Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[20]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[20]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-14 18:03:12.125
	1	+2016-10-14 18:03:12.0

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,33 @@
	1	+Japan needs nuclear power – without it they shift to coal independently of renewable growth. Hay 16
	2	+Mark Hay, Five Years After Fukushima, Japan’s Nuclear Power Debate Is Heating Up, 3/16/16, https://www.good.is/articles/japan-nuclear-power-debate-heats-up VC
	3	+Abe’s case for nuclear redevelopment is strong, simple, and already accepted by many in the nation: “Our resource-poor country cannot do without nuclear power to secure the stability of energy supply while considering what makes economic sense and the issue of climate change,” Abe said at a press conference last week. Post-Fukushima regulations, the prime minister argues, make nuclear power safer than ever, as do major advances in reactor technology. This belief has led the nation to green-light the reopening of a few reactors, starting with two in Kagoshima in August 2015, with seemingly minimal pushback. But Abe’s narrative isn’t the only way of looking at this. Others, like Naoto Kan, who was prime minister during the Fukushima disaster, have argued that the nation doesn’t need nuclear power at all. Instead, they say, renewable energy sources are the future of Japan. They may look more expensive and less feasible than restoring the nation’s massive nuclear capacity. But that may be an illusion. It can be hard from a layman’s perspective to sort out who’s right about Japan’s nuclear future, Abe or Kan. But a number of studies and pilot projects suggest that Kan’s correct when he says Japan could thrive without ever-troublesome nuclear power—although the country’s political powers seem stacked against that viable future. Those who agree with Abe see nuclear power as vital, given what’s happened to Japan without it. As of 2011, Japan had the third-greatest nuclear capacity among the world’s nations, behind only France and the United States, with reactors providing 30 percent of the country’s energy. Some hoped to hit 60 percent reliance by 2100. But since shutting off the reactors, Japan has been forced to rely on imported, costlier fuels, rapidly becoming the world’s largest gas importer, second-largest coal importer, and third-largest crude importer to feed its massive energy needs. Even with global oil prices in a tailspin, Japan’s 84 percent reliance on these materials has sent utility prices through the roof and spurred the worrying creation of dozens of new coal plants, which produce some of the smoggiest energy out there. Looking at the numbers, Abe’s followers argue that the nation needs to derive at least 22 percent of its energy from nuclear power by 2030 to thrive—which is to say that 30 to 37 reactors must be online by then. That figure seems to accord with the government’s 2015 15-year energy plan, which aims to boost renewable energy contributions to between 22 and 24 percent of the grid, alongside nuclear revivals. But these predictions shortchange Japan’s renewable potential. Sure, outside of hydropower, renewables account for just about 3 percent of Japan’s grid right now, and the sector has grown miserably slowly since the beginning of the new millennium. But that’s at least in part because, from 2002 to 2011, Japan was nuclear-obsessive.
	4	+
	5	+Without nuclear power, it’s only going to get worse. Follett 16
	6	+Follett, Andrew. (Energy and Science Reporter ) "The End Of Nuclear Power In Japan Is Bringing Back Coal." The Daily Caller. June 13, 2016. Accessed September 27, 2016. http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/13/the-end-of-nuclear-power-in-japan-is-bringing-back-coal/. SP
	7	+
	8	+An analysis published Monday by Bloomberg states that coal power will become the largest source of electricity in Japan due to an effective ban on nuclear power. Nuclear power provided 29 percent of Japan’s total power output before 2011, but will decline to 13.6 percent by 2023 and 1.2 percent by 2040, according to the report. Japan got 24 percent of its electricity from coal in 2010 and the country plans to get more than a third of its power from coal by 2040. Japan previously shut down all of its nuclear reactors in the aftermath of the 2011 magnitude 9.0 earthquake, which triggered the Fukushima disaster. The country has since transitioned away from nuclear power. Prior to the disaster, Japan operated 54 nuclear power plants and the government planned to build enough reactors to provide 50 percent of the country’s electricity power. After the disaster, Japan pledged to effectively abandon nuclear power by the 2030s, replacing it mostly with wind or solar power, causing the price of electricity to rise by 20 percent. The transition to green energy hasn’t gone well and the country likely won’t meet its goals, according to the report. Japan remains a top importer of oil, coal and natural gas and the government estimated that importing fuel costs the country more than $40 billion annually. Japan’s current government sees a revival of nuclear power as critical to supporting economic growth and slowing an exodus of Japanese manufacturing to lower-cost countries, but has faced incredible pushback.
