1AC Inherency

Contention 1 is Inherency
The transition to a hydrogen economy is blocked by an absence of economic
incentives
Lattin 07 (W.C. Lattin Environmental Science Program, University of Idaho and V.P. Utgikar
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Idaho 2007 [International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 32, ScienceDirect])
The perceived limitations of fossil fuels and environmental impacts of carbon-based energy systems
are the primary reasons to develop the hydrogen economy. Progress toward a hydrogen economy is
slower than most experts have predicted. The established processes for hydrogen production do not
offer any environmental benefits. Carbon-free primary energy sources (nuclear and renewables) have
not seen significant growth and will not be able to support the hydrogen demand in a hydrogen
economy. Technological challenges exist in the areas of hydrogen production, storage and distribution,
and utilization. While technological challenges have proven difficult to address, economics may be the
largest factor in the slow transition to hydrogen. Hydrogen, and hydrogen utilization technology (fuel
cells) both are not economically competitive with gasoline and internal combustion engines.
Infrastructure to support hydrogen economy is evolving at a very slow rate in absence of a stimulus in
the form of market demand for hydrogen. The realization of hydrogen economy will require a strong
intervention by an external force that promotes the development of technologies and offers economic
incentives for the new energy system.
And, action now is key China is pushing ahead
Zakaria 11 (Fareed Zakaria was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International. In
2010 he became editor-at-large of Time. He is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS. He is also a
frequent commentator and author about issues related to international relations, trade, and American
foreign policy, China vs. USA: Who will win the 21st century?,
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/14/china-vs-the-u-s-who-will-win-the-21st-century/,
July 14, 2011)
Like the U.S., China also struggles with the issue of energy. China is a consumer, not a producer of
energy.
But they are quickly getting very smart on the energy front. They are becoming the global leaders of
clean tech - whether it is solar or wind. They are also aggressively trying to move up the value chain.
They are laying the foundations to compete in the 21st Century. They are building a great university
system and they are working to get research labs in place. In Americas case, we have all the
ingredients to succeed in the 21st Century. We have the most innovative companies in the world such
as Facebook, Apple and Google. We have the best universities in the world. We have a nexus between
universities and research-oriented companies. We have the most dynamic capital markets in the
world. We have an incredibly flexible, diverse society, which is also very much a part of our inherent
societal innovation and dynamism. But what we dont have is a political system that can harness all of
this and execute. You see this with regard to energy policy. America has no energy policy and hasnt
had one for thirty years.
1AC Plan
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should substantially invest in
hydrogen fuel cell technology for transit buses in the United States.
We reserve the right to clarify our intent.
1AC Hydrogen Economy Advantage
Advantage 1 is the hydrogen economy~~
Scenario 1 is fossil fuel dependence
The hydrogen economy would shatter dependence on others for energy allows for
complete transition away from fossil fuels
Rifkin 02 (Jeremy Rifkin Advisor of the EU, Author of "The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the
World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth" A Hydrogen EconomyThe Power to
Change the World September 2, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times)
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/02/opinion/oe-rifkin2)
For years, experts have been saying we have only 40 or so years of cheap, available crude oil left. Now
some of the world's leading petroleum geologists are suggesting that global oil production could peak
and begin a steep decline as early as the end of this decade, sending oil prices through the roof.
Increasing tensions between the West and Islamic countries, where most of the world's oil is produced,
could further threaten our access to affordable oil. In desperation, the United States and other nations
could turn increasingly to dirtier fossil fuels--coal, tar sand and heavy oil--which would only worsen
global warming and imperil the Earth's already beleaguered ecosystems. There is a better way to go:
hydrogen power. Weaning the world off oil and turning it toward hydrogen, however, will require a
concerted effort by industry, government and local communities on a scale comparable to the efforts in
the 1980s and 1990s that helped create the World Wide Web. Hydrogen is the most basic and
ubiquitous element in the universe. It is the "forever fuel," producing no harmful carbon dioxide
emissions when burned and giving off as byproducts only heat and pure water. All that needs to be done
is to extract hydrogen from various elements so that it is useable in fuel cells. The commercially usable
hydrogen currently being produced is extracted mostly from natural gas. However, renewable sources of
energy--wind, hydro, photovoltaic, geothermal, biomass--are increasingly being used to generate
electricity locally, and in the future that electricity will in turn be used to electrolyze water and separate
out hydrogen that can be used to power fuel cells. Commercial fuel cells powered by hydrogen are just
now being introduced into the market for home, office and industrial use. The major auto makers have
spent more than $2 billion on development of hydrogen cars, buses and trucks; the first mass-produced
vehicles are expected to be on the road in just a few years. Exactly how soon we will all be driving
hydrogen cars will depend on a number of factors, including the price of oil on world markets, the
availability of hydrogen refueling stations and numerous other technical questions in the manufacturing
process itself. Even given these stumbling blocks, many energy experts believe that over the next
several decades hydrogen fuel cells will become our best source of energy. And the rise of this source
of power would open the way for fundamental changes in our markets and political and social
institutions, just as coal and steam power did at the beginning of the Industrial Age. The hydrogen
economy would make possible a vast redistribution of power. Today's centralized, top-down flow of
energy, controlled by global oil companies and utilities, would become obsolete. In the new era, every
human being could become the producer as well as the consumer of his or her own energy--so-called
"distributed generation." When millions of users connect their fuel cells by hooking into existing
power grids, using the same design principles and smart technologies that made possible the Web,
they can begin to share energy peer-to-peer--creating a new, decentralized form of energy use.
