Changes for page Collegiate YUAN Aff
Summary
-
Objects (1 modified, 6 added, 0 removed)
Details
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 15:34:36. 3801 +2016-09-17 15:34:36.0
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,69 @@ 1 +————————————— first few sentences ————————————last few sentences 2 +Part 1 Invisibility 3 + 4 +We continue to energize and power our lives with nuclear power, while completely ignoring the harmful effects it has on poor urban communities—its been decades. People of Color are the disposable populations. 5 +Dixon 12, Bruce A. Dixon, Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/, January25, 2012 6 +Environmental racism occurs when hazardous industries and facilities are placed in and near poor, minority communities. 7 +———————— We know way too many are sick with cancer and we know why. But we can’t prove it absolutely, because nobody will test the local air or water or anything else for the radiation we know is there. 8 + 9 +Folks in urban communities are disposable to the US government. Marginalized voices cry for help only to be ignored. 10 +Dixon 12, Bruce A. Dixon, Environmental racism: Is nuclear plant causing cancer for poor black residents of Shell Bluff, Ga.?http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-town-environmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/, January25, 2012 11 +“We’ve had meetings and protests and lots of promises and more meetings,” Stephens said. —————— According to CNN, the NRC and Southern Company have stated that the plants in Burke County are safe. It is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission policy to allow plants to monitor themselves. Atlanta Progressive News reports that the energy generated by the new reactors will not benefit Georgia residents, because it will be sold to Florida. 12 + 13 +Our analysis does not end with urban communities. Nuclear waste disposal on indigenous lands continues perpetual acts of genocide on native people. 14 +Lynch 14, Michael J. Lynch (Professor of criminology and associated faculty member in the School of Global Sustainability at the University of South Florida). “Native American People, Environmental Health and Justice Issues.” Green Criminology. 10 March 2014. JDN. http://greencriminology.org/glossary/native-american-people-environmental-health-and-justice-issues/ 15 +Native Americans face a number of environmental hazards and health issues that have been imposed upon Native lands from the outside. In her examination of cancer among Native peoples in the US, Weaver (2010) noted that in general Native Americas have the poorest health among all US population groups. ——————Bullard et al. (2007) found that Native American were 1.8 times more likely to reside near a commercial toxic waste facility. Gowda and Easterling (2000) discovered that environmental injustice that Native lands were targeted for nuclear waste disposal sites. 16 + 17 +Contrary to the ideas people had before Fukushima, nuclear scientists now understand that one nuclear accident could create a domino effect, and that significant threats have gone unaddressed. 18 +Bedard 15, Paul Bedard (the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist). “Report: Nuke plants unprotected from EMP, terrorists, solar meltdown.” Washington Examiner. 14 September 2015. JDN. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-nuke-plants-unprotected-from-emp-terrorists-solar-meltdown/article/2571974 19 +And unless the industry and Washington move swiftly to install some protection, the chances are growing quickly that the nation could see a long blackout that could lead to riots and deaths. ———————Stuckenberg, an Air Force pilot who is the unpaid chairman of the independent think tank that produced the report, suggested a stopgap plan if the issue of EMP, terrorism and solar weather continues to be ignored: Store enough food and fuel to help people get through a prolonged blackout. 20 + 21 +Time to act now, subjugated bodies are the ones most at risk to these large scale accidents. It’s just waiting to happen. 22 +Carleton Environmental Studies, Nuclear Power and Environmental Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Risk, Vulnerability, and the Victim Experience Elicia Cousins, Claire Karban, Fay Li, and Marianna Zapanta Carleton College, Environmental Studies Comprehensive Project Northfield, MN, USA , 41-42 23 +From a Rawlsian perspective, there are injustices in the distribution of harms posed by nuclear reactor siting in the United States. We investigate this matter through both quantitative and qualitative analyses. ———————We argue that a Rawlsian approach to justice would lead to better recognition of existing problems of injustice, and guide policy to create appropriate solutions. 24 + 25 +Plan Text: The United States federal government should prohibit the production of nuclear power. We reserve the right to clarify. 26 +Ross 11, Timothy J. Ross, Avoiding Apocalypse: Congress Should Ban Nuclear Power, Dec. 14, 2011, http://www.law.buffalo.edu/content/dam/law/restricted-assets/pdf/environmental/papers/ross12.pdf, 1 27 +For almost as long as fission-produced nuclear power has existed as a viable energy source, there has been unending debate over whether or not, or to what extent, it should be used as a source of energy. Many see nuclear power as an efficient source of energy that is dependable, cost efficient and clean. —————————————————————————————If, at some point, a method is developed for producing fuels or processes that would eliminate instability and radioactive waste, then nuclear power might be acceptable. But so long as the only reliable method of producing nuclear power is through fission, which is unstable and produces radioactive waste, we should not place its convenience before the risks posed to health or environment. 28 +Part 2 Solvency 29 + 30 +Nuclear phase out solves immediate harms of nuclear power and enables a culture shift towards renewables. 31 +Klein 14, Naomi Klein ,This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, January 1st , 2014, print, 119-120 32 +As we have already seen, the latest research on renewable energy, most notably by Mark Jacobson’s team at Stanford, shows that a global transition to 100 percent renewable energy-“wind, water and solar”-is both technically and economically feasible “by as early as 2030.” ——————————————————— A 2012 report by the German National Center for Aerospace, Energy and Transport Research (DLR), for instance, demonstrated that 67 percent of the electricity in all of the EU could come from renewables by 2030, with that number reaching 96 percent by 2050.34 But, clearly, this will become a reality only if the right policies are in place. 33 + 34 +Alternatives to nuclear reactors are preferable. 35 +PSR, http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclear-power-factsheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ Dirty, Dangerous and Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power 36 +It is clear that alternatives to fossil fuels must be developed on a large scale. However, nuclear power is neither renewable nor clean and therefore not a wise option. —————————————————————— As we look for solutions to the dual threats of global warming and energy insecurity, we should focus our efforts on improving energy conservation and efficiency and expanding the use of safe, clean renewable forms of energy to build a new energy future for the nation 37 + 38 +Nuclear power prohibition recognizes value of the earth- only prohibition puts the necessary pressure on renewables. The plan is a pragmatic shift in the right direction and certainly a necessary one. 39 +Mez 16, Lutz Mez, Berlin Centre for Caspian Region Studies, Freie Universität Berlin “The experts on nuclear power and climate change” the Bulletin asked top energy and environmental experts to comment on the role they think nuclear energy should (or should not) play in efforts to implement the climate plans that countries around the world 18 FEBRUARY 2016 http://thebulletin.org/experts-nuclear-power-and-climate-change8996 40 +The electrical power production sector accounts for about 28 percent of global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and constitutes by far the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. That is why supposedly carbon dioxide-free nuclear power plants have frequently been praised as a panacea for addressing climate change. ——————————————As for the assertion that nuclear power is needed to promote climate protection, exactly the opposite would appear to be the case: Nuclear power plants must be closed down quickly to exert pressure on operators and the power plant industry to redouble efforts at innovation in the development of sustainable and socially compatible energy technologies and especially the use of smart energy services. 