	9	+
	10	+Prefer our evidence:
	11	+a) Their evidence cites someone working for a renewable company saying nuclear isn’t viable. This is marketing propaganda.
	12	+b) Their evidence makes projections assuming nuclear power is a viable compliment. Only our evidence accounts for the energy grid after nuclear isn’t an option any more.
	13	+c) Our evidence is predictive – read their cards. They are incredibly vague and just quotes from random politicians. Our evidence uses market projections and answers the argument that the shift to coal isn’t long term.
	14	+d) No impact to renewable shift – if it’s happening in the status quo, then that’s uniqueness for us because it means that renewables will happen no matter what. The only relevant questions is whether or not the time frame between renewables being ready and the AFF is worth an unnecessary shift to coal.
	15	+
	16	+Shift to coal makes it impossible to fight climate change. Kharecha and Hansen 13
	17	+
	18	+Kharecha, Pushker A., and James E. Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute. "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power." Environmental science and technology 47.9 (2013): 4889-4895.
	19	+
	20	+GHG Emissions. We calculate that world nuclear power¶ generation prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2-¶ equivalent (GtCO2-eq), or 17 GtC-eq, cumulative emissions¶ from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 3a; see full range therein), with an¶ average of 2.6 GtCO2-eq/year prevented annual emissions from¶ 2000 to 2009 (range 2.4−2.8 GtCO2/year). Regional results are¶ also shown in Figure 3a. Our global results are 7−14 lower¶ than previous estimates8,9 that, among other differences,¶ assumed all historical nuclear power would have been replaced¶ only by coal, and 34 higher than in another study10 in which¶ the methodology is not explained clearly enough to infer the¶ basis for the differences. Given that cumulative and annual¶ global fossil fuel CO2 emissions during the above periods were¶ 840 GtCO2 and 27 GtCO2/year, respectively,11 our mean¶ estimate for cumulative prevented emissions may not appear¶ substantial; however, it is instructive to look at other¶ quantitative comparisons.¶ For instance, 64 GtCO2-eq amounts to the cumulative CO2¶ emissions from coal burning over approximately the past 35¶ years in the United States, 17 years in China, or 7 years in the¶ top five CO2 emitters.11 Also, since a 500 MW coal-fired power¶ plant typically emits 3 MtCO2/year,26 64 GtCO2-eq is¶ equivalent to the cumulative lifetime emissions from almost¶ 430 such plants, assuming an average plant lifetime of 50 years.¶ It is therefore evident that, without global nuclear power¶ generation in recent decades, near-term mitigation of¶ anthropogenic climate change would pose a much greater¶ challenge.¶ For the projection period 2010−2050, in the all coal case, an¶ average of 150 and 240 GtCO2-eq cumulative global emissions¶ are prevented by nuclear power for the low-end and high-end¶ projections of IAEA,6 respectively. In the all gas case, an average¶ of 80 and 130 GtCO2-eq emissions are prevented (see Figure¶ 3b,c for full ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure¶ 3b,c. These results also differ substantially from previous¶ studies,9,10 largely due to differences in nuclear power¶ projections (see the Supporting Information).¶ To put our calculated overall mean estimate (80−240¶ GtCO2-eq) of potentially prevented future emissions in¶ perspective, note that, to achieve a 350 ppm CO2 target near¶ the end of this century, cumulative “allowable” fossil CO2¶ emissions from 2012 to 2050 are at most ∼500 GtCO2 (ref 3).¶ Thus, projected nuclear power could reduce the climate-change¶ mitigation burden by 16−48 over the next few decades¶ (derived by dividing 80 and 240 by 500).
