Cellolosic ethanol causes deforestation.

Barry, 2008 (Glen, President and Founder of Ecological Internet, The Ecological Madness of Biofuels, Take Twohttp://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html, March 30)

If you thought burning food for fuel -- agrofuels -- has been an unmitigated disaster, just wait until we start choppingup our last natural forest habitats for cellulosic ethanol biofuel. Much heralded second generation biofuels, to bebased largely upon woody biomass, will be a resounding ecological disaster, and must be stopped now. It is a myththat enough unused forest and agricultural waste, and a surplus of land to grow various grasses and wood, exists tobase an industrial energy source. Humanity must stop seeking easy answers to perceived energy shortages that infact are a result of over-population and ecological limits to growth. Agrofuels were heavily promoted for climatebenefits and pursued at much expense, yet have been catastrophic to the world's food security, habitat, water andclimate. The same will be true of ethanol production from trees. Cellulosic ethanol will be the ultimate deforestationbiofuel, equivalent to dismantling and burning your home to keep warm.



21/67


21

CORN GOOD AT: FOOD PRICES

Corn based ethanol is not driving up global food prices.

Carey, 2008 (May 12, Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? Corn-based ethanol isnt the villain critics contend, butshifting to other fuels is critical, Business Week, Whats NextGreen Biz; p. 60, Vol. 4083)First, a reality check on corn ethanol, which isn't quite the villain critics make it out to be. Last year, American

farmers grew a record 13.1 billion bushels of corn on 85 million acres. Of that, 22% went to make about 7 billiongallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels,and stockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasingcorn-based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) withoutreducing the amount going for food and feed, and without increasing acres planted. The secret: continuingimprovements in yields. Of course, it's impossible to divert nearly one-quarter of the corn crop to fuel withoutcausing prices to rise. Corn is now around $5.50 per bushel, more than double its price in 2005. But this has had arelatively small impact on the broader runup in global food prices. Higher corn costs add 2 cents to a box of cornflakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in riceand wheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. "Biofuels are a very, very small factor" in risingfood costs, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that triesto strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices wouldstill be up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to make

fertilizer, and climatic factors such as Australia's drought. It's also worth noting that these high crop prices savetaxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmers--far more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.Certainly, a rapid rise in food prices brings misery to poor countries. But over the long haul, "it's not obvious thathigh grain prices are inherently bad," asserts Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural ResourcesDefense Council. Years of cheap, subsidized grain in the U.S. and Europe have left farmers in the developingworld unable to compete. They can't invest in better seed, machinery, or cultivation practices (page 26). As aresult, global average yields for corn, wheat, and rice are less than half what the world's top 10% of farmersachieve. While American corn farmers produce 150 bushels per acre, farms in the developing world often getonly 30. "If there is a crime against humanity, it is these low yields," not biofuels, says Richard Hamilton, CEO ofCeres Inc., a Thousand Oaks (Calif.) startup developing biofuel crops. Those low yields will improve if farmersmake more money. In the long term, "high prices will lead these countries to produce more of their own food,"says Morris, easing the supply shortages. Ethanol critics also may forget other benefits. For one, the billions ofgallons of ethanol are moderating oil prices by "easing energy bottlenecks," says Francisco Blanch, head of

global commodity research at Merrill Lynch. Blanch figures that oil prices would be at least 15% higher than theyare, if not for today's output of ethanol. And given the dependence of the whole food supply chain on oil and gas,"food prices might be higher if we were not producing biofuels," says venture capitalist Vinod Khosla. The stacksof corn going into ethanol "act as a large cushion," adds Illinois farmer John Reifsteck. As corn prices climb,ethanol companies make less money. When corn becomes too valuable to convert to biofuels, the grain will goback into feed and food.



22/67


23/67


23

BIOFUELS DO NOT CAUSE FOOD PRICE HIKES

Biofuels have almost no impact on food prices.