41 + 42 +Empirics prove. Countries that prohibit nuclear power shift to renewables. 43 +Shankleman 16, Jessica Shankleman, Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energyhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/germany-just-got-almost-all-of-its-power-from-renewable-energy, May 16, 2016 44 +Clean power supplied almost all of Germany’s power demand for the first time on Sunday, marking a milestone for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy to boost renewables while phasing out nuclear and fossil fuels. Solar and wind power peaked at 2 p.m. local time on Sunday, allowing renewables to supply 45.5 gigawatts as demand was 45.8 gigawatts, according to provisional data by Agora Energiewende, a research institute in Berlin. ————————————————————In the long-run, that may provide a case to build technologies that can manage this oversupply ~-~- for example more interconnectors or energy storage.” Renewables were only able to meet demand because of Germany’s strong export capability, the analyst said. Even when solar and wind peaked, conventional power plants were still supplying 7.7 gigawatts. 45 + 46 +Prohibiting nuclear power opens up the potential for a more decentralized grid – it also makes renewables more effective because they no longer get blocked by the nuclear industry. 47 +Lydersen ’15, Kari Lydersen writes for publications including The Washington Post, In These Times, Punk Planet and LiP magazine and is a youth journalism instructor based in Chicago. “Why the nuclear industry targets renewables instead of gas.” Midwest Energy News. 02/06/2015. http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/02/06/why-the-nuclear-industry-targets-renewables-instead-of-gas/ JJN 48 +Why attack renewables? The advent of horizontal hydraulic fracturing (fracking) about a decade ago provided an abundant fuel for natural gas plants which can quickly ratchet up and down to match demand. Cheap natural gas has driven the closing of scores of coal plants nationwide, and has had a major impact on the nuclear industry. So why isn’t the nuclear industry trying to curb the influence of natural gas? Energy experts point to straightforward political and business reasons and the complicated structure of the auctions where energy is sold. “The fact of the matter is natural gas and wind power both compete with Exelon’s nuclear generation,” said Environmental Law and Policy Center director Howard Learner. “Exelon can’t do anything about the market price for natural gas, so Exelon is training its fire on trying to stop and hold off wind power and solar energy development.” Some companies that own nuclear generation are also heavily invested in natural gas. Nuclear makes up 81 percent of Exelon’s generation and 54 percent of its capacity, while natural gas makes up 10 percent of its generation and 22 percent of its capacity. Wind and solar make up 1.9 and 0.3 percent of Exelon’s generation, respectively. “One thing to understand about the nuclear industry is that nuclear is also the coal and natural gas industry,” said Tim Judson, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which published the September 2014 report “Killing the Competition” about nuclear attacks on renewables. “Wind and efficiency are just boutique elements of their portfolios.” Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Thomas Kauffman said that the institute does not take a position on renewable energy subsidies and that it, “supports the Obama administration’s all-of-the-above energy strategy.” He declined to answer further questions and said that groups weighing in about recent developments have “a history of opposing nuclear power.” Colafella and Young of FirstEnergy said “we believe that a diverse mix of generating assets, including renewables, is needed to keep power flowing reliably and affordably.” “Low market prices – which are largely driven by low-cost natural gas, not renewables – are putting pressure on baseload generating plants that reliably deliver power to our customers around the clock,” they added. But, they reiterated they expect prices to rise, reviving the nuclear plants’ profits. Auction action Nuclear energy and wind power are both known as “price-takers” in the regional auctions where generators sell their energy. In these auctions, all sellers get the same price for energy sold at a given time. They are all paid the price of the most expensive bid that is accepted into the auction to meet demand. Nuclear plants and wind turbines both generate energy very cheaply, even though the overall costs of maintaining and running a nuclear plant are high. Before the fracking revolution, natural gas-fired power was typically much more expensive than other sources, so nuclear and coal generators would enjoy getting paid at the same rate as natural gas. These days natural gas-fired power is cheap, but wind is even cheaper. So a lot of wind on the market not only edges out other energy sources in the auction, it also can lower the price that all players are paid for their energy. The nuclear industry is striking back at wind in a specific type of market known as capacity, where energy providers are essentially paid for promising to be ready to provide energy at peak times. The PJM regional market has adopted changes that greatly increase the capacity payments that Exelon’s nuclear plants will receive, while making it extremely difficult for wind and solar to benefit from these payments. Exelon lobbied hard for the changes, which must still be approved by federal regulators. Paradigm shift Nuclear companies also appear to oppose the proliferation of distributed solar and other renewable generation for the same reasons that apparently motivate utility companies like We Energies in Wisconsin. Even if renewables make up only a small amount of generation, they represent a shift to a more decentralized energy system, less reliant on big baseload coal or nuclear power plants. While Exelon’s unregulated generation arm runs the nuclear plants in Illinois, Exelon is also a regulated utility in the process of acquiring Washington D.C.-area Pepco Holdings, which would make it the country’s largest utility. “It goes back to the concept of maintaining the old model of utilities as long as possible because you have control, as opposed to something out of their control like solar panels on rooftops,” said Dave Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service. Ongoing improvements to the grid, including new transmission and increased grid storage, also pose a challenge to centralized power. When it gets easier to move electricity around or to store it on the grid, energy generated by the sun and wind can be better used when and where it is needed. Scared by solar? Exelon runs a 10 MW solar farm on Chicago’s South Side. But critics say this does not make the company a friend of solar. In different jurisdictions Exelon has argued that people with solar panels should not be paid the retail rate for energy they send back to the grid. This same position has been taken by utilities around the country looking to curb distributed solar generation; in most cases it has met with strong opposition from both the public and regulators. Exelon’s stance on solar has stoked resistance to the company’s proposed merger with Pepco. Exelon spokesman Paul Adams said, “As technology continues to evolve, it is important that we maintain a reliable, secure and universally available electric grid and ensure that energy policies do not permit shifting the costs of maintaining the grid from some customers to others, creating energy ‘haves’ and ‘have nots.’” This is the same argument that We Energies has made in its highly controversial rate case in Wisconsin. Makhijani called Exelon’s point disingenuous, especially since the changes Exelon pushed in the capacity market will likely increase Illinois customers’ rates 11 percent or more. “It’s crocodile tears, the crocodile feeling very sorry for this deer it just caught,” Makhijani said. “Suddenly there’s this huge concern for the poor.” Louisiana-based Entergy has also promoted policies that pay low rates to customers with solar panels for the energy they send back to the grid. Entergy has nuclear plants that sell their power on the open market as well as regulated nuclear plants where the company is guaranteed to