Changes for page West Nelson Neg

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41

From version < 14.1 >
edited by Kenneth Nelson
on 2016/10/28 23:01
To version < 3.1 >
edited by Kenneth Nelson
on 2016/09/17 17:22
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[0]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-09-17 17:22:19.0
1 +2016-09-17 17:22:19.336
Caselist.CitesClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,3 +1,0 @@
1 -Focusing on representations trades off with social change – fiat is key to reversing institutionalized oppression. Giroux 6
2 -Henry Giroux 06, prof of edu and cultural studies at Penn State, 6 (Comparative Studies of South Asia)
3 -Abstracted from the ideal of public commitment, the new authoritarianism represents a political and economic practice and form of militarism that loosens the connections among substantive democracy, critical agency, and critical education. In opposition to the rising tide of authoritarianism, educators across the globe must make a case for linking learning to progressive social change while struggling to pluralize and critically engage the diverse sites where public pedagogy takes place. In part, this suggests forming alliances that can make sure every sphere of social life is recognized as an important site of the political, social, and cultural struggle that is so crucial to any attempt to forge the knowledge, identifications, effective investments, and social relations that constitute political subjects and social agents capable of energizing and spreading the basis for a substantive global democracy. Such circumstances require that pedagogy be embraced as a moral and political practice, one that is directive and not dogmatic, an outgrowth of struggles designed to resist the increasing depoliticization of political culture that is the hallmark of the current Bush revolution. Education is the terrain where consciousness is shaped, needs are constructed, and the capacity for individual self-reflection and broad social change is nurtured and produced. Education has assumed an unparalleled significance in shaping the language, values, and ideologies that legitimize the structures and organizations that support the imperatives of global capitalism. Efforts to reduce it to a technique or methodology set aside, education remains a crucial site for the production and struggle over those pedagogical and political conditions that provide the possibilities for people to develop forms of agency that enable them individually and collectively to intervene in the processes through which the material relations of power shape the meaning and practices of their everyday lives. Within the current historical context, struggles over power take on a symbolic and discursive as well as a material and institutional form. The struggle over education is about more than the struggle over meaning and identity; it is also about how meaning, knowledge, and values are produced, authorized, and made operational within economic and structural relations of power. Education is not at odds with politics; it is an important and crucial element in any definition of the political and offers not only the theoretical tools for a systematic critique of authoritarianism but also a language of possibility for creating actual movements for democratic social change and a new biopolitics that affirms life rather than death, shared responsibility rather than shared fears, and engaged citizenship rather than the stripped-down values of consumerism. At stake here is combining symbolic forms and processes conducive to democratization with broader social contexts and the institutional formations of power itself. The key point here is to understand and engage educational and pedagogical practices from the point of view of how they are bound up with larger relations of power. Educators, students, and parents need to be clearer about how power works through and in texts, representations, and discourses, while at the same time recognizing that power cannot be limited to the study of representations and discourses, even at the level of public policy. Changing consciousness is not the same as altering the institutional basis of oppression; at the same time, institutional reform cannot take place without a change in consciousness capable of recognizing not only injustice but also the very possibility for reform, the capacity to reinvent the conditions End Page 176 and practices that make a more just future possible. In addition, it is crucial to raise questions about the relationship between pedagogy and civic culture, on the one hand, and what it takes for individuals and social groups to believe that they have any responsibility whatsoever even to address the realities of class, race, gender, and other specific forms of domination, on the other hand. For too long, the progressives have ignored that the strategic dimension of politics is inextricably connected to questions of critical education and pedagogy, to what it means to acknowledge that education is always tangled up with power, ideologies, values, and the acquisition of both particular forms of agency and specific visions of the future. The primacy of critical pedagogy to politics, social change, and the radical imagination in such dark times is dramatically captured by the internationally renowned sociologist Zygmunt Bauman. He writes, Adverse odds may be overwhelming, and yet a democratic (or, as Cornelius Castoriadis would say, an autonomous) society knows of no substitute for education and self-education as a means to influence the turn of events that can be squared with its own nature, while that nature cannot be preserved for long without "critical pedagogy"—an education sharpening its critical edge, "making society feel guilty" and "stirring things up" through stirring human consciences. The fates of freedom, of democracy that makes it possible while being made possible by it, and of education that breeds dissatisfaction with the level of both freedom and democracy achieved thus far, are inextricably connected and not to be detached from one another. One may view that intimate connection as another specimen of a vicious circle—but it is within that circle that human hopes and the chances of humanity are inscribed, and can be nowhere else.59
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-18 01:13:07.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Felix Tan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Marlborough MC
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -West Nelson Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1NC vs Natives
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Greenhill
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,55 +1,0 @@
1 -Shift DA:
2 -Nuclear power phase out means a shift to gas and coal – proven by Japan. Baum 15
3 -Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, October 20, 2015, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
4 -Turning off nuclear power requires either turning on another power source, or using less electricity. Japan has done both. Its total energy consumption is down 10 percent since 2010 due to the nuclear phase-out, but use of natural gas, a source of greenhouse gas emissions, is up 19 percent, and use of coal, which is even more harmful to the environment, is up 2 percent. (The data is available here.) Japan is now building 45 new coal power plants, but if it turned its nuclear power plants back on (except of course for the damaged Fukushima facilities), it could cut coal consumption in half. And coal poses more health and climate change dangers than nuclear power.
5 -We control empirics. Nordhaus 16
6 -Ted Nordhaus Founder and Chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Environmental Policy Think Tank, BA in History from the University of California, initiatives for the Public Interest Research Groups, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and Clean Water Action, 7-15-2016, "Without nuke power, climate change threat grows: Column," USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/15/nuclear-diablo-canyon-plant-closing-energy-power-california-environmentalists-column/87090886/. West KN
7 -That’s consistent with past closures of nuclear power stations. When nuclear plants close, one can reliably count on them being substantially replaced by fossil fuels. This was the case when California closed the San Onofre nuclear power station in 2012, when Japan shuttered its nuclear fleet after Fukushima, and in Germany, which despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade to replace its nuclear power fleet with renewable energy, announced last month that it was reneging on its commitment to phase out its large fleet of coal-fired power stations because it can’t keep the lights on without them.