Carey 08 (John, senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau, May 1, 2008, Is Ethanol Getting aBum Rap?, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_19/b4083060454256.htm)

First, a reality check on corn ethanol, which isn't quite the villain critics make it out to be. Last year, Americanfarmers grew a record 13.1 billion bushels of corn on 85 million acres. Of that, 22% went to make about 7 billiongallons of ethanol. That still left enough corn to supply the domestic market, increase exports to record levels, andstockpile a 10% surplus. McKinsey principal Bill Caesar estimates farmers will be able to keep increasing corn-based ethanol production to 15 billion gallons in 2015 (a level of output mandated by federal policy) withoutreducing the amount going for food and feed, and without increasing acres planted. The secret: continuingimprovements in yields. Of course, it's impossible to divert nearly one-quarter of the corn crop to fuel withoutcausing prices to rise. Corn is now around $5.50 per bushel, more than double its price in 2005. But this has had arelatively small impact on the broader runup in global food prices. Higher corn costs add 2 cents to a box of cornflakes, or 11 cents to a gallon of milk from corn-fed cows. Corn prices have little to do with the increases in rice andwheat, and only a small connection to soybean price jumps. "Biofuels are a very, very small factor" in rising foodcosts, says David Morris, vice-president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a nonprofit group that tries to

strengthen communities politically and economically around the world. Absent corn ethanol, food prices would stillbe up dramatically because of soaring global demand, fast-rising prices for oil and natural gas used to makefertilizer, and climatic factors such as Australia's drought. It's also worth noting that these high crop prices savetaxpayers billions of dollars in reduced subsidies to farmersfar more than is spent to subsidize ethanol.



24/67


24

NO IMPACT FOOD PRICES

High food prices are not necessarily badpoorer farmers make more money too.

Carey 2008 (John, senior correspondent inBusinessWeek's Washington bureau and received awards from theAmerican Institute of Biological Sciences and former editor of The Scientist and the National & InternationalWildlife magazines, Is Ethanol Getting a Bum Rap? May 1)

Certainly, a rapid rise in food prices brings misery to poor countries. But over the long haul, "it's not obvious thathigh grain prices are inherently bad," asserts Nathanael Greene, senior policy analyst at the Natural ResourcesDefense Council. Years of cheap, subsidized grain in the U.S. and Europe have left farmers in the developing worldunable to compete. They can't invest in better seed, machinery, or cultivation practices (page 26). As a result, globalaverage yields for corn, wheat, and rice are less than half what the world's top 10% of farmers achieve. WhileAmerican corn farmers produce 150 bushels per acre, farms in the developing world often get only 30. "If there is acrime against humanity, it is these low yields," not biofuels, says Richard Hamilton, CEO of Ceres Inc., a ThousandOaks (Calif.) startup developing biofuel crops. Those low yields will improve if farmers make more money. In thelong term, "high prices will lead these countries to produce more of their own food," says Morris, easing the supplyshortages.



25/67


25

CORN CAUSES GM CROPS

Corn ethanol is generating huge demand for GM crops.

Leonard 2007 (Andrew, senior editor of Salon Magazine, Why Monsanto loves ethanol, March 26, SalonMagazine)American farmers, spurred by ethanol frenzy, are planting the largest corn crop in more than 50 years.The demand is

so high, reports Farm News, that seed companies are running out of the most popular varieties of corn seed. At thetop of the list are "triple stack hybrids" sold mostly by Monsanto-owned subsidiaries. A triple stack hybrid combinesgenetic modifications that result in three different "traits." In this case, the corn comes with built-in resistance toMonsanto's Roundup herbicide, and built-in insecticides that target two of the corn plant's most fearsome foes, thedreaded corn borer and the equally devastating corn rootworm. (The corn borer and corn rootworm toxins arederived from two different subspecies of the soil bacteriumBacillus thuringiensis -- triple stack hybrids thus includetwo different "Bt" genetic modification "events.") For Monsanto, the apparent popularity of triple stack hybrid cornseed is an opportunity to tout the market's embrace of its latest products. For critics of GM corn, the rush to suchvarieties presages a future filled with weeds that evolve to resist Roundup and new generations of corn borers androotworms that shrug off Bt toxins. No doubt Monsanto plans to come up with new, "improved" corn seed productsthat will target new, improved pests, and will be able to resist new, improved herbicides. That is the treadmill thatthe human race has put itself on, and whether we'll ever be able to get off of it seems a highly doubtful proposition,unless food prices rise so high that biofuels become politically impossible. But that dreary quagmire is not the point