	21	+
	22	+This causes millions of death and outweighs harms from radiation – our evidence is directly comparative between coal and nuclear. Kharecha and Hansen 13
	23	+
	24	+Kharecha, Pushker A., and James E. Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute. "Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power." Environmental science and technology 47.9 (2013): 4889-4895.
	25	+
	26	+Mortality. We calculate a mean value of 1.84 million human¶ deaths prevented by world nuclear power production from¶ 1971 to 2009 (see Figure 2a for full range), with an average of¶ 76 000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009 (range 19¶ 000−300 000). Estimates for the top five CO2 emitters, along¶ with full estimate ranges for all regions in our baseline historical¶ scenario, are also shown in Figure 2a. For perspective, results¶ for upper and lower bound scenarios are shown in Figure S1¶ (Supporting Information). In Germany, which has announced¶ plans to shut down all reactors by 2022 (ref 2), we calculate¶ that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117 000¶ deaths from 1971 to 2009 (range 29 000−470 000). The large¶ ranges stem directly from the ranges given in Table 1 for the¶ mortality factors.¶ Our estimated human deaths caused by nuclear power from¶ 1971 to 2009 are far lower than the avoided deaths. Globally,¶ we calculate 4900 such deaths, or about 370 times lower than¶ our result for avoided deaths. Regionally, we calculate¶ approximately 1800 deaths in OECD Europe, 1500 in the¶ United States, 540 in Japan, 460 in Russia (includes all 15¶ former Soviet Union countries), 40 in China, and 20 in India.¶ About 25 of these deaths are due to occupational accidents,¶ and about 70 are due to air pollution-related effects (presumably fatal cancers from radiation fallout; see Table 2 of¶ ref 16).¶ However, empirical evidence indicates that the April 1986¶ Chernobyl accident was the world’s only source of fatalities¶ from nuclear power plant radiation fallout. According to the¶ latest assessment by the United Nations Scientific Committee¶ on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),17 43 deaths¶ are conclusively attributable to radiation from Chernobyl as of¶ 2006 (28 were plant staff/first responders and 15 were from the¶ 6000 diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer). UNSCEAR17 also¶ states that reports of an increase in leukemia among recovery¶ workers who received higher doses are inconclusive, although¶ cataract development was clinically significant in that group;¶ otherwise, for these workers as well as the general population,¶ “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health¶ effect” attributable to radiation exposure.17¶ Furthermore, no deaths have been conclusively attributed (in¶ a scientifically valid manner) to radiation from the other two¶ major accidents, namely, Three Mile Island in March 1979, for¶ which a 20 year comprehensive scientific health assessment was¶ done,18 and the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. While¶ it is too soon to meaningfully assess the health impacts of the¶ latter accident, one early analysis19 indicates that annual¶ radiation doses in nearby areas were much lower than the¶ generally accepted 100 mSv threshold17 for fatal disease¶ development. In any case, our calculated value for global¶ deaths caused by historical nuclear power (4900) could be a¶ major overestimate relative to the empirical value (by 2 orders¶ of magnitude). The absence of evidence of large mortality from¶ past nuclear accidents is consistent with recent findings20,21 that¶ the “linear no-threshold” model used to derive the nuclear¶ mortality factor in Table 1 (see ref 22) might not be valid for¶ the relatively low radiation doses that the public was exposed to¶ from nuclear power plant accidents.¶ For the projection period 2010−2050, we find that, in the all¶ coal case (see the Methods section), an average of 4.39 million¶ and 7.04 million deaths are prevented globally by nuclear power¶ production for the low-end and high-end projections of IAEA,6¶ respectively. In the all gas case, an average of 420 000 and 680¶ 000 deaths are prevented globally (see Figure 2b,c for full¶ ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure 2b,c. The Far¶ East and North America have particularly high values, given¶ that they are projected to be the biggest nuclear power¶ producers (Figure S2, Supporting Information). As in the¶ historical period, calculated deaths caused by nuclear power in¶ our projection cases are far lower (2 orders of magnitude) than¶ the avoided deaths, even taking the nuclear mortality factor in¶ Table 1 at face value (despite the discrepancy with empirical¶ data discussed above for the historical period).