Oil dependence puts the US and China on a collision course and its inevitable
because of rising demand and decreasing supply makes war with China inevitable
transition now is key
Hatemi, professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Wedeman, associate professor and
chair of Asian Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 2007 ( Peter Hatemi is a professor at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Andrew Wedeman is associate professor and chair of Asian Studies at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln., China Security, Vol. 3 No. 3 Summer 2007, pp. 95 - 118 2007 World
Security Institute, Oil and Conflict in Sino-American Relations accessed 6/27/11
http://www.wsichina.org/cs7_5.pdf

Although China is likely to reach regional military parity with the United States around the mid-2040s,
this does not mean that China will necessarily challenge the status quo. The latter is only likely if China
either opportunistically challenges the United States or if China believes that it is at such a
disadvantage that it feels compelled to challenge the status quo. For conflict to become likely, not
only must two states be in relative power parity, but there must also be some tangible antagonism in
the relationship capable of triggering serious conflict. Lateral pressure theory and its focus on resource
scarcity as a source of interstate conflict provides one possible motivation for two states to collide. 27
Because the economies of both the United States and China depend heavily on imported energy -
primarily oil - the advent of a zero-sum situation where global demand exceeds supply could create a
potential casus belli. Rising Chinese demand for oil imports will at some point create pressure on the
global supply, and continued expansion of its imports will likely impinge on the U.S. ability to sustain its
own import demand. 28 If a situation occurs where China thinks its national interests depend on its
ability to increase its share of total imports and where the United States concludes that its national
interests demand that it prevent China from making further inroads into its share of total imports,
conflict is likely. In some cases, the search for new resources will manifest itself in the form of imperial
expansion with the state conquering neighboring territories and establishing overseas colonies. 29 In
other cases the search may take a less overtly military form and manifest itself in efforts to open up new
markets, dominate current markets, obtain critical supply concessions or establish new trade networks.
So long as resources are finite, both efforts to seize control of new supplies or to obtain them through
the market are likely to generate conflict. Lateral pressure increases the potential for major powers to
come into conflict, especially when competing states spheres of influence in resource-rich peripheral
regions begin to overlap. An important consequence of lateral pressure is the action-reaction process
wherein one antagonistic activity (perceived or real) leads to a counteraction by the competing state.
Activities that may be generated by one state due to considerations other than resource security, but
that affect the resource security of another state, could also be perceived as a threat even though no
threat was intended. The most important of these interactions is when the expanding activities and
interests of two high-capability, high-lateral pressure states, such as the United States and China, collide.
If the activities of either nation are perceived as threatening, the two may be caught in a security
dilemma, wherein reciprocation of antagonistic actions may lead to war.
Extinction
Straits Times 2K (Ching Cheong, No One Gains in War Over Taiwan, June 25, Lexis Nexis.)
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between
the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national
interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other
countries far and near and -horror of horrors -raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has
already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics
support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this
means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate,
east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers
elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek
to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset
by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own
nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear
war? According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against
the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China
to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and
political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that
US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the
use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the
latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later,
short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that
can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese
military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle
regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute
for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in
Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures
from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if
the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should
that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors in such a
war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be
ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
And, our reliance on fossil fuels will decrease United States competitiveness and
hegemony in a world where other nations transition to hydrogen
Seth Dunn, worldwatch institute in Washington D.C., March 2002, International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy, Volume 27, Issue 3, Pg 235-264, Hydrogen Futures: Towards a sustainable energy system
Yet Iceland and other nations represent just the bare beginning in terms of the changes that lie ahead in
the energy world. The commercial implications of a transition to hydrogen as the world's major energy
currency will be staggering, putting the $2 trillion energy industry through its greatest tumult since
the early days of Standard Oil and Rockefeller. Over 100 companies are aiming to commercialize fuel
cells for a broad range of applications, from cell phones, laptop computers, and soda machines, to
homes, offices, and factories, to vehicles of all kinds. Hydrogen is also being researched for direct use in
cars and planes. Fuel and auto companies are spending between $500 million and $1 billion annually
on hydrogen. Leading energy suppliers are creating hydrogen divisions, while major carmakers are
pouring billions of dollars into a race to put the first fuel cell vehicles on the market between 2003 and
2005. In California, 23 auto, fuel, and fuel cell companies and seven government agencies are partnering
to fuel and test drive 70 cars and buses over the next few years. Hydrogen and fuel cell companies have
captured the attention of venture capital firms and investment banks anxious to get into the hot new
space known as ET, or energy technology *6]. The geopolitical implications of hydrogen are enormous
as well. Coal fueled the 18th- and 19th-century rise of Great Britain and modern Germany; in the 20th
century, oil laid the foundation for the United States unprecedented economic and military power.
Today's US superpower status, in turn, may eventually be eclipsed by countries that harness hydrogen
as aggressively as the United States tapped oil a century ago. Countries that focus their efforts on
producing oil until the resource is gone will be left behind in the rush for tomorrow's prize. As Don
Huberts, CEO of Shell Hydrogen, has noted: The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones,
and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil. Access to geographically concentrated
petroleum has also influenced world wars, the 1991 Gulf War, and relations between and among
western economies, the Middle East, and the developing world. Shifting to the plentiful, more
dispersed hydrogen could alter the power balances among energy-producing and energy-consuming
nations, possibly turning today's importers into tomorrow's exporters [7].
The most important consequence of a hydrogen economy may be the replacement of the 20th-century
hydrocarbon society with something far better. Twentieth-century humans used 10 times as much
energy their ancestors had in the 1000 years preceding 1900. This increase was enabled primarily by
fossil fuels, which account for 90 percent of energy worldwide. Global energy consumption is projected
to rise by close to 60 percent over the next 20 years. Use of coal and oil are projected to increase by
approximately 30 and 40 percent, respectively [8].
Well isolate two impacts:
A. Primacy short circuits all their impacts
Walt 2 (Stephen, Professor of International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.