of this post. For some time, How the World Works has been convinced that the rush to biofuels will significantlyboost the ongoing rollout of genetically modified organisms. There's just too much money at stake in the energybusiness for it to be otherwise. The popularity of the latest biotech crops is a perfect illustration of this. These seedsaren't cheap -- they are top-of-the-line products. But for well-financed farmers and industrial-scale agribusinessesaiming to cash in on ethanol demand, seed costs are not a significant barrier. It seems reasonable to expect, in thenot-too-distant future, quadruple- and quintuple- and sextuple-stacked hybrids that do all kinds of fancy things suchas incorporate herbicide resistance, targeted pesticides, andmodifications that make the corn cheaper and easier toindustrially transform into ethanol.

http://www.farmnews-iowa.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=5278http://www.farmnews-iowa.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=5279http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/02/13/transgenic_ethanol/index.htmlhttp://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/02/13/transgenic_ethanol/index.htmlhttp://www.farmnews-iowa.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=5278http://www.farmnews-iowa.com/News/articles.asp?articleID=5279http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/02/13/transgenic_ethanol/index.htmlhttp://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/02/13/transgenic_ethanol/index.html


26/67


26

CORN DECLINING NOW

Corn based ethanol will inevitably be replaced by other biofuels.

Rueters 2007 (Tim Gardner, March 28, Corn is not the Future of U.S. Ethanol: DOE)NEW YORK (Reuters) - New technology to make ethanol from crops such as grasses and trees instead of corn couldease price spikes of the grain within a decade, a U.S. Energy Department official said on Wednesday. "I'm not going

to predict what the price of corn is going to do, but I will tell you the future of biofuels is not based on corn," U.S.Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell said in an interview. Output of U.S. ethanol, which is mostly made from corn, isexpected to jump in 2007 from 5.6 billion gallons per year to 8 billion gpy, as nearly 80 bio-refineries sprout up.Corn prices have doubled over the last year as the Bush administration, seeking to reduce oil imports while boostingoutput of fuels believed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, offers millions of dollars in incentives to boost ethanolproduction. The corn prices, the highest in a decade, have spurred thousands of people in Mexico to protest over theprice of tortillas, a national staple made from corn. The spike has also lead to worries that meat and dairy pricescould eventually rise. Sell said the future of biofuels is cellulosic ethanol, made from microbes that break downwoody bits of non-food crops into sugars that can be fermented into fuel. Cellulosic, and other new biofuels such asbiobutanol, which can be made from petroleum as well as biomass, could begin to feed the commercial fuel marketwithin six to 10 years, he said. They could also be part of a larger program to cut greenhouse gases, he added.



27/67


27

NO PEAK OIL LESS DEMAND

No peak oil high oil prices have lowered the demand for oil.

Christian Science Monitor, 2007 (Why Peak Oil May Soon Pique Your Interesthttp://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p15s01-wmgn.html?page=2 August 6)Dr. Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Centre for Global Energy Studies in London, isn't so pessimistic. He

notes that with higher prices, the demand for oil has started to fall, at least in the 30 industrial nations belonging tothe Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Since 2006, their demand has droppedby about 400,000 barrels a day. And the demand for crude in bustling and populous China and India rose only 0.7percent last year. His research institute forecasts world demand will rise "not more than 1 percent a year." Otherresearchers predict 1.4 to 1.5 percent a year, a significant difference. Mr. Chalabi says forecasts for the world oilindustry cannot be relied on, having proved wrong in the past. Today's forecasts do not fully take into account theimpact higher prices have in reducing demand and encouraging alternative energy sources, he adds.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p15s01-wmgn.html?page=2http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0806/p15s01-wmgn.html?page=2


28/67


28

NO PEAK OIL MYTH

Peak oil is a myth created by companies to keep prices high.

Connor, 2008 (June 9, Steve, The Independent, p4, Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider)There is more than twice as much oil in the ground as major producers say, according to a former industry adviser

who claims there is widespread misunderstanding of the way proven reserves are calculated. Although it is widelyassumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has peaked and proven reserves have sunk toroughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, a former oil industry manwho is now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Current estimates suggest there are 1,200 billionbarrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts to less than half of whatactually exists. The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sending jitters through the marketand prompting calls for oil-producing nations to increase supply to push down costs. Flying into Japan for a summittwo days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8 countries yesterday discussed anaction plan to ease the crisis. Explaining why the published estimates of proven global reserves are less than half thetrue amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producers were glad to go along with under-reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oil industry is perfectly familiar with theway oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision makers in both the companies and the countries are notexposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said to be," he said. Dr Pike's assessment

does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed too uneconomic to exploit. Theenvironmental implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside the industry, will alarmenvironmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need to find greeneralternatives.

