NEG - Myco-Diesel CON

NEG – Myco-Diesel CON P a g e | 1

NEG – Myco-Diesel – CON

TOPICALITY – Ethanol Subsidies =/= Environmental Policy.............................................2

INHERENCY.............................................................................................................................51. Obama leaves corn-based ethanol behind in favor of cellulosics.................................................................62. The Renewable Fuels Standard mandates 16 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and the industry is on the verge of rapid expansion and technological breakthroughs......................................................................63. G. roseum has the money it needs for research.............................................................................................6

SOLVENCY...............................................................................................................................71. Discoverer of G. roseum: Miles of research between myco-diesel and the gas pump................................72. Prices in the way of cellulosic biofuels – not technology..............................................................................7

DISADVANTAGES...................................................................................................................81) Backtracking....................................................................................................................................................8


TOPICALITY – Ethanol Subsidies = Energy Policy

A. Interpretation

1. Resolution

The Unites Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy

2. Definitions

a. Reform

- Reform is defined by the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as:

“To amend or improve by change of form.”

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, 2009, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reform

b. Environmental Policy

- According to Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya, Professor of Environmental Policy, and Dr. William Ascher, Professor of Government and Economics:

“A government policy that explicitly intends to promote environmental protection, conservation, and rational use of natural resources.”

Dr. Natalia Mirovitskaya [Ph.D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences; visiting Professor of Environmental Policy at Duke University] & Dr. William L. Ascher [Ph.D. in Political Science from Yale University; Professor of Government and Economics at Claremont McKenna College], “The Guide to Environmental Policy and Sustainable Development,” Book Published by the Duke University Press, 2001, pg. 186 [Google Books]

c. Energy Policy

“Energy policy is the manner in which a given entity has decided to address issues of energy development including energy production, distribution and consumption.”

3. Conclusion

The Policy that the affirmative team changes must be one that is passed with the clear and only the intent of environmental protection. If the policy was passed with the intent of reducing foreign dependence on oil, or something else to do with energy policy, it should fall outside of the resolution.

B. Standard

Governmental Designation

When debating environmental policy, we need to realize that there are hundreds of ways of defining it, making it hard to decipher what the term truly means. However, we are debating the U.S. federal government’s environmental policy. Thus, we really need to debate policies that the government deems environmental – it doesn’t matter what anyone else defines it as, because that is not the subject of this year’s resolution. Our definition shows how we can determine whether or not a government designates a policy as “environmental” – it must have a clear intent of helping the environment, end of story. However, if the policy was framed with the concern of reducing foreign energy dependence or a related energy issue, while environmental concerns may be related to it, the policy is – by designation – energy policy and not environmental policy. Our interpretation of the resolution most upholds the standard of governmental designation, thus, it should be upheld during this round.


C. Violation

While the affirmative team would like us to believe that ethanol subsidies were mandated by the federal government with the intent of helping the environment, that is just not so. The government has designated tax credits for ethanol as energy policy by placing them under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

True, the EPA does enforce some of the ethanol subsidies under the Renewable Fuels Standard, but that is only because the government does not want to pass an energy policy that adversely affects the environment. Since energy consumption is the largest cause of degradation to the environment through pollution, a responsible energy policy will include regulations to monitor its pollution.

Nevertheless, that does not make it an environmental policy, as ethanol subsidies were still created under the Energy Policy Act, and while the EPA makes sure ethanol doesn’t pollute the environment, the government did not make ethanol subsidies in order to decrease pollution – they made it to decrease foreign dependence on oil.

D. Impacts

1. Burden of Proof UnmetThe affirmative team was supposed to prove to us that environmental policy should be reformed. That is part of their burden of proof. Since they have not upheld that burden, they have not done their job as affirmative, and we strongly urge you to vote negative whether you agree with their plan or not.

2. Fiat PowerThe resolution clearly states that the affirmative team must reform environmental policy, which means that their fiat power only extends that far. They are not able to reform any other policy than environmental policy, even if you vote for them. So, if you vote for them, they cannot cut ethanol subsidies, because they are not environmental policy. Since all of the affirmative team’s advantages come from redirecting ethanol subsidies, none of their advantages can be claimed. Therefore, there is no reason for you to vote for their plan, and we urge you to vote negative.


