Summary

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

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[21]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,21 +1,0 @@
1		-Economic uncertainty makes the global economy volatile. Ellyatt 8/11
2		-Holly Ellyatt. August 11, 2016 “World economic outlook dips to 3-year low: Ifo.” http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/world-economic-outlook-dips-to-3-year-low-ifo.html LM
3		-Confidence in the global economic situation and outlook has fallen to a three-year low, according to the latest survey of expert opinion by an influential German think tank. The Munich-based Ifo Institute said that its World Economic Survey fell by 4.5 index points to 86.0 in the third quarter, dipping to its lowest level in over three years at ten index points below its long-term average. The latest results published on Thursday signaled a reversal in confidence seen from respondents in the last quarter, Ifo said. "Experts' assessments of the current economic situation remain unfavorable, while their economic expectations are far more negative than last quarter. Sentiment in the world economy is subdued," Ifo President Clemens Fuest said in the latest report. The research center interviewed 1,086 economic experts in 115 countries for the latest July 2016 survey which asked respondents to rate the current world economic climate, situation and expectations for the global economy. The survey was started 1981 and provides a global barometer of economic sentiment. According to the report, the last quarter's upward trend ground to a halt in nearly all regions as concerns over the U.K.'s vote to leave the European Union (EU) and economic slowdown in Asia weighed on sentiment. "In Europe in particular the economic climate clouded over in the wake of the Brexit vote. The only exceptions to this rule were the Eastern European EU countries, where the climate brightened. Meanwhile in Asia the climate indicator fell to its lowest level in seven years and in North America the index was only slightly higher than its long-term average," Ifo said. There was, however, an improvement to the economic climate in Latin America and the CIS states (former Soviet countries), although the index rose from a very low previous level.
4		-
5		-Nuclear Power Provides 10 of all global electricity and many industrialized countries depend on it for 25-50 of their power WNA 15
6		-World Nuclear Association, February 2015, Nuclear Power in the World Today, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Nuclear-Power-in-the-World-Today/ DOA: 8-11-15
7		-In the 1950s attention turned to the peaceful purposes of nuclear fission, notably for power generation. Today, the world produces as much electricity from nuclear energy as it did from all sources combined in the early years of nuclear power. Civil nuclear power can now boast over 16,000 reactor years of experience and supplies almost 11.5 of global electricity needs, from reactors in 31 countries. In fact, through regional grids, many more than those countries depend on nuclear-generated power. Many countries have also built research reactors to provide a source of neutron beams for scientific research and the production of medical and industrial isotopes. Today, only eight countries are known to have a nuclear weapons capability. By contrast, 56 operate about 240 civil research reactors, over one thrid of these in developing countries. Now 31 countries host over 435 commercial nuclear power reactors with a total installed capacity of over 375,000 MWe (see linked table for up to date figures). This is more than three times the total generating capacity of France or Germany from all sources. About 70 further nuclear power reactors are under construction, equivalent to 20 of existing capacity, while over 160 are firmly planned, equivalent to half of present capacity. Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France gets around three-quarters of its power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one-third or more. South Korea and Bulgaria normally get more than 30 of their power from nuclear energy, while in the USA, UK, Spain, Romania and Russia almost one-fifth is from nuclear. Japan is used to relying on nuclear power for more than one-quarter of its electricity and is expected to return to that level. Among countries which do not host nuclear power plants, Italy and Denmark get almost 10 of their power from nuclear. In electricity demand, the need for low-cost continuous, reliable supply can be distinguished from peak demand occurring over few hours daily and able to command higher prices. Supply needs to match demand instantly and reliably over time. There are number of characteristics of nuclear power which make it particularly valuable apart from its actual generation cost per unit – MWh or kWh. Fuel is a low proportion of power cost, giving power price stability, its fuel is on site (not depending on continuous delivery), it is dispatchable on demand, it has fairly quick ramp-up, it contributes to clean air and low-CO2 objectives, it gives good voltage support for grid stability. These attributes are mostly not monetised in merchant markets, but have great value which is increasingly recognised where dependence on intermittent sources has grown.
8		-
9		-Closing nuclear power plants causes energy prices to skyrocket and causes huge financial costs.
10		-Mark Perry (full professor of economics at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, where he has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in economics and finance since 1996. Starting in the fall of 2009, Perry has also held a joint appointment as a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University and an MBA degree in finance from the University of Minnesota). “What happens when a nuclear power plant is shut down” The Detroit News. April 11, 2016. http://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/nuclear-power-plant-closed/82923486/. AM
11		-A recent study indicates that closing a nuclear plant has substantial energy-replacement costs and significant, if usually unacknowledged, environmental consequences. The twin-unit San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California was shut down in 2012. According to a study by two economists, Lucas Davis of the University of California-Berkeley and Catherine Hausman of the University of Michigan, electricity generating costs rose by $350 million during the year following San Onofre’s closing. What’s more, during that year, based on a rate of $35 per ton of carbon, the study determined that the increased cost of carbon releases due largely to the need for natural gas totaled $316 million. Carbon emissions rose by 9 million metric tons, which is equivalent to putting 2 million additional cars on the road. When a nuclear plant is closed, hundreds of people who work at the plant lose their jobs. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, each reactor employs between 400 and 700 highly skilled workers, has a payroll of about $40 million and contributes $470 million to the local economy. In Michigan alone, four nuclear plants — Cook 1 and 2, Palisades, and Fermi 2 — employ nearly 3,000 people.
12		-
13		-
14		-Economy can’t recover from the higher costs – aff causes global collapse. Tyerberg 13
15		-Gail Tverberg. “Rising Energy Costs Lead to recession; Eventually Collapse”. Our Finite World. October 23, 2013. https://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/10/23/rising-energy-costs-lead-to-recession-eventually-collapse/ . AM
16		-The Limits to Growth analysis modeled the world economy in terms of flows; it did not try to model the financial system. In recent years, I have been looking at the situation and have discovered that as we hit limits in a finite world, the financial system is the most vulnerable part of the system because it ties everything else together. Debt in particular is vulnerable because the time-shifting aspect of debt “works” much better in a rapidly growing economy than in an economy that is barely growing or shrinking. The problem that now looks like it has the potential to push the world into financial collapse is something no one would have thought of—high oil prices that take a slice out of the economy, without anything to show in return. Consumers find that their own salaries do not rise as oil prices rise. They find that they need to cut back on discretionary spending if they are to have adequate funds to pay for necessities produced using oil. Food is one such necessity; oil is used to run farm equipment, make herbicides and pesticides, and transport finished food products. The result of a cutback in discretionary spending is recession or near recession, and less job availability. Governments find themselves in financial distress from trying to mitigate the recession-like impacts without adequate tax revenue.
17		-
18		-Econ collapse and energy price volatility leads to escalating instability and nuke war. Harris and Burrows 09
19		-Harris and Burrows, 9 – *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, **member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)
20		-
21		-Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-09-16 23:52:52.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Clark, Leah

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Clovis North RG

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-23

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-5

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Econ DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Loyola Invitational