"American Primacy: Its Prospects and Pitfalls." Naval War College Review, Vol. 55, Iss. 2. pg. 9 (20 pages)
Spring 2002.
Proquest)
A second consequence of U.S. primacy is a decreased danger of great-power rivalry and a higher level of
overall international tranquility. Ironically, those who argue that primacy is no longer important,
because the danger of war is slight, overlook the fact that the extent of American primacy is one of the
main reasons why the risk of great-power war is as low as it is. For most of the past four centuries,
relations among the major powers have been intensely competitive, often punctuated by major wars
and occasionally by all-out struggles for hegemony. In the first half of the twentieth century, for
example, great-power wars killed over eighty million people. Today, however, the dominant position of
the United States places significant limits on the possibility of great-power competition, for at least
two reasons. One reason is that because the United States is currently so far ahead, other major powers
are not inclined to challenge its dominant position. Not only is there no possibility of a "hegemonic
war" (because there is no potential hegemon to mount a challenge), but the risk of war via
miscalculation is reduced by the overwhelming gap between the United States and the other major
powers. Miscalculation is more likely to lead to war when the balance of power is fairly even, because in
this situation both sides can convince themselves that they might be able to win. When the balance of
power is heavily skewed, however, the leading state does not need to go to war and weaker states dare
not try.8 The second reason is that the continued deployment of roughly two hundred thousand troops
in Europe and in Asia provides a further barrier to conflict in each region. So long as U.S. troops are
committed abroad, regional powers know that launching a war is likely to lead to a confrontation with
the United States. Thus, states within these regions do not worry as much about each other, because
the U.S. presence effectively prevents regional conflicts from breaking out. What Joseph Joffe has
termed the "American pacifier" is not the only barrier to conflict in Europe and Asia, but it is an
important one. This tranquilizing effect is not lost on America's allies in Europe and Asia. They resent
U.S. dominance and dislike playing host to American troops, but they also do not want "Uncle Sam" to
leave.9 Thus, U.S. primacy is of benefit to the United States, and to other countries as well, because it
dampens the overall level of international insecurity. World politics might be more interesting if the
United States were weaker and if other states were forced to compete with each other more actively,
but a more exciting world is not necessarily a better one. A comparatively boring era may provide few
opportunities for genuine heroism, but it is probably a good deal more pleasant to live in than
"interesting" decades like the 1930s or 1940s.
B. Loss of hegemony guarantees extinction
Niall Ferguson, July/August 2004. professor of history at Harvard University, senior fellow at the
Hoover Institution at Stanford University. A World Without Power Foreign Policy
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/afp/vac.htm
So what is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified
cities. These are the Dark Age experiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself
reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be an altogether more dangerous one than
the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populousroughly 20 times moreso
friction between the world's disparate tribes is bound to be more frequent. Technology has
transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but
also on supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so
it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it. For more than two decades, globalization
the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capitalhas raised living standards
throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through
tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalizationwhich a new Dark Age would producewould
certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect
itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a
less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as
Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible,
increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in
China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that
undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower
returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age
would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy
from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghaiwould become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With
ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise
liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile,
limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and
Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens
would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great
plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would
simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately
guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten
us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats
from global hegemonyits fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontierits
critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony,
or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to
unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolaritya global vacuum of power. And far
more dangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.
And, an energy transition solves the reasons why heg is bad oil dependence forces
the US into wars of imperialism and overextension
Clark 12 (Wesley Clark, US Army General, Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he
obtained a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and later graduated from the Command and
General Staff College with a master's degree in military science, May 23, 2012, American Families Need
American Fuel, http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/05/powering-our-military-whats-
th.php#2212875, accessed on 7/13/12, Kfo)
Our nation is dangerously dependent on foreign oil. We import some 9 million barrels per day, or over 3
billion barrels per year; the U.S. military itself comprises two percent of the nations total petroleum
use, making it the worlds largest consumer of energy and oil imports. Of U.S. foreign oil imports, one
out of five barrels comes from unfriendly nations and volatile areas, including at least 20 percent
stemming from the Persian Gulf, including Bahrain, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates. Further, our nation heavily relies on hot-beds of extremism, as Saudi Arabia,
Venezuela, Nigeria are our third, fourth, and fifth, respectively, largest exporters of oil. How dangerous
is this? Very! Not only does Americas huge appetite for oil entangles us into complicated relationships
with nations marred by unstable political, economic, and security situations, it also gravely impacts
our military, who risk their lives daily to protect foreign energy supply routes. Because of our addiction
to oil, we have been in almost constant military conflict, lost more than 6,500 soldiers and created a
whole new class of wounded warriors, thousands of whom will need long-term care funded by our
government. One in eight soldiers killed or wounded in Iraq from 2003-2007 were protecting fuel
convoys, with a total of 3,000 Army casualties alone. We maintain extra military forces at an annual
cost of about $150 billion annually, just to assure access to foreign oil - because we know that if that
stream of 9 million barrels per day is seriously interrupted, our economy will crash. That's what I call
dangerously dependent.
