Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[31]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[32]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[31]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-28 21:15:57.979
	1	+2016-10-28 21:15:57.0

Caselist.CitesClass[32]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,40 @@
	1	+Nuclear power is currently progressing – many reactors are being built with only more planned – AFF halts development Groskopf 01/26
	2	+Christopher Groskopf – reporter. “New nuclear reactors are being built a lot more like cars.” Quartz. January 26, 2016. http://qz.com/581566/new-nuclear-reactors-are-being-built-a-lot-more-like-cars/ JJN
	3	+At its birth, nuclear power was a closely guarded national enterprise, only accessible to the most prosperous nations. But over the last 50 years it has evolved into a robust international market with a global supply chain. Not only are more countries starting or considering new nuclear plants, a great many more countries are contributing to their construction. According to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 66 nuclear reactors are under construction around the world. Dozens more are in various stages of planning. The vast majority of new reactors are being built in China, which has invested in nuclear power in a way not seen since the United States and France first built out their capacity in the 1960’s and 70’s. China’s 2015 Five Year Plan calls for 40 reactors to be built by 2020 and as many as ten more are planned for every year thereafter. Fifteen other countries around the world are also building reactors. The Chinese sprint toward nuclear power is along a path toward becoming a major exporter of nuclear technology and expertise. In addition to adopting western designs, China also has its own reactor designs. Plants based on those designs are also under construction both China and in Pakistan. Other countries are considering them. At the same time China has upgraded its capacity to produce pressure vessels, turbines and other heavy manufacturing components—all of which it is expected to begin exporting. This sort of globalized manufacturing is nothing new: cars, airplanes and most other complicated machines are built in this way. However, it is new for reactors, which must be constructed on-site and rely on highly specialized parts. Those parts must be manufactured to tolerances well beyond what is required in other industries. In some cases even the equipment needed to creating them must be purpose-built. Consider, for example, the steel pressure vessel at the heart of the most common reactor designs. These vessels can only be created in the world’s largest steel presses—some of which exert more than 30,000 pounds of force. The vessels are forged out of solid steel ingots that may weigh more than a million pounds. Until recently there were only a handful of such presses in the world. Today there are at least 23, spread across 11 countries, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). Such specialization is not limited to heavy manufacturing. Nuclear reactors require thousands of other mechanical and electronic components, many of which are purpose-made. A brochure from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) identifies hundreds of individual parts. (pdf) Even otherwise common products may need to meet extraordinarily fine tolerances. Standards require that steel elements relevant to safety are manufactured with exceptional “nuclear-grade steel.” According to another NEI list, the construction of a new reactor may require a total of: 500 to 3,000 nuclear grade valves 125 to 250 pumps 44 miles of piping 300 miles of electric wiring 90,000 electrical components According to Greg Kaser, who analyzes supply chains for the WNA, the market for nuclear components has been driven by US-based reactor companies, namely Westinghouse Electric Company. “The US can’t produce everything that’s required for a nuclear reactor anymore, so they have to go international,” Kaser told Quartz. Reactors based on Westinghouse’s AP1000 design are under construction in both the US and China. The parts for these reactors are sourced from all over the world. Many come from European companies that were originally created to supply domestic nuclear programs, but have since become important exporters. This trade in nuclear components is difficult to measure. Despite the specific qualifications of a nuclear-grade valve, it is still a valve and doesn’t necessarily show up in trade statistics as anything more. A great deal of trade is also in expertise. Engineers from China, Japan, South Korea and the United States frequently consult on (or lead) nuclear projects around the world. A 2014 WNA report (paywall) estimates that the total value of investments in new nuclear facilities through 2030 will be $1.2 trillion. But this nuclear globalization has not been greeted with enthusiasm everywhere. The 2011 nuclear contamination disaster at Fukushima, Japan, briefly stalled development of some projects and prompted Germany to begin shutting down all of its reactors. A decision by the UK to allow a Chinese company to develop new nuclear reactors in England has led to both domestic and international hand-wringing over the security implications. Others worry about about safety issues resulting from companies faking the certifications required for selling reactor components. In 2013, two South Korean nuclear reactors were shut down when it was discovered that they had installed cables with counterfeit nuclear certifications. This year the IAEA will update a procurement guide for plant operators that was published in 1996. (pdf) The new version will include a chapter specifically addressing counterfeit components. For the moment, it’s unlikely any of these concerns will be enough to slow the resurgent growth of the global nuclear industry. Though big nuclear companies often speak of localizing the supply chain—and keeping those jobs in their home country—international competition can drive down the price of building a reactor. In fact, the supply chain is likely to become even more important to the construction process in the future. New reactors being designed today are both smaller and more modular, and plans call for large sections of them to be assembled in factories and shipped to the site. If it sounds a lot like the assembly line at a automobile plant, that’s because it is. But of course, one small oversight or production flaw could make a much greater difference.