New statistics prove we havent hit peak oil

Lendman 08 ("Peak Oil - True or False." Stephen - Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.Global Research. March 6, 2008 http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8220)

Daniel Yergin's Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) disagrees. Its analysis finds that "the remainingglobal oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels - three times as large as the (claimed) 1.2 trillion barrels by(peak oil) proponents." CERA argues further that peak oil reasoning is faulty and, "if accepted, (may) distort criticalpolicy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future." It states as well that the "global

resource base of conventional and unconventional oils....is 4.82 trillion barrels and likely to grow" and bases itsanalysis on fields now in production and those "yet-to-be produced or discovered." Its chairman, Daniel Yergin,noted that: "This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil. Each time....technology and theopening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There's no reason to think that technology isfinished this time." The Paris-based International Energy Agency (AIE) agrees. It's an energy policy advisor to its 27member countries that was founded by the OECD in 1974 in the wake of that period's oil crisis. It believes peak oilnotions are extreme, says there's "no shortage of available oil and gas in the ground," but new technologies must befound to curb "the world's thirst for them (and to) tap reserves" to increase production. AIE believes as much as 10trillion barrels of "oil equivalent" conventional oil and gas exist and at least as much non-conventional oil.



29/67


29

NO PEAK OIL RESERVES

No peak oil now the theory ignores alternative energy, new oil reserves, exaggerates demand and ignores

temporary political causes.

Hossein-zadeh, June 25, 2008 (Ismael, Professor of Economics Are they really oil wars?http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html, Asia Times Online)

Peak Oil theory is based on a number of assumptions and omissions that make it less than reliable. To begin with, itdiscounts or disregards the fact that energy-saving technologies have drastically improved (and will continue tofurther improve) the efficiency of oil consumption. Evidence shows that, for example, "over a period of five years(1994-99), US GDP expanded over 20% while oil usage rose by only 9%. Before the 1973 oil shock, the ratio wasabout one to one." [4] Second, Peak Oil theory pays scant attention to the drastically enabling new technologies thathave made (and will continue to make) possible discovery and extraction of oil reserves that were inaccessible onlya short time ago. One of the results of the more efficient means of research and development has been a far highersuccess rate in finding new oil fields. The success rate has risen in 20 years from less than 70% to over 80%.Computers have helped to reduce the number of dry holes. Horizontal drilling has boosted extraction. Anotherimportant development has been deep-water offshore drilling, which the new technologies now permit. Goodexamples are the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and more recently, the promising offshore oil fields of West Africa.[5] Third, Peak Oil theory also pays short shrift to what is sometimes called non-conventional oil. These includeCanada's giant reserves of extra-heavy bitumen that can be processed to produce conventional oil. Although this was

originally considered cost inefficient, experts working in this area now claim that they have brought down the costfrom over US$20 a barrel to $8 per barrel. Similar developments are taking place in Venezuela. It is thanks todevelopments like these that since 1970, world oil reserves have more than doubled, despite the extraction ofhundreds of millions of barrels. [6] Fourth, Peak Oil thesis pays insufficient attention to energy sources other thanoil. These include solar, wind, non-food bio-fuel, and nuclear energies. They also include natural gas. Gas is nowabout 25% of energy demand worldwide. It is estimated that by 2050 it will be the main source of energy in theworld. A number of American, European, and Japanese firms are investing heavily in developing fuel cells for carsand other vehicles that would significantly reduce gasoline consumption. [7] Fifth, proponents of Peak Oil tend toexaggerate the impact of the increased oil demand coming from China and India on both the amount and the price ofoil in global markets. The alleged disparity between supply and demand is said to be due to the rapidly growingdemand coming from China and India. But that rapid growth in demand is largely offset by a number ofcounterbalancing factors. These include slower growth in US demand due to its slower economic growth, efficientenergy utilization in industrially advanced countries, and increases in oil production by members of the Organization

of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia, and others. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, claims of "peaked anddwindling" oil are refuted by the available facts and figures on global oil supply. Statistical evidence shows thatthere is absolutely no supply-demand imbalance in global oil markets. Contrary to the claims of the proponents ofPeak Oil and champions of war and militarism, the current oil price shocks are a direct consequence of thedestabilizing wars and geopolitical insecurity in the Middle East, not oil shortages.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.htmlhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.htmlhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF25Dj05.html


30/67


30

NO PEAK OIL - RESERVES

No oil shortage the industry underestimates reserves.