Scenario 2 is the environment
A hydrogen economy is key to stop emissions and mitigate warming
Rifkin 02 (Jeremy Rifkin Advisor of the EU, Author of "The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the
World Wide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth" A Hydrogen EconomyThe Power to
Change the World September 2, 2002 in the Los Angeles Times)
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/02/opinion/oe-rifkin2)
In the hydrogen fuel cell era, even the automobile itself would be a "power station on wheels" with a
generating capacity of 20 kilowatts. Since the average car is parked most of the time, it could be
plugged in, during nonuse hours, to the home, office or the main interactive electricity network,
providing premium electricity back to the grid. When the end users also become the producers of their
energy, the only role remaining for existing power plants is to become "virtual power plants" that can
manufacture and market fuel cells, bundle energy services and coordinate the flow of energy over the
existing power grids. Hydrogen would dramatically cut down on carbon dioxide emissions and mitigate
the effects of global warming. And because hydrogen is so plentiful and exists everywhere, every
human being, once we all become masters of the technology, could be "empowered," resulting in the
first truly democratic energy regime in history. Nowhere would hydrogen energy be more important
than in the developing world. Incredibly, 65% of the human population has never made a single
telephone call, and one-third has no access to electricity or any other form of commercial energy. Lack
of access to energy, especially electricity, is a key factor in perpetuating poverty around the world.
Conversely, access to energy means more economic opportunity. In South Africa, for example, for every
100 households electrified, 10 to 20 new businesses are created. Electricity frees human labor from day-
to-day survival tasks. In resource-poor countries, simply finding enough firewood or dung to warm a
house or cook meals can take hours out of each day. Electricity provides power to run farm equipment,
operate small factories and craft shops and light homes, schools and businesses. As the price of
hydrogen fuel cells and accompanying appliances plummets with new innovations and economies of
scale, cells will become more available, as was the case with transistor radios, computers and cellular
phones. The goal ought to be to provide stationary fuel cells for every neighborhood and village in the
developing world. The road to global security lies in lessening our dependence on Middle East oil and
making sure that all people on Earth have access to the energy they need to sustain life. The hydrogen
economy is a promissory note for a safer world.
Specifically, a hydrogen economy would stop greenhouse gasses no harmful
byproducts from use or production
United States Department of Energy, February 2002, A National Vision of Americas Transition to a
Hydrogen Economy to 2030 and beyond.
The combustion of fossil fuels accounts for the majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
released into the atmosphere. Although international efforts to address global climate change have not
yet resulted in policies that all nations have accepted, there is growing recognition that steps to reduce
greenhouse gases are needed, and many countries are adopting policies to accomplish that end. Energy
and transportation companies, many of which have multi-national operations, are actively evaluating
alternative sources of energy. Hydrogen can play an important role in a low-carbon global economy,
as its only byproduct is water. With the capture and sequestration of carbon from fossil fuels,
hydrogen is one path for coal, oil, and natural gas to remain viable energy resources, should strong
constraints on carbon emissions be required. Hydrogen produced from renewable resources or
nuclear energy results in no net carbon emissions
Its reversible but solutions now are key
Levin 12 (Kelly Levin is a senior associate with WRIs major emerging economies objective. She leads
WRIs Measurement and Performance Tracking Project, which builds capacity in developing countries to
create and enhance systems that track emissions reductions associated with low-carbon development
goals. She closely follows the negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and
analyzes related emissions reduction targets and actions. Kelly has conducted an annual review of
climate change science for WRI since 2005. She was also the Research Director and lead author of the
2010-2011 World Resources Report, which was dedicated to climate change adaptation, and specifically
to how governments can improve decision making in a changing climate. 400PPM: Carbon Dioxide
Levels Cross a Sobering Ne Threshold WRI Insights http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/06/400-ppm-
carbon-dioxide-levels-cross-sobering-new-threshold)
Concentrations of carbon dioxide has accelerated over the past half century, increasing roughly 2 ppm
annually. To put this data into context, scientific models show that CO2 concentrations are greater
today than at any time in the last 800,000 years (check
out http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html for a powerful demonstration of the
unprecedented rising levels of CO2). This trend has accelerated rapidly in the post-industrial age, leading
scientists to draw the connection between human activity and the heightened CO2 levels. The news of
surpassing the 400 ppm marker was made more troubling as it coincided with new data from the
International Energy Agency (IEA), which indicates that global CO2 emissions increased 3.2 percent over
the past year, reaching a record high of 31.6 gigatonnes (Gt). The IEA suggests that the world is now
just 1 Gt away from the level at which CO2 emissions must stay if we are to have a 50 percent chance
of keeping the rise in global average temperature to 2C above preindustrial levels. And most scientists
suggest that even a 2C increase is too high, as some parts of the worldsuch as the polar regions
would face temperature increases of two-to-three times the global average. Globally, temperatures
have risen 0.8C since the late 1880s, and we are already seeing climate-related impacts take hold.
Global temperature increases have already led to: earlier springtime and shifts in animal migration
patterns; increased glacial runoff and warming of many rivers; enlargement of glacial lakes; changes to
food chains; and shifts in ranges and abundance of plankton and fish. All of these have significant
impacts on people, ecosystems, and economies around the world. Some would argue that surpassing
400 ppm is only noteworthy because it is a round number. But the figure serves as an alarm that we
need to urgently find lasting solutions to turn these current climate trends around. Otherwise, society
will continue to move into unchartered territory as our activities lead us into a new and more
uncertain world.
Extinction
Deibel 7 (Terry L. Deibel, professor of IR at National War College, Foreign Affairs Strategy, Conclusion:
American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today Anthropogenic caused by CO2)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent
nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the
stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing
the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once a mere possibility has passed
through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate change
published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is
occurring. In legitimate scientific circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find
evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. Evidence from a vast international
scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an
international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next
century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine
Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are
melting much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a
decade ago; rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the
most destructive hurricanes; NASA scientists have concluded from direct temperature measurements
that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming climate is
estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year as disease
spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree
rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who
lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up. From
the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution,
carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million
(ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about
double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so there is no way
immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming;
the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted
above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms,
spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of
low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or
less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20
feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate
Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of
the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its
latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United
States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could
cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse warming, based on
positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes
hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in
average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-
increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is
that humankinds continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian
roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life support system. At worst, says physics professor
Marty Hoffert of New York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to het the
atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and
then everything will collapse. During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of
nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union
would not only destroy both countries but possible end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-
Cold War eras equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better supported
scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to
shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the
continued existence of life on this planet.