Extension:

1. A2: “Ethanol is renewable”1. The entire ethanol process is environmentally degrading, and it is not a renewable energy source

Professor David Pimentel [Ph.D. from Cornell University (1951); Professor of Agricultural Sciences at the Department of Entomology and Section of Ecology and Systematics at Cornell University (1976 to present)], “Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics, and Environmental Impacts are Negative,” Natural Resources Research, June 2003 , (Vol. 12, No. 2), http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/pimentel-ethanol.pdf [PB]

“Several studies suggest that the $1.4 billion in government subsidies are encouraging the ethanol program without substantial benefits to the U.S. economy. Large ethanol industries and a few U.S. government agencies, such as the USDA, support the production of ethanol. Corn-farmers receive minimal profits. In the U.S. ethanol system, considerably more energy, including high-grade fossil fuel, is required to produce ethanol than is available in the energy-ethanol output. Specifically about 29% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy in a

gallon of ethanol. Fossil energy powers corn production and the fermentation/distillation processes. Increasing subsidized ethanol

production will take more feed from livestock production, and is estimated to currently cost consumers an additional $1 billion per year. Ethanol production increases environmental degradation. Corn production causes more total soil erosion than any other crop. Also, corn production uses more insecticides, herbicides, and nitrogen fertilizers than any other crop. All these factors degrade the agricultural and natural environment and contribute to water pollution and air pollution. Increasing the cost of food and diverting human food resources to the costly inefficient production of ethanol fuel raise major ethical questions. These occur at a time when more than half of the world’s population is malnourished. The

ethical priority for corn and other food crops should be for food and feed. Subsidized ethanol produced from U.S. corn is not a renewable energy source.”

2. Numerous scientific studies have concluded that ethanol contributes to air pollution, degrades land during production, and is not a renewable source of energy (because it does not provide a net energy balance)


“A few government agencies, such as the USDA (Shapouri, Duffuld, and Wang, 2002), support ethanol production. Some industries, including Archer, Daniels, Midland (EV World, 2002), are making huge profits from ethanol production, which is subsidized by federal and state governments. Some politicians have the mistaken belief that ethanol production provides large benefits for

farmers, whereas in fact the farmer profits are minimal. In contrast, numerous scientific studies have concluded that ethanol production does not provide a net energy balance, is not a renewable energy source, is not an economical fuel, and its production and use contributes to air pollution and global warming (Sparks Commodities, 1990; Citizens for Tax Justice, 1997; Giampietro, Ulgiati, and Pimentel, 1997; Youngquist,

1997; Pimentel, 1998; NPRA, 2002; Croysdale, 2001; Pimentel, 2001; Fuel’s Gold, 2002; CalGasoline, 2002; Lieberman, 2002; Hodge, 2002). Growing the large amounts of corn necessary for ethanol production occupies cropland suitable for food production and causes diverse environmental degradation problems (Pimentel, 1991; Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996).”

3. Ethanol has a net energy loss of 22,119 BTU – in other words, 29% more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy that is actually in the gallon of ethanol produced (in no way is that “renewable”)


The average costs in terms of energy and dollars for a large (65 to 75 million gallons/year), modern ethanol plant are listed in Table 2. Note the largest energy inputs are for corn feedstock and

for the fuel energy used in the fermentation/distillation process. The total energy input to produce a gallon of ethanol is 99,119 BTU (Table 2).

However, a gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTU. Thus, there is a net energy loss of 22,119 BTU per gallon of ethanol produced. Put another way, about 29% more energy is required to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy that actually is in the gallon of ethanol produced (Table 2). Not included in this analysis was the distribution energy to transport the ethanol. DOE (2002) estimates this to be 8c=/gallon or approximately more than 5,000 BTU/gallon of ethanol.”

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/articles/pimentel-ethanol.pdf




2. By Governmental Designation, Ethanol Subsidies are Energy PolicyCurrent ethanol subsidies are established under the Renewable Fuel Standard, which falls under the Energy Policy Act 0f 2005

Clare Ribando Seelke [Analyst in Latin American Affairs at the Division of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade at the Congressional

Research Service] & Brent D. Yacobucci [Specialist in Environmental and Energy Policy at the Division of Resources, Science, and Industry at the Congressional Research Service], “Ethanol and Other Biofuels: Potential for U.S.-Brazil Energy Cooperation,” 2007 Congressional Research Service Report for Congress , Congressional Research Service, September 27, 2007, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34191_20070927.pdf [PB]

“Various federal and state incentives promote the production and use of ethanol in the United States. Since the 1970s, ethanol blended into gasoline (to make ‘gasohol’) has been eligible for tax incentives of various forms. Currently, each gallon of pure ethanol blended into gasoline earns the blender a tax credit of 51 cents per gallon. Additional tax incentives exist for small producers.