	4	+Warming is anthropogenic and can be stopped if we reduce emissions. Nuccitelli 8/15
	5	+
	6	+Dana Nuccitelli 8/15/16 “Climate urgency: we've locked in more global warming than people realize” https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/15/climate-urgency-weve-locked-in-more-global-warming-than-people-realize
	7	+
	8	+So far humans have caused about 1°C warming of global surface temperatures, but if we were to freeze the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide at today’s levels, the planet would continue warming. Over the coming decades, we’d see about another 0.5°C warming, largely due to what’s called the “thermal inertia” of the oceans (think of the long amount of time it takes to boil a kettle of water). The Earth’s surface would keep warming about another 1.5°C over the ensuing centuries as ice continued to melt, decreasing the planet’s reflectivity.¶ To put this in context, the international community agreed in last year’s Paris climate accords that we should limit climate change risks by keeping global warming below 2°C, and preferably closer to 1.5°C. Yet from the carbon pollution we’ve already put into the atmosphere, we’re committed to 1.5–3°C warming over the coming decades and centuries, and we continue to pump out over 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide every year.¶ The importance of reaching zero or negative emissions¶ We can solve this problem if, rather than holding the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide steady, it falls over time. As discussed in the above video, Earth naturally absorbs more carbon than it releases, so if we reduce human emissions to zero, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide will slowly decline. Humans can also help the process by finding ways to pull carbon out of the atmosphere and sequester it.¶ Scientists are researching various technologies to accomplish this, but we’ve already put over 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pulling a significant amount of that carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it safely will be a tremendous challenge, and we won’t be able to reduce the amount in the atmosphere until we first get our emissions close to zero.¶ There are an infinite number of potential carbon emissions pathways, but the 2014 IPCC report considered four possible paths that they called RCPs. In one of these (called RCP 2.6 or RCP3-PD), we take immediate, aggressive, global action to cut carbon pollution, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels peak at 443 ppm in 2050, and by 2100 they’ve fallen back down to today’s level of 400 ppm. In two others (RCPs 4.5 and 6.0) we act more slowly, and atmospheric levels don’t peak until the year 2150, then they remain steady, and in the last (RCP8.5) carbon dioxide levels keep rising until 2250. As the figure below shows, in the first scenario, global warming peaks at 2°C and then temperatures start to fall toward the 1.5°C level, meeting our Paris climate targets. In the other scenarios, temperatures keep rising centuries into the future We don’t know what technologies will be available in the future, but we do know that the more carbon pollution we pump into the atmosphere today, the longer it will take and more difficult it will be to reach zero emissions and stabilize the climate. We’ll also have to pull that much more carbon out of the atmosphere. ¶ It’s possible that as in three of the IPCC scenarios, we’ll never get all the way down to zero or negative carbon emissions, in which case today’s pollution will keep heating the planet for centuries to come. Today’s carbon pollution will leave a legacy of climate change consequences that future generations may struggle with for the next thousand years.¶ Five years ago, the Australian government established a Climate Commission, which published a report discussing why we’re in the midst of the ‘critical decade’ on climate change:¶ The risks of future climate change – to our economy, society and environment – are serious, and grow rapidly with each degree of further temperature rise. Minimising these risks requires rapid, deep and ongoing reductions to global greenhouse gas emissions. We must begin now if we are to decarbonise our economy and move to clean energy sources by 2050. This decade is the critical decade.¶ Our is the first generation to understand the problems our carbon pollution is causing, and the last that can take the necessary action to prevent them from causing a climate destabilization. In addition to the Australian Climate Commission, 31 major scientific organizations recently warned policymakers that:¶ To reduce the risk of the most severe impacts of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions must be substantially reduced.¶ We have no excuse for inaction or complacency; the experts have clearly warned us. If we refuse to urgently act on this information, future generations will suffer the consequences of our failures today.