8 -Two Impacts:
9 -1 Nuclear power has prevented massive amounts of death as compared to coal and gas. Hansen and Kharecha 13
10 -James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. West KN
11 -We calculate a mean value of 1.84 million human deaths prevented by world nuclear power production from 1971 to 2009 (see Figure 2a for full range), with an average of 76 000 prevented deaths/year from 2000 to 2009 (range 19 000–300 000). Estimates for the top five CO2 emitters, along with full estimate ranges for all regions in our baseline historical scenario, are also shown in Figure 2a. For perspective, results for upper and lower bound scenarios are shown in Figure S1 (Supporting Information). In Germany, which has announced plans to shut down all reactors by 2022 (ref 2), we calculate that nuclear power has prevented an average of over 117 000 deaths from 1971 to 2009 (range 29 000–470 000). The large ranges stem directly from the ranges given in Table 1 for the mortality factors. Our estimated human deaths caused by nuclear power from 1971 to 2009 are far lower than the avoided deaths. Globally, we calculate 4900 such deaths, or about 370 times lower than our result for avoided deaths. Regionally, we calculate approximately 1800 deaths in OECD Europe, 1500 in the United States, 540 in Japan, 460 in Russia (includes all 15 former Soviet Union countries), 40 in China, and 20 in India. About 25 of these deaths are due to occupational accidents, and about 70 are due to air pollution-related effects (presumably fatal cancers from radiation fallout; see Table 2 of ref 16). However, empirical evidence indicates that the April 1986 Chernobyl accident was the world’s only source of fatalities from nuclear power plant radiation fallout. According to the latest assessment by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),(17) 43 deaths are conclusively attributable to radiation from Chernobyl as of 2006 (28 were plant staff/first responders and 15 were from the 6000 diagnosed cases of thyroid cancer). UNSCEAR(17) also states that reports of an increase in leukemia among recovery workers who received higher doses are inconclusive, although cataract development was clinically significant in that group; otherwise, for these workers as well as the general population, “there has been no persuasive evidence of any other health effect” attributable to radiation exposure.(17) Furthermore, no deaths have been conclusively attributed (in a scientifically valid manner) to radiation from the other two major accidents, namely, Three Mile Island in March 1979, for which a 20 year comprehensive scientific health assessment was done,(18) and the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. While it is too soon to meaningfully assess the health impacts of the latter accident, one early analysis(19) indicates that annual radiation doses in nearby areas were much lower than the generally accepted 100 mSv threshold(17) for fatal disease development. In any case, our calculated value for global deaths caused by historical nuclear power (4900) could be a major overestimate relative to the empirical value (by 2 orders of magnitude). The absence of evidence of large mortality from past nuclear accidents is consistent with recent findings(-20, 21) that the “linear no-threshold” model used to derive the nuclear mortality factor in Table 1 (see ref 22) might not be valid for the relatively low radiation doses that the public was exposed to from nuclear power plant accidents. For the projection period 2010–2050, we find that, in the all coal case (see the Methods section), an average of 4.39 million and 7.04 million deaths are prevented globally by nuclear power production for the low-end and high-end projections of IAEA,(6) respectively. In the all gas case, an average of 420 000 and 680 000 deaths are prevented globally (see Figure 2b,c for full ranges). Regional results are also shown in Figure 2b,c. The Far East and North America have particularly high values, given that they are projected to be the biggest nuclear power producers (Figure S2, Supporting Information). As in the historical period, calculated deaths caused by nuclear power in our projection cases are far lower (2 orders of magnitude) than the avoided deaths, even taking the nuclear mortality factor in Table 1 at face value (despite the discrepancy with empirical data discussed above for the historical period).
12 -2 Coal causes huge harms and environmental racism—turns case. GEP ‘15
13 -GEP 15, “Environmental Racism in America: An Overview of the Environmental Justice Movement and the Role of Race in Environmental Policies”, The Goldman Environmental Press, 24 Jun 2015
14 -The problem of racial profiling in America relates to more than just police brutality and the senseless acts of violence that have recently captured the national spotlight. Race also plays a determining role in environmental policies regarding land use, zoning and regulations. As a result, African American, Latino, indigenous and low-income communities are more likely to live next to a coal-fired power plant, landfill, refinery or other highly polluting facility. These communities bear a disproportionate burden of toxic contamination as a result of pollution in and around their neighborhoods. Moreover, these communities have historically had a diminished response capacity to fight back against such policies.¶ A recent report from the NAACP entitled “Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People,” found that among the nearly six million Americans living within three miles of a coal plant, 39 are people of color – a figure that is higher than the 36 proportion of people of color in the total US population. The report also found that 78 of all African Americans live within 30 miles of a coal fired power plant.¶ In an interview for Yale Environment 360, Jacqueline Patterson, the Environmental and Climate Justice Director for the NAACP commented on the disproportionate burden faced by communities of color:¶ “An African American child is three times more likely to go into the emergency room for an asthma attack than a white child, and twice as likely to die from asthma attacks as a white child. African Americans are more likely to die from lung disease, but less likely to smoke. When we did a road tour to visit the communities that were impacted by coal pollution, we found many anecdotal stories of people saying, yes, my husband, my father, my wife died of lung cancer and never smoked a day in her life. And these are people who are living within three miles of the coal-fired power plants we visited.”
15 -Err neg on this question: The impacts are underestimated – coal is more likely than gas to be substituted – multiple warrants. Hansen and Kharecha 13
16 -James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. West KN
17 -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)
18 -Coal O/W
19 -Coal is comparatively worse for death and health – it is constant exposure vs temporary exposure. Baum 15
20 -Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, October 20, 2015, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
21 -The primary harm caused by nuclear accidents is increased cancer risk from released radiation. But the radiation levels from Fukushima are so low that the cancer increase will be barely noticeable, and may not happen at all. To be sure, the radiation exposure would have been worse if the prevailing winds did not blow most of the radiation out to the Pacific. But as with the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986, the Fukushima disaster caused more harm from overreaction to the radiation than from radiation itself. That’s partly because excessive evacuations can cause more deaths than they prevent. The anti-radiation stigma also levied a psychological toll, with some healthy people committing suicide. In Chernobyl, as many as 100,000 unnecessary abortions may have been performed due to fears of radiation’s impact. Another nuclear power plant accident in the near future is, moreover, extremely unlikely. It is normal to pay attention to disasters that are fresh in our memory and overestimate the risk of another; psychologists call this the recency effect. But nuclear plant accidents do not come in bunches. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Fukushima accident is only the second Level 7 major accident in nuclear power history, the first being the Chernobyl disaster 29 years ago. If anything, we should expect the probability of another accident in Japan to be smaller now because so many people are paying attention to the plants and the institutions overseeing them. Meanwhile, coal plants also damage human health, through asthma, bronchitis, cancer, and other illnesses. The difference is that nuclear plants only harm health following rare accidents, whereas working coal plants do so all the time. So by switching from nuclear to coal, Japan is rejecting a small chance of increased cancer in favor of a guaranteed increase in cancer and other maladies. In fact, one study found that coal causes 387 times more deaths per unit of energy than nuclear power. Since coal is also more expensive for Japan (as even critics of the nuclear restart have pointed out), restarting the nuclear plants appears to be very much in the country’s national interest.
