Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[48]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[48]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,30 +1,0 @@
1		-The plan is a massive violation of energy federalism – each region has constitutional jurisdiction over nuclear power
2		-Belgian Federal Government 16 "The powers of the Regions," Official Belgium government website, 2016 AZ
3		-Regions have powers in fields that are connected with their region or territory in the widest meaning of the term. So the Flemish Region, the Brussels-Capital Region and the Walloon Region have powers relating to the economy, employment, agriculture, water policy, housing, public works, energy, transport (except Belgian Railways), the environment, town and country planning, nature conservation, credit, foreign trade, supervision of the provinces, communes and intercommunal utility companies. They also have powers relating to scientific research and international relations in those fields.
4		-Belgian federalism is key to EU cohesion – Flemish and Wallonian tensions are high and any additional violation of federalism triggers the impact
5		-Sotirovic 14 Vladislav B. Sotirović (Associate professor, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Faculty of Politics and Management, Institute of Political Sciences), "Belgium’s Multicultural Society: “Federalism Laboratory” of European Integration," Global Research, 11/22/2014 AZ
6		-Belgium not so often attracts outside attention. Yet the country is more than fine chocolates, delicious beers or Tintin. Usually, the others celebrate Belgium as a federal, post-nationalist country, which combines cultural pragmatism with a rather solid social consensus. The historians present the country without a critical vision of the origins of the Belgian independence in 1830 as a part of a game between the great European powers. Belgium as well as illustrates how the deep-seated tradition of local autonomy and suspicion towards state authority go hand in hand with a strong sense of individual tolerance and solidarity, with a rejection of violent confrontation and a continuous search for consensus between the Flemish and the Walloon parts of the country. Belgian history from the very beginning in 1830 up to the present is a history of linguistic diversity, cultural plurality and a search for a kind of a “Belgian” common identity of its all citizens who are constantly living between state’s integration and its territorial disintegration. Belgium is an example of the ambivalent relation between history, national myths, and the “lasagne” identity of most Belgians for whom the King, as a political institution, is de facto the only factor of the national unity. The Belgian case of multicultural federalism can be at the same time and a model but also and a warning for the rest of Europe. Its history addresses questions of identity and security, of a sense of cohesion and common purpose – or the lack thereof. Like for the rest of Europe as well. Any history of the Belgians from 1830 onwards has to describe the traditions and transitions that have developed on the territory of the present-day Belgium in a sense of shared identity, common government, and a centralized nation-state – and then over a few recent decades paved the way for Flemish-Walloon schism that now threatens to break up Belgium. However, it has to respond to the crucial question: Why does a government, unified for more than 150 years, no longer seem capable of holding together a linguistically divided country? If Belgium, as a symbol of the west European successful policy of multiculturalism and multilingual cohabitation, can not function anymore as a united political system and a country based on it, what other parts of Europe with the same structure and problems as Belgium can expect in the post-Cold War future of Europe which basically already started in 2014 in the multilingual and multicultural Ukraine?
7		-EU collapse causes global depression and warming
8		-Strahan 10/13/11
9		-http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=1300
10		- David Strahan is an award-winning investigative journalist and documentary film-maker who specializes business and energy. For a decade he reported and produced extensively for the BBC’s Money Programme and Horizon strands. He is also the author of The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man, published by John Murray, and continues to write, broadcast and consult on energy. He is a trustee of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, fellow of the RSA, and an honorary researcher at the Aon Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre.
11		-
12		- The climate always takes a back seat when economies turn sour, but the impact of a euro breakup would be profound and long-lasting. Any country leaving the euro would also breach the treaties of Mastricht, Lisbon and Rome, and therefore be forced to leave the single market and the European Union. So a euro breakup is likely to shatter the EU, and with it the hard won architecture of climate policy. For a start, the Emissions Trading System would be unlikely to survive the collapse of the currency in which it is denominated. True, the EU ETS has been widely criticized for being ineffectual – with certificates currently languishing at less than €11 per tonne of CO2 – and many argue a carbon tax would be cheaper and more effective. But the system is what we have, and crucially imposes an international framework which, however weak at present, could be strengthened and expanded in future. That would all be swept away by the collapse of the EU, along with any obligation for countries to deliver their 2020 targets on emissions reduction, renewables capacity and energy efficiency. But so what? Given the scale of the likely economic collapse, emissions would plunge too. In the 2009 recession, Europe’s GDP shrank 4 while total emissions in the EU27 dropped a little over 7, according to the European Environment Agency. If the cost to countries leaving the euro is between 25 and 50 of GDP, as UBS suggests, in a euro breakup European emissions would fall far below any existing targets. And emissions could stay low for many years: Stephen King, the chief economist of HSBC, has said the destruction of the single currency would threaten “another Great Depression”. On that basis, the collapse of the EU, so long in the vanguard of climate policy, could ironically be seen as the best outcome for global warming. But nothing could be further from the truth. Because while emissions would fall dramatically, so would our ability to do anything about the remainder. The IPCC’s most recent assessment says holding global temperature increase to 2C means cutting emissions by up to 85 by 2050. But that assessment does not include the impacts of so-called ‘slow feedback loops’ such as the melting ice sheets. More recent work led by James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute at NASA, suggests we need to be carbon neutral by around the middle of the century and carbon negative thereafter. Both assessments clearly require emissions to fall far more than would be delivered by Europe’s economic ruination. Yet achieving those kinds of reductions requires massive investment. The International Energy Agency calculates that holding temperatures to +2C means the world needs to invest $18 trillion by 2035, across transport, power generation, buildings and industry. The investment needed would presumably be lower if emissions themselves had already slumped, but even so it is hard to imagine governments could mobilize anything like enough money in the midst of a grinding depression. Not only would the wealth have been destroyed, but also the political will. Which leader, for example, would dare to raise energy prices to pay for carbon capture and storage? There is much more riding on the outcome of the Greek crisis than the future of Europe or even the world economy. The danger is that a euro collapse could destroy the capital and European institutions needed to combat climate change for a generation. A spiralling financial crisis would then spawn an environmental catastrophe. It is bitterly ironic that the meltdown of a minor economy that has little to sell but sunshine could condemn the planet to uncontrollable global warming.
13		-
14		-Global warming causes extinction
15		-Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/, Accessed 7/11/16, HWilson)
16		-Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the carbon balance.
17		-Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels.
18		-Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage.
19		-This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound. We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be too late.
20		-Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms, floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of rising sea levels, heat and storms.
21		-Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are reduced because glaciers are retreating.
22		-As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the carbon released through human activity thus far.
23		-The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature, coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet – depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations.
24		-Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today, temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources. These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars.
25		-As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems.
26		-In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11 senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy.
27		-In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate because “time and tide wait for no man.”
28		-The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that:
29		-Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on ways to stabilize climate change.
30		-The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken seriously. It described.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2016-10-09 20:57:47.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Adam Bistagne

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Lynbrook VV

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-18

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-La Canada Zhao Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-SEPOCT - DA - Belgian Federalism

Tournament

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