The Aff should be treated as a first priority short-term goals are key to solve
Alexander E. Farrell et al, Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley, David W. Keith, Department of
Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon, James J. Corbett, Marine Policy Program at the
University of Delaware. October 2003, Energy Policy, Volume 31, Issue 13, pages 1357-1367, A strategy
for introducing hydrogen into transportation.
Most of the recent interest in hydrogen is due to concerns about carbon dioxide (CO
2
, the principal
greenhouse gas) and petroleum imports (or scarcity). Since light duty vehicles (LDVs) dominate fuel
consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector, effectively dealing with these problems
will likely require changes in LDV design and use. The best strategy for attaining these long-term goals
may not, however, involve the early introduction of hydrogen-powered LDVs. Focusing on the ultimate
goallow CO2 emissions and/or petroleum independent transportationwithout paying sufficient
attention to the role of near-term decisions in shaping long-term technological innovation and change
is a serious gap since these processes are central to the ultimate costs of meeting policy goals (Grbler
et al., 1999; Peters et al., 1999). The strategy outlined here will not achieve immediate deep reductions
in CO
2
emissions or petroleum use, but should subsequently allow an efficient introduction of
hydrogen as transportation fuel on a widespread basis to help achieve those long-term goals.
Scenario 3 is the ozone
A hydrogen economy would solve and revert status quo ozone depletion
Mcalister 9 (Roy Mcalister, EO of the worldwide Hydrogen Association and he is the president of the
American Hydrogen Association, Hydrogen Ozone Reduction Myth Disproved,
http://www.ahanw.org/library.cfm?article=7, April 18, 2009)
This myth claims that: THE COMING HYDROGEN ECONOMY POSES A GREAT THREAT TO PROTECTIVE
OZONE IN THE STRATOSPHERE Actually, the solar hydrogen economy can greatly reduce destruction of
protective ozone in the stratosphere. It will do so by prioritizing conversion of fugitive methane into
sequestered carbon for producing durable goods and hydrogen for energy conversion purposes.
Halogens that are the primary cause of ozone destruction in the stratosphere will be safely removed
from the stratosphere and precipitated as salts into the oceans following reactions with atomized
sodium and/or sodium hydroxide. High-energy ultraviolet radiation is harmful to all living organisms.
Stratospheric ozone (O3) is essential to life on Earth because it absorbs most of the harmful ultraviolet
radiation in the solar spectrum. Stratospheric ozone is continually generated by ionizing events that
produce ozone from diatomic oxygen (O2). Ozone is continually eliminated by various reactions with
other chemical species. In addition to being an essential absorber of harmful radiation, ozone is an
extremely powerful oxidizing chemical reactant. Ozone reacts much more vigorously than ordinary
atmospheric oxygen (O2) to destroy organic materials such as rubber, bacteria, viruses, phytoplankton,
and many other microorganisms. As a result of the benefits offered by vigorous oxidation of organic
substances ozone is called upon to eliminate health hazards. Ozone treatment of pathogenically
contaminated air or water provides an excellent way to quickly eliminate harmful germs and
microorganisms. Human activities of the Industrial Revolution have caused considerably greater
destruction of stratospheric ozone than natural processes. Particularly harmful agents of ozone
destruction are manmade compounds known as halocarbons that are sufficiently inert to avoid entry
into chemical reactions in the lower atmosphere. Such halogenated molecules can reach the
stratosphere in Earths constantly moving and mixing atmosphere. Once delivered they readily enter
into reactions with ozone and/or become dissociated by ultraviolet radiation to release halogens such
as chlorine and bromine and cause virtually endless destruction of ozone. Chlorine and bromine
continue to cause ozone destruction without end. Each atom of chlorine (or bromine) that reaches the
stratosphere is estimated to cause destruction of 100,000 ozone molecules before this serial killer is
somehow randomly removed to the lower atmosphere. Another cause of stratospheric ozone
destruction is atmospheric methane. As evidenced by analysis of polar snow cores, atmospheric
concentrations of methane are now more than 100% greater than at any time in the 160,000 years
that preceded the Industrial Revolution. Human activities that produce or cause methane to enter the
atmosphere include: 1) Venting of fossil methane from oil and gas resources; 2) Soil erosion and
anaerobic decay from farming and water management practices; 3) Anaerobic decay of biomass such as
garbage, sewage, crop and forest wastes; and 4) Activities that interfere with the containment of
methane within vast methane hydrate deposits that are produced in the ooze at the bottom of deep
lakes and on many areas of the continental shelf slopes that surround the continents. Methane
hydrates formed in the anaerobic ooze of the ocean floors represents more than two-times as much
carbon as all coal, oil, and natural gas reserves on the contintents.1 Methane (CH4) is composed of
one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms. Reactions that destroy ozone by oxidation of the carbon
and hydrogen delivered by methane to the stratosphere are summarized as follows. CH4 + 4/3O3 CO2
+ 2H2O Equation 13.19.1 CH4 + 4O3 CO2 + 2H2O + 4O2 Equation 13.19.2 In comparison with chlorine
and bromine, each molecule of methane that reaches the stratosphere is much less harmful. One
molecule of methane destroys 4/3 or 1.33 molecules of ozone in the best case and 4 molecules in the
instance that is summarized in Equation 13.19.2. However, there are many more molecules of methane
than the number of atoms of chlorine and bromine that reach the stratosphere. In addition, each
molecule of methane that enters Earths atmosphere is about 27-times more harmful as a greenhouse