22 -Warming DA:
23 -Nuclear power is increasing – many plans are being built or are under consideration. Groskopf ‘01/26
24 -Christopher Groskopf – reporter. “New nuclear reactors are being built a lot more like cars.” Quartz. January 26, 2016. http://qz.com/581566/new-nuclear-reactors-are-being-built-a-lot-more-like-cars/ creds: JJN
25 -At its birth, nuclear power was a closely guarded national enterprise, only accessible to the most prosperous nations. But over the last 50 years it has evolved into a robust international market with a global supply chain. Not only are more countries starting or considering new nuclear plants, a great many more countries are contributing to their construction. According to data from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 66 nuclear reactors are under construction around the world. Dozens more are in various stages of planning. The vast majority of new reactors are being built in China, which has invested in nuclear power in a way not seen since the United States and France first built out their capacity in the 1960’s and 70’s. China’s 2015 Five Year Plan calls for 40 reactors to be built by 2020 and as many as ten more are planned for every year thereafter. Fifteen other countries around the world are also building reactors. The Chinese sprint toward nuclear power is along a path toward becoming a major exporter of nuclear technology and expertise. In addition to adopting western designs, China also has its own reactor designs. Plants based on those designs are also under construction both China and in Pakistan. Other countries are considering them. At the same time China has upgraded its capacity to produce pressure vessels, turbines and other heavy manufacturing components—all of which it is expected to begin exporting. This sort of globalized manufacturing is nothing new: cars, airplanes and most other complicated machines are built in this way. However, it is new for reactors, which must be constructed on-site and rely on highly specialized parts. Those parts must be manufactured to tolerances well beyond what is required in other industries. In some cases even the equipment needed to creating them must be purpose-built. Consider, for example, the steel pressure vessel at the heart of the most common reactor designs. These vessels can only be created in the world’s largest steel presses—some of which exert more than 30,000 pounds of force. The vessels are forged out of solid steel ingots that may weigh more than a million pounds. Until recently there were only a handful of such presses in the world. Today there are at least 23, spread across 11 countries, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). Such specialization is not limited to heavy manufacturing. Nuclear reactors require thousands of other mechanical and electronic components, many of which are purpose-made. A brochure from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) identifies hundreds of individual parts. (pdf) Even otherwise common products may need to meet extraordinarily fine tolerances. Standards require that steel elements relevant to safety are manufactured with exceptional “nuclear-grade steel.” According to another NEI list, the construction of a new reactor may require a total of: 500 to 3,000 nuclear grade valves 125 to 250 pumps 44 miles of piping 300 miles of electric wiring 90,000 electrical components According to Greg Kaser, who analyzes supply chains for the WNA, the market for nuclear components has been driven by US-based reactor companies, namely Westinghouse Electric Company. “The US can’t produce everything that’s required for a nuclear reactor anymore, so they have to go international,” Kaser told Quartz. Reactors based on Westinghouse’s AP1000 design are under construction in both the US and China. The parts for these reactors are sourced from all over the world. Many come from European companies that were originally created to supply domestic nuclear programs, but have since become important exporters. This trade in nuclear components is difficult to measure. Despite the specific qualifications of a nuclear-grade valve, it is still a valve and doesn’t necessarily show up in trade statistics as anything more. A great deal of trade is also in expertise. Engineers from China, Japan, South Korea and the United States frequently consult on (or lead) nuclear projects around the world. A 2014 WNA report (paywall) estimates that the total value of investments in new nuclear facilities through 2030 will be $1.2 trillion. But this nuclear globalization has not been greeted with enthusiasm everywhere. The 2011 nuclear contamination disaster at Fukushima, Japan, briefly stalled development of some projects and prompted Germany to begin shutting down all of its reactors. A decision by the UK to allow a Chinese company to develop new nuclear reactors in England has led to both domestic and international hand-wringing over the security implications. Others worry about about safety issues resulting from companies faking the certifications required for selling reactor components. In 2013, two South Korean nuclear reactors were shut down when it was discovered that they had installed cables with counterfeit nuclear certifications. This year the IAEA will update a procurement guide for plant operators that was published in 1996. (pdf) The new version will include a chapter specifically addressing counterfeit components. For the moment, it’s unlikely any of these concerns will be enough to slow the resurgent growth of the global nuclear industry. Though big nuclear companies often speak of localizing the supply chain—and keeping those jobs in their home country—international competition can drive down the price of building a reactor. In fact, the supply chain is likely to become even more important to the construction process in the future. New reactors being designed today are both smaller and more modular, and plans call for large sections of them to be assembled in factories and shipped to the site. If it sounds a lot like the assembly line at a automobile plant, that’s because it is. But of course, one small oversight or production flaw could make a much greater difference.
26 -
27 -The projected amount of nuclear power reduces climate change by up to 48 percent. Hansen and Kharecha 13
28 -James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. ***GT = gigatonnes, MT = megatonnes
29 -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).
30 -Without nuclear power, needed climate change reduction becomes impossible. Hansen and Kharecha 2
31 -James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013
32 -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 and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy efficiency improvements and renewables, in the near-term global energy supply
33 -Warming is real, and the melting of the ice caps causes extinction. Hartmann 8/4
34 -Daily Take Team, Thom Hartmann Show, 8-4-16, "Are We Looking at a Mass Extinction Event?," Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/37116-are-we-looking-at-a-mass-extinction-event
35 -The report describes a "toppling of several symbolic mileposts" in 2015, and makes it clearer than ever that climate change is real, that human activity is the primary driver and that we're watching the effects play out in real time. The year 2015 was one-tenth of a degree Celsius hotter than 2014, making it the warmest year on record; but, based on the fact that the last 14 months have all been record-breaking months, 2016 is likely to take that record from 2015. Our oceans also saw record breaking oceanic temperatures in 2015: The Pacific was 2 degrees Celsius warmer than the long-term average, and the Arctic reached a shocking 8 degrees Celsius above average. Other significant changes described in the State of the Climate report for 2015 include the Arctic hitting its lowest recorded maximum sea ice extent in February of 2015, the world's alpine glaciers registering a net annual loss of ice for the 36th year in a row, and the Greenland ice sheet melting over more than 50 percent of its surface. This year, Greenland's melt season started two months earlier than usual and scientists are now very concerned about what could happen if this rate of warming continues, or accelerates. But what's really terrifying isn't the melting itself, it's what will be released if we don't take immediate action to curb the climate change that's happened because of the 350 billion tons of carbon we've already burned into the atmosphere since 1850. Dr. Charles Miller with NASA's Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) astonished me recently when he estimated that there are 1,500 BILLION tons of carbon locked in the Arctic soils, and nearly 10,000 BILLION tons of methane clathrates trapped at the bottom of the Arctic sea. Right now we've already warmed the planet by 1 degree Celsius, and because of the delayed impacts of dumping carbon into the atmosphere, we've likely already locked in another 1 degree Celsius of warming on top of that, and what Dr. Miller's data suggests is that we could see another 1 degree Celsius of warming if just 10 to 20 percent of the permafrost melts in the Arctic. And all over the planet we're already experiencing the effects of ice melt in the Arctic as more open water in the Arctic leads to more evaporation: like the collapse of the jet stream and the extremely cold winters we've seen on the East Coast of the United States. Some scientists now fear that as ice-melt accelerates in the Arctic, we could see that 1,500 billion tons of land-based carbon and 10,000 billion tons of sea-based methane released into the atmosphere from the permafrost and from beneath the Arctic Sea where it's been trapped for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years. If that happens, some scientists estimate that we would see a mass extinction event on the level of the Permian extinction, when up to 96 percent of the all marine species and 70 percent of all land-based species on the planet were wiped out, and it's unlikely that humans would be one of the surviving species. That path to extinction though, started with our use of fossil fuels. To save human and other life as we know it on this planet, we need to put a price on carbon NOW, and we need to hold those who fund climate deniers accountable for knowing the risks of fossil fuels for decades, and lying to the public about it. Our next president needs to get serious about taking the lead to fight climate change by investing in a modern-day Manhattan Project-scale effort to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to aggressively transform our energy infrastructure to 100 percent renewable as soon as possible. Our survival as a species may well depend on it.