Further, as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress established a Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Each year, the RFS requires a certain amount of renewable fuel be blended into gasoline. For 2007, the mandate is 4.7 billion gallons. The vast majority of this mandate will be met using ethanol. The mandate increases annually and will reach 7.5 billion gallons in 2012.”

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34191_20070927.pdf


INHERENCY1. Obama leaves corn-based ethanol behind in favor of cellulosics

Keith Johnson [journalist for the Wall Street Journal], “Next Gen Biofuel: Verenium’s Riva on Cellulosic Ethanol’s Challenges,”

Article Published by the Wall Street Journal , May 17, 2009,http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/07/next-gen-biofuel-vereniums-riva-on-cellulosic-ethanols-challenges/tab/article/ [PB]

“The Obama administration’s new road map for biofuels, announced this week, was seen as a broad endorsement of next-generation biofuels, relegating corn-based ethanol to a fading role. The market certainly seems to think so: Shares in Verenium Corporation, one of the very few publicly traded cellulosic ethanol companies, have risen more than 70% since the new biofuel policy was announced. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. will rely mostly on so-called cellulosic ethanol to meet its biofuel requirements over the next decade: About $50 billion of the $59 billion projected investment in renewable fuels through 2022 will come in cellulosic ethanol, the EPA figures.”

2. The Renewable Fuels Standard mandates 16 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and the industry is on the verge of rapid expansion and technological breakthroughs

Tom Capehart [Specialist in Agricultural Policy at the Congressional Research Service], “Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of

Policy Issues for Congress,” 2008 Congressional Research Report for Congress , November 7, 2008, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34738_20081107.pdf [PB]

Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time – significant hurdles must be overcome before commercial-scale production can occur. The renewable fuels standard (RFS), a major federal incentive, mandates 100 million gallons per year of cellulosic biofuels use in 2010. After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether these targets can be met is uncertain. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic biofuels industry may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. However, at this time, only two small refineries are scheduled to begin production in 2009, and an additional nine are expected to commence production by 2011 for total output of 300 mgpy per year, compared with an RFS requirement of 500 mgpy in 2012.

3. G. roseum has the money it needs for research

Michael Becker [of the Montana State University News Service], “MSU Research Focuses on Making Biodiesel from Wood Chips

Using Fungus,” The Prairie Star, January 16, 2010, http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2010/01/19/ag_news/local_and_regional_news/local3.txt [PB]

“Montana State University professors are taking the next step in research that could make it possible to produce biofuel from wood chips using a fungus discovered in South America. This fall, the university received a four-year,

$2 million grant from the National Science Foundation. The money will allow faculty members at MSU and collaborators at Yale University to conduct a detailed study of the fungus G. roseum, which naturally produces gases that contain many of the same hydrocarbon compounds found in petroleum-based diesel fuel.”

http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2010/01/19/ag_news/local_and_regional_news/local3.txt



http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/rfs2-nprm-preamble-regs.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Steps-to-Support-Sustainable-Energy-Options/

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/07/next-gen-biofuel-vereniums-riva-on-cellulosic-ethanols-challenges/tab/article/


SOLVENCY1. Discoverer of G. roseum: Miles of research between myco-diesel and the gas pump

Tom Lutey [staff writer for the Billings Gazette], “Ozarks New Energy,” Article Published by the Billings Gazette [the largest daily

newspaper in Montana], November 10, 2008, http://one2.ozarksnewenergy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=37

“[Gary] Strobel, [the Montana State University scientist who discovered G. roseum], is the first to say that miles of research stand between myco-diesel and the gas pump. For starters, it isn’t clear how much myco-diesel the fungus can produce. The genes behind G. roseum’s fuel-producing ways could be the real find, Strobel said, if scientists can transfer them to another organism to develop an even better fuel producer. That process, if successful, could take years to complete, but even in this early stage, the potential of myco-diesel is attracting attention.”

2. Prices in the way of cellulosic biofuels – not technology

Evan Ratliff [technology writer who contributes to Wired Magazine; one of his articles, written for the New Yorker, was featured the best of

technology writing in 2006], “One Molecule Could Cure Our Addiction to Oil,” Article Published by Wired Magazine,

September 24, 2007 , http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant?currentPage=all [PB]

“Unfortunately, passing chemistry class doesn’t mean acing economics. Scientists have long known how to turn trees into ethanol, but doing it profitably is another matter. We can run our cars on lawn cuttings today; we just can’t do it at a price people are willing to pay.”