	9	+Prohibiting nuclear power means warming can’t be solved – impracticality of renewables combined with a switch to coal only makes warming worse. Harvey ‘12
	10	+Fiona Harvey - award-winning environment journalist for the Guardian, used to work for financial times. “Nuclear power is only solution to climate change, says Jeffrey Sachs.” The Guardian. May 3, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/03/nuclear-power-solution-climate-change JJN *bracketing in original
	11	+Combating climate change will require an expansion of nuclear power, respected economist Jeffrey Sachs said on Thursday, in remarks that are likely to dismay some sections of the environmental movement. Prof Sachs said atomic energy was needed because it provided a low-carbon source of power, while renewable energy was not making up enough of the world's energy mix and new technologies such as carbon capture and storage were not progressing fast enough. "We won't meet the carbon targets if nuclear is taken off the table," he said. He said coal was likely to continue to be cheaper than renewables and other low-carbon forms of energy, unless the effects of the climate were taken into account. "Fossil fuel prices will remain low enough to wreck low-carbon energy unless you have incentives and carbon pricing," he told the annual meeting of the Asian Development Bank in Manila. A group of four prominent UK environmentalists, including Jonathon Porritt and former heads of Friends of the Earth UK Tony Juniper and Charles Secrett, have been campaigning against nuclear power in recent weeks, arguing that it is unnecessary, dangerous and too expensive. Porritt told the Guardian: "It nuclear power cannot possibly deliver – primarily for economic reasons. Nuclear reactors are massively expensive. They take a long time to build. And even when they're up and running, they're nothing like as reliable as the industry would have us believe." But Sachs, director of the Earth Institute and professor of sustainable development at Columbia University in the US, said the world had no choice because the threat of climate change had grown so grave. He said greenhouse gas emissions, which have continued to rise despite the financial crisis and deep recession in the developed world, were "nowhere near" falling to the level that would be needed to avert dangerous climate change. He said: "Emissions per unit of energy need to fall by a factor of six. That means electrifying everything that can be electrified and then making electricity largely carbon-free. It requires renewable energy, nuclear and carbon capture and storage – these are all very big challenges. We need to understand the scale of the challenge." Sachs warned that "nice projects" around the world involving renewable power or energy efficiency would not be enough to stave off the catastrophic effects of global warming – a wholesale change and overhaul of the world's energy systems and economy would be needed if the world is to hold carbon emissions to 450 parts per million of the atmosphere – a level that in itself may be inadequate. "We are nowhere close to that – as wishful thinking and corporate lobbies are much more powerful than the arithmetic of climate scientists," he said.
	12	+
	13	+Empirically proven in japan a ban on nuclear triggered a shift to coal. Follett 16
	14	+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
	15	+
	16	+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.
	17	+
	18	+Specifically in India nuclear is key. Bhoje 00
	19	+“THE NEED AND THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN INDIA,” S.B. BHOJE, S. GOVINDARAJAN, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, 2000.
	20	+India's energy requirements are very large due to a large population. Population¶ control is the best way to improve living standards and environment protection.¶ Coal and nuclear energy through FBR are the only major resources. Coal alone, if used¶ for electricity generation, will not last beyond the next century. The problems of greenhouse¶ effects and acid rain compel us to reduce coal consumption for power generation.¶ Indigenous Uranium reserves can sustain only about 12 GW(e) power generation for¶ 30 years. Therefore, FBR must be introduced at the earliest possible time.¶ India has acquired the comprehensive capability to design, build and operate power¶ reactors and manage complete fuel cycles.¶ Nuclear energy is economically competitive with alternate sources of energy, however,¶ efforts must be made to further improve it by reducing capital costs and construction time.¶ Concerns about radiation effects, decommissioning, radwaste management and¶ accident risks have been adequately addressed. Technologies are available for¶ decommissioning and radwaste management and a systematic approach in design and¶ operation to prevent accidents is ongoing.¶ Nuclear energy is environmentally the most benign compared with other options for¶ electricity generation.