36 -Case
37 -I/L Takeout: Prolif
38 -Squo solves: safeguards, international pressure, and NPT signatures. Plus, alt cause: political uncertainty. WNA 16
39 -World Nuclear Association Nuclear Power ThinkTank, holds an annual Symposium comprised of nuclear power experts, Updated: April 2016 (no date given), "Nuclear Proliferation Safeguards," http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx. Accessed: 9/7/16
40 -Over the past 35 years the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) safeguards system under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a conspicuous international success in curbing the diversion of civil uranium into military uses. It has involved cooperation in developing nuclear energy while ensuring that civil uranium, plutonium and associated plants are used only for peaceful purposes and do not contribute in any way to proliferation or nuclear weapons programs. In 1995 the NPT was extended indefinitely. Its scope is also being widened to include undeclared nuclear activities. Most countries have renounced nuclear weapons, recognising that possession of them would threaten rather than enhance national security. They have therefore embraced the NPT as a public commitment to use nuclear materials and technology only for peaceful purposes.The successful conclusion, in 1968, of negotiations on the NPT was a landmark in the history of non-proliferation. After coming into force in 1970, its indefinite extension in May 1995 was another. The NPT was essentially an agreement among the five nuclear weapons states and the other countries interested in nuclear technology. The deal was that assistance and cooperation would be traded for pledges, backed by international scrutiny, that no plant or material would be diverted to weapons' use. Those who refused to be part of the deal would be excluded from international cooperation or trade involving nuclear technology. At present, 189 states plus Taiwan are parties to the NPT. These include all five declared Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) which had manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon before 1967: China, France, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA. The main countries remaining outside the NPT are Israel, India and Pakistan, though North Korea has moved to join them. These all have weapons programs which have come to maturity since 1970, so they cannot join without renouncing and dismantling those. In 2008 special arrangements were agreed internationally for India, bringing it part way in, and its ratification of the Additional Protocol in 2014 put it on a similar footing to the five NWS. In mid-2013, 181 states plus Taiwan had safeguards agreements with IAEA in force.The NPT's main objectives are to stop the further spread of nuclear weapons, to provide security for non-nuclear weapon states which have given up the nuclear option, to encourage international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to pursue negotiations in good faith towards nuclear disarmament leading to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. The most important factor underpinning the safeguards regime is international political pressure and how particular nations perceive their long-term security interests in relation to their immediate neighbours. The solution to nuclear weapons proliferation is thus political more than technical, and it certainly goes beyond the question of uranium availability. International pressure not to acquire weapons is enough to deter most states from developing a weapons program. The major risk of nuclear weapons' proliferation will always lie with countries which have not joined the NPT and which have significant unsafeguarded nuclear activities, and those which have joined but disregard their treaty commitments. For further information on India and Pakistan, see the respective papers in this series. For information on Iran, North Korea, Israel and Iraq, see the Appendix to this paper.The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)The IAEA was set up by unanimous resolution of the United Nations in 1957 to help nations develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Allied to this role is the administration of safeguards arrangements. This provides assurance to the international community that individual countries are honouring their treaty commitments to use nuclear materials and facilities exclusively for peaceful purposes.The IAEA therefore undertakes regular inspections of civil nuclear facilities to verify the accuracy of documentation supplied to it. The agency checks inventories and undertakes sampling and analysis of materials. Safeguards are designed to deter diversion of nuclear material by increasing the risk of early detection. They are complemented by controls on the export of sensitive technology from countries such as UK and USA through voluntary bodies such as the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. Safeguards are backed up by the threat of international sanctions.Scope of safeguardsIt is important to understand that nuclear safeguards are a means of reassurance whereby non-nuclear weapons states demonstrate to others that they are abiding by their peaceful commitments. They prevent nuclear proliferation in the same way that auditing procedures build confidence in proper financial conduct and prevent embezzlement. Their specific objective is to verify whether declared (usually traded) nuclear material remains within the civil nuclear fuel cycle and is being used solely for peaceful purposes or not.Non-nuclear-weapons state parties to the NPT agree to accept technical safeguards measures applied by the IAEA. These require that operators of nuclear facilities maintain and declare detailed accounting records of all movements and transactions involving nuclear material. Almost 900 nuclear facilities and several hundred other locations in 57 non-nuclear-weapons countries are subject to regular inspection. Their records and the actual nuclear material are audited. Inspections by the IAEA are complemented by other measures such as surveillance cameras and instrumentation.The aim of traditional IAEA safeguards is to deter the diversion of nuclear material from peaceful use by maximising the risk of early detection. At a broader level they provide assurance to the international community that countries are honouring their treaty commitments to use nuclear materials and facilities exclusively for peaceful purposes. In this way safeguards are a service both to the international community and to individual states, who recognise that it is in their own interest to demonstrate compliance with these commitments.The inspections act as an alert system providing a warning of the possible diversion of nuclear material from peaceful activities. The system relies on; Material Accountability – tracking all inward and outward transfers and the flow of materials in any nuclear facility. This includes sampling and analysis of nuclear material, on-site inspections, review and verification of operating records. Physical Security – restricting access to nuclear materials at the site of use. Containment and Surveillance – use of seals, automatic cameras and other instruments to detect unreported movement or tampering with nuclear materials, as well as spot checks on-site. All NPT non-weapons states must accept these 'full-scope' safeguards, which apply to all nuclear facilities in the country. In the five weapons states plus the non-NPT states (India, Pakistan and Israel), facility-specific safeguards apply to relevant plants (see further section below). IAEA inspectors regularly visit these facilities to verify completeness and accuracy of records. Uranium supplied to nuclear weapons states is not, under the NPT, covered by safeguards. However normally there is at least a "peaceful use" clause in the supply contract, and in the case of Australia, a bilateral safeguards agreement is required which does cover all uranium supplied and all materials arising from it (as "Australian obligated nuclear materials" – AONM). Neither the peaceful use clause nor the bilateral treaty mean that materials are restricted to facilities on the state's list of facilities eligible for IAEA inspection. The NPT is supplemented by other safeguards systems such as those among certain European nations (Euratom Safeguards) and between individual countries (bilateral agreements) such as Australia and customer countries for its uranium, or Japan and the USA. The terms of the NPT cannot be enforced by the IAEA itself, nor can nations be forced to sign the treaty. In reality, as shown in Iran and North Korea, safeguards are backed up by diplomatic, political and economic measures.
41 -Huge alt cause – could just proliferate from the existing waste they have. WNA 16
42 -World Nuclear Association Nuclear Power ThinkTank, holds an annual Symposium comprised of nuclear power experts, Updated: April 2016 (no other date given), "Nuclear Proliferation Safeguards," http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx. Accessed: 9/7/16
43 -While nuclear power reactors themselves are not a proliferation concern, enrichment and reprocessing technologies are open to use for other purposes, and have been the cause of proliferation through illicit or unsafeguarded use, as outlined in the Appendix to this paper. This problem is largely addressed in the Additional Protocol, as described above, and in fact such sensitive nuclear technologies (SNT) are largely confined to NPT weapons states plus Japan. For most countries they would make no economic sense, and several recent initiatives focus on how to create conditions which make them unattractive propositions.
44 -We control empirics, and the alt cause is true of every country. WNA 16
45 -Civil nuclear power has not been the cause of or route to nuclear weapons in any country that has nuclear weapons, and no uranium traded for electricity production has ever been diverted for military use. All nuclear weapons programmes have either preceded or risen independently of civil nuclear power*, as shown most recently by North Korea. No country is without plenty of uranium in the small quantities needed for a few weapons.*An exception may have been South Africa. See also individual case studies.
46 -Nuke terror
47 -No risk of nuclear terror – assumes every warrant
48 -Mueller 10 (John, professor of political science at Ohio State, 2010, Calming Our Nuclear Jitters, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html)
49 -Politicians of all stripes preach to an anxious, appreciative, and very numerous choir when they, like President Obama, proclaim atomic terrorism to be “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.” It is the problem that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, currently keeps every senior leader awake at night. This is hardly a new anxiety. In 1946, atomic bomb maker J. Robert Oppenheimer ominously warned that if three or four men could smuggle in units for an atomic bomb, they could blow up New York. This was an early expression of a pattern of dramatic risk inflation that has persisted throughout the nuclear age. In fact, although expanding fires and fallout might increase the effective destructive radius, the blast of a Hiroshima-size device would “blow up” about 1 of the city’s area—a tragedy, of course, but not the same as one 100 times greater. In the early 1970s, nuclear physicist Theodore Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be “immediate,” explaining at length “how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear material and step by step make it into a bomb.” At the time he thought it was already too late to “prevent the making of a few bombs, here and there, now and then,” or “in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too late.” Three decades after Taylor, we continue to wait for terrorists to carry out their “easy” task. In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money-transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, “have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.” If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces. Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators. If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered. Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine
50 -
51 -
52 -Elections
53 -Trump can’t win – Electoral College system
54 -Waldaman 16 Paul Waldaman, 5-4-2016, "Why the outcome of the 2016 election is already crystal clear," The Week, http://theweek.com/articles/622075/why-outcome-2016-election-already-crystal-clear
55 -The general election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump promises to be one of the weirdest, nastiest, and most fascinating cultural/political events of any of our lifetimes. So bear with me for a little while as I suck all the life out of it and explain why it's actually going to be pretty simple. The likely outcome, while not completely preordained, is already clear to see. That's because of the strange and rather undemocratic feature of our presidential voting system known as the Electoral College. While an essay in favor of eliminating it will have to wait for another day, the key fact about the college is that it makes the race matter only in those states where both sides have some chance of winning, what we usually call the "battleground" states. There aren't very many of them, and even before the general election begins — i.e., even before Republicans nominate Donald Trump, perhaps the most unpopular major party nominee in history — the Democratic nominee has a serious advantage. Let's take the last four elections, two won by Barack Obama and two won by George W. Bush, as our starting point. There were 17 states (plus D.C.) that Democrats won in all four of those elections: California, Oregon, and Washington in the West; Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan in the Midwest; and everything in the Northeast from Maryland on up, with the exception of New Hampshire. Just those states give the Democrats 242 of the 270 electoral votes they need to take the White House. The Republicans, on the other hand, won 22 states in all four of those elections, covering parts of the Deep South, th e Midwest, and the Mountain West, plus Alaska. But those states only add up to 180 electoral votes. While there are a few states in those two groups where things might become competitive — Republicans will contest Wisconsin, and Democrats think they have a chance in Arizona, for instance — the truth is that even in this unusual election year, none of them are likely to flip. Donald Trump could strangle a puppy on live television and he would still win Idaho and Mississippi; Hillary Clinton could make Martin Shkreli her running mate and she'd still win California and Massachusetts. But if any of those states do change, it's likely to be in Clinton's direction, given Trump's unpopularity. That Democratic advantage, 242-180 at the outset, may be the single most important pair of numbers to understand in determining the ultimate outcome of the race. What it means is that Donald Trump will have to not just do well in swing states, he'll have to sweep almost all of them in order to win. Here's a revealing comparison. In 2004, George W. Bush beat John Kerry by 2.5 percentage points nationwide — close, but compared to the 2000 election, a relatively easy victory. In doing so, he took the swing states of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. The only true swing state Kerry won was New Hampshire. Yet Bush won the Electoral College by a margin of only 35 electoral votes, 286-251. Contrast that with 2012, when Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by 4 percentage points — a little more comfortable than Bush's 2004 win, but not hugely different. On the state level, Obama bested Bush's 2004 results only by taking New Hampshire. Yet Obama's margin in the Electoral College was enormous: 332-206, or 126 votes. If Hillary Clinton starts with those 242 electoral votes, she only needs 28 more to win. As it happens, Florida has 29 electoral votes, so she could win there, lose every other swing state, and still win. Or she could take Virginia (13 EVs) and North Carolina (15 EVs) and lose all the others. Or she could take Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4), and Iowa (6) and lose all the others. Or...well, you get the idea. There are a whole variety of ways Clinton could win, while Trump has to run the table. That isn't to say that the national result doesn't matter; it's only been in the rarest of circumstances (like 2000) that the total vote and the electoral vote pointed in opposite directions. But by now few people are saying that Donald Trump has such fantastic appeal to working class white men that he can steal states in the Midwest, or tap some heretofore unnoticed vein of votes. And you can forget about the momentary disgruntlement from supporters of Bernie Sanders playing a major role; in November, Clinton will retain the votes of nearly all Democrats. Barack Obama got the votes of 92 percent of Democrats in 2012, and she'll be in the same neighborhood. Will Donald Trump do as well among Republicans? He might, as they realize that the alternative is Clinton, so they might as well go with their party's nominee even if he wasn't their first choice. But Trump only needs to bleed a couple of points in his party for the election to fall well out of his reach. Looking at the election this way can make the daily back-and-forth of the campaign seem unimportant. But that's true only if you think that the final outcome is all that matters. It isn't; the campaign is an opportunity for us to discuss all kinds of issues and get to know ourselves as a country better, even if we don't always like what we see. This election will by turns be fascinating, outrageous, appalling, disgusting, disheartening, and perhaps even inspiring. But when it's all over, the chances that anyone will be saying the words "President Trump" are pretty low.
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-18 04:26:17.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -James Braden
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -St Agnes CD
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -West Nelson Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1NC WarmingShift Greenhill Round 5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Greenhill
Caselist.CitesClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,61 +1,0 @@
1 -Shift DA
2 -The aff causes a shift to coal and gas – electricity has to come from somewhere. Baum 15
3 -Seth Baum Executive Director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute; Ph.D., Geography, Pennsylvania State University; M.S., Electrical Engineering, Northeastern University, "Japan should restart more nuclear power plants," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/japan-should-restart-more-nuclear-power-plants8817. Credits: Greenhill SK
4 -Restarting Japan’s nuclear power plants is, however, the right decision, provided they can pass strict new safety checks instituted since Fukushima. The reason is simple: While nuclear power comes with risks, the primary alternative comes with bigger ones. Turning off nuclear power requires either turning on another power source, or using less electricity. Japan has done both. Its total energy consumption is down 10 percent since 2010 due to the nuclear phase-out, but use of natural gas, a source of greenhouse gas emissions, is up 19 percent, and use of coal, which is even more harmful to the environment, is up 2 percent. (The data is available here.) Japan is now building 45 new coal power plants, but if it turned its nuclear power plants back on (except of course for the damaged Fukushima facilities), it could cut coal consumption in half. And coal poses more health and climate change dangers than nuclear power.
5 -Renewables cannot provide baseload power and accommodate population growth. Abernathy 15
6 -Mark Abernathy speechwriter, ghostwriter, journalist and author. Born in New Zealand, he has lived in Australia for most of his adult life. A former editor at Australian Penthouse magazine, he has also written for the Australian Financial Review 11-30-2015, "Solar, wind, nuclear power on the rise, but coal still has its place," Financial Review, http://www.afr.com/news/special-reports/australia-energy-future/preparing-for-the-electricity-surge-20151129-glapit. Brackets in Original
7 -Australian's vision of a decarbonised power supply is bold but it reveals the conundrum at the heart of energy planning. The problem is not simply taking carbon out of the electricity grid, a task the South Australian government has embraced as it reaches 27 per cent wind-generated power. The future challenge is producing reliable power with low carbon emissions, as the population increases and people and continue to live in electricity-hungry cities. Getting the future energy equation right is a moving target. The International Energy Agency forecasts an 80 per cent increase in world electricity demand to 2040, with an increase in total energy demand (gas, coal, oil, renewables) of 37 per cent by 2040. And even with a massive push for renewables, 75 per cent of the energy used globally will be still be the hydrocarbons of oil, gas and coal, which produce the highest carbon emissions. The Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) forecasts Australian energy usage to grow 42 per cent to 2050, with electricity generation growing 30 per cent over the same period. But renewables such as solar and wind will not take over the generation task. Coal's share of total electricity generation will remain stable at about 65 per cent to 2050, according to BREE. And wind and solar currently only comprise 20 per cent of Australia's renewables generation: the bulk is from biomass, in particular from the sugar and timber industries. Observing the patterns of demand is the job of Matt Zema, chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator. He says total electricity usage in 2009 was about 200,000 gigawatt hours, and it has shrunk to 180,000 gwh. We are not expected to return to 2009 levels until at least 2020, and in 2035 the total won't rise much past 220,000. He says the challenge is to forecast power patterns based on behaviour rather than the old certainties of demand and load. "Since 2005 we've seen a move to decentralised power generation," Zema says. "We're moving away from huge, centralised power stations that were built from the 1960s onward and now we move into a new phase." Solar only just begun Zema says the rise of solar PV panels on roofs has only just begun because the arrival of cheap and effective battery storage will increase the uptake and the amount of power generated and used, from rooftops. "A few years ago, storage was something happening in 10 years, perhaps. Now we can see that affordable storage is three to five years away. Technology will change our future energy usage faster than other factors.' Zema says the current forecasts are that coal will continue to provide most electrical power in Australia in 2040, but that can't account for technology and consumer behaviour. This is because coal is Australia's cheapest and most "dispatchable" power source, but storage technology might make some renewables dispatchable too. By 2035, AEMO forecasts that South Australia's PV rooftop panels will account for 28 per cent of underlying residential and commercial consumption, and in Queensland it will be just over 20 per cent coming from PV. When effective storage is added, Zema says, it is consumer behaviour that drives the energy market, not the old metrics of demand and load. In South Australia, by the end of 2025, PV users could be net generators to the grid, at certain times, Zema says, which means rooftop PV will be sufficient, on some days, to meet the underlying consumption of the residential, commercial and industrial sectors during the middle of the day. Unhitching from coal as a future energy source is directly reliant on plans for base-load power, says Ben Heard, a director at ThinkClimate Consulting. He says if you take out the fluctuations and spikes of power usage and the daily peaks and seasonal ups and downs, you end up with a base of daily and annual power demand that must always be available. "When you build a power supply, you have the base-load at the foundation," says Heard, also a doctoral candidate at University of Adelaide. "You want this to be available 24/7 and so you use the cheapest and most reliable way of doing it. And in Australia, that's coal-fired generation." Nuclear tech under consideration The other reliable base-load technology is nuclear, a technology now being actively considered for South Australia. South Australia is something of a cautionary tale for green warriors running too quickly to a decarbonised future, Heard says. The night before he spoke to The Australian Financial Review there had been a two-hour power outage in the state. "If you place too much reliance on wind and solar, and retire your dirty coal base-load supply, you might get away with it for a few years when demand is flat; but when the population and cities start growing again, you're vulnerable." South Australia has the highest mix of renewables in Australia (while demand is flat), but it also relies on a grid interconnector to bring coal-fired power from Victoria. Australia's energy future will have lower emissions while still keeping its base-load power, the chairman of the Academy of Technological Science and Engineering (ATSE), Dr Bruce Godfrey says. But he says the challenge won't be met by forcing a comparison "between apples and oranges". "We have to be careful of false comparisons," Godfrey says. "We need base-load supply, and that comes from coal, gas and nuclear. Wind, solar, tidal and wave are variable supplies. They have their place, and as they improve they are gaining a bigger place in our grids. But you can't compare them with base-load."
8 -
9 -We control empirics. Nordhaus and Rothrock 7-15
10 -Ted Nordhaus Founder and Chairman of the Breakthrough Institute, an Environmental Policy Think Tank, BA in History from the University of California, initiatives for the Public Interest Research Groups, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and Clean Water Action Ray Rothrock CEO of Red Seal, former president of the National Venture Capital Association, B.S. in Nuclear Engineering from Texas AandM University, an S.M. in Nuclear Engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and an MBA with Distinction from Harvard Business School, 7-15-2016, "Without nuke power, climate change threat grows: Column," USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/15/nuclear-diablo-canyon-plant-closing-energy-power-california-environmentalists-column/87090886/. West KN
11 -That’s consistent with past closures of nuclear power stations. When nuclear plants close, one can reliably count on them being substantially replaced by fossil fuels. This was the case when California closed the San Onofre nuclear power station in 2012, when Japan shuttered its nuclear fleet after Fukushima, and in Germany, which despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars over the last decade to replace its nuclear power fleet with renewable energy, announced last month that it was reneging on its commitment to phase out its large fleet of coal-fired power stations because it can’t keep the lights on without them.
12 -Turkey needs nuclear for their energy portfolio and growth. Namli and Namli 14
13 -Hanife Topal-Namli PHD Dumlupinar University Kutahya, Turkey Suat Sean Namli, Ph.D. North American University Houston, Texas, December 2014, "Nuclear power in turkey, pros and cons", http://westeastinstitute.com/journals/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/3.Hanife-Topal-Namli-JWEIBE.pdf
14 -Turkey, with an increasing demand and consumption for electricity, is in need of finding a sustainable source for electricity production. The country has a huge current account deficit most of which results from its energy imports. Plans for nuclear power construction are a key aspect of the country's aim for sustainable economic growth. In Turkey building up a nuclear power plant has always been a hot topic for discussion at least for 40 years. Most people in the country are against having a nuclear power plant because of its risks. As a country which had closely witnessed and experienced the consequences of Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, it seems really difficult to convince people completely on the benefits of having a nuclear plant within the borders. On the other hand, while public discussion continues, Turkish government unfortunately, until the year 2013 had never achieved to finalize nuclear power plant projects due to economic reasons. In this paper we will examine the pros and cons of having nuclear power plants in Turkey mostly in terms of economic aspects considering economic and social costs as well as economic gains. In addition we will look at Turkey’s nuclear energy policies. We will also mention about environmental effects debates of the nuclear power plant in the country. Key Words: Turkey, Nuclear Energy, Cost, Challenges, Benefits Nuclear Power in Turkey: Pros and Cons Nuclear power has always been some part of Turkey’s future plans so far in the history. Current government also has been using future nuclear power projects as a strong card for the elections as well. Nuclear energy in Turkey has been presented by the government as cheap, sustainable, and environmentally friendly and is seen by many as a powerful way to diversify the country’s energy portfolio while at the same time reducing energy dependence. The Energy Ministry emphasizes nuclear power’s relatively low cost and high sustainability as the main reasons for pursuing the project. Former energy Minister Hilmi Guler stressed that nuclear technology would be beneficial to development, would provide a threshold for attaining high-tech products, and would contribute to Turkey’s prestige. (Udum, 2010) For a variety of reasons, including public opposition, high capital cost and financing difficulties, and insufficient governance and management capacity on the part of the state agencies, Turkey has not been able to build its first nuclear plant yet. At the same time, Turkey is closer to its first nuclear facility that the country has been pursuing since the 1970s. The official goal is 5 nuclear by 2020. Given that renewables are still costlier than conventional technologies and intermittent, and have low capacity factors, nuclear offers another option for Turkey to diversify its energy portfolio with an emissions-free technology. Perhaps, the biggest concern is the lack of an independent nuclear regulator and a ‘‘safety culture’’ in state institutions that is commensurate with the risks inherent in nuclear operations. A five-page nuclear law is not sufficient to instill confidence that Turkey is institutionally ready to build and operate a nuclear facility, and manage radioactive waste properly. (Atiyas et al., 2012)
15 -The projected amount of nuclear power reduces climate change by up to 48 percent. Hansen and Kharecha 13
16 -James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013. ***GT = gigatonnes, MT = megatonnes
17 -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).
18 -Without nuclear power, needed climate change reduction becomes impossible. Hansen and Kharecha 2
19 -James Hansen, PhD in Physics from the University of Iowa; Currently works at the Earth Institute as a Professor at Columbia University, Pushker Kharecha, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies; Researcher at Columbia in Earth Science; PhD’s in Geosciences and Astrobiology, " Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power" Environmental Science and Technology, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_kh05000e.pdf, March 13, 2013
20 -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 and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy efficiency improvements and renewables, in the near-term global energy supply
21 -
22 -Every country has to pitch in – otherwise countries will choose not to. Action by individual countries empirically results in international action. Steer 16
23 -(TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW STEER PRESIDENT AND CEO, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY: “The Paris Climate Promise: A Good Deal for America” February 2, 2016, docs.house.gov/meetings/SY/SY00/20160202/104399/HHRG-114-SY00-Wstate-SteerA-20160202.pdf)
24 -A Good Deal for America Third, The United States has much to gain from positioning itself as a climate leader. Swift action on climate change will continue to enable the United States to benefit from economic opportunities, stimulate global action on climate, and build resilience to climate impacts and their associated costs at home. The historical record is clear: environmental protection is compatible with economic growth, and U.S. environmental policies have delivered huge benefits to Americans. The United States can achieve its commitments through the Paris Agreement in concert with economic growth. It is in our economic interest to act.4 Furthermore, no nation is immune to the impacts of climate change and no nation can meet the challenge alone. Every nation needs to work together, take ambitious action, and do its fair share. Now, as all nations take stronger action, all nations gain greater assurance that a concerted, global effort is underway, and gain greater reason to take stronger action themselves. The positive effect of American leadership in concert with other nations was apparent in the lead-up to Paris in such events as the joint announcement of climate commitments by the United States and China in November 2014, which helped drive stronger action internationally. The United States has always provided leadership when the world faces big challenges, and climate change should be no exception. That leadership can ensure a livable planet for future generations and ourselves. Delaying action on climate change will only result in climate-change-related events becoming more frequent and severe, leading to mounting costs and harm to businesses, consumers, and public health. The EPA report, Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action,5 estimates that billions of dollars of damages could be avoided in the U.S. as a result of global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These efforts range from reduced damage to agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, to reductions in coastal and inland flooding, to fewer heat-driven increases in electricity bills. If nations fail to combat climate change, the U.S. will suffer billions of dollars of damages to agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, experience coastal and inland flooding and heat-driven increases in electricity bills, just to cite some of the impacts.
25 -Turkey is part of that effort – it’s key to reduce warming. Hurriyet Daily News 14
26 -Hürriyet Daily News LEADING NEWS SOURCE FOR TURKEY AND THE REGION9-24-14, " Turkey 'prepared' to play role in fighting global warming: Erdoğan" http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-prepared-to-play-role-in-fighting-global-warming-erdogan.aspx?pageID=238andamp;nID=72135andamp;NewsCatID=340
27 -In a speech at the U.N. Climate Change Summit in New York on Sept. 23, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Turkey was “ready to do its part” in the fight against global warming. Erdoğan said concrete steps must be taken to boost domestic and foreign environment-related investments and ensure energy security, otherwise irreversible economic and ecological harm due to climate change will impede both growth and sustainable development. “A new binding agreement should include certain flexibilities for countries, within the scope of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ and ‘relative capabilities,’” he said. Erdoğan emphasized that the costliness of measures against climate change should not deter countries from taking action. “Reducing global warming by 2 degrees Celsius requires a fundamental change in production and consumption practices, along with new developmental strategies. This is only possible by activating additional financial resources and using new technologies,” he said. The president also emphasized that the rights of the least-developed countries should be protected while creating new policies, as they are not the cause of climate change, but some of those most affected by its results. “Developed countries should assume more responsibility in the fight against climate change, with regard to reducing carbon emissions and financial and technological support,” Erdoğan added. ‘Comprehensive projects’ The current climate change summit is to shape next year’s conference in Paris, which has been discussed as the most important climate change meeting since Kyoto in 1997. The treaty is expected to include new measures to limit increases in global warming. Mentioning Turkey’s individual contributions to the fight against climate change, Erdoğan said Turkey reduced its carbon emissions by 21 percent between 1990 and 2012. “This figure excludes Turkey’s comprehensive projects on forests,” Erdoğan noted. Erdoğan said Turkey is working within the scope of the 2011-2023 Climate Change Action Plan, aimed at increasing the share of renewable energy in total energy production by 30 percent, and decreasing the size of energy in the economy by 20 percent. The opening of the annual U.N. meeting, which ends Sept. 30, follows the highest-level meeting on climate change to date, with some 120 world leaders responding to the secretary-general’s call for increased political momentum to address the warming planet. “For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week – terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate,” U.S. President Barack Obama said. But Obama, along with China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, said he would not propose targets to reduce carbon pollution beyond 2020 until early next year. The summit also exposed longstanding political divisions between rich and poor countries, raising questions about whether a new climate pact will be reached by the end of 2015. These divisions, on a wide range of issues, are certain to be addressed in the week ahead. This year’s VIPs include Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, French President Francois Hollande, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Turkish President Erdoğan, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, British Prime Minister David Cameron and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Two prominent no-shows are Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, due to the Ebola crisis that has hit her country the hardest, and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who gave no public reason. While the assembly’s newly renovated chamber will be the scene of constant speech-making, most of the General Assembly’s real “business” will take place in private meetings and dinners. This year’s side events cover a number of crisis countries including Iran, South Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen and Somalia, with a recently organized high-level meeting on Ebola.
28 -Climate change causes civilization collapse – disease, war, and multiple internals to extinction. Sharp and Kennedy 14
29 -Robert Sharp associate professor on the faculty of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies (NESA). A former British Army Colonel he retired in 2006 and emigrated to the U.S. Since joining NESA in 2010, he has focused on Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported NESA events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Palestine and Qatar. He is the faculty lead for NESA’s work supporting theUAE National Defense College through an ongoing Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case. He also directs the Network of Defense and Staff Colleges (NDSC) which aims to provide best practice support to regional professional military and security sector education development and reform. Prior to joining NESA, he served for 4 years as an assistant professor at the College of International Security Affairs (CISA) at National Defense University where he wrote and taught a Masters' Degree syllabus for a program concentration in Conflict Management of Stability Operations and also taught strategy, counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and also created an International Homeland Defense Fellowship program. At CISA he also designed, wrote and taught courses supporting the State Department's Civilian Response Corps utilizing conflict management approaches. Bob served 25 years in the British Army and was personally decorated by Her Majesty the Queen twice. Aftergraduating from the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in 1981, he served in command and staff roles on operations in Northern Ireland, Kosovo, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, and Cyprus. He has worked in policy and technical staff appointments in the UK Ministry of Defense and also UK Defense Intelligence plus several multi-national organizations including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In his later career, he specialized in intelligence. He is a 2004 distinguished graduate of the National War College and holds a masters degree in National Security Strategy from National Defense University, Washington, D.C. and 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” http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-change-implications-national-security/
30 -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. 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. 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 are the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are not doing enough to rectify the damage. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.” The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that: 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. 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: A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons. The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will ultimately foster conflict. Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is (was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political decisions; it will be hard to fix!
31 -SMR’s
32 -Counterplan text: Turkey will increase their development, research, and exportation of small modular reactors.
33 -SMR development means a global market will result – there’s also a first mover effect. National Nuclear Laboratory and Waddington 14
34 -National Nuclear Laboratory UK based nuclear consultant, helps decommission and attract new people to the global nuclear industry, Under Direction of Gordon Waddington Rolls-Royce Workers for 36 Years. Chief Engineer on the EJ200 engine, Project Director on Helicopters, Project Director Trent 900 Engine; Director of Engineering for the Military Division; Director of Research and Technology; President of Marine Systems and Services and Executive Vice President for the External Supply Chain for Gas Turbines, "Small Modular Reactors (SMR) Feasibility Study" National Nuclear Labratory, December 2014, http://www.nnl.co.uk/media/1627/smr-feasibility-study-december-2014.pdf
35 -A key finding of Scenario B is that the global market is likely to be dominated by three current ‘nuclear nations’, each of which has their own SMR development programmes; USA, China, and Russia. It is likely that if UK industry enters into partnership, collaboration or support of one of these other countries, then the SMR market opportunity in the other two may be reduced. This would mean that only 60-70 of the total global market could ever be available to UK industry. It is also highly likely that this will ultimately be an internationally competitive market with a number of different SMRs available. However the advantage of being an early adopter is likely to be significant. This early-adopter effect is driven by the volume production of SMRs compared to the low numbers of large plants seen to date. Once a given SMR technology reaches maturity it may be able to win orders in a large number of nations. Though other SMR technologies may reach maturity before these orders are fulfilled, the opportunity to bid to win the contracts will already have passed and they will be locked out of the market. This effect is not seen with large nuclear plants due to the low number of plant opportunities open for bidding at a given time (though some Generation III plants which have been developed have been unsuccessful in achieving any market penetration such as General Electric’s ESBWR and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ APWR).
36 -Solves safety. Hillard 14
37 -“A New Day for Nuclear The Impact of Nuclear Energy and Its Effects” H. Grace Hilliard A Senior Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation in the Honors Program Liberty University Spring 2014 http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1478andcontext=honors
38 -Safety. The first benefit is that SMR’s are inherently safer than large conventional nuclear reactors. Rosner and Goldberg (2011) and their team at the Energy Policy Institute at Chicago identified three major differences between large scale reactors and SMR’s that made them safer. Firstly, the designs of the SMR’s rely on battery power in order to maintain safety operations; this feature lessens or potentially makes obsolete the need for electrical or back-up generators in case of an emergency. The second safety aspect of SMR’s is that they are better able to withstand earthquakes. This is achieved though “containment and reactor vessels in a pool of water underground” (p. 5) explains Rosner and Goldberg. The third safety feature in SMR’s that minimizes susceptibility or damage that could occur with nuclear energy is the large underground pool storage for spent fuel. The fact that the pools are stored underground greatly reduces the chances that the spent fuel will be uncovered or dangerously leak (Rosner and Goldberg). The International Trade Administration agrees that the underground facility will help minimize any harmful effects. They confirm that “All U.S. SMRs are designed to be deployed in an underground configuration. Industry observers contend that this would limit the risk for above ground sabotage (which is a serious consideration for traditional nuclear power plants) or for radioactive release” (ITA, 2011, p. 3). SMRs are also small which allows them to be placed in remote locations where large reactors could not be located. This aspect of its design is helpful for military operations when temporary bases need energy quickly. Its size also means that there is less fuel within the apparatus so if there was ever a malfunction with the equipment, it would affect less land area than a conventional reactor. Szondy (2012) emphasizes that the smaller size of the SMR “makes it easier to design emergency systems” (para. 15). The cooling systems for SMRs allow it great flexibility. Compared to conventional reactors which must be cooled by water, SMRs can be cooled by water, air, gas, low-melting point metals or salt. This feature makes possible a SMR’s ability to be placed inland and underground (Szondy, 2012). SMRs also provide for a better waste management strategy than conventional reactors. Spencer and Loris (2011) argue that if waste management becomes the responsibility of those producing nuclear waste, it will increase innovation and allow for better waste-management technologies such as SMRs. They consume fuel and produce waste differently than conventional reactors which make their waste management strategy much more economical because they are more waste efficient reactors.
39 -Modeling and literature analysis proves – SMR’s alone can reduce the cost of climate change by up to 27. Iyer et al 14
40 -Iyer et al 14 – (Gokul Iyer, Nathan Hultman, and Steve Fetter of the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, Son H. Kim of the Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and University of Maryland: 6 July 2014 (“Implications of small modular reactors for climate change mitigation” Elseiver Ltd. Journal of Energy Economics, p. 1, Available Online athttp://www.karnteknik.se/upload/aktiviteter/medlemsaktiviteter/20151009_Staffan20Qvists20Energy20Policy.pdf)
41 -Relative degrees of mitigation effort across scenarios can be seen in terms of the net present value (NPV) of mitigation costs of stabilizing the climate (throughout this paper, we assume a discount rate of 5). The availability of SMRs has significant impacts on the abatement costs of achieving the aggressive climate target — in general, the costs with SMRs are lower than without (Fig. 5). In addition, among the cases with SMRs, mitigation costs are highest for the LowTech-SMR cases and lowest for the HighTech-SMR cases. In other words, mitigation costs are lower in the cases with more advanced SMR technologies. Further, irrespective of the SMR