Changes for page Davis David Yu Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:34

From version < 8.1 >
edited by Janine Widman
on 2016/10/14 23:48
To version < 14.1 >
edited by Janine Widman
on 2016/10/15 13:26
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-10-14 19:48:45.566
1 +2016-10-14 19:48:45.0
Caselist.CitesClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,15 @@
1 +For the decades that developing countries have used nuclear power it has always been justified. In 2011 Fukushima devastated the global nuclear market creating an opportunity for Africa to close its energy gap. Nuclear Power would enable Africa to become energy independent. Now that Africa has come to play, it’s time to shut it ALL down. It’s time to go back to SQUARE ONE OF DEPENDENCY. It’s time to continue the colonizers control.
2 +Luke 15
3 +Ronke; manager at Z, Inc., a Washington DC based energy contractor, immediate past president of the Women’s Council on Energy and the Environment; OilPrice; 10/1/15; “Africa Banking On Nuclear Power”; http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Africa-Banking-On-Nuclear-Power.html; JLB (9/15/16)
4 +It’s no secret that Africa’s economic development has been stifled by the shortage of electricity across the continent. The Africa Progress Report 2015 puts the annual electricity-related economic loss at 2 percent to 4 percent of GDP. In Ghana and Tanzania, electricity shortages are costing businesses 15 percent of sales. Over 600 million people are getting restless waiting for power. South Africa alone accounts for 50 percent of sub-Saharan Africa’s current installed capacity of 9 GW. According to The Africa Progress Report 2015, at the current pace of electrification (investing $8 billion or 0.49 percent of GDP annually), the continent will achieve universal access in 2080. Declaring this unacceptable, Africa Progress Report 2015 projects Africa needs to invest $55 billion (or 3-4 percent of total GDP) annually to speed up the pace and reach universal access to electricity by 2030. Discussions about Africa’s power options often focus on renewables, hydropower and natural gas. Diesel, heavily used for power generation across Africa, and coal, widely used in Southern Africa, are not championed in discussions with international development organizations and financiers. To close the huge power deficit and boost their economies, Africa’s larger economies - South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria -and smaller uranium rich countries – Namibia and Niger - have decided it might be time to go nuclear. Ghana, Senegal, Uganda, and Morocco have also publicly expressed their interest in nuclear power. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has indicated that it will help African countries cooperate in developing nuclear electricity. IAEA will advise on international best practices and standards. National governments will be responsible for regulatory oversight. South Africa leads the way South Africa, currently the only African country with nuclear power (2 GW), is actively planning to develop 9.6 GW by 2030 at a cost ranging from $37 billion to $100 billion. AREVA, Electricite de France, China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power and Korea Electric Power Corporation are vying for a share of this business. China and Russia have signed MOUs to develop skills and strategic partnerships. China has started training South Africans in nuclear plant operations. Related: Is The U.S. About To Break One Of Its Own Nuclear Treaties? But South Africa’s procurement process is already facing a legal challenge. Westinghouse Electric Corp. is expected to challenge the South African utility ESKOM’s reversal of a $381 million award; giving the contract to AREVA after first announcing Westinghouse’s win. The possibility of a long legal battle does not seem to be dampening interest, however. Recent press suggests that Russia’s state-owned Rosatom is at the forefront of the next round of awards expected to take place between late 2015 and early 2016. Industry commentators suggest that South Africa is anticipating that Russia and China will offer generous financing with their bids; outside of these two powerhouses, no one is certain who could pay for such a massive expansion. Industry observers are skeptical that either Russia or China will deliver the expected funding. Nuclear power opponents including Greenpeace are demanding transparency and argue that South Africa’s nuclear push is a waste of money, better spent on other options, e.g. renewables, to address the country’s current power shortfall. Kenya follows fast Kenya appears to be the most active, after South Africa, in planning its nuclear power future. It has 2.2MW in total installed grid capacity with 20 GW of geothermal potential. Estimates state that an economy of Kenya’s size should have 45GW to 55GW of installed capacity. Related: Fund Managers Have Their Own ‘Black Monday’ Thanks To The Saudis Adding nuclear power into its fuel mix would help to close its power supply gap. Kenya projects bringing 1GW of nuclear power on line by 2025, rising to 4GW by 2033. In August 2015, the IAEA led an 11 person expert team to Nairobi to conduct an “Integrated Nuclear Infrastructure Review (INIR)”of Kenya’s progress. The Kenya Nuclear Electricity Board (KNEB) has completed two phases of the INIR; self-assessment and pre-feasibility preparedness studies. An important outcome of the INIR is assessing Kenya’s progress towards setting up an independent nuclear power regulatory authority. China has signed up to help Kenya meet its nuclear aspirations. The two countries signed an MOU in 2015. China will help Kenya build skills and will provide technical support with site selection and feasibility studies. Slovenia and South Korea have also signed cooperation agreements as they position for upcoming deals. The first cohort of Kenyans is studying nuclear engineering in South Korea. Nigeria raises tempo towards its nuclear goal Nigeria will certainly miss its original target to go nuclear by 2017, but it has made progress building its institutional framework since first declaring its intent in 2007. With power sector privatization failing to meet the projected surge in power supply, Nigeria is ramping up efforts to explore its nuclear power options. It plans 1 to 2 GW of nuclear capacity and has selected two potential sites. Russia is at the forefront of this development. According to Reuters, Rosatom, Russian state-owned nuclear company, can spend “$300 - $350 billion per year to build nuclear plants in Russia and abroad.” Rosatom and the Nigerian government signed a cooperation agreement in 2012 for the commissioning and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. Following further talks in 2015, Rosatom, according to Nigerian officials, will finance and operate the $20 billion project, which envisions a total of four plants, each valued at $5 billion. Nigeria’s plan is for the first plant to be operational in 2025. The IAEA is scheduled to conduct an INIR in Nigeria in 2015. Related: Trouble Ahead For The World’s Next Shale Boom? A new frontier for nuclear power? With global sales of nuclear power plants flat following the Fukushima accident, it’s no wonder that Africa’s initial forays into nuclear power are generating so much interest. Governments have said little to address the safety concerns raised by industry watchdogs and citizen’s groups. Continent-watchers and industry observers remain skeptical that all this nuclear capacity will be built, as financing remains a formidable challenge. But nuclear power is no longer off the table as Africa adopts an “all of the above” strategy regarding fuel options, as it struggles to close its power deficit. Currently, Russia appears to be willing to splash the most cash. But China and South Korea can’t be ignored and other countries are positioning to step up their efforts as Africa’s nuclear power market heats up.
5 +
6 +They frame mining in Africa as exploitation; when in reality it has been an African economic success.
7 +Coal Kills 4,000 times more people than nuclear power; their focus on Nuclear Power prohibition ignores the developing world.
8 +Roos 11
9 +Jerome; The Breakthrough Institute (researcher); 4/11/11; "Coal Kills 4,000 Times More People Per Unit of Energy than Nuclear"; http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/coal_kills_4000_times_more_peo; JLB (9/11/16)
10 +When you actually do the math, coal kills somewhere on the order of 4,000 times more people per unit of energy produced than nuclear power. Or to put it another way, outdoor air pollution, caused principally by the combustion of fossil fuels, kills as many people every 29 hours as will eventually die due to radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, according to World Health Organization figures (Source: nuclear; air pollution). Yet since coal-related deaths have a much lower profile than nuclear disasters, and because they largely occur in the conveniently far-away obscurity of the developing world, they tend to be severely underreported by the mainstream media in the West. So while all eyes turned to Fukushima, the grinding, every-day death and illness caused by the air pollution, toxic contamination, and mercury poisoning leaching from the world's coal plants and oil refineries and the tailpipes of roughly a billion cars and trucks continued unabated ~-~- and continued to go largely unmentioned. For some reason, as the formerly anti-nuclear environmentalist George Monbiot has argued, greens seem to care a great deal about scientific consensus when it's about climate change, but when it comes to nuclear energy far too many are very willing to dismiss factual evidence and spread dishonest information. The reality we will have to deal with is that fossil fuels, and coal in particular, kill many times more people than nuclear.
11 +
12 +The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s simplistic environmentalist framing and accept the complexities of problems facing the world.
13 +Beckerman 96
14 +Beckerman, Wilfred, Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. “Through Green-Colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered.” publ. 1996.
15 +It may well be true, as Jonathan Porritt has said, that "Politically, the world is too far gone. It is not a question of nearing the abyss. We daily look down into it if we choose to open our eyes, and millions are already at the bottom of it."10 But the present awful state of the world is not, as he suggests, mainly the result of economic growth and its accompanying environmental degradation. It is not environmental change that has been responsible for vicious and brutal civil war in what was Yugoslavia, or the murderous communal strife that is endemic on the Indian subcontinent, or the bitter ideological struggles that have ravaged Cambodia for decades, or tribal conflict in Rwanda, Somalia, and the Sudan. Nor is it likely to be the case—as many environmentalist pressure groups would have us believe—that we need to abandon our basic assumptions, or change our modes of thought and vocabularies, or accept different cultural values.11 What is really needed is good old reliance on scientific standards of logic and research. This means that we have to accept the enormous complexity and difficulty of the problems facing the world today. This is the only way we can arrive at balanced solutions involving compromises between conflicting objectives. Many people dislike this prospect. They prefer simple answers and melodramatic appeals. But there are no simple answers. And simple answers like "Stop economic growth," or "Incur any cost in order to stop any risk of climate change or preserve every single existing species," are of no more help than vague appeals that we should change our vocabulary or our modes of thought. Existing modes of thought will do very well. What is needed is that we use them.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-10-14 19:48:47.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Wang, Kathy
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ridge EW
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +0
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Davis David Yu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Imperialism K
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +New York City Invitational
Caselist.CitesClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,39 @@
1 +UQ: The world is shifting away from coal.
2 +Strother 15
3 +“Transition Away from Coal-Fired Power Plants Keeps Building” http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2015/07/01/coal-fired-power-plants/#6cfe8e753b37 Neil Strother is a Principal Research Analyst in the Energy Practice at Navigant. KS
4 +The transition away from coal-fired power plants continues among a number of U.S. utilities both in an effort to comply with carbon reduction standards and for cost-cutting reasons. In the last few months alone, several thousand megawatts of coal-generated capacity have been taken offline. The trend is similar in other industrialized countries, with a key exception. In the United States, Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power (AEP) has ceased generation at 10 of its coal-fired plants across five states. Operations were halted in May at coal units in Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia; combined, these units generated more than 5,500 MW. AEP intends to close two more of its coal-fired plants in 2016 in Oklahoma and Texas. Similarly, PacifiCorp, the Berkshire Hathaway-controlled utility operating in several Western states, shut down two coal units at its Utah Carbon Plant (172 MW) in April. Also, the company laid out plans to take nearly 3,000 MW of capacity offline by 2029. As part of PacifiCorp’s long-term resource plans, the company expects to add more renewable energy resources, further reduce its use of coal, and meet most of its expected generation needs with increased energy efficiency over the next decade. Though no recent plant shutdowns have taken place in North Carolina, Duke Energy did announce that its controversial Asheville plant (which was part of a recent federal criminal settlement related to groundwater contamination) would shift from coal to natural gas and solar generation over the next 4–5 years. A new 650 MW plant would replace the 376 MW coal-fired facility and would significantly reduce emissions, the company said. In Arizona, Salt River Project officials have agreed to buy the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s portion of the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station plant as a next step in the eventual closure of one of the three generators in order to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Overall, the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects the proposed federal Clean Power Plan could lead to about 90 GW of coal-fired generation being removed by 2040 under one scenario, which would be more than double the amount taken offline if no new carbon standards were in place. A Global Trend This trend away from coal is playing out in most other major industrialized countries as well, with one exception. Canada and the United Kingdom have implemented policies for phasing out coal. In France, Italy, and Germany, the markets for coal are weak, according to E3G, a European public interest non-profit organization that conducted research for Oxfam on the topic among the G7 countries. For instance, France has shut down seven units in 2015 and is now down to a total of four. Japan is the exception; plans in the country call for an increase in coal-fired electricity generation in part due to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, which led to the shutdown of nuclear power plants that made up 30 of Japan’s energy supply, with coal filling the gap for now.
5 +Warrant based on empirics, doesn’t mean it will happen again. Have evidence,
6 +Link: Empirics prove plan causes energy shortage—forces nations to substitute with coal.
7 +Roston 15:
8 +Eric Roston, writer for Bloomberg, “Why Nuclear Power Is All but Dead in the U.S.” Bloomberg News, April 15, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/soon-it-may-be-easier-to-build-a-nuclear-plant-in-iran-than-in-the-u-s- *ellipsis from original text, KS
9 +Say what? The U.S. achieved fission before anybody else. It learned before anybody else to control nuclear power, train it to boil water, to spin turbines, to generate electricity. There are 99 nuclear reactors across the U.S., providing about 19 percent of Americans’ electricity. They account for about 30 percent of global nuclear capacity. No new U.S. nuclear plant has opened since Watts Bar 1, in Tennessee, in 1996. And 20 more may close, “which makes no sense at all, from a common sense standpoint, or anything else,” Gregg said. Not because there’s something dramatically wrong with them. They’re victims of the success of natural gas, a shortage of power lines, eternal environmental enmity, and the eternally unresolved issue of where to store nuclear waste. Natural gas has driven power prices lower than nuclear’s operating costs. If bad economic trends persist for nuclear, more and more of the U.S. nuclear power fleet may retire in coming years, leaving the communities they serve at the tyranny of plants powered by fossil fuels. That’s a huge problem for climate activists who oppose nuclear power. Nuclear plants would likely be replaced by natural gas or (shudder) coal plants, which would drive up carbon dioxide emissions. It’s happening in Germany, where the government decided to abandon nuclear power after the March 2011 catastrophe at Fukushima. In Vermont, where a 600-megawatt plant closed in December, carbon-free nuclear power is being replaced largely by fossil-powered electricity from the grid. That makes nuclear an energy source that could help nations meet the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. We're already about 0.8 degree there. “I can’t see a scenario where we can stick to the 2 degree warming commitment ... without a substantial contribution from nuclear,” said Michael Liebreich, the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, at its annual conference yesterday. “We have got to figure out nuclear if that envelope is to mean anything to us."
10 +I/L: Empirics prove—coal substitution leads to comparatively more warming.
11 +Australia proves.
12 +Heard 12:
13 +Ben Heard, Masters of Corporate Environmental Sustainability Management, Monash University, 2007, environmental activist, Director of ThinkClimate Consulting, “That day in December: the story of nuclear prohibition in Australia”, Decarbonise SA, 12 Sep 2012, KS
14 +Since the prohibition of nuclear power, while nuclear build has taken off around the world, Australia has put into operation 2.5 GW more coal, is constructing another 3.2 GW, and has extended the life of the 1.6 GW of brown coal generation at Hazelwood in Victoria. We have put 4.6 GW of new gas into operation, with another 550 MW under construction. It appears our prohibition of nuclear in 1998 simply further reinforced our dependence on fossil fuels. This dependence has driven greenhouse emissions from electricity production 18 higher since 1998 (Australian Greenhouse Emissions Information System).
15 +Germany proves that banning nuclear leads to increased emissions.
16 +Herron 11
17 +5/27/2011 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304520804576348943486991956 James Herron is a columnist for the Wall Street Journal KS
18 +Germany's moratorium on nuclear-power generation will add around 25 million metric tons a year to the country's carbon-dioxide emissions, which will have to be offset elsewhere by replacing coal-fired power with cleaner gas-burning plants, the International Energy Agency said Friday. The shutdown of Germany's nuclear plants will take out about 50 terawatt hours of low-carbon electricity a year, Laszlo Varro, the head of the IEA's gas, coal and power markets division, said in a telephone briefing. Germany can mostly solve this problem by importing power from its neighbors, such as France and the Czech Republic, he said. However, Germany is subject to European CO2 emissions caps so this increase will need to be offset elsewhere, he said. In 2010, 454 million tons of German carbon-dioxide emissions were subject to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, so an extra 25 million tons represents a significant increase. "Somebody has to reduce CO2 emissions by 25 million tons," he said. This could occur in any part of Europe, because emissions allowances can be traded across borders, Mr. Varro said. The bulk of the offsetting carbon savings would have to come from substituting coal-fired electricity for power from cleaner gas-burning plants, he said. "Gas has to replace more than 100 of the lost nuclear power...because it also has to drive out coal to satisfy the carbon constraint," Mr. Varro said. An extra 90 terawatt hours of gas-fired power would be needed, replacing 40 terawatt hours of power from coal plants to offset the entire 25 million tons of CO2, he said. The nuclear moratorium, in response to the Fukushima disaster in Japan, this will set back by a couple of years Germany's move to shift its power sector away from carbon-based fuels, Mr. Varro said.
19 +Impact: Climate change perpetrates “slow violence” – hurts the most vulnerable populations and discounts those who can`t prove their worth in economic terms.
20 +Nelson 16
21 +Sara Nelson is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Geography, Environment, and Society at the University of Minnesota. Her research explores the political economy of conservation and environmental management (Sara Nelson, 2/17/16, “The Slow Violence of Climate Change”, JacobIn, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/cop-21-united-nations-paris-climate-change/)
22 +
23 +The Paris Agreement, achieved December 12 at the twenty-first Conference of the Parties to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP21), has been heralded as a “turning point for humanity” and “a new type of international cooperation.” In his remarks to the General Assembly following the close of COP21, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it “a triumph for people, the planet, and multilateralism.” More critical voices have pointed to the “wrinkles” that mar the agreement, while influential climate scientist James Hanson has dismissed it as “just worthless words.” Most commentary falls in a middle ground, viewing the agreement as an important, if faltering,step in the right direction: even if we’re not entirely happy with what has been achieved, that something was achieved at all signals a “political will” for change. But the drama and significance of the COP as an event isn’t primarily about the emergence of an agreement. The history of international climate negotiations — with the exception of the spectacular failure at Copenhagen — boasts a long line of Outcomes, Accords, and even Protocols. Throughout, emissions have continued not only unabated, but at an accelerated pace. Bolivian president Evo Morales remarked on this uncomfortable truth at last year’s COP20 in Lima, when he admonished delegates for having little to show for over two decades of climate change negotiations other than “a heavy load of hypocrisy and neocolonialism.” The COP as an event, then, does not simply represent the failure to contend with the ongoing catastrophe of climate change. Its very process perpetrates what Rob Nixon calls the “slow violence” of climate change. Nixon uses this term to describe how contemporary imperialism transfers its toxic byproducts to peoples and ecosystems at the peripheries of the global economy, challenging us to recognize imperial violence in the cumulative, attritional, and mundane forms of death and disease that do not resolve into moments of spectacular destruction. Climate change, for Nixon, is the ultimate expression of slow violence, a “temporal and geographical outsourcing” of environmental devastation to the most vulnerable populations and to future generations, a “discounting” of lives and livelihoods that cannot prove their worth in economic terms. But if climate change is “slow violence” in terms of its cumulative effects, it is equally slow in its execution — and nothing illustrates this quite so effectively as the trudging pace of international negotiations. Geopolitical power operates here in decidedly non-spectacular ways, through the procedural minutiae of negotiations over subtleties of wording. The drama of urgency around the production of an outcome distracts from the reality of negotiations as a long process of strategic refusal, whereby wealthy countries deny their historical responsibility for global emissions and thereby lock in catastrophic climate trajectories. Rather than heralding the success of an agreement or rejecting it outright as a failure, we should attend to the COP as an instance of slow violence in action.
24 +People of color
25 +Climate change disproportionately impacts people of color
26 +Shepard 13
27 +Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd is Professor at the University of Georgia (UGA) and Director of its Atmospheric Sciences Program. He is the President of the American Meteorological Society
28 +(Dr. Marshall Shepherd, “Are African-Americans More Vulnerable to Climate Change?”, http://www.ebony.com/news-views/are-african-americans-more-vulnerable-to-climate-change-352#axzz4Ci8mEclQ)//A-Sharma
29 +Where We Live: 2012 was possibly the warmest year in the U.S. record, according to NOAA. The majority of African Americans live in urban areas. The combination of climate warming, heatwaves, and the urban heat island effect (which causes temperatures in major cities to be warmer than suburban and rural areas) renders many Blacks at risk of suffering heat-related health issues. A 2008 study by The Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative found heat-related deaths among Blacks occur at a 150 to 200 percent greater rate than for non-Hispanic Whites. Cities also tend to have more air pollution and smog~-~-~-~-which leads to an array of health complications like asthma (which affects Blacks at a 36 percent higher rate of incidence than Whites) and other upper respiratory issues. Social Vulnerability: A number of studies (such as this one) show that socially vulnerable groups such as the elderly, lower income, racial minorities, and women were more likely than other income groups to perceive greater risks from natural disasters but be less likely to respond to warnings about disasters; to suffer disproportionately from the physical and psychological impacts of disasters; experience injuries or higher mortality rates; and find it more difficult to recover after disasters. Water-borne disease, post-traumatic stress, loss of jobs or hours, and infrastructure damage also have lasting effects on the African-American community. Job and Energy Disparities: Market forces responding to climate change (e.g., cap and trade policies, regulation) will drive supply, demand, and price for commodities and services that adversely affect traditionally lower-earning communities. In the South, lower income African-Americans and Hispanics are employed as wage laborers either directly or indirectly in the agricultural industry, which is particularly sensitive to weather and climate variability, especially drought. Energy policy and climate are also linked. African American households are particularly vulnerable to shifts in energy or fuel prices. The CBCF study also pointed out that African-Americans, per capita, have smaller carbon emissions than White populations, even though they are more significantly affected by anthropogenic climate change. Darryl Matthews, Executive Director at the National Medical Association notes “it is clearly evident during these extreme weather events that our communities are extremely vulnerable due to the highly technological developments (power, ATMs, electronic transactions) on which we have come to depend.” Dr. Cassandra Johnson, U.S. Forest Service social scientist, further suggests that “community groups consider actions to help mitigate changing climate like creating more green space.” African-Americans are not strangers to environmental justices issues like brownfields (land with environmental problems that may leave it vacant or underused), industrial pollution, and water pollution. However, like a many people of all races, climate change is often not perceived as an immediate threat or may even be viewed as unsettled or theory. Scientists understand what is at stake; now, our community must as well.
30 +
31 +Indigenous peoples are most vulnerable to warming – also destroys their human rights and culture
32 +
33 +IWGIA 15
34 +(International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, international non-government human rights organization, staffed by specialists and advisors, network of researchers and human right activists, “Climate change and indigenous peoples”, IWGIA, November 1, 2015, http://www.iwgia.org/environment-and-development/climate-change)
35 +For indigenous peoples, climate change is not only an environmental issue but also a human rights issue and a question of cultural survival. Indigenous peoples are especially vulnerable to climate change Regional and global assessments confirm that the Earth's climate is changing. Current and projected levels of exposure to climate-related sensitivities, as well as limits and restrictions to adaptive capacity, mean that some environments and peoples are more exposed to climate change and are significantly more vulnerable to its impacts and long-term consequences than others. Indigenous peoples depend on natural resources for their livelihood and they often inhabit fragile ecosystems. At the same time, indigenous peoples are among the world's most marginalized, impoverished and vulnerable peoples. Hence, while indigenous peoples bear the brunt of climate change, they have minimal access to resources to cope with the changes. Climate change is a human rights issue When ecosystems change, indigenous peoples' customary uses of wildlife, plants and forests are affected. Culturally and economically important species and resources may become more sparse or extinct. To indigenous peoples, climate change is, however, not simply a matter of physical changes to the environments in which they live. Many consider climate change a threat to their livelihoods and they fear that their economy and resource use will be threatened, followed by an erosion of social life, traditional knowledge and cultures. Hence, to indigenous peoples climate change is not only an environmental issue but also a human rights issue. Despite the impact of climate change on indigenous peoples and their traditional knowledge, international experts most often overlook the rights of indigenous peoples as well as the potentially invaluable contributions that indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge, innovations and practices can bring to the global search for climate change solutions. As the global discourse on climate change focuses on understanding how we can scientifically and technologically adapt to, as well as mitigate climate change, indigenous peoples are faced with the prospect of climate change further challenging their abilities to adapt to and cope with environmental and social changes. Climate change mitigation initiatives Indigenous peoples can play a key role in mitigation of climate change. As guardians of large areas of forest, indigenous peoples can have a central role in stopping deforestation. Land titling in favor of indigenous peoples, strengthening of local governance structures and sustainable community forestry are proven tools to quickly halt deforestation. By managing their ancestral land, indigenous peoples help increase forest cover and biodiversity. On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that in many cases, reforestation and renewable energy projects aiming at reducing greenhouse gas emissions pose an additional threat to indigenous peoples' tenure security, livelihoods and economies. The establishment of bio-fuel plantations, wind power project and hydroelectric dams on indigenous peoples' lands without their free, prior and informed content often lead to evictions and dispossession. Adding to the negative impacts of climate change itself on indigenous communities. It it thus crucial that mitigation initiatives make room for the inclusion and participation of indigenous peoples. That they respect indigenous peoples' rights and take into consideration their traditional knowledge. Indigenous peoples are actively engaging in national and international processes on climate change and mitigation policies, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and national REDD+ programmes.
36 +Indigenous peoples most vulnerable to warming – biodiversity, geographical location, and culture
37 +Mercado 15
38 +(Jocelyn, Pachamama Alliance, Bachelor’s in Languages and Literatures from University of Delaware, “Indigenous Wisdom Illuminates the Path to a Sustainable Future”, September 2nd, 2015, http://www.pachamama.org/blog/indigenous-wisdom-illuminates-the-path-to-a-sustainable-future)
39 +Why Indigenous People are Most at Risk from Climate Change 1. Biodiversity Many indigenous groups live in the most biodiverse regions of the planet. One of the greatest and most valuable resources that we stand to lose as a result of climate change is biodiversity. Global warming is currently causing unprecedented rates of extinction. In highly biodiverse areas, extinction rates are accelerating as climate change and other human-driven impacts (such as oil drilling) cause changes in temperature, seasons, water quality, and the balance of micro-organisms in the ecosystem. These changes then force the plants and animals to alter their migration patterns, nesting places, growing season, growing altitude, and so on. Indigenous people depend upon their local biodiversity for food and medicines, and so their way of life will be severely impacted by the shifts in plant and animal life. 2. Geographic location Arctic regions, islands, deserts, high-altitude areas, and tropical rainforests include the most delicate ecosystems and as such are at the highest risk from the effects of climate change. These regions are also where the highest numbers of indigenous people are located. Indigenous people have survived in these more challenging environments while the majority of the Earth’s population is focused in places with moderate temperatures, near the coast lines, and in areas already highly populated with thriving national and global economies. Because the geographic areas where indigenous people live are some of the most fragile, they are the same areas being targeted in the UN Climate Change discussions for measures that are intended to mitigate climate change. These policies often set indigenous lands aside for conservationn projects, “smart” agriculture, and clean development projects such as hydroelectric dams and geothermal power plants. While these efforts may seem important in mitigating climate change on a global scale, they push indigenous people off their ancestral lands or alter the land in ways that make it difficult for indigenous people to continue living in their traditional ways. 3. Cultural Survival Changes in their ecosystem force indigenous people to depend on the social and political provisions of the surrounding cultures. As biodiversity decreases and weather patterns change due to global warming, indigenous people may find themselves unable to subsist based on the traditional methods that their ancestors have used for centuries. When this happens, they may become more dependent on the local government; for example, they may need to change their livelihoods in order to find a job and earn money, instead of hunting or growing their own food, in order to feed their families. If they are located in a nation that has fewer economic resources to begin with, they will have difficulty maintaining the same quality of life that they experienced when they were independent of outside society. Furthermore, as they become more dependent on mainstream modern culture, their unique cultures will disappear and their connections between indigenous knowledge systems and the local environment will become more severely eroded.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-10-15 09:26:11.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hertzig, Chetan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +University RH
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Davis David Yu Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Coal DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +New York City Invitational
Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-10-15 09:26:08.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Hertzig, Chetan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +University RH
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
RoundReport
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,2 @@
1 +1AC - Structural Violence Aff Blacks Indigenous
2 +1NC - Imperialism K Coal DA
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +New York City Invitational

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)