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/15-10/ff_plant?currentPage=all

http://one2.ozarksnewenergy.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=37


DISADVANTAGES

1) Backtracking

A. Link: The Affirmative Team Takes all Ethanol Subsidies Funding and Invests the Money in G. Roseum ResearchB. Internal Link #1: G. Roseum Doesn’t Need Any More Funding

Michael Becker [of the Montana State University News Service], “MSU Research Focuses on Making Biodiesel from Wood Chips

Using Fungus,” The Prairie Star, January 16, 2010, http://www.theprairiestar.com/articles/2010/01/19/ag_news/local_and_regional_news/local3.txt [PB]

“Montana State University professors are taking the next step in research that could make it possible to produce biofuel from wood chips using a fungus discovered in South America. This fall, the university received a four-year,

$2 million grant from the National Science Foundation. The money will allow faculty members at MSU and collaborators at Yale University to conduct a detailed study of the fungus G. roseum, which naturally produces gases that contain many of the same hydrocarbon compounds found in petroleum-based diesel fuel.”

- Notice that the author DID NOT say that the project needed any more funding, or that the researchers were requesting more. In fact, the affirmative team has no evidence that G roseum really needs more research

C. Internal Link #2: G. Roseum Might not Work

Dr. Brent M. Peyton [Professor at the Chemical and Biological Engineering Department at Montana State University],

interview with the Montana State University News Service , Michael Becker reporting [reporter for the Montana State University News Service], “Montana State Researchers Receive NSF Grant to Continue Biofuel Research,” Montana State University News Service video of interviews, article relating to the video dated December 28, 2009, http://www.montana.edu/videos/091216strobel.html [PB]

“[The G. Roseum research project is] looking into the unknown, it’s on the edge, it’s a high-risk, high-potential project, honestly.”

D. Internal Link #3: The Status Quo is Already Handling the Issue Perfectly1. Obama is already leaving corn-based ethanol behind in favor of cellulosics

Keith Johnson [journalist for the Wall Street Journal], “Next Gen Biofuel: Verenium’s Riva on Cellulosic Ethanol’s Challenges,”

Article Published by the Wall Street Journal , May 17, 2009,http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/07/next-gen-biofuel-vereniums-riva-on-cellulosic-ethanols-challenges/tab/article/ [PB]

“The Obama administration’s new road map for biofuels, announced this week, was seen as a broad endorsement of next-generation biofuels, relegating corn-based ethanol to a fading role. The market certainly seems to think so: Shares in Verenium Corporation, one of the very few publicly traded cellulosic ethanol companies, have risen more than 70% since the new biofuel policy was announced. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. will rely mostly on so-called cellulosic ethanol to meet its biofuel requirements over the next decade: About $50 billion of the $59 billion projected investment in renewable fuels through 2022 will come in cellulosic ethanol, the EPA figures.”

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/rfs2-nprm-preamble-regs.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-Steps-to-Support-Sustainable-Energy-Options/

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/05/07/next-gen-biofuel-vereniums-riva-on-cellulosic-ethanols-challenges/tab/article/

http://www.montana.edu/videos/091216strobel.html




2. The Renewable Fuels Standard mandates 16 billion gallons of biofuels by 2022, and the industry is on the verge of rapid expansion and technological breakthroughs

Tom Capehart [Specialist in Agricultural Policy at the Congressional Research Service], “Cellulosic Biofuels: Analysis of

Policy Issues for Congress,” 2008 Congressional Research Report for Congress , November 7, 2008, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34738_20081107.pdf [PB]

Cellulosic biofuels are produced on a very small scale at this time – significant hurdles must be overcome before commercial-scale production can occur. The renewable fuels standard (RFS), a major federal incentive, mandates 100 million gallons per year of cellulosic biofuels use in 2010. After 2015, most of the increase in the RFS is intended to come from cellulosic biofuels, and by 2022, the mandate for cellulosic biofuels will be 16 billion gallons. Whether these targets can be met is uncertain. Research is ongoing, and the cellulosic biofuels industry may be on the verge of rapid expansion and technical breakthroughs. However, at this time, only two small refineries are scheduled to begin production in 2009, and an additional nine are expected to commence production by 2011 for total output of 300 mgpy per year, compared with an RFS requirement of 500 mgpy in 2012.

- In other words, while G Roseum will really help cellulosic fuel to be more effective, the transition from conventional ethanol to cellulosic fuel is already being made

E. Impact: The Affirmative Team Changes Our Current Course – which is Good – and Puts Faith in a Project that Might not Work. If G. Roseum Fails, we have Actually Backtracked, Since the Status Quo is Addressing the Issue Correctly. If it works, they have not Achieved Something that would otherwise not have been Achieved.


Documents

NEG - Myco-Diesel CON