recoup its costs from ratepayers. Fighting over subsidies Nuclear proponents have long depicted tax breaks for wind and other renewables as unfair and a threat to reliability. In 2012 Exelon was expelled from the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its board, because of Exelon’s aggressive lobbying to end the federal Production Tax Credit which provided tax breaks crucial for wind development. “It was simply a fact that they no longer supported the aims” of promoting wind power, said AWEA spokesman Peter Kelley. “They were marshaling allies, teaming up with anti-wind organizations that have always been against wind energy.” Kelley said that cheap natural gas prices have had a much more profound impact than wind on the viability of nuclear plants. “You have to ignore the real reasons and exaggerate a few outlier moments when wind had any impact on their business at all,” to be convinced by Exelon’s arguments, Kelley said. “They’re ignoring the real reasons and blaming wind because they may think it’s politically expedient.” Adams said the Exelon “believes the transition to clean energy should be left to the free market, rather than through the government picking technology winners and losers through tax subsidies. We believe that the wind PTC has served its purpose and oppose its reinstatement.” Exelon had argued that the Production Tax Credit was causing a phenomenon known as “negative pricing” when power from its nuclear plants could not be delivered where it was wanted. In March 2014 AWEA released a study criticizing Exelon for what it called exaggerations and distortions on that issue. AWEA said negative pricing was rare, was caused more by congestion on power lines and other factors than by wind, and had nothing to do directly with the tax credit. Critics point out that the nuclear industry was built on government subsidies and continues to be heavily subsidized. A 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists describes a host of past and ongoing nuclear subsidies related to construction, operation, insurance, waste management and uranium mining. “It’s the throwing stones from glass houses problem,” said Makhijani. “They have more glass in their house than any other industry.” Clean power plans Nuclear plants could benefit substantially from the clean power plans that states are developing in keeping with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s rules on reducing carbon emissions from power plants. Much depends on how the final EPA rules play out and how states decide to achieve their required reductions. The Nuclear Energy Institute wrote a letter in December to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking the EPA to treat avoided carbon emissions from existing nuclear plants the same way that reduced emissions are treated. And it noted that the EPA’s calculations show that per ton of carbon avoided, nuclear plants are cheaper than creating new sources of renewable energy. “Renewable energy, nuclear energy and hydro receive vastly different treatment under the proposed EPA rule, but nuclear energy does not receive appropriate credit,” says the letter. Environmentalists say that rewarding existing nuclear plants for their zero-carbon power is not in the spirit of the EPA rules. “Exelon has talked about redefining clean energy to include nuclear plants that produce large amounts of highly radioactive waste,” said Learner. “That too-clever definition is simply not credible with the public. To redefine clean energy to include nuclear power really doesn’t pass the straight-face test.” 49 +Part 3 Framing 50 + 51 +The role of the judge is to vote for the debater who best methodologically resists oppression. Abstractions that don’t address the Aff’s fundamental thesis marginalize the discussion, destroying accessibility. 52 +Smith 13 Elijah Smith, A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate, Vbriefly, 2013. NS 53 +It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a 3problem with many “socially acceptable” choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached, who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by “hypothetically” defending my student being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, “just like we did that guy Troy Davis”. Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential. Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in 54 + 55 +Our discussions cannot be based on ideal theory—we must engage in policy discussions but policies mean nothing unless they change the values to the people they affect. 56 +Dr. Tommy Curry, The Cost of A Thing, VBI Topic Analysis, 2014. 57 +Despite the pronouncement of debate as an activity and intellectual exercise pointing to the real world consequences of dialogue, thinking, and (personal) politics when addressing issues of racism, sexism, economic disparity, global conflicts, and death, many of the discussions concerning these ongoing challenges to humanity are fixed to a paradigm which sees the adjudication of material disparities and sociological realities as the conquest of one ideal theory over the other. In “Ideal Theory as Ideology,” Charles Mills outlines the problem contemporary theoretical-performance styles in policy debate and value- weighing in Lincoln-Douglass are confronted with in their attempts to get at the concrete problems in our societies. At the outset, Mills concedes that “ideal theory applies to moral theory as a whole (at least to normative ethics as against metaethics); since ethics deals by definition with normative/prescriptive/evaluative issues, it is set against factual/descriptive issues.” 4 At the most general level, the conceptual chasm between what emerges as actual problems in the world (e.g.: racism, sexism, poverty, disease, etc.) and how we frame such problems theoretically—the assumptions and shared ideologies we depend upon for our problems to be heard and accepted as a worthy “problem” by an audience—it is the most obvious call for an anti-ethical paradigm, since such a paradigm insists on the actual as the basis of what can be considered normatively. Mills, however, describes this chasm as a problem of an ideal-as-descriptive model which argues that for any actual-empirical-observable social phenomenon (P), an ideal of (P) is necessarily a representation of that phenomenon. In the idealization of a social phenomenon (P), one¶ “necessarily has to abstract away from 58 + 59 +Put a way your improbably extinction scenarios. People of color face NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST and GENOCIDE through their jobs, housing, schools, families and land. Someone MUST STAND UP to this shit. It’s Try or keep dying. 60 +Omolade 84, Omolade a historian of black women for the past twenty years and an organizer in both the women’s and civil rights/black power movements 1984 61 +Barbara; Women of Color and the Nuclear Holocaust; WOMEN’S STUDIES QUARTERLY, Vaol. 12., No. 2, Teaching about Peace, War, and Women in the Military, Summer, p. 12; http://www.jstor.org/stable/4004305 City College Center for Worker Education in New York City 62 +In April, 1979, the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency released a report on the effects of nuclear war that concludes that, in a general nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union, 25 to 100 million people would be killed. This is approximately the same number of African people who died between 1492 and 1890 as a result of the African slave trade to the New World. The same federal report also comments on the destruction of urban housing that would cause massive shortages after a nuclear war, as well as on the crops that would be lost, causing massive food shortages. Of course, for people of color the world over, starvation is already a common problem, when, for example, a nation’s crops are grown for export rather than to feed its own people. And the housing of people of color throughout the world’s urban areas is already blighted and inhumane: families live in shacks, shanty towns, or on the streets; even in the urban areas of North America, the poor may live without heat or running water. For people of color, the world as we knew it ended centuries ago. Our world, with its own languages, customs and ways, ended. And we are only now beginning to see with increasing clarity that our task is to reclaim that world, struggle for it, and rebuild it in our own image. The “death culture” we live in has convinced many to be more concerned with death than with life, more willing to demonstrate for “survival at any cost” than to struggle