gas than each molecule of carbon dioxide. Methane hydrates in the continental shelf areas of the
oceans become unstable and release methane if greenhouse gas processes increase the temperature of
the oceans. The following tables compare the heat trapping characteristics of various greenhouse gases
and their concentrations in Earths atmosphere. Table13.19.1: Heat Trapping Capacity of Greenhouse
Gases2,3 Atmospheric Species CO2 CH4 N2O CFC-12 Relative Heat Trapping Effect 1 27 200 10,000
Decay Time (Years) 120 10 150 120 Table13.19.2: Comparisons of Greenhouse Gas Impact2,3 Species
Concentration Rate of Increase Contribution (PPBV)* CO2 = 353x103 CH4 = 1.7 x103 N2O = 310 CFC -12
= 0.48 (% Per Year) 0.5 1.0 0.2 4.0 (Relative % of TOTAL) 60 15 5 8 In addition to CFC-12 (CCl2F2) which
represents about 32% of the halocarbon molecules that reach the stratosphere, CFC-11 (CCl3F)
represents 23%, methyl chloride (CH3Cl) represents 16%, carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) comprises 12% and
CFC-113 (CCl2FCClF2) adds about 7%. About 3,000 times greater methane concentration than
halogenated molecules exists in the global atmosphere. However each chlorine or bromine atom
derived from a halogenated molecule that reaches the stratosphere will probably destroy 100,000 times
more ozone than each molecule of methane. Chlorine is about 170 times more prevalent in the
stratosphere than bromine.4 The general reactions by which halogens such as chlorine and/or bromine
destroy ozone are summarized below. Cl + O3 + ClO + O2 Equation 13.19.3 ClO + O Cl + O2 Equation
13.19.4 Thus once chlorine or bromine enters the stratosphere these atoms enter into an endless chain
of ozone destroying reactions. This process is often said to be catalytic because the culprit chlorine
and/or bromine atoms are not consumed by the reactions that destroy ozone. The net result of the
catalytic destruction of stratospheric ozone by halogens is: O + O3 2O2 Equation 13.19.5 In
comparison, as shown in Equation 13.19.6, regarding the worst case, only one molecule of ozone is
consumed by a molecule of hydrogen that reaches the stratosphere. H2 + O3 + H2O + O2 Equation
13.19.6 In the best case as shown in Equation 13.19.7, three molecules of hydrogen are oxidized by one
molecule of ozone to produce three molecules of water or 0.33 molecules of ozone are eliminated per
molecule of hydrogen that reaches the stratosphere. Hydrogen is a much better choice for energy
storage and conversion purposes than hydrocarbons in comparisons of greenhouse gas and ozone
destruction hazards. 3H2 + O3 + 3H2O Equation 13.19.7 USING H2 TO REMOVE HALOGENS THAT
REACH THE STRATOSPHERE: Halogens are the primary cause of ozone destruction in the stratosphere.
Chlorine, bromine and other halogens can be safely removed from the stratosphere and precipitated
into the oceans following reactions with atomized sodium and/or sodium hydroxide. Hydrogen and
oxygen derived from seawater will facilitate this remedial removal of halogens from the stratosphere.
Mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen can provide the non-polluting propellant for naval guns that are
converted into sodium launchers. Large bore naval guns can be converted from their previous use for
delivering explosive shells to defense of the environment by utilizing mixtures of hydrogen and
oxygen to launch rounds of sodium into the upper atmosphere for purposes of reacting with halogens
to form salts that precipitate into the oceans.5 In other instances, hydrogen filled balloons will lift
sodium payloads to the stratosphere and support solar concentrators that atomize sodium for the
precipitation reactions.5 In both approaches for utilizing hydrogen to deliver sodium to the
stratosphere, the remedial reactions are summarized in Equation 13.19.8 and 13.19.9. Na + Cl NaCl
Equation 13.19.8 Na + Br NaBr Equation 13.19.9 Therefore, the solar hydrogen economy offers
practical ways to create a wealth-expansion economy while virtually eliminating destruction of
protective ozone in the stratosphere due to reactions with manmade chemicals. The solar hydrogen
economy will greatly depress emissions of greenhouse gases to reduce weather-related extremes
including increased incidence and severity of hurricanes, tornados, lighting strikes, floods and
mudslides. This can be accomplished by prioritizing conversion of biomass, gas hydrates and fossil
sourced methane into valuable carbon durable goods and hydrogen for energy conversion purposes.
Extinction
Smith and Daniel 99 (Tyrrel W. Smith, Jr., Ph.D. TRW Space & Electronics Group and John R. Edwards
Daniel Pilson Environmental Management Branch Summary of the Impact of Launch Vehicle Exhaust
and Deorbiting Space and Meteorite Debris on Stratospheric Ozone http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-
bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA414306)
The ozone layer is critical to life on Earth because it absorbs biologically damaging solar ultraviolet
radiation. The amount of solar UV radiation received at any particular location on the Earths surface
depends upon the position of the Sun above the horizon, the amount of ozone in the atmosphere, and
local cloudiness and pollution. Scientists agree that, in the absence of changes in clouds or pollution,
decreases in atmospheric ozone lead to increases in ground-level UV radiation (Martin [1998], WMO
[1998]). Prior to the late 1980s, instruments with the necessary accuracy and stability for measurement
of small long-term trends in ground-level UV-B were not available. Therefore, the data from urban
locations with older, less-specialized instruments provide much less reliable information, especially since
simultaneous measurements of changes in cloudiness or local pollution are not available. When high-
quality measurements were made in other areas far from major cities and their associated air pollution,
decreases in ozone have regularly been accompanied by increases in UV-B (WMO [1998]). Therefore,
this increase in ultraviolet radiation received at the Earth's surface would likely increase the incidence of
skin cancer and melanoma, as well as possibly impairing the human immune system (Kerr et al., [1993]).
