Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[6]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[6]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-12-11 21:16:39.632
	1	+2016-12-11 21:16:39.0

Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,36 @@
	1	+Nuclear power is a savior to our planet. In a time when fossil fuels are being funneled into power plants like it’s a garbage disposal causing our world to heat up like an easy bake oven, we need nuclear power to ensure that our planet is safe for our future generation.
	2	+Thus, I negate, I value morality because the resolution asks what ought to be done
	3	+The criterion is maximizing expected wellbeing, there are two main justifications for this
	4	+
	5	+First, the obligation of the state is to protect citizen’s interests—individual obligations aren’t applicable in the public sphere.
	6	+Goodin 95. Philosopher of Political Theory, Public Policy, and Applied Ethics. Utilitarianism as a Public Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. p. 26-7, 1-2-16
	7	+The great adventure of utilitarianism as a guide to public conduct is that it avoids gratuitous sacrifices, it ensures as best we are able to ensure in the uncertain world of public policy-making that policies are sensitive to people’s interests or desires or preferences. The great failing of more deontology theories, applied to those realms, is that they fixate upon duties done for the sake of duty rather than for the sake of any good that is done by doing one’s duty. Perhaps it is permissible (perhaps it is even proper) for private individuals in the course of their personal affairs to fetishize duties done for their own sake. It would be a mistake for public officials to do likewise, not least because it is impossible. The fixation on motives makes absolutely no sense in the public realm, and might make precious little sense in the private one even, as Chapter 3 shows. The reason public action is required at all arises from the inability of uncoordinated individual action to achieve certain morally desirable ends. Individuals are rightly excused from pursuing those ends. The inability is real; the excuses, perfectly valid. But libertarians are right in their diagnosis, wrong in their prescription. That is the message of Chapter 2. The same thing that makes those excuses valid at the individual level – the same thing that relieves individuals of responsibility – makes it morally incumbent upon individuals to organize themselves into collective units that are capable of acting where they as isolated individuals are not. When they organize themselves into these collective units, those collective deliberations inevitably take place under very different circumstances and their conclusions inevitably take very different forms. Individuals are morally required to operate in that collective manner, in certain crucial respects. But they are practically circumscribed in how they can operate, in their collective mode. And those special constraints characterizing the public sphere of decision-making give rise to the special circumstances that make utilitarianism peculiarly apt for public policy-making, in ways set out more fully in Chapter 4. Government house utilitarianism thus understood is, I would argue, a uniquely defensible public philosophy.
	8	+
	9	+Second, questions of public policy should be judged through a consequentialist lens.
	10	+Woller 97, A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10
	11	+Appeals to a priori moral principles, such as environmental preservation, also often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical way sense, and since public policies inherently imply winners and losers, the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that the redistributive effects and value trade-offs implied by their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society. At the same time, deontologically based ethical systems have severe practical limitations as a basis for public policy. At best, a priori moral principles provide only general guidance to ethical dilemmas in public affairs and do not themselves suggest appropriate public policies, and at worst, they create a regimen of regulatory unreasonableness while failing to adequately address the problem or actually making it worse. For example, a moral obligation to preserve the environment by no means implies the best way, or any way for that matter, to do so, just as there is no a priori reason to believe that any policy that claims to preserve the environment will actually do so. Any number of policies might work, and others, although seemingly consistent with the moral principle, will fail utterly. That deontological principles are an inadequate basis for environmental policy is evident in the rather significant irony that most forms of deontologically based environmental laws and regulations tend to be implemented in a very utilitarian manner by street-level enforcement officials. Moreover, ignoring the relevant costs and benefits of environmental policy and their attendant incentive structures can, as alluded to above, actually work at cross purposes to environmental preservation. (There exists an extensive literature on this aspect of regulatory enforcement and the often perverse outcomes of regulatory policy. See, for example, Ackerman, 1981; Bartrip and Fenn, 1983; Hawkins, 1983, 1984; Hawkins and Thomas, 1984.) Even the most die-hard preservationist/deontologist would, I believe, be troubled by this outcome. The above points are perhaps best expressed by Richard Flathman, The number of values typically involved in public policy decisions, the broad categories which must be employed and above all, the scope and complexity of the consequences to be anticipated militate against reasoning so conclusively that they generate an imperative to institute a specific policy. It is seldom the case that only one policy will meet the criteria of the public interest (1958, p. 12). It therefore follows that in a democracy, policymakers have an ethical duty to establish a plausible link between policy alternatives and the problems they address, and the public must be reasonably assured that a policy will actually do something about an existing problem; this requires the means-end language and methodology of utilitarian ethics. Good intentions, lofty rhetoric, and moral piety are an insufficient.
