Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[2]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[2]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-29 23:21:47.159
	1	+2016-10-29 23:21:47.0

Caselist.CitesClass[2]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,12 @@
	1	+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/
	2	+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.”
	3	+
	4	+The first link is their Wasserman evidence, with the prohibition of nuclear power the towards towards renewables is inevitable and has new impetus
	5	+The entire AC is a capitalist wet dream, “Battery Breakthroughs”, Innovation, Capitalist success! Their entire AC is centered around a Bourgeoisie idea of entrepenurialism that links them into Capitalism
	6	+
	7	+The Aff’s view of a nuclear free world ignores the energy gap they create, placing a faith in the free market that re-entrenches bourgeoisie power and leads to accelerated resource consumption, turning case Prudham 09’ Scott Prudham,
	8	+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.
	9	+The green revolution just changes how governments enforce structural violence and domination White 2’
	10	+(Damian, A Green Industrial Revolution? Sustainable Technological Innovation in a Global Age, Environmental Politics, Vo1.II. No.2, Summer 2002. pp.I-26)
	11	+
	12	+The first point is essentially negative. Notably, it draws attention to the fact that even if all the obstacles to a green industrial revolution posed by the structuring of the current political economy are addressed – if there are not forces to make things differently - the type of eco-technological and ecoindustrial reorganisation that triumphs could simply serve and reinforce the patterns of interest of dominant groups. A neo-liberal version of the 'green industrial revolution' could simply give rise to eco-technologies and forms of industrial reorganisation that arc perfectly compatible with extending social control, military power, worker surveillance and the broader repressive capacities of dominant groups and institutions. It might even be that a corporate dominated green industrial revolution would simply ensure that employers have 'smart' buildings which not only give energy back to the national grid but allow for new 'solar powered' employee surveillance technologies. What of a sustainable military-industrial complex that uses green warfare technologies that kill human beings without destroying ecosystems? To what extent might a 'nonhero' dominated green industrial revolution simply ensure that the South receives ecotechnologies that primarily express Northern interests (for example, embedding relations of dependency rather than of self management and autonomy?). In short then, a green industrial revolution could simply give rise to new forms of 'green governmentality' Dorier et aI., 1999.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-29 23:21:49.650

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Harvard Westlake SK

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+6

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Gates be praised

Tournament

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