Damage to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems also may occur (Martin [1998], WMO [1998]).
1AC Solvency
Contention 2 is Solvency
Tech here now, but plan and federal investment is key creates economies of scale
that guarantees transition
FCHEA 11
Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association Building a Commercially Viable National Fuel Cell Electric Bus
Program
http://cafcp.org/sites/files/Building%20a%20Commercially%20Viable%20National%20Fuel%20Cell%20T
ransit%20Bus%20Program.FINAL_.v10.03-25-11.pdf
In just the last few years, zeroemission, hydrogenpowered, fuel cell electric bus transit has advanced
to the point where fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs) are now providing service to hundreds of thousands of
passengers. Since 2006, FCEBs have logged over 550,000 miles in the United States alone. At the same
time, costs have dropped significantly and within the next five years, it is projected that the per vehicle
price for an FCEB will be less than that of an electric trolley bus. The technology has and is being proven
by transit agencies around the world. What remains is to bring down the perunit cost, which can be
achieved with a modest investment in the economies of scale increasing the number of FCEBs
already being operated in revenue service. A broad coalition of industry leaders and public transit
providers requests that a $395 million program to establish five regional Centers of Excellence and
expand the implementation of this rapidly advancing technology, be included in the Administration's
plan for the reauthorization of the transportation bill. Fuel cell electric bus technology brings with it
unique benefits that are unmatched by any other transit bus mode: 1. Completely zeroemission buses
with no toxic particulates or other criteria pollutants in city neighborhoods 2. Extremely quiet, smooth,
vibrationfree, allelectric operation 3. Sufficient electric power to operate a vehicle in excess of 40,000
lbs of gross vehicle weight 4. Better handling and overall driving performance compared to internal
combustion engine vehicles 5. Clean and easy maintenance, with no toxic oils or fuels to handle 6.
Superb fuel economy in comparison with conventional internal combustion engines, including
hybriddrive engines 7. Complete freedom from petroleum fuels, with the ease of using entirely
domestic sources of fuel to help establish true energy independence and price stabilization 8. Significant
welltowheel reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the potential of eliminating all GHG
emissions using carbonfree, renewable sources to produce hydrogen.
The plan is uniquely key creates economic incentives through supply and demand
Jerram 11 (Lisa Jerram is a senior research analyst contributing to Pike Research's Smart
Transportation practice Could the United States Lose its Share of the Global Fuel Cell Market? January
28, 2011
http://www.pikeresearch.com/blog/articles/could-the-united-states-lose-its-share-of-the-global-fuel-
cell-market)
In my last post, I opined that the United States was at risk of losing its share of the global fuel cell
market to Germany, South Korea, Japan, and perhaps China. Unfortunately, this is a story that the
United States knows all too well. For example, in solar and wind, the United States had an early
advantage, only to see its leadership position fade away to Europe and China. Some of this is due to
forces beyond government control, such as Chinas significantly lower manufacturing labor costs, but it
was also the result of a lack of sustained government commitment in the United States. By contrast, the
Chinese government developed a long term strategy to create a successful domestic solar industry and
provided sustained support for adoption and for solar companies. For example, through innovative
financing mechanisms. Could we see this story repeated with the fuel cell industry? There are
differences. For one thing, the United States already shares the front stage with several other countries
such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Still, the U.S. Department of Energys fuel cell vehicle
development program was the standard for this industry, but has now been all but abandoned under
the Obama administration. Even more worryingly, the administration seems to view cars as the sole
measure of fuel cell technologies, even though, as my colleague Kerry-Ann Adamson pointed out, fuel
cell cars are going to be one of the last to go fully commercial while applications such as powering base
stations are seeing real traction. If the U.S. government is stepping back on fuel cells, governments in
Germany, Japan, South Korea, China, and Scandinavia are stepping forward with long term subsidies
and other support. This could mean not only that the United States will fall behind in developing a
domestic fuel cell market, but also that U.S. companies will have trouble exporting into these foreign
markets. For example, take Japans Large Scale Residential Stationary Demonstration program. This
program, developed jointly by government and industry in the early 2000s, has subsidized thousands of
mCHP units deployed by Japanese PEM companies. Now, these subsidies are shifting to adopters in
order to spur demand. While US products can qualify for the subsidies, the Japanese companies have
already formed local distributor partnerships, possibly squeezing out U.S. companies from the
distribution supply chain.
And, a transition to hydrogen could occur immediately with significant investment
successful deployment is key
Amory B. Lovins, is Chairman and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a MacArthur
Fellowship recipient (1993), and author and co-author of many books on renewable energy and energy
efficiency, 1998, Winning the Oil Endgame, p. 229,
https://nc.rmi.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=192&srcid=271
The oft-described technical obstacles to a hydrogen economystorage, safety, cost of the hydrogen,
and its distribution infrastructurehave already been sufficiently resolved to support rapid
deployment starting now in distributed power production, and could be launched in vehicles upon
widespread adoption of superefficient vehicles. (The stationary fuelcell markets will meanwhile have
cranked up production to achieve serious cost reductions, even if they capture only a small market
share: twothirds of all U.S. electricity is used in buildings, and many of them present favorable
conditions for early adoption.) Automotive use of fuel cells can flourish many years sooner if
automakers adopt recent advances in crashworthy, cost-competitive, ultralight autobodies. We
certainly believe that the transition could be well underway by 2025, and if aggressively pursued, it
could happen substantially sooner. Two keys will unlock hydrogens potential: early deployment of
superefficient vehicles, which shrink the fuel cells so theyre affordable and the fuel tanks so they
package, and integration of deployment in vehicular and in stationary uses, so each accelerates the
other by building volume and cutting cost.923 In sum, the hydrogen option is not essential to displacing
most or all of the oil that the United States uses. But its the most obvious and probably the most
profitable way to do this while simultaneously achieving other strategic advantagescomplete primary
energy flexibility, climate protection, electricity decentralization, vehicles-as-power-plants versatility,
faster adoption of renewables, and of course deeper transformation of automaking and related
industries so they can compete in a global marketplace thats headed rapidly in this direction.