	12	+
	13	+Contention 1: Climate and Pollution
	14	+
	15	+Independently, shifting away from nuclear power causes a shift to coal.
	16	+Biello 16: Biello, David Contributing Editor at Scientific American. He Has Been Reporting on the Environment and Energy since 1999. "How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming." Scientific American. Nature America Inc, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 08 Aug. 2016. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/.
	17	+As long as countries like China or the U.S. employ big grids to deliver electricity, there will be a need for generation from nuclear, coal or gas, the kinds of electricity generation that can be available at all times. A rush to phase out nuclear power privileges natural gas—as is planned under Germany's innovative effort, dubbed the Energiewende (energy transition), to increase solar, wind and other renewable power while also eliminating the country's 17 reactors. In fact, Germany hopes to develop technology to store excess electricity from renewable resources as gas to be burned later, a scheme known as “power to gas,” according to economist and former German politician Rainer Baake, now director of an energy transition think tank Agora Energiewende. Even worse, a nuclear stall can lead to the construction of more coal-fired power plants, as happened in the U.S. after the end of the nuclear power plant construction era in the 1980s.
	18	+A switch to coal would massively increase emissions.
	19	+Biello 16: Biello, David Contributing Editor at Scientific American. He Has Been Reporting on the Environment and Energy since 1999. "How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming." Scientific American. Nature America Inc, 12 Dec. 2013. Web. 08 Aug. 2016. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/.
	20	+And that's why Hansen, among others, such as former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. "We can't burn all these fossil fuels," Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned. "Coal is almost half the global emissions. If you replace these power plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of pollution reduction quickly."
	21	+Warming is skyrocketing now and cutting fossil fuels won’t work.
	22	+Gottfried 6 Kurt; "Climate Change and Nuclear Power." Social Research: An International Quarterly 73.3 (2006): 1011-1024. Project MUSE. Web. 8 Aug. 2016. https://muse.jhu.edu/.
	23	+I now turn to the climate issue. Here it is important to understand that our global environment is a delicately balanced system. Many large forces that move the system in different ways strike this balance. As a result, if the mean temperature—the average over the whole globe and over a number of years—changes by only a couple of degrees, the system can undergo dramatic change. For the same reason, there are considerable uncertainties in the temperature change that would be caused by a given amount of additional greenhouse gasses. To establish concrete policies for meeting the climate challenge one needs a credible quantitative target for cutting carbon emissions. Setting such a target, given our state of knowledge, is not an exercise in pure science, although science provides indispensable guidance. Political judgments must be made. Given what is at stake, it is essential to exercise caution and prudence. All this has led the British government, the European Union and other major actors to adopt the target of a global mean temperature rise of no more than 1.2° C (or 2.1° F) above today’s, which translates into a CC2 com position of the atmosphere no greater than by about Climate Change and Nuclear Power 1013 a third above the current level (Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, 2005). To achieve this goal will require industrialized countries like the United States will have to reduce annual emissions by 60 to 80 percent by midcentury! Obviously, this is a huge challenge. Furthermore, deep cutting would have to continue during the rest of the century because CO2 remains in the atmosphere for so long. What is there already would produce considerable warming even if we could, today, halt all further growth in the use of fossil fuels.
	24	+
	25	+Contention 2: Pros of Nuclear Energy
	26	+
	27	+The critics are wrong – nuclear energy is a safe way of reducing pollution and emissions
	28	+Whitman 16: Whitman, Christine Todd, Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator and Co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. "Why Nuclear Energy Can Help Fight Climate Change." Fortune. Fortune, 03 Mar. 2016. Web. 31 Aug. 2016. http://fortune.com/2016/03/04/climate-change-nuclear-energy/.
