Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[16]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[16]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-10-11 05:52:20.201
	1	+2016-10-11 05:52:20.0

Caselist.CitesClass[15]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,68 @@
	1	+=1-off =
	2	+
	3	+
	4	+====Discourse surrounding opposition to nuclear power is based on fear mongering that ignores growing scientific backing of nuclear power and sets up a moral boundary that kills democratic deliberation. Taylor 13:====
	5	+~~Bob Pepperman Taylor (Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, he specializes in and has been published on political theory, the history of political thought, American political thought, and environmental political theory), "Thinking About Nuclear Power." March 18, 2013. Polity Volume 45, Issue 2, pgs. 297-311. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pol.2013.3~~ SF
	6	+These claims created two problems for anti-nuclear advocates. First, given the
	7	+AND
	8	+It became difficult to identify rational grounds upon which to debate political opponents.
	9	+
	10	+
	11	+====Turn - Fear mongering about nuclear power forces us to a world of coal, which produces cyclical public health harms and is worse for Nature as a whole. Taylor 13:====
	12	+~~Bob Pepperman Taylor (Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, he specializes in and has been published on political theory, the history of political thought, American political thought, and environmental political theory), "Thinking About Nuclear Power." March 18, 2013. Polity Volume 45, Issue 2, pgs. 297-311. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pol.2013.3~~ SF
	13	+But climate change is not the only factor causing reassessments about the value of nuclear
	14	+AND
	15	+plants are, in addition, the single biggest producers of greenhouse gases.
	16	+
	17	+
	18	+====Liberal environmentalism has been pigeonholed as a "special interest" that regular people can't relate to. We should not judge environmentalism through individual policies but rather how we as a community can help solve. The alternative is a third wave of environmentalism structured around investing in the people as a creative body that can commit itself to solving massive issues – the New Apollo Project models this. Nordhaus and Shellenberger 04:====
	19	+~~Ted Norhaus (American author, environmental policy expert, and the director of research at The Breakthrough Institute) and Michael Shellenberger (American author, environmental policy expert, and cofounder of Breakthrough Institute.)
	20	+, "The Death of Environmentalism." Sept. 16, 2004. The Breakthrough Institute. http://www.thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf~~ SF
	21	+In early 2003 we joined with the Carol/Trevelyan Strategy Group, the Center
	22	+AND
	23	+deconstruct the assumptions underneath the categories "labor" and "the environment."
	24	+
	25	+
	26	+====Having faith in humanities ability to solve warming through technological advances has the ability to rally public support for environmentalism. Taylor 13:====
	27	+~~Bob Pepperman Taylor (Professor of Political Science at the University of Vermont, he specializes in and has been published on political theory, the history of political thought, American political thought, and environmental political theory), "Thinking About Nuclear Power." March 18, 2013. Polity Volume 45, Issue 2, pgs. 297-311. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/pol.2013.3~~ SF
	28	+While some readers may find Nordhaus and Shellenberger's rhetoric startling, it is less so
	29	+AND
	30	+benefit evaluation of nuclear power as one among many, very imperfect options.
	31	+
	32	+
	33	+=2-off =
	34	+Nuclear power is resolving emissions now- models show it prevents almost half of the CO2 necessary to stop runaway warming.
	35	+Kharecha and Hansen 13, Pushker A. Kharecha* 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," American Chemical Society, Environmental Science and Technology, 2013
	36	+We calculate that world nuclear power generation prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of CO2- equivalent (GtCO2-eq), or 17 GtC-eq, cumulative emissions from 1971 to 2009 (Figure 3a; see full range therein), with an average of 2.6 GtCO2-eq/year prevented annual emissions from 2000 to 2009 (range 2.4−2.8 GtCO2/year). Regional results are also shown in Figure 3a. Our global results are 7−14 lower than previous estimates8,9 that, among other differences, assumed all historical nuclear power would have been replaced only by coal, and 34 higher than in another study10 in which the methodology is not explained clearly enough to infer the basis for the differences. Given that cumulative and annual global fossil fuel CO2 emissions during the above periods were 840 GtCO2 and 27 GtCO2/year, respectively,11 our mean estimate for cumulative prevented emissions may not appear substantial; however, it is instructive to look at other quantitative comparisons. For instance, 64 GtCO2-eq amounts to the cumulative CO2 emissions from coal burning over approximately the past 35 years in the United States, 17 years in China, or 7 years in the top five CO2 emitters.11 Also, since a 500 MW coal-fired power plant typically emits 3 MtCO2/year,26 64 GtCO2-eq is equivalent to the cumulative lifetime emissions from almost 430 such plants, assuming an average plant lifetime of 50 years. It is therefore evident that, without global nuclear power generation in recent decades, near-term mitigation of anthropogenic climate change would pose a much greater challenge. For the projection period 2010−2050, in the all coal case, an average of 150 and 240 GtCO2-eq cumulative global emissions are prevented by nuclear power for the low-end and high-end projections of IAEA,6 respectively. In the all gas case, an average of 80 and 130 GtCO2-eq emissions are prevented (see Figure 3b,c for full ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure 3b,c. These results also differ substantially from previous studies,9,10 largely due to differences in nuclear power projections (see the Supporting Information). To put our calculated overall mean estimate (80−240 GtCO2-eq) of potentially prevented future emissions in perspective, note that, to achieve a 350 ppm CO2 target near the end of this century, cumulative "allowable" fossil CO2 emissions from 2012 to 2050 are at most ∼500 GtCO2 (ref 3). Thus, projected nuclear power could reduce the climate-change mitigation burden by 16−48 over the next few decades (derived by dividing 80 and 240 by 500). Uncertainties. Our results contain various uncertainties, primarily stemming from our impact factors (Table 1) and our assumed replacement scenarios for nuclear power. In reality, the impact factors are not likely to remain static, as we (implicitly) assumed; for instance, emission factors depend heavily on the particular mix of energy sources. Because our impact factors neglect ongoing or projected climate impacts as well as the significant disparity in pollution between developed and developing countries,16 our results for both avoided GHG emissions and avoided mortality could be substantial underestimates. For example, in China, where coal burning accounts for over 75 of electricity generation in recent decades (ref 14; Figure S3, Supporting Information), some coal-fired power plants that meet domestic environmental standards have a mortality factor almost 3 times higher than the mean global value (Table 1). These differences related to development status will become increasingly important as fossil fuel use and GHG emissions of developing countries continue to outpace those of developed countries.11 On the other hand, if coal would not have been as dominant a replacement for nuclear as assumed in our baseline historical scenario, then our avoided historical impacts could be overestimates, since coal causes much larger impacts than gas (Table 1). However, there are several reasons this is unlikely. Key characteristics of coal plants (e.g., plant capacity, capacity factor, and total production costs) are historically much more similar to nuclear plants than are those of natural gas plants.13 Also, the vast majority of existing nuclear plants were built before 1990, but advanced gas plants that would be suitable replacements for base-load nuclear plants (i.e., combined-cycle gas turbines) have only become available since the early 1990s.13 Furthermore, coal resources are highly abundant and widespread,24,25 and coal fuel and total production costs have long been relatively low, unlike historically available gas resources and production costs.13 Thus, it is not surprising that coal has been by far the dominant source of global electricity thus far (Figure 1). We therefore assess that our baseline historical replacement scenario is plausible and that it is not as significant an uncertainty source as the impact factors; that is, our avoided historical impacts are more likely underestimates, as discussed in the above paragraph. Implications. More broadly, our results underscore the importance of avoiding a false and counterproductive dichotomy between reducing air pollution and stabilizing the climate, as elaborated by others.27−29 If near-term air pollution abatement trumps the goal of long-term climate protection, governments might decide to carry out future electric fuel switching in even more climate-impacting ways than we have examined here. For instance, they might start large-scale production and use of gas derived from coal ("syngas"), as coal is by far the most abundant of the three conventional fossil fuels.24,25 While this could reduce the very high pollutionrelated deaths from coal power (Figure 2), the GHG emissions factor for syngas is substantially higher (between ∼5 and 90) than for coal,30 thereby entailing even higher electricity sector GHG emissions in the long term. In conclusion, it is clear that nuclear power has provided a large contribution to the reduction of global mortality and GHG emissions due to fossil fuel use. If the role of nuclear power significantly declines in the next few decades, the International Energy Agency asserts that achieving a target atmospheric GHG level of 450 ppm CO2-eq would require "heroic achievements in the deployment of emerging lowcarbon technologies, which have yet to be proven. Countries that rely heavily on nuclear power would find it particularly challenging and significantly more costly to meet their targeted levels of emissions." 2 Our analysis herein and a prior one7 strongly support this conclusion. Indeed, on the basis of combined evidence from paleoclimate data, observed ongoing climate impacts, and the measured planetary energy imbalance, it appears increasingly clear that the commonly discussed targets of 450 ppm and 2 °C global temperature rise (above preindustrial levels) are insufficient to avoid devastating climate impacts; we have suggested elsewhere that more appropriate targets are less than 350 ppm and 1 °C (refs 3 and 31−33). Aiming for these targets emphasizes the importance of retaining Environmental Science and Technology Article 4893 dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3051197 ~| Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 4889−4895 and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy efficiency improvements and renewables, in the near-term global energy supply.
	37	+
	38	+
	39	+====Closing nuclear plants forces increased fossil fuel use ====
	40	+**Roston 15** ~~Eric Roston, writer for Bloomberg, "Why Nuclear Power Is All but Dead in the U.S." Bloomberg News, April 15, 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/soon-it-may-be-easier-to-build-a-nuclear-plant-in-iran-than-in-the-u-s-~~ JW
	41	+*ellipsis from original text
	42	+Say what? The U.S. achieved
	43	+AND
	44	+to figure out nuclear if that envelope is to mean anything to us."
	45	+
	46	+
	47	+====Nuclear power is key to preventing global warming- empirics prove.====
	48	+** Biello 13 –**David Biello 13, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/, citing James Hansen of Columbia University, How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming
	49	+In addition to reducing the risk of nuclear war, U.S. ~~
	50	+AND
	51	+must reduce our emissions and consumption here at home in the global North.
	52	+
	53	+
	54	+=Case =
	55	+
	56	+
	57	+====Every reduction in emissions counts – there's no threshold for extinction, it's about degree====
	58	+Nuccitelli 12 (Dana, environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm, Bachelor's Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis, "Realistically What Might the Future Climate Look Like?,")
	59	+We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson
	60	+AND
	61	+by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions as soon and as much as possible.
	62	+
	63	+
	64	+====It's not too late—emissions reductions can avoid and delay catastrophic impacts. ====
	65	+Chestney 13 – Nina, senior environmental correspondent, "Climate Change Study: Emissions Limits Could Avoid Damage By Two-Thirds," 1/13
	66	+The world could avoid much of the damaging effects of climate change this century if
	67	+AND
	68	+, transport systems and agriculture more resilient to climate change," Arnell said.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-10-11 05:52:21.961

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Travis Fife

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Polytechnic JL

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+16

Round

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

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+West Ranch Won Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPTOCT - Voices R6 NC

Tournament

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