Fleet vehicles, such as busses, are key to transition multiple warrants
Paolo Agnolucci, April 3, 2007. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Available online at
www.sciencedirect.com. Paolo is an environmental economist with a strong analytical and statistical
background. After working as environmental adviser for a corporate client and as consultant in the
energy sector, he joined PSI in December 2002 and left the Institute in early 2008. He is currently
working in a project building scenarios for a decarbonised UK energy system in 2050 and on a project
analysing the economics of the development of a hydrogen economy. Recent work has been about the
role of the announcement effect in environmental taxes, the evaluation of the Climate Change Levy,
modelling of technological change in energy-environment-economic models and on the role of price in
the diffusion of renewable energy. Paolo is also a PhD student in the economics department at Birkbeck
College and a member of the UK Network of Environmental Economists. ]
The second step in the virtuous cycle is the introduction of hydrogen among fleets. Fleet vehicles have
the advantages of being regularly refuelled and undergoing maintenance at one location, and driving
along fixed routes or at least within a certain area. In addition, fleet vehicles are driven twice as much
as household vehiclestherefore maximizing the environmental benefitsand are bought by
relatively few decision-makerstherefore facilitating the implementation of information campaigns
[48]. Fleets are a considerable market. i.e. approximately one quarter of all LDVs sales in the US even
though they are only 6% of the stock [48]. High turnover rates of fleets would facilitate the quick
penetration of hydrogen vehicles in the stock and the purchase of the vehicles by households in the
second-hand market. A significant number of fleet vehicles are bought by government agencies or other
public bodies which tend to be more receptive to the implementation of governmental policies.
Extra Cards DA Thumpers
Current programs are too small, but triggers your DAs and provides experience
expansion key
Silver 11 (Vice President of CalSTART http://www.hydrogennet.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF-
filer/Brint_og_braendselsceller_internationalt/Dansk-
amerikansk_samarbejde/Fuel_Cell_Collaboration_in_the_U_S__aug_2011_vers..pdf
"Zero Emission Bus Program")
Recognizing the important role of transit in validating and deploying new transportation technologies,
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
created the NFCBP [National Fuel Cell Bus Program] with a six year allocation of $49 million. Originally,
the coalition backing this program had sought $150 million over the six-year life of the legislation. The
program has been successful, with prototypes and early demonstration projects moving the
technology forward, reducing costs, and improving durability and reliability. Fuel cell bus costs have
come down from $3.2 million are now below $2 million and are likely to approach $1 to $1.5 million as
the industry moves towards pre-commercial offerings. Durability of fuel cells is also improving, with
buses operating as long as 16 hours per day and fuel cell lifetimes increasing from 4000 hours or less to
as high as 10,000 hours while retaining performance. Next generation offerings currently funded under
the program may approach 20,000 hours.The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has
collected data from the demonstration projects showing a nearly threefold improvement in fuel
efficiency compared to commercial transit buses, far exceeding the program target. Building upon the
success of the NFCBP, an expanded program is needed to support the commercialization of zero
emission and advanced low carbon bus technologies. Future efforts should continue to build upon the
success of the NFCBP on the hydrogen front, and should also target electric drive and other supporting
efficient, near-zero emission, low carbon technologies.
No link to Presidential political capital - empirically congress puts the funding for fuel
cells in over the presidents objection
McDermott 09 (Mat McDermott, masters in environment and energy policy, Treehugger, Congress
Hearts Hydrogen: Federal Fuel Cell Funding Could Soon Be Restored, 7-22-09
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/congress-hearts-hydrogen-federal-fuel-cell-
funding-could-soon-be-restored.html
Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and President Obama pulled funding for hydrogen car research from the
budget, saying that it was more important to concentrate on other technologies, but members of
Congress aren't having any of it. The New York Times reports that both the House and the Senate are
pushing forward on restoring funding, in fact more funding than was axed by Chu and Obama: In the
House, in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program, $153 million was approved last Friday
for hydrogen and fuel cells, with $40.45 million going to producing hydrogen from coal. (Yes, hydrogen
from coal -- hardly what I'd call renewable energy, nor a particularly energy efficient use of resources...)
In the Senate, a total of $190 million was approved for the same program. If approved in its entirety
this would be some $20 million-plus more than was in the original budget.
No DAs- Congress just approved Transportation Funding- link would have been
triggered
Rahn 12 (Pete Rahn writing for Inland Valley News November 21, 2012. Transportation Bill focuses
needed attention onInfrastructure http://www.inlandvalleynews.com/2012/11/21/transportation-bill-
focuses-needed-attention-on-infrastructure/)
State departments of transportation and related industries applauded congressional adoption of a 27-
month transportation authorization recently. The funding program moves the nations transportation
policy in the right direction but the real question that still remains unanswered is: How will the nation
pay for transportation in the future? After almost three years of wrangling and multiple extensions,
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, or MAP-21, uses 10 years of savings and new
revenues to pay for essentially a two-year bill. Clearly, this is not sustainable. MAP-21, given the poor
outlook for gas tax collections, was a remarkable bipartisan effort between the House and Senate that
provides more than $120 billion to fund the two-year transportation bill. This is a positive indication
that Congress understands the importance of transportation to our economy and the daily lives of all
Americans.