	29	+The critics are wrong. America is facing critical decisions as a country about how to combat climate change, and it’s imperative that those decisions are based on solid facts as we shape a clean energy future for the U.S. We are at a turning point, and if we are going to effectively fight climate change, we will need every carbon-free source of electricity we can bring to bear. Although many misconceptions persist about the safety record of nuclear power facilities, the truth of the matter is that 61 nuclear power facilities in the country have been safely operating for more than 50 years. U.S. nuclear power plants have been a model of U.S. industrial safety for more than 50 years, powering communities, keeping the air clean and fueling state and local economies. When you weigh the clean energy benefits against the dangers of air pollution from other forms of energy, it’s clear that nuclear energy is punching far above its weight class. Critics of nuclear energy irresponsibly incite fear based on false information, while fail to recognize the real toll of dirty air on human health and safety. Compare this figure — zero deaths in 50 years — with these figures: nationally, a modest reduction of 10 in current air pollution levels could prevent more than 13,000 deaths across the nation every year. While citizens have every right to ask questions about the safety of American power plants, when they explore the issue completely, they will see that U.S. nuclear power plants have been described by experts as some of the most secure non- military facilities in the world. U.S. nuclear plants, including Indian Point Energy Center outside New York City that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has targeted for shutdown, undergo routine inspections to identify enhancements to make them even safer. Under this rigorous scrutiny, the independent Nuclear Regulatory Commission has found Indian Point to be safe — and has given the facility its top safety rating five years in a row. For these and many more reasons, nuclear energy continues to be a major source of our country’s clean energy in the U.S. and around the world. Currently, there are roughly 65 nuclear facilities under construction in countries worldwide in an effort to reduce their carbon output. Within the United States, five facilities are under construction and 11 more are in the planning stages. Nuclear energy has been noted as a critical resource for meeting greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals both in the U.S. and internationally. In New York state, despite pushing for the closure of Indian Point, Gov. Cuomo’s administration has touted the importance of the state’s nuclear energy facilities in meeting its own climate change goals, with the chair of New York’s Public Service Commission going so far as to say losing upstate New York’s nuclear facilities would be “a truly unacceptable outcome.” It is my hope that as the nation moves toward a clean energy future, we will make important decisions based on the facts, not misinformation.
	30	+Nuclear energy solves proliferation and climate better than solar and wind
	31	+Dikshit 08 Sandeep. (Hindu Front Page National Newspaper) http://www.thehindu.com/2008/06/10/stories/2008061058260100.htm June 10
	32	+Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Monday India was left with no option but to tap all possible sources of energy, including nuclear, due to the steady increase in power consumption predicted for the coming years. While arguing for reliance on nuclear energy, Dr. Singh also called for greater controls on proliferation of nuclear energy and material. “Our energy needs will continue to rise in the foreseeable future. We do not have the luxury of limiting our options of energy sources. We therefore wish to create an international environment in which nuclear technology is used not for destructive purposes but for helping us meet our national development goals and our energy security,” he said inaugurating a conference on nuclear disarmament here. “The threat of climate change and global warming itself raises a range of security concerns, especially for us in the developing world,” the Prime Minister said without elaborating. According to a discourse on clean energy options, nuclear energy is cited as the best possible option. Energy from wind and solar means is seen as intermittent while nuclear energy copes with peak demand and can generate high volumes. Dr. Singh recalled Rajiv Gandhi’s plan for nuclear disarmament enunciated in 1988 to stress the civilian importance of nuclear energy. “Rajiv Gandhi believed that disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament, was essential to usher in a safe and non-violent world. He had a deep insight into the nature of evolution of technology, its potential for advancing human welfare as also for unleashing destruction. In this context, he was acutely aware of the power of the atom. He wished that it should never again be used for destructive purposes.” India, Dr. Singh noted, had witnessed rapid economic growth in the last few years and would record higher growth rates in the future.
	33	+
	34	+Nuclear energy supply is more stable and secure than oil
	35	+Cherp 12 Aleh; Professor of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University; 2012; “Chapter 5 – Energy and Security. In Global Energy Assessment – Toward a Sustainable Future”; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; pp. 325-384
	36	+Whereas the energy security concerns related to fossil fuels are primarily related to the supply and demand of resources, in case of nuclear power the primary concerns relate to nuclear energy infrastructure and technologies. Unlike fossil fuels, the fuel of nuclear energy uranium has a fairly high security of supply, offers protection from fuel price fluctuations, and is possible to stockpile. In comparison to oil and gas, uranium is abundant and more geographically distributed, with a third of proven reserves in OECD countries (NEA, 2008 ). Recent estimates indicate that even in the face of a large expansion of nuclear energy, proven uranium reserves would last at least a century (Macfarlane and Miller, 2007 ; NEA, 2008 ). 8 Furthermore, electricity produced from nuclear energy offers a greater protection from change in prices ; while doubling uranium prices leads to a 5–10 increase in generating cost for nuclear power, doubling the cost of coal and gas leads to a 35– 45 and 70–80 increase, respectively (IAEA, 2008 ). Uranium is also a relatively easy fuel to stockpile. The refueling of a nuclear power plant generally provides fuel for two to three years of operation (Nelson and Sprecher, 2008 ), and it is possible to store up to a 10-year supply of nuclear fuel (IAEA, 2007b ). In contrast, oil and gas emergency reserves, where they exist, are measured in days, weeks, or – in exceptional cases – months, not years.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-12-11 21:16:41.801

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Any

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Appleton East Moorhead Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT- Climate NC

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT