1AC Inherency

Contention 1 is Inherency

The transition to a hydrogen economy is blocked by an absence of economic incentivesLattin ’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 aheadZakaria 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 America’s 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 don’t 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 hasn’t 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 fuelsRifkin ’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 keyHatemi, 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.

ExtinctionStraits 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 hydrogenSeth 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 systemYet 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].

We’ll isolate two impacts:

A. Primacy short circuits all their impactsWalt 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 extinctionNiall 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.htmSo 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 populous—roughly 20 times more—so 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 capital—has raised living standards throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization —which a new Dark Age would produce— would 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 Shanghai—would 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 hegemony—its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier—its 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 apolarity—a 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 overextensionClark 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 nation’s total petroleum use, making it the world’s 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 America’s 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 warmingRifkin ’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 productionUnited States Department of Energy, February 2002, A National Vision of America’s 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

It’s reversible but solutions now are keyLevin 12 (Kelly Levin is a senior associate with WRI’s major emerging economies objective. She leads WRI’s 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 2°C above preindustrial levels. And most scientists

suggest that even a 2°C increase is too high, as some parts of the world—such as the polar regions—would face temperature increases of two-to-three times the global average. Globally, temperatures have risen 0.8°C 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.

ExtinctionDeibel 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, and…worldwide, 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”; “Earth’s 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 Trinidad…killed 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 change…but 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 Carolina’s 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 “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re 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 era’s 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 solveAlexander 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 (CO2, 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 goal—low CO2 emissions and/or petroleum independent transportation—without 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 (Grübler et al., 1999; Peters et al., 1999). The strategy outlined here will not achieve immediate deep reductions in CO2 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 depletionMcalister 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 Earth’s 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 à CO2 + 2H2O Equation 13.19.1 CH4 + 4O3 à 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 Earth’s 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 Earth’s 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 à + ClO + O2 Equation 13.19.3 ClO + O à 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 à 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 à + 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 à + 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 à NaCl Equation 13.19.8 Na + Br à NaBr Equation 13.19.9 Therefore, the solar hydrogen economy offers practical ways to create a wealth-expansion economy while virtually eliminat ing 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 Earth’s 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 transitionFCHEA 11Fuel 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%20Transit%20Bus%20Program.FINAL_.v10.03-25-11.pdfIn just the last few years, zero‐emission, hydrogen‐powered, 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 per ‐ unit 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 zero‐emission buses with no toxic particulates or other criteria pollutants in city neighborhoods 2. Extremely quiet, smooth, vibration‐free, all‐electric 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 hybrid‐drive 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 well‐to‐wheel reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the potential of eliminating all GHG emissions using carbon‐free, renewable sources to produce hydrogen.

The plan is uniquely key – creates economic incentives through supply and demandJerram 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 China’s 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. D epartment o f E nergy’ s 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 Japan’s 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 keyAmory 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=271The oft-described technical obstacles to a hydrogen economy —storage, safety, cost of the hydrogen, and its distribution infrastructure— have 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 hydrogen’s potential: early deployment of superefficient vehicles, which shrink the fuel cells so they’re 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 it’s the most obvious and probably the most profitable way to do this while simultaneously achieving other strategic advantages—complete 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 that’s headed rapidly in this direction.

Fleet vehicles, such as busses, are key to transition – multiple warrantsPaolo 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 vehicles—therefore maximizing the environmental benefits —and are bought by relatively few decision-makers—therefore 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 DA’s 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 nation’s 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.