for liberty and peace with dignity. Nuclear disarmament becomes a safe issue when it is not linked to the daily and historic issues of racism, to the ways in which people of color continue to be murdered. Acts of war, nuclear holocausts, and genocide have already been declared on our jobs, our housing, our schools, our families, and our lands. As women of color, we are warriors, not pacifists. We must fight as a people on all fronts, or we will continue to die as a people. We have fought in people’s wars in China, in Cuba, in Guinea-Bissau, and in such struggles as the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and in countless daily encounters with landlords, welfare departments, and schools. These struggles are not abstractions, but the only means by which we have gained the ability to eat and to provide for the future of our people. We wonder who will lead the battle for nuclear disarmament with the vigor and clarity that women of color have learned from participating in other struggles. Who will make the political links among racism, sexism, imperialism, cultural integrity, and nuclear arsenals and housing? Who will stand up? 63 +Pre-empts 64 +1) We need to embrace the state as a heuristic – even if it’s bad we need to learn to fight it. 65 +Zanotti 14, Dr. Laura Zanotti is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech. Her research and teaching include critical political theory as well as international organizations, UN peacekeeping, democratization and the role of NGOs in post-conflict governance.“Governmentality, Ontology, Methodology: Re-thinking Political Agency in the Global World” – Alternatives: Global, Local, Political – vol 38(4):p. 288-304,. A little unclear if this is late 2013 or early 2014 – The Stated “Version of Record” is Feb 20, 2014, but was originally published online on December 30th, 2013. Obtained via Sage Database. 66 +By questioning substantialist representations of power and subjects, inquiries on the possibilities of political agency are reframed in a way that focuses on power and subjects’ relational character and the contingent processes of their (trans)formation in the context of agonic relations. Options for resistance to governmental scripts are not limited to ‘‘rejection,’’ ‘‘revolution,’’ or ‘‘dispossession’’ to regain a pristine ‘‘freedom from all constraints’’ or an immanent ideal social order. It is found instead in multifarious and contingent struggles that are constituted within the scripts of governmental rationalities and at the same time exceed and transform them. This approach questions oversimplifications of the complexities of liberal political rationalities and of their interactions with non-liberal political players and nurtures a radical skepticism about identifying universally good or bad actors or abstract solutions to political problems. International power interacts in complex ways with diverse political spaces and within these spaces it is appropriated, hybridized, redescribed, hijacked, and tinkered with. Governmentality as a heuristic focuses on performing complex diagnostics of events. It invites historically situated explorations and careful differentiations rather than overarching demonizations of ‘‘power,’’ romanticizations of the ‘‘rebel’’ or the ‘‘the local.’’ More broadly, theoretical formulations that conceive the subject in non-substantialist terms and focus on processes of subjectification, on the ambiguity of power discourses, and on hybridization as the terrain for political transformation, open ways for reconsidering political agency beyond the dichotomy of oppression/rebellion. These alternative formulations also foster an ethics of political engagement, to be continuously taken up through plural and uncertain practices, that demand continuous attention to ‘‘what happens’’ instead of fixations on ‘‘what ought to be.’’83 Such ethics of engagement would not await the revolution to come or hope for a pristine ‘‘freedom’’ to be regained. Instead, it would constantly attempt to twist the working of power by playing with whatever cards are available and would require intense processes of reflexivity on the consequences of political choices. To conclude with a famous phrase by Michel Foucault ‘‘my point is not that everything is bad, but that everything is dangerous, which is not exactly the same as bad. If everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do. So my position leads not to apathy but to hyper- and pessimistic activism.’’84 67 +2) In addition to the Shankleman evidence, other renewables and compressed wind storage and advanced energy storage solves intermittency 68 +Arjun Makhijani 4, Ph.D. “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy” Institute for Energy and Environmental Research November 5, 2010 69 +The main problem with wind and solar energy is intermittency. This can be re- duced by integrating wind and solar energy together into the grid – for instance, wind energy is often more plentiful at night. Geographic diversity also reduces the intermittency of each source and for both combined. Integration into the grid of these two sources up to about 15 percent of total generation (not far short of the contribution of nuclear electricity today) can be done without serious cost or technical dif culty with available technology, provided appropriate optimization steps are taken. Solar and wind should also be combined with hydropower – with the latter being used when the wind generation is low or zero. This is already being done in the Northwest. Con icts with water releases for sh management can be addressed by combining these three sources with natural gas standby. The high cost of natural gas makes it economical to use combined cycle power plants as standby capacity and spinning reserve for wind rather than for intermediate or baseload generation. In other words, given the high price of natural gas, these plants could be economically idled for some of the time and be available as a complement to wind power. Compressed air can also be used for energy storage in combination with these sources. No new technologies are required for any of these generation or storage methods. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 15:34:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Muteramyi Nintunze - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +NO - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Collegiate YUAN Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +King Nuca 1AC v10 Normal - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill Fall Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,10 @@ 1 +A2 Native CP 2 +The 1AC is not the end all be all. Native Nation and US Policy alliance is key to pass a strong climate bill with real solutions. This is a shift in the right direction and certainly a necessary one. Perm solves. 3 +Tom B. K. Goldtooth 10 (Mato Awanyankapi) “The State of Indigenous America Series: Earth Mother, Piñons, and Apple Pie” Wicazo Sa Review. Volume 25. Number 2. Fall 2010 pp. 11-28 University of Minnesota Press DOI: 10.1353/wic.2010.0006 muse.jhu.edu/article/400482 4 +Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. From min- ing to nuclear waste, the nuclear cycle is far from carbon neutral and disproportionately impacts indigenous communities. Nuclear power is also economically unfeasible, and will not address climate change at the speed required to mitigate the devastation ahead. Unchecked expansion of biofuels (agrofuels) production and agricultural monocrops threaten biodiversity and food security and contribute to climate change and the destruction of rainforests, impact- ing indigenous communities worldwide. In this country, the govern- ment is planning to provide incentives for the construction of biomass waste-to-energy burners that will depend on agrofuels and potentially genetically modified trees and plants as fuels, replacing precious lands needed for food crop production. Here in the United States, our Native Nations, as sovereigns, working with our Native grassroots members have work in front of us. We must look toward the next steps at home, within our Native Nations and within the U.S. Senate. Copenhagen is over, yet our work is far from finished. We need to get more informed on climate policy and its link to energy, green jobs, and water and food policy. We need your support, as Native academia, to encourage the Senate to pass a strong climate bill—one with real solutions, not false solutions. 5 + 6 + 7 +A2 Thorium PIC 8 +You misunderstand thorium reactors, they can’t be fissile on their own, they still require uranium and plutonium to work 9 +World Nuclear Association 15 “Thorium” http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx 10 +Thorium (Th-232) is not itself fissile and so is not directly usable in a thermal neutron reactor. However, it is ‘fertile’ and upon absorbing a neutron will transmute to uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is an excellent fissile fuel materialb. In this regard it is similar to uranium-238 (which transmutes to plutonium-239). All thorium fuel concepts therefore require that Th-232 is first irradiated in a reactor to provide the necessary neutron dosing to produce protactinium-233. The Pa-233 that is produced can either be chemically separated from the parent thorium fuel and the decay product U-233 then recycled into new fuel, or the U-233 may be usable ‘in-situ’ in the same fuel form, especially in molten salt reactors (MSRs).Thorium fuels therefore need a fissile material as a ‘driver’ so that a chain reaction (and thus supply of surplus neutrons) can be maintained. The only fissile driver options are U-233, U-235 or Pu-239. (None of these is easy to supply) - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 21:47:53.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Monica Amestoy - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sunset AB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Collegiate YUAN Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +King Nuca 1AC v10 Normal - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill Classic
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,81 @@ 1 +For years, Israel has hid the Dimona nuclear plant from the world. It’s production program is grounded in hypocrisy, secrecy and imperialism. America has looked away 2 +Mowla 08, Khondakar Golam Mowla, The Judgment Against Imperialism, Fascism and Racism Against Caliphate and Islam, Volume 1, m https://books.google.com/books?id=IX02RSLJrcoCandpg=PA146andlpg=PA146anddq=Dimona+Nuclear+reactor+imperialismandsource=blandots=thzL3_6BJUandsig=FX8aIp42UHlew7NTgCAJ4QpaxuQandhl=enandsa=Xandved=0ahUKEwii1f_glJXPAhUCDz4KHaq5CGYQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepageandqandf=false 2008, page 146-147 3 +Both Reuters via Yahoonews.com and the New York Times reported Friday that Israel 4 +AND 5 +whole world, which is a kind of implicit terror threat. 6 + 7 + 8 + Dimona is the next Chernobyl→there are over a thousand defects at the decades old reactor. 9 +Adl 16, Carol Adl, Study Reveals That Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Reactor Has 1,537 Defectshttp://yournewswire.com/study-reveals-that-israels-dimona-nuclear-reactor-has-1537-defects/, April 29, 2016 10 +Scientists have uncovered 1,537 defects at the aluminum core in Israel’s Dimona nuclear 11 +AND 12 +require its sites to undergo regular inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. 13 + 14 +Waste is PURPOSEFULLY DUMPED by ISRAELI TRUCKS IN BROWN COMMUNITIES OF COLOR. CANCER RATES, DEFORMITIES, AND OTHER FORMS OF VIOLENCE ARE SLOWLY KILLING THEM OFF. They constantly plea for help only to be ignored as they are slowly, painfully dying. 15 +Arqoub 15, Anas Abu Arqoubm https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/6/30/is-waste-from-israels-nuclear-programme-poisoning-palestinians, The New Arab, 30 June, 2015 16 +Israel’s nuclear programme has operated in the shadows with little international oversight. Now it 17 +AND 18 +prevents international and UN experts in the field from entering the Palestinian territories. 19 + 20 +Blacks and Brown bodies in Dimona are relegated to second-class citizens—literally. Poverty, human right abuses and more types of violence pervade their lives. 21 +Abdul Mu’min 14, Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min, BLACKS USED AS HUMAN SHIELDS IN ISRAEL, AUGUST 3, 2014, NOI Research Group 22 +Dimona itself was conceived in 1953, and settled in 1955, mostly by new 23 +AND 24 +sports figures. Sounds like the same roles that Blacks play in America. 25 + 26 +These bodies, Falashas, are working and maintaining the facility. 27 +Abdul Mu’min 14, Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min, BLACKS USED AS HUMAN SHIELDS IN ISRAEL, AUGUST 3, 2014, NOI Research Group 28 +Recently, just before Israel stepped up its attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the 29 +AND 30 +back on line for what they claim are peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 31 + 32 +Workers at the Dimona reactor are exposed to these hazards and radioactive substances. 33 +Cohen 11, Gili Cohen Workers at Israel's Dimona Nuclear Reactor Say Leaks at Plant Gave Them Cancer read more: http://www.haaretz.com/workers-at-israel-s-dimona-nuclear-reactor-say-leaks-at-plant-gave-them-cancer-1.401478http://www.haaretz.com/workers-at-israel-s-dimona-nuclear-reactor-say-leaks-at-plant-gave-them-cancer-1.401478, 12/15/11 34 +Workers at the Dimona nuclear reactor say they have been sickened during their work at 35 +AND 36 +the Dimona facility was built, and I assume there still are." 37 + 38 +Ethiopian and American Black Hebrews near the area and working at facility face wipe out. Israeli War Hawks are attempting to bait Iran to blow up the reactors and kill Black Americans to get authorization from America to attack Iran. You can’t make this up. 39 +Abdul Mu’min 14, Dr. Ridgely Abdul Mu’min, BLACKS USED AS HUMAN SHIELDS IN ISRAEL, AUGUST 3, 2014, NOI Research Group 40 +Now the war hawks in Israel are threatening to launch an airstrike against those same 41 +AND 42 +by our open enemies to be human shields for their various nefarious exploits. 43 + 44 +Attempts already made. Hamas has continued to attempt to blow up reactor. 45 +Fredericks 14, Israel bombarded by Hamas as rockets target nuclear reactor, Bob Fredericks, July 10, 2014 46 +Hamas terrorists launched three powerful rockets at an Israeli nuclear power plant on Wednesday — 47 +AND 48 +two missed their targets and detonated on the ground without causing any injuries. 49 + 50 +Plan Text: The State of Israel should prohibit the production of nuclear power by immediately decommissioning Negev Nuclear Research Center, also known as the Dimona power plant. 51 +Times of Israel, Times of Israel, Shut Dimona nuclear reactor, urges founding scientist Aging facility ‘may be world’s oldest reactor,’ says Uzi Even, after 1,537 defects found at aluminum core; says Israel couldn’t build new one without international help http://www.timesofisrael.com/writers/times-of-israel-staff/, April 26, 2016 52 +A scientist who was among the founders of the Dimona nuclear reactor on Tuesday said 53 +AND 54 +not operated as often as it used to be, the report said. 55 + 56 + 57 +Closure helps demilitarizes Israel’s military. Capability for weapons based plutonium and tritium would end. Helps reduces nuclear tension in Middle East region. 58 +Ramberg 08, Bennett Ramberg , Should Israel Close Dimona? The Radiological Consequences of a Military Strike on Israel’s Plutonium-Production Reactor , Arms Control Association ,https://www.armscontrol.org, September 3, 2008 59 +Given mounting regional tensions and the capacity of Israel's adversaries to strike Dimona, does 60 +AND 61 +keeping the facility in cold standby in the event circumstances required a restart. 62 + 63 +We address the immediate effects of the DImona plant through prohibition and paradigm shift from the status quote. If you think the Aff is a good idea vote aff. 64 + 65 +We must confront the taboo. Lack of acknowledgment itself is the cultural problem. We engage POLICY MAKING AT A SOCIAL LEVEL. PUBLIC ENFORCES THAT POLICY WITH THE SILENCE. We must confront our own privileges with nuclear power and refuse to be complilcit in the system. We are a policy that engages discourse and lack of awareness. 66 +Cohen 13, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, Avner Cohen, 2013, (XXVIII- XXIX) 67 +My reference to Israel's nuclear taboo throughout this book is different from that used by 68 +AND 69 +given them an excuse not to feel accountable for their nation's nuclear status. 70 + 71 +Voting affirmative endorses a social critique of nuclear power. Only instrumental reform to the energy system can effectively spill over to broader systemic problems without being coopted. 72 + 73 + Martin et. Al, 84(The main authors are Jill Bowling, Brian Martin, Val Plumwood and Ian Watson, with important contributions from Ray Kent, Basil Schur and Rosemary Walters. Strategy against nuclear power http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/86sa.html) 74 +What is a strategy anyway? A strategy links the analysis of an issue with goals and objectives. Having chosen a strategy, it is implemented through appropriate actions. An action is a 'once-off' event such as a rally, march, blockade or lobbying a particular politician. A method, such as lobbying in general, refers to all actions of a certain type. Actions are coordinated together into a campaign. The campaign gives direction to a series of events. Given our analysis in section 1 of the structural forces responsible for the nuclear fuel cycle, the goal of stopping uranium mining must be closely linked to the goal of basic structural change in the state, capitalism, patriarchy and the division of labour. As such it must involve challenges to the structures which underlie nuclear concerns. The broader objectives for an anti-nuclear movement must include encouraging mass participation in decision making rather than elite control, decentralising the distribution of political power into smaller, local groups, and bringing about self-reliance based on environmentally sound technologies. These objectives involve fundamental changes to the way our society is organised at present. In effect, an anti-nuclear strategy must involve both actions aimed at stopping nuclear power and activities which challenge existing structures and help construct viable alternatives. In this context, the success or failure of an individual campaign must be viewed from the perspective of working towards these overall goals and objectives. The actions used by the anti-uranium movement fall into two main categories. Firstly there are actions which aim at convincing or influencing elites, such as lobbying or writing letters to politicians. Secondly are the actions such as rallies and blockades which usually involve more participation from the community. While such actions may be aimed at elites they are also important in educating or giving support to those who are involved. Lobbying. Lobbying is a direct attempt to convince or pressure elite decision-makers. It does nothing to challenge the state, patriarchy or other structures underlying nuclear power, but rather hopes to oppose nuclear power by 'working through the proper channels'. This leaves elite structures unchallenged and intact. Indeed lobbying is a form of political action most suited to powerful interest groups such as corporations and professional bodies. The state is the forum of the powerful, so for these kinds of groups lobbying often is an effective strategy. For small activist groups lobbying is useful only if it appears to be backed up by politically visible mass concern or mass action. In 1983, after the election of a Labor Government, the anti-uranium movement turned strongly to lobbying in an attempt to induce the Labor Caucus to implement the Labor Party platform. This effort was unsuccessful. Participating in environmental inquiries. In making submissions to the Ranger Inquiry, environmental groups made a concerted attempt to ensure that the issue of the Ranger mine was not divorced from the general issue of uranium mining and nuclear power, and that ultimate decisions were determined by the public rather than 'experts'. The Inquiry did in fact analyse the overall dangers of the nuclear industry and concluded that no decision on uranium mining should occur without public debate. These results helped fuel the ensuing widespread public debate on uranium mining in Australia. One reason for involvement in environmental inquiries is to challenge the role of experts in service to vested interests. The Ranger Inquiry commented on the bias of distinguished scientists who testified in favour of uranium mining. The Ranger Inquiry was unusual in making full use of broad terms of reference. Many environmental inquiries have institutional constraints which can make it questionable whether activists should spend much energy in that area. Many government inquiries with severely limited terms of reference offer few opportunities for activists to intervene effectively. There is not only the danger of being 'co-opted' if activists take part, but also the prospect that any structural challenges may be deflected by superficial concessions. Often such inquiries are not genuine and are only set up as window-dressing. For example, the Australian Science and Technology Council inquiry set up in November 1983 to investigate Australia's role in the nuclear fuel cycle has terms of reference which assume the continuation of uranium mining. Working through the trade union movement. In 1976 anti-uranium groups began a major effort to persuade trade unions and their Congress delegates to adopt and support anti-uranium policies. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Congress adopted an anti-uranium policy in mid-1977. Following the re-election of the Liberal-National Government in December 1977, anti-uranium groups focussed on persuading unions to implement the ACTU policy. However, the members of a number of unions - including some with anti-uranium policies - continued to work in the uranium industry. Some union leaders chose not to attempt to convince members to avoid or leave the industry, while other leaders supportive of the policies could not persuade members working in the industry or transporting its products. The efforts within the trade union movement have been strong to the extent that they have mobilised rank-and-file action. One of the most valiant efforts to stop uranium mining was by the Waterside Workers Federation - supported by the Seamen's Union and the Transport Workers Union - in refusing to load yellowcake for export from Darwin in late 1981. This direct action - an obvious challenge to the power of corporations and the state - was only called off when deregistration threats from the Liberal-National Government induced the ACTU to back down. Efforts through the trade unions have been least effective when they have depended on action only by union elites. An ACTU policy against uranium mining is not enough: it does not in itself challenge any of the driving forces behind nuclear power. When Bob Hawke was President of the ACTU, the executive showed itself disinclined to mount even a strong publicity campaign against the uranium mining industry. Working through the parliamentary system. Since 1976 a major focus of the anti-nuclear power movement has been the ALP. A massive campaign of publicising and discussing the issue at the party branch level resulted in an anti-uranium platform being adopted in mid-1977. Since that time there has been strong anti-uranium feeling within the party. In late 1977 the focus of the anti-uranium movement became the federal election campaign. During this campaign the anti-uranium movement used the resources of local anti-uranium groups to help the ALP in marginal House of Representatives electorates and for the Australian Democrats in the Senate. Many anti-uranium activists pinned their hopes on a Labor victory. But the Liberal-National coalition won the election, and the anti-uranium campaign appeared to have little impact in marginal electorates. After this defeat, many activists left the movement while a number of local groups effectively ceased to exist. The danger in relying too much on anti-uranium action by a Labor Government was demonstrated in mid-1982 when the Labor anti-uranium platform was watered down on the initiative of party power brokers in spite of continuing support for the platform at the party branch level. The danger was further demonstrated in November 1983 when Labor Caucus, at the initiative of Cabinet, gave the go-ahead for Roxby Downs, potentially the largest uranium mine in the world. In each case the impetus to maintain the anti-uranium policy came from the grassroots of the party, while it was labour elites who pushed pro-mining stances. Any Australian government, whether Labor or not, is strongly tied to the established state apparatus and to the support of capitalism. It is futile to expect the government on its own - whatever its platform may be - to readily oppose aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. This will occur only when there is strong and continual pressure from the grassroots of the party and from the community at large. Grassroots mobilisation. The anti-uranium movement has used a wide variety of methods to inform and involve the community. Commonly used methods include leaflet distribution, articles, talks, discussions, films, petitions, rallies, marches, vigils and street theatre. Major anti-uranium rallies and marches were held each year in most large cities, especially in the peak years of the uranium debate, 1976-1979 and again since 1983. A typical grassroots activity has been the creation of nuclear-free zones, which is mainly a symbolic action which helps raise awareness and encourage local groups to openly oppose nuclear power. This activity has worked closely with the dissemination of information through the media, local groups, the alternative press and schools. In 1983 the people in the Bega Valley Shire voted to declare their area a nuclear-free zone. To counter this popular sentiment, the Shire Council called in nuclear experts in order to argue the case against the nuclear-free zone. In this case the nuclear-free zone campaign provided a channel for exposing and challenging the role of nuclear expertise and elites in promoting nuclear power. Civil disobedience has also been used by the anti-nuclear movement. In the late 1970s, nonviolent direct action was used on several occasions at ports where uranium was being loaded for export. At the Roxby Downs blockade in August 1983, several hundred people gathered to express their opposition and hinder mining operations. Two distinctive features of this protest were the use of nonviolent action and the way in which participants formed themselves into affinity groups. These are a form of political organising which is consciously anti-elitist and aims to democratise all group interactions. Education, rallies, marches, petitions and civil disobedience sometimes do little to challenge the structures underlying nuclear power. For example, the rally outside Parliament House in October 1983 was primarily aimed at putting pressure on the Labor Party at a time when it was considering its uranium policy. Similarly, the 'tent embassy' located on Parliament House lawns aimed to prick the conscience of the ALP. One of the aims of the Roxby Downs blockade was to mobilise pressure to influence the ALP. On the other hand, grassroots mobilisation often provides a potent challenge to nuclear power and the forces behind it. All the lasting successes of Australian anti-uranium campaigns have depended ultimately on grassroots mobilisation, which provides a reservoir of commitment and concern which elite-oriented activities do not. In 1975, the virtue of mining uranium was largely unquestioned among the general public and the labour movement. It was simply unthinkable that a mineral which could be profitably sold would be left in the ground. Yet by 1977 the anti-uranium view had become widely understood and strongly supported. This change in opinion happened largely through the educational and organising efforts of the local anti-uranium groups and of anti-uranium activists within organisations such as trade unions, schools and churches. The resurgence of anti-uranium activity in 1983 owed much to the framework established in the late 1970s. The anti-uranium platform adopted by the ALP in 1977 was the result of organising and education at the party branch level. ALP stands and action against uranium mining have come consistently from the party grassroots, and this in turn has depended on anti-uranium sentiment in the general community. Support for uranium mining within the ALP has always been strongest on the part of party elites. The anti-uranium stands and actions by Australian trade unions have been stronger than in any other country in the world. Building on a tradition of trade union action on social issues, this has come about from persistent grassroots education and organising at the shop floor level. It has been the rank-and-file unionists who have taken the strongest anti-uranium stands, and the trade union elites who have backed away from opposition. When in late 1981 the Seamen's Union refused to load yellowcake in Darwin, it was the rank-and-file workers who took a stand and made the sacrifices. Does grassroots mobilisation then provide the most fruitful avenue for challenging the structures behind nuclear power? Yes, but the choice of methods is not straightforward or automatic. The problem with many grassroots methods used by the anti-uranium movement is that they have not been systematically organised and focussed as part of an overall long-term strategy. Instead, individual groups - and indeed the national movement - has often just looked ahead to the next rally, the next signature drive, or the next ALP Conference. While this approach does have some merit for example in saving an area from irreversible environmental destruction, it is inadequate as an approach to stopping mining or transforming the structures underlying nuclear power. For example the closing of Roxby mine would prevent the destruction of the surrounding ecosystem including mound springs inhabited by forms of aquatic life found nowhere else in the world. If the environment is altered, these unique creatures will be gone forever. However, the closing of Roxby in isolation would do nothing to prevent mining companies from setting up or increasing production in other places. If, on the other hand, existing power structures were challenged, and the closing of Roxby were carried out in conjunction with the closing of all uranium mines and a disbanding of uranium interests, then the safety of these ecosystems would be assured. What needs to be done is to focus on vulnerable points within the structures promoting nuclear power, and to devote efforts in these areas. What are the vulnerable points, then? Before looking at specific vulnerable points, let's examine the nuclear power issue as a whole. Nuclear power is a large-scale vulnerable point in the structures of the state, capitalism and so forth. In promoting nuclear power, and thereby entrenching centralised political and economic power, other consequences result which mobilise people in opposition: environmental effects (especially radioactive waste), the connection with nuclear weapons, threats to Aboriginal land rights, threats to civil liberties, and many others. In organising to oppose these specific threats, people at the same time can challenge the driving forces behind nuclear power. Here are a few of the specific vulnerable points which have been addressed by the anti-uranium movement. Threats to Aborigines. Nuclear power is alleged to be beneficial, but uranium mining is a severe cultural threat to Aborigines, who are already a strongly oppressed group in Australia. The anti-uranium movement and the Aboriginal land rights movements have been strengthened by joint actions, such as speaking tours. Centralised decision-making. Nuclear power has widespread social effects, but promoters of nuclear power claim the decisions must be taken by political and scientific elites. This runs counter to the rhetoric of Western democracies where ordinary people are meant to have a say in political decision-making. By moving in on this embarrassing contradiction, protests which demand a role for the public in decision-making about energy also challenge political elites and the political use of expertise. Capitalism and workers. Nuclear power is alleged to be good for the economy and for workers, but in practice massive state subsidies to the industry are the rule, and few jobs are produced for the capital invested. In challenging nuclear power as an inappropriate direction for economic investment, a challenge is made to the setting of economic priorities by corporations and the state. Capitalism also directs investments only into profitable areas, irrespective of their social benefits. If activists can undermine the profitability of marginal enterprises by delaying tactics or by jeopardising state subsidies, then capitalist investment can be shunted away from socially destructive areas. For example, direct actions against Roxby Downs could in the long run undermine its profitability and cause its closure. Grassroots mobilisation is usually the most effective way to intervene at vulnerable points such as these. A suitable combination of interventions then forms the basis for a strategy against uranium mining. But how can uranium mining actually be stopped? This is a good question. Grassroots mobilisation does not by itself stop uranium mining. The mobilisation must connect with major forces in society. There are several ways this can occur. Uranium mining could be stopped: (1) by direct decision of the government; (2) by the unions acting directly through strikes or bans to prevent uranium mining, export, or construction of nuclear plants; (3) through cost escalations, for example resulting from requirements to ensure safety or environmental protection, (4) by a referendum whose results were adhered to; (5) by legal action on the part of