	21	+
	22	+India is a rising source of CO2 emissions and a global leader on climate change, proven at the Paris climate talks. Worland 15
	23	+Why No Country Matters More Than India at the Paris Climate Talks, Justin Worland, Dec. 2015, Times.
	24	+Negotiators from India came to international climate talks in Paris this month walking a tightrope. On the one hand, officials wanted to show that the world’s fourth-biggest carbon emitter was ready to play a constructive role in international climate negotiations. On the other hand, negotiators need to show citizens back home that addressing climate change would not detract from development goals—particularly the need to bring power to the quarter of the population that goes without it.¶ Now, with just hours remaining before negotiators hopes to close a deal addressing climate change, India has emerged as a key player in shaping the agreement, leaving observers to hope that it will not play the same role slowing negotiations at the last minute that other key developing countries have played in past conferences.¶ “The presentation is just really different from what we saw earlier,” said Alyssa Ayres, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, of the country’s negotiating stance at Paris. Their message has become: “We can be flexible, we just need help getting where we want to go.”¶ India needs to sign onto whatever deal negotiators reach in Paris for the agreement to have legitimacy, given its importance in the global economy and its sheer size. Analysts expect the country of 1.2 billion people to continue to rise in the rankings of top emitters as its economy grows and as a greater share of its population gains access to electricity. “India is sometimes the man in the middle,” said Anjali ‪Jaiswal, director of the India Initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “India’s role here at the conference is often bridging the many nations across the world and also bridging development with climate action.” India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has repeatedly said that the country needs to address climate change, not because of pressure from Western countries but because of the potential damage warming could cause worldwide and in India especially. The country set an ambitious goal of receiving 40 of its power from renewable resources by 2030 and in recent weeks launched a solar power alliance aimed at growing solar power production in the developing world. The country also recently set a target to develop 100 GW of solar power capacity by 2022, a huge ramp up from current capacity.¶ Yet country’s leaders have publicly struck a hard line on many of the most divisive issues in climate policy. Modi defended a principle that developed countries should have more stringent responsibilities than their developing counterparts—a concept known as “differentiation”—and suggested that the principle should be a bedrock part of nearly every provision of the agreement. “Climate justice demands that, with the little carbon space we still have, developing countries should have enough room to grow,” he said at a speech at the beginning of the Paris summit.¶ Part of what underlies India’s position on differentiation is the belief that the efforts taken by the country so far outweighs its contribution to climate change. (India’s per-capita carbon emissions add up to just 1.7 metric tons, 10 times less than America’s per-capita emissions.) Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister, told TIME in an interview that his country had done four times their fair share to address climate change, based on past carbon emissions, while the developed countries have done far less. “The developed world has done much less than their fair share,” said Javadekar. “Everyone must at least do what their fair share demands. Then it will be a collective action. Then it will be more robust.”‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬
	25	+
	26	+
	27	+MSR Reactors pave the way for nuclear innovation and cut Co2 emissions Cala 16
	28	+ANDRÉS CALA, THESE SCIENTISTS MAY HAVE FOUND A WAY TO STOP NUCLEAR MELTDOWNS, OZY.com, MAY 31 2016 EE
	29	+Nuclear power currently provides 11 percent of the world’s energy. But that number needs to grow to 17 percent to hit the globe’s targeted carbon dioxide emission reduction levels by 2050, according to the International Energy Agency. And the robust and reliable nature of CO2-free nuclear power complements the expansion of more intermittent renewable energy, lowering demand for fossil-fuel generation. But to safely deliver, nuclear plants can’t carry the costs, safety or political baggage of existing sites. There are six leading technologies among the so-called fourth generation of nuclear power plants — all of them offer improvements, but MSR promises the best economy, some experts say. “MSR has a reasonable chance of being the winner” in the race, says Stephen Tindale, director of the U.K.-based Alvin Weinberg Foundation, a nonprofit organization advocating the use of advanced nuclear technology.
	30	+
	31	+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
	34	+
	35	+
	36	+Independently coal causes millions of deaths from radiation – our evidence is directly comparative between coal and nuclear. Kharecha and Hansen 13
	37	+
	38	+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.
	39	+
	40	+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.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-28 21:15:59.224

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Dosch, Stevens, Castillo

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Mountain View DZ

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+28

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 India Shift DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+St Marks