The Independent, June 9, 2008 (Oil shortage a myth, says industry insider, byline Steve Connor, science editor,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20080609/ai_n25502935, accessed 06-30-08)

Although it is widely assumed that the world has reached a point where oil production has peaked and provenreserves have sunk to roughly half of original amounts, this idea is based on flawed thinking, said Richard Pike, aformer oil industry man who is now chief executive of the Royal Society of Chemistry. Current estimates suggestthere are 1,200 billion barrels of proven global reserves, but the industry's internal figures suggest this amounts toless than half of what actually exists. The misconception has helped boost oil prices to an all-time high, sendingjitters through the market and prompting calls for oil- producing nations to increase supply to push down costs.Flying into Japan for a summit two days after prices reached a record $139 a barrel, energy ministers from the G8countries yesterday discussed an action plan to ease the crisis. Explaining why the published estimates of provenglobal reserves are less than half the true amount, Dr Pike said there was anecdotal evidence that big oil producerswere glad to go along with under- reporting of proven reserves to help maintain oil's high price. "Part of the oilindustry is perfectly familiar with the way oil reserves are underestimated, but the decision makers in both thecompanies and the countries are not exposed to the reasons why proven oil reserves are bigger than they are said tobe," he said. Dr Pike's assessment does not include unexplored oilfields, those yet to be discovered or those deemed

too uneconomic to exploit. The environmental implications of his analysis, based on more than 30 years inside theindustry, will alarm environmentalists who have exploited the concept of peak oil to press the urgency of the need tofind greener alternatives. "The bad news is that by underestimating proven oil reserves we have been lulled into afalse sense of security in terms of environmental issues, because it suggests we will have to find alternatives to fossilfuels in a few decades," said Dr Pike. "We should not be surprised if oil dominates well into the twenty- secondcentury. It highlights a major error in energy and environmental planning - we are dramatically underestimating thechallenge facing us," he said. Proven oil reserves are likely to be far larger than reported because of the way thecapacity of oilfields is estimated and how those estimates are added to form the proven reserves of a company or acountry. Companies add the estimated capacity of oil fields in a simple arithmetic manner to get proven oil reserves.This gives a deliberately conservative total deemed suitable for shareholders who do not want proven reserveshyped, Dr Pike said. However, mathematically it is more accurate to add the proven oil capacity of individual fieldsin a probabilistic manner based on the bell-shaped statistical curve used to estimate the proven, probable andpossible reserves of each field. This way, the final capacity is typically more than twice that of simple, arithmetic

addition, Dr Pike said. "The same also goes for natural gas because these fields are being estimated in much thesame way. The world is understating the environmental challenge and appears unprepared for the difficultcompromises that will have to be made."



31/67


31

NO PEAK OIL - RESERVES

Oil will never run out there is not a shortage, only an economic disincentive to produce

Adelman, 04 (M. A., professor of economics emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Real OilProblem,Regulation, Spring, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf, Accessed 07-01-08)

It is commonly asked, when will the worlds supply of oil be exhausted? The best one-word answer: Never. Sincethe human race began to use minerals, there has been eternal struggle stingy nature versus inquisitive mankind.The payoff is the price of the mineral, and mankind has won big, so far. However, alarmists point to world oil pricesand claim that what has happened so far will not continue much longer. They might have a point if the worldoil market featured several different, competitive suppliers. But instead, it is dominated by a monopoly supplier, sothe higher prices in themselves mean nothing . To understand this, one needs a quick course in resource economics.Minerals are produced from reserves, which are mineral deposits discovered and identified as able to be extractedprofitably. Are oil reserves dwindling? Is it getting harder to find or create them? Conventional wisdom says: Ofcourse. But once again, conventional wisdom is wrong. Reserves are a type of warehouse inventory, the result ofinvestment. One cannot make a decision to drill and operate an oil well without a forecast of the wells production.Moreover, as the wells output falls over time with decreasing pressure, the unit operating cost of the wells outputwill rise. When the operating cost rises above the price that the oil will fetch in the marketplace, the well will be shutdown. Whatever oil is left underground is not worth producing, given current prices and technology . The wells

