--XT: Solar Lobby = Powerful
Solar power initiatives unpopular- powerful lobbies
NYT 09 (new york times, Solar Industry Takes on Coal and Oil Lobbies, http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/solar-industry-takes-on-coal-and-oil-lobbies/, 10/27/11, MM)
A solar industry leader smacked down the oil and coal industries on Tuesday, calling for renewable energy proponents to open their wallets to level the playing field in Washington. “The full promise of solar power is being restrained by the tyranny of policies that protect our competitors, subsidize wealthy polluters and disadvantage green entrepreneurs,” said Rhone Resch, chief executive of the Solar Energy Industries Association, according to prepared remarks for a speech he is to give at the opening of the Solar Power International conference. The event, being held in Anaheim, Calif., is the solar industry’s biggest annual get-together in the United States, and is usually a celebration of the industry’s breakneck growth of recent years. But Mr. Resch said that with the fossil fuel industry devoting tens of millions of dollars to defeat climate change legislation now before Congress, the solar industry needs to start throwing its weight around Washington. “How our country proceeds on climate change will permanently shape the market for solar,” he said in his remarks. Oil and coal interests “are spending millions of dollars on lobbying, P.R. and advertising, and much of it is financing a deliberate effort to discredit our industry,” Mr. Resch added. “At the end of the day in Washington, good intentions won’t stand a chance against millions of dollars and intense political pressure. We have relied on good will long enough, and if that’s the only arrow in our quiver, we will lose.”
Link – Space Weapons
Space weapons unpopular with policymakers
Grego & Wright, 10 (Laura Grego, Senior Scientist in the Global Security Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, David Wright, Senior Scientist and co-director of the UCS Global Security Program, 2010, “Securing the Skies; Ten Steps the United States Should Take to Improve the Security and Sustainability of Space, http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/securing-the-skies-full-report-1.pdf)
Stationing destructive weapons in space is without precedent. Despite research and development efforts over the years, no dedicated space weapons are known to have been deployed. This has been the case for various reasons, the main ones being that they are costly, technically challenging to develop, and unpopular with policy makers and the public.
Space weapons controversial
Hitchens, 05 (Theresa Hitchens, Vice President of the Center for Defense Information, “U.S. Military Space Policy and Strategy”, Sept 14, 2005, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/dv/hitchens-05_12_01_/hitchens-05_12_01_en.pdf)
What I can also say is that even if the new presidential policy blesses the Pentagon’s space warfare strategy, it remains unclear whether Congress will be willing to fund it much beyond basic technology research. Space is an exceedingly expensive place. Tofully implement the capabilities necessary to fight “in, from and through” space, hundreds of billions would have to be dedicated to developing new weapons, launching thousands of new on-orbit assets, and maintaining those systems once they are deployed. With launch costs remaining at $22,000 per kilogram, and current satellites in LEO weighing up to 4,000 kilograms, the price tag rapidly becomes exorbitant – hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars. Further, Congress is already expressing concerns about the costs of today’s Air Force space programs that have nothing to do with controversial ASAT or space-strike systems. Programs such as the Transformational Satellite System designed to replace current military communications satellites, and the Space Radar to replace aging U.S. early warning satellites, are years behind schedule and tens of millions of dollars over budget. Congressional reaction to Air Force budget requests for new space weapons programs based on unproven and yet undeveloped technologies may well not be all that favorable. In addition, space weapons remain controversial politically and the concept unpopular with broad U.S. public opinion – and a unilateral move by the United States to weaponize space is likely to also face harsh international political resistance and possible backlash as other nations seek to compete with their own space weapons programs.
American public hates space weapons
Gallagher & Steinbruner 08, (Nancy Gallagher, Associate Director for Research at the Center of International Security Studies at Maryland and Senior Research Scholar at the University of Maryland and was Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State, John D. Steinbruner, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Science and co-chair at the Committee on International Security Studies at the American Academy and Professor of Public Policy at the University of Maryland and Chairman of the Board of the Arms Control Association, “Reconsidering the Rules for Space Security”, 2008, American Academy of Arts and Science)
Because the Bush administration has generally been hostile to the Clinton legacy, the implication of the decision to use the Clinton National Space Policy for so long is that they are afraid to say clearly and authoritatively what pursuing the SPACECOM vision actually entails and how much of this project they have endorsed. The idea of space weapons is unpopular with the American public, and even the dedicated advocates are cautious about exposing
their plans and programs to close scrutiny.
Share with your friends: |