| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,8 @@ |
|
1 |
+Counterplan Text: The United States federal government ought not involve themselves in the production of nuclear power. To clarify, they will neither prohibit the private production of nuclear power nor directly fund, subsidize, or in any other way use nuclear power themselves. |
|
2 |
+Solves the aff—Nuclear Power is prohibitively expensive but only exists because of government subsidies and publicly owned power plants – 2 warrants |
|
3 |
+First, Investors look for short-term gains, but nuke power is a long-term capital-intensive investment, so the free market would avoid it. |
|
4 |
+Pedraza 12: Jorge Morales Pedraza, consultant on international affairs, ambassador to the IAEA for 26 yrs, degree in math and economy sciences, former professor, Energy Science, Engineering and Technology : Nuclear Power: Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation : Current and Future Role in the World Electricity Generation, New York. Bob |
|
5 |
+Many countries had … of any country. |
|
6 |
+Second, nuclear power isn’t competitive – subsidizing and supporting it just wastes money, and the government has to insure and clean up for accidents. |
|
7 |
+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/. |
|
8 |
+In the United … an attractive investment. |