¶ The substantially lower deaths in the projected all gas case¶ follow simply from the fact that gas is estimated to have a¶ mortality factor an order of magnitude lower than coal (Table¶ 1). However, this does not necessarily provide a valid argument¶ for such large-scale “fuel switching” for mitigation of either¶ climate change or air pollution, for several reasons. First, it is¶ important to bear in mind that our results for prevented¶ mortality are likely conservative, because the mortality factors¶ in Table 1 do not incorporate impacts of ongoing or future¶ anthropogenic climate change.16 These impacts are likely to¶ become devastating for both human health and ecosystems if¶ recent global GHG emission trends continue.1,3 Also, potential¶ global natural gas resources are enormous; published estimates¶ for technically recoverable unconventional gas resources¶ suggest a carbon content ranging from greater than 700¶ GtCO2 (based on refs 23 and 24) to greater than 17 000¶ GtCO2 (based on refs 24 and 25). While we acknowledge that¶ natural gas might play an important role as a “transition” fuel to¶ a clean-energy era due to its lower mortality (and emission)¶ factor relative to coal, we stress that long-term, widespread use of natural gas (without accompanying carbon capture and¶ storage) could lead to unabated GHG emissions for many¶ decades, given the typically multidecadal lifetime of energy¶ infrastructure, thereby greatly complicating climate change¶ mitigation efforts.
	27	+
	28	+The Cuomo card on the case is the impact – warming causes massive violence against marginalized groups
	29	+
	30	+
	31	+Also, warming causes extinction. McCoy 14
	32	+ (Dr. David McCoy et al., MD, Centre for International Health and Development, University College London, “Climate Change and Human Survival,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL v. 348, 4—2—14, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510, )
	33	+The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its report on the impacts of global warming. Building on its recent update of the physical science of global warming 1, the IPCC’s new report should leave the world in no doubt about the scale and immediacy of the threat to human survival, health, and well-being. The IPCC has already concluded that it is “virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate system” and that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is anthropogenic 1. Its new report outlines the future threats of further global warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh water; extreme weather events; rise in sea level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and mass human migration, conflict and violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions displaced in a little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) added its voice: “the well being of people of all nations is at risk.” 2 Such comments reaffirm the conclusions of the Lancet/UCL Commission: that climate change is “the greatest threat to human health of the 21st century.” 3 The changes seen so far—massive arctic ice loss and extreme weather events, for example—have resulted from an estimated average temperature rise of 0.89°C since 1901. Further changes will depend on how much we continue to heat the planet. The release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an amount that could be emitted in less than eight years. 4 “Business as usual” will increase carbon dioxide concentrations from the current level of 400 parts per million (ppm), which is a 40 increase from 280 ppm 150 years ago, to 936 ppm by 2100, with a 50:50 chance that this will deliver global mean temperature rises of more than 4°C. It is now widely understood that such a rise is “incompatible with an organised global community.” 5. The IPCC warns of “tipping points” in the Earth’s system, which, if crossed, could lead to a catastrophic collapse of interlinked human and natural systems. The AAAS concludes that there is now a “real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people around the globe.” 2 And this week a report from the World Meteorological Office (WMO) confirmed that extreme weather events are accelerating. WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud said, “There is no standstill in global warming . . . The laws of physics are non-negotiable.” 6

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-14 18:03:12.695

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Bistagne, Go, Dada

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Peninsula JL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+21

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Doubles

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake Chaudhary Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPT-OCT Japan Shift DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Voices