Summary

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

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[0]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-29 18:36:17.651
	1	+2016-10-29 18:36:17.0

Caselist.CitesClass[0]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,50 @@
	1	+= Brave New World =
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+==Links==
	5	+
	6	+
	7	+====Gates be praised! With the prohibition of nuclear power the shift towards renewables is inevitable and has a new impetus Wasserman 16’ Harvey Wasserman, Writer of SOLARTOPIA! And writer for Counterpunch "NY Times pushes Nukes while claiming Renewables fail to fight climate change" July 29, 2016 http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/ny-times-pushes-nukes-while-claiming-renewables-fail-to-fight-climate-change/====
	8	+As Mark Jacobson, director of Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford University, pointed out to me via email: The New York Times article "suffers from the inaccurate assumption that existing expensive nuclear that is shut down will be replaced by natural gas. This is impossible in California, for example, since gas is currently 60 percent of electricity supply but state law requires non-large-hydro clean renewables to be 50 percent by 2030. This means that, with the shuttering of Diablo Canyon nuclear facility be 2025, gas can by no greater than 35-44 percent of California supply since clean renewables will be at least 50 percent (and probably much more) and large hydro will be 6-15 percent. As such, gas must go down no matter what. In fact, 100 percent of all new electric power in Europe in 2015 was clean, renewable energy with no new net gas, and 70 percent of all new energy in the U.S. was clean and renewable, so the fact is nuclear is not being replaced by gas but by clean, renewable energy. "Further, the article fails to consider the fact that the cost of keeping nuclear open is often much greater than the cost of replacing the nuclear with wind or solar. For example, three upstate New York nuclear plants require $7.6 billion in subsidies from the state to stay open 12 years. To stay open after that, they will need an additional $805 million/year at a minimum, or at least $17.7 billion from 2028-2050, or a total of $25.3 billion from 2016 to 2050. If, on the other hand, those three plants were replaced with wind today, the total cost between now and 2050 would be $11.9 billion. Thus, keeping the nuclear plants open 12 years costs an additional $7.6 billion; keeping it open 34 years costs and additional $25.3 billion, in both cases with zero additional climate benefit, in comparison with shuttering the three plants today and replacing them with onshore wind."
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====The Aff’s dependence on some renewable shift to solve for their impacts places a faith in the free market that re-entrenches bourgeoisie power and leads to accelerated resource consumption, turning case Prudham 09’ Scott Prudham, ====
	12	+The paper features two interrelated arguments. First, Branson's announcements (particularly the first one) point to a central contradiction in the green capitalist agenda. This agenda pivots in large measure on the problematic suggestion that more sustainable futures can be secured via capitalist investment and entrepreneurial innova- tion. Whatever truth there may be in particular cases, this obscures the relentless, restless, and growth-dependent character of capitalism's distinct metabolism, an argu- ment most closely associated with the work of Bellamy Foster (Clark and York, 2005; Foster, 2000), but which draws in turn on Karl Marx. The metabolism critique right- fully identifies a tendency in capitalist political economies for aggregate throughput of material and energy to grow, outstripping any efficiency gains (ie the so-called `Jevons paradox'). But accumulation for accumulation's sake also entails dynamic confronta- tion, transformation, and redefinition of material, social, and cultural conditions in ways that confound coherent articulation of any notion of fixed `limits' (including ecological ones) to continued expansion. This essentially qualitative problem originates in the microeconomics of the entrepreneurial subject who is compelled to accumulate on an expanded scale if only to reproduce himself or herself. What results is a systemic logic of the production of new natures integrally connected to the production of space and uneven development more generally (Smith, 2008 ~~1984~~)by the anarchic, restless drive to accumulate capital as an end in and of itself. Thus, I argue that, Secondly, focus on the elite entrepreneurial or bourgeois subject points to the need for a politico-cultural perspective on green capitalism as a sort of `drama' which must be performed. That is, the viability of green capitalism is not only an `objective' question of whether or not entrepreneurial energy, unleashed by neoliberalized green markets, can give rise to sustainable technoeconomic trajectories. Rather, it is also a political agenda whose viability turns on whether or not capitalism and environmen- talism are seen subjectively to be compatible. Seen in this way, green capitalism has interwoven material ~^ semiotic dimensions (Haraway, 1997), one central facet of which is the `performance' of the entrepreneurial subject as environmental crusader. Perform- ances such as Branson's not only stage the political and cultural fusion of capitalism and environmentalism as green capitalism; they also act to augment the economic foundations of bourgeois power by making the entrepreneur a central figure in climate policy, and, by extension, environmentalism.
	13	+
	14	+
	15	+====The green revolution just changes how governments enforce structural violence and domination White 2’ ====
	16	+(Damian, A Green Industrial Revolution? Sustainable Technological Innovation in a Global Age, Environmental Politics, Vo1.II. No.2, Summer 2002. pp.I-26)
	17	+The first point is essentially negative. Notably, it draws attention to the fact
	18	+AND
	19	+rise to new forms of 'green governmentality' ~~Dorier et aI., 1999~~.
	20	+
	21	+
	22	+==Impacts==
	23	+
	24	+
	25	+====Prefer the slow violence over big-stick impacts – cap produces suffering unrecognizable by traditional yardsticks of measurement Nixon 11 ====
	26	+(Rob Nixon, a Professor of English at University of Wisconsin at Madison; has a PhD from Columbia University "Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor", Published 2011, pages 65-67)
	27	+Looking back at Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Bhopal, Petryna laments how
	28	+AND
	29	+a millennium ago, Lazaro recognized as "the sepulcher of oblivion."64
	30	+
	31	+
	32	+==Framing==
	33	+
	34	+
	35	+====The Role of the Ballot goes to whoever best proposes an anti-capitalist pedagogy, re-evaluating education tactics is the only way to end the anonymization of workers the capitalist mindset engrains====
	36	+**Zizek and Daly 04**
	37	+~~Glyn. Lecturer in International Studies at the University College Northampton; Slavoj Zizek, world famous philosophy on psychoanalysis and capitalism; Conversations with Žižek. 14-19~~
	38	+For Žižek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol
	39	+AND
	40	+political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle.
	41	+
	42	+
	43	+==Alternative ==
	44	+
	45	+
	46	+====Voting negative refuses the affirmative in favor of Historical Materialist Pedagogy. International inequality is sutured by the unequal circulation of capital. Without revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary moment. Only starting from the structural antagonisms produced by wage labor can lead to transformative politics. ====
	47	+Ebert ‘9 ~~Teresa, Associate Professor of English, State University of New York at Albany, THE TASK OF CULTURAL CRITIQUE, pp. 92-95~~
	48	+Unlike these rewritings, which reaffirm in a somewhat new language the system of wage
	49	+AND
	50	+Instead, the pedagogy of critique is a worldly teaching of the worldly.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-29 18:36:20.576

Judge

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

Opponent

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

ParentRound

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

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola Tran Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Cap K v2

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Meadows