proved reserves are the forecast cumulative profitable output, not the total amount of oil that is believed to be in the ground. In theUnited States and a few other countries, a nations proved reserves is the programmed cumulative output from existing and pending wells. In other countries, the definition of reserves varies,and the number is often worthless. At its best (e.g., the estimates released by the U.S. Geological Survey), the probable reserve is an estimate of what will eventually be produced in a givenarea, out of existing and new wells, with current technique and knowledge, and at prevailing prices. But the size of known reserves is not an adequate forecast of eventual production, unless weassume that in oil, as in Kansas City, theyve gone about as far as they can go. Watching Oklahoma! we smile at those who actually believe this and we should likewise smile at those who

think they know how much oil will be extracted from a well or in an area. To predict ultimate reserves, we need an accurate prediction of future science and technology. To knowultimate reserves, we must first have ultimate knowledge. Nobody knows this, and nobody should pretend to know .The dwindling of reserves is a legend firmly believed because it seems so obvious. Assume any number for the size of reserves. From it, subtract a few years current output. The conclusion isabsolutely sure: Reserves are dwindling; the wolf is getting closer. In time, production must cease. Oil in the ground becomes constantly more valuable so much so that a gap forms betweenhow much oil we want and how much we are able to afford because of scarcity. Civilization cannot continue without oil, so something must be done. And indeed, in some times and places the o il

does run down. Output in the Appalachian United States had peaked by 1900, and output in Texas peaked in 1972. But the running out vision never worksglobally. At the end of 1970, non-OPEC countries had about 200 billion remaining in proved reserves. In the next 33years, those countries produced 460 billion barrels and now have 209 billion remaining. The producers kept usingup their inventory, at a rate of about seven percent per year, and then replacing it. The OPEC countries started withabout 412 billion in proved reserves, produced 307 billion, and now have about 819 billion left. Their reservenumbers are shaky, but clearly they had and have a lot more inventory than they used up. Saudi Arabia alone

has over 80 known fields and exploits only nine .

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdfhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf


32/67


32

NO PEAK OIL DEEP WATER SOLVES

Deep water reserves solve oil shortage

Adelman, 04 (M. A., professor of economics emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Real OilProblem,Regulation, Spring, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1-1.pdf, Accessed 07-01-08)

In 1950, there was no offshore oil production ; it was highly unconventional oil. Some 25 years later, offshorewells were being drilled in water 1,000 feet deep . And 25 years after that, oilmen were drilling in water 10,000 feetdeep once technological advancement enabled them to drill without the costly steel structure that had earliermade deep-water drilling too expensive. Today, a third of all U.S. oil production comes from offshore wells. Givencurrent knowledge and technique, the U.S. Geological Survey predicts offshore oil will ultimately comprise 50percent of U.S. production. The offshore reserves did not just happen to come along in time. In an old Mae Westmovie, an admirer of one of her rings declared, Goodness, what a diamond! She coldly replied, Goodness hadnothing to do with it. Likewise, offshore production did not begin and develop by providence or chance, but onlywhen new knowledge made investment profitable. And the high potential economic rewards were a powerfulinducement for the development of the new knowledge. Offshore drillers found a new way to tap oil beneath thedeep ocean. Oilmen in Canada and Venezuela discovered how to extract oil from those nations oil sand deposits. Asnew techniques decreased the cost of extraction some of the oil slowly began to be booked into reserves .Worldwide, is it getting harder and more expensive to find new deposits and develop them into reserves? Up to

about 15 years ago, the cost data clearly said no. Since then, much of the relevant data are no longer published. Tomake up for that lack, Campbell Watkins and I tabulated the sales value of proved reserves sold in-ground in theUnited States. Our results are a window on the value of oil reserve

Documents

Neg Fuel Standards