aborigines or anti-uranium forces; (6) by direct action to physically stop mining from proceeding. A critical element necessary to the success of any of these methods is the mobilisation of a large section of the public against uranium mining. Thus for example government action to stop mining would be likely to take place only if there were mass mobilisation on the issue. Similarly 'direct action' could only succeed if popular support were so great that the government refused to use sufficient force to physically overcome the resisters. To give an idea of how grassroots methods could be coordinated into a strategy to stop uranium mining, consider a hypothetical example. Suppose an analysis of the current political situation suggested that direct action by workers and unions gave the most immediate promise for directly stopping uranium mining, while government decision and cost escalations were also likely avenues for stopping mining. A grassroots strategy might include the following: Systematic community organising and education, to provide a basis in popular sympathy and support for direct action by workers. Points to be emphasised would include the right of workers to take direct action on conscience issues as well as work-related issues, and the importance of questioning decisions made solely on the basis of corporate profitability or state encouragement of large-scale economic investment. Development of alternative plans for investment and jobs based on input from workers and communities, and widespread dissemination of the ideas and rationale for the alternative plans. A series of rallies, marches, vigils and civil disobedience, aimed at both mobilising people and illustrating the strength of anti-uranium feeling. These actions would be coordinated towards major points for possible worker intervention, such as trade union conferences or the start of work for new mines. Through consultation with unions, workers and working-class families, the establishment of support groups and funds for workers and unions penalised for direct action against uranium mining. Plans to make parallel challenges to those by workers, such as simultaneous defiance of the Atomic Energy Act by trade unionists and community activists. Black bans of corporations or state instrumentalities by unionists could be coordinated with boycotts organised by community groups. With such a strategy, it is likely that the workers taking action would come under strong attacks from both corporations and the government. Preparation to oppose such attacks would depend on community mobilisation to demonstrate support for the workers in the media, in the streets, through informal communication channels and to the workers themselves. If direct action by workers began to be sustained through community support, it is quite possible that other channels for stopping uranium mining could come into play: the government - especially a Labor government - might back away from confrontation with unions supported by the community, or corporations might decide investment in this controversial area was too risky. Plans would be required to continue the campaign towards these or other avenues for stopping uranium mining. How does grassroots mobilisation provide a challenge to the structures underlying nuclear power? It challenges the division of labour and the role of elites, especially the role of political elites which have a corner on the exercise of social responsibility, by mobilising in a widespread way the social concern of ordinary people and by demonstrating the direct exercise of this concern for example by groups in the workplace. Grassroots mobilisation challenges the division of labour and the role of scientific elites through a challenge to the prestige and credibility of scientists who advocate nuclear power. As the nuclear power issue has been widely debated, it has become obvious to many people that the expertise of pro-nuclear scientists and engineers is tied to vested interests. The nuclear debate has greatly weakened the belief that 'the experts know best'. Grassroots mobilisation challenges the masculine rationality of dominant structures through calling contemporary values and attitudes to nature and to the future into question. Within the antinuclear movement, patriarchy has been challenged as at least some groups have addressed domination by men and developed egalitarian modes of interaction and decision-making. This sometimes has been fostered by nonviolent action training used to prepare for civil disobedience actions. The anti-nuclear movement has inevitably involved questioning the growth of energy use and development of programmes for a 'soft energy future' involving energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, and redesign of communities to reduce energy requirements. The challenge to unending energy growth is a direct challenge to the state and capitalism, whose power is tied to traditional economic expansion. Mass mobilisation against uranium also challenges capitalism by bringing under scrutiny the rationale of pursuing profitability at the expense of social responsibility and by direct economic blows to corporate profitability. More fundamentally, nuclear power represents a potential new stage in the entrenchment of centralised political and economic control and of specialist knowledge in the service of elites. By challenging the political and economic rationale for nuclear power, and by making demands for local control over energy decision-making, a direct challenge is made to the power of the state and corporations. It is important to realise that none of these challenges on their own are likely to bring down these structures however much they may weaken them. Sufficiently many blows however over a sustained period could do so. Thus campaigns on the nuclear issue could begin or be part of a process of sustained challenge which could weaken them irreversibly. A grassroots strategy against nuclear power and uranium mining can be seen as a 'non-reformist reform': namely, it can achieve effective change within the system in a way which weakens rather than strengthens dominant structures, or which helps to prevent the entrenchment of new, more powerful structures. Such a strategy does not simply attempt to bypass the 'macro' level of existing structures in the way that some focusses on alternatives do, such as promoting changes in lifestyles only at the level of the individual. Rather such a strategy aims at interactions with existing structures in a way which goes beyond them. 75 + 76 + 77 +Traditional debate embodies the systems of whiteness. Small or not possible impacts are useless. The judge should hold debaters accountable for their speech act. Don’t try to escape hard discussions. 78 +Wise, anti-racist activist and speaker, 2008.(Tim., B.A. from Tulane University in political science.,White Like Me: Reflections on Race From a Privileged Son., pg 32-36). Ef 79 +The reason I call this process a white one is because whites(and especially 80 +AND 81 +actions, their money,their judging criteria, and even their ballots. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-18 16:20:45.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Aimun Khan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake RC - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Collegiate YUAN Aff - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1AC Dimona - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +1 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-17 21:47:52.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Monica Amestoy - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Sunset AB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +3 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@ 1 +1AC King Nuca 2 +1NC Thorium Natives Warming Gas Case - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill Classic
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-18 16:20:40.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Aimun Khan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake RC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +1AC Dimona 2 +1NC 3 +T 4 +Agamben - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +2016-09-18 16:20:46.766 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Aimun Khan - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Strake RC - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +5 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,4 @@ 1 +1AC Dimona 2 +1NC 3 +T 4 +Agamben - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@ 1 +Greenhill