Link- SPS
SPS would cause significant ozone loss even in the best case fuel scenario
Ross et. Al 09 (Martin Ross*, Darin Toohey, Manfred Peinemann & Patrick Ross, Center Faculty Chair at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado, Project Engineer at The Aerospace Corporation, , Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, graduate physics instructor currently Program Manager supervising the Rocket Impact-on-Stratospheric-Ozone (RISO) Program for The Aerospace Corporation, “Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14777620902768867
Global fleet launch rates sufficiently large to exceed the 0.2% threshold for any propellant type mix are not likely without revolutionary changes in the space industry. We cannot know when or how such changes might come about though serious planning and discussions are ongoing. 36 Various proposals for very large space infrastructure projects, space tourism, or RLVs with very high launch rates have been seriously proposed and significant resources have been invested. All of these proposals would result in large launch vehicles with very high launch rates (i.e., daily) and so it is of interest to evaluate them based on their impact on the ozone layer. One often discussed concept is the use of Solar Power Satellite (SPS) systems for electricity production. A recent study 37 indicates that the required annual launch demand for an economically viable SPS system would be about 25 kt per year, over many years, perhaps indefinitely. Figure 4 shows that this SPS launch system would be constrained to use liquid propellant systems in order to ensure that ΔO3 remains below the 0.2% threshold; an SPS launch system could not make significant use of SRMs in the stratosphere. Since we are able to define LRE ozone loss in only approximate term, we cannot rule out that even an all liquid propellant fleet at SPS launch rates might result in significant global total ozone loss, depending on the actual effect of a specific LRE type. The ambiguity of SPS launch illustrates the need for an improved understanding of rocket emissions of all types. With the current knowledge gaps, we cannot predict with any confidence which (indeed, any) large launch or space systems are plausible with respect to ozone depletion.
Link- Testing
Rocket Testing Destroys Ozone
SEDSPEC, ’11 (Sediment and Erosion Control Planning, Design and SPECification, Checklist For Defense Testing And Related Activities, http://www.cecer.army.mil/ll/sedspec/howto/DisplayHowTo.cfm?PkeyHowTo=32, 7/28/2011)
Upper Atmosphere Concerns: Test rocket exhaust compounds (including hydrogen chloride, metallic oxide particulates, ice, soot, nitrogen compounds, and hydrogen compounds) can lead to stratospheric ozone destruction. Combustion gases (including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and water vapor) from missile launches absorb infrared radiation and can contribute to global warming.
Rocket testing blows air pollution out of proportion
FAA, ’09 (Federal Aviation Administration, Administration Federal Aviation Final Environmental Assessment for Jacksonville Aviation Authority Launch Site Operator License at Cecil Field, Florida, http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/20090626_Final_Cecil_Field_EA.pdf, 7/28/2011)
Rocket engines that might be tested at Cecil Field would be incorporated into vehicles that are experimentally launched at other facilities. The rocket engines could consist of Rocketdyne 88 and similar engines that use LOX and RP-1 as propellants. JAA estimates that a maximum of 16 tests would be conducted per year with each test lasting up to 100 seconds. The largest of these tests could require up to approximately 12,700 pounds of LOX and approximately 5,300 pounds of RP-1 per test. The smallest tests could require approximately 450 pounds of LOX and approximately 190 pounds of RP-1 per test. For purposes of this EA, it is assumed that static rocket testing at Cecil Field would involve the tests requiring the largest amounts of propellants as outlined above. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories (40 CFR Part 63), Subpart PPPPP, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Engine Test Cells/Stands, establishes national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants for engine test cells/stands located at major sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. Subpart PPPPP establishes requirements to demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the emission restrictions contained in this standard. Subpart PPPPP defines engine test cells/stands to mean
Impact- Agriculture
Ozone depletion destroys agriculture
Bhutia 10 (West Bengal University of Judicial Sciences) Wangcen Rigzin Bhutia Juris Online March 17, 2010“Protection of the Outer Space Environment” http://jurisonline.in/2010/03/protection-of-the-outer-space-environment/)
When a spacecraft is launched into the space, they produce something called “ground cloud” which basically consisting of exhaust gases, cooling water, sand and dust. The use of certain rocket and stratospheric aircraft fuels has been found to speed the depletion of the earth’s ozone layer. Specifically, the chlorine, aluminum, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide that are present in these fuels have been detected in the ozone layer by scientists. The ozone layer is very important as it absorbs harmful ultraviolet rays and acts as a shield around the earth. The depletion of this shield or the ozone results in incoming ultraviolet radiation which causes harmful effects on plants, and skin cancer, eye damage on the animals. At least one study has concluded that the presence of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere “may reduce the temperature of the earth’s surface,” potentially impacting agricultural production. The exhaust gases released by the spacecrafts will affect the ionosphere which is situated 80 kilometers above the earth’s surface. This may lead to the creation of a ‘hole’ in the ionosphere which will have harmful effects on the environment of the earth. Back pollution, on the other hand, is pollution that occurs on the Earth as a result of extraterrestrial matter entering the Earth’s environment. The most dangerous sort of back pollution so far is radioactive waste.
Collapse of agriculture destroys innovation and high yield technology
Forbes 08 (Joshua Zumbrun, “Getting Down With The Farm,” 9/3, http://www.forbes.com/2008/09/03/rnc-farming-agriculture-biz-beltway-cx_jz_0903rnc-farm.html)
The high-decibel message: Agriculture has arrived. It's an unprecedented time of power and importance for the industry in the nation's capital. All these companies and organizations are quick to point out that, while all part of the broad agriculture tapestry, they're not exactly natural allies. When fertilizer prices go up, the farmers take a hit; when commodity prices go up, the processors take a hit; when fuel prices go up, everyone takes a hit (except, perhaps, ethanol). But underneath the industry's dozens of competing interests is one overarching theme--trade--and a question: Which presidential candidate best helps their interests? Long something of an afterthought, an over-subsidized laggard during the infotech boom, agriculture is now a burgeoning bright spot in a largely troubled economy. While government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae (nyse: FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac (nyse: FRE - news - people ) are teetering on the edge of nationalization, the Farm Credit System, a forgotten government-sponsored enterprise, is buzzing along. Gone are the days where debt from Fannie and Freddie was second only to U.S. Treasuries. Today, spreads are lower in the farm credit system, a testament to the surging strength of agriculture, says AgStar Financial President Paul DeBriyn and a member of the board of directors for Farmer Mac. And with long-standing subsidies secured by passage of the 2008 farm bill earlier this year, industry leaders in Minneapolis were free to focus on open markets for a new generation of products. Technology is rapidly changing the interests of the industry. John Johnson, the chief executive of CHS (nasdaq: CHSCP - news - people ), a major agriculture co-op, explains the industry's new fundamentals. Improvements in seeds and farming practices allowed corn yields to double in 15 years. As crops get more bug-resistant and drought-resistant and can grow in more tightly planted rows, that number could double again in the next couple of decades. In the past, there's been little incentive to develop this new lab-grown abundance. Demand in the U.S. grows mostly in step with the population, which hardly grows at all. This led to the industry taking a bad rap for overproduction--for stuffing calories into Twinkies or letting crops rot in silos. Now, rising global demand, for food and fuels, changes the equation. Increasing production is needed to feed the world's masses--and gas tanks. The producers of genetically modified seeds are going from Dr. FrankenFoods to the potential saviors of the global hungry.
Only high yield research solves species loss
Avery 07 (Dennis T, director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, "How High-Yield Farming Saves Nature," Society, www.springerlink.com/index/c8w562735r7t0390.pdfSimilar)
If the world’s farmers today got the yields they achieved in 1950, the world would need nearly three times as much cropland to produce today’s food supply. That would be about 15–16 million additional square miles of crops—all the global forest area available today. Every biologist who is worried about species extinction is worried most about lost wildlife habitat—especially forests and most of all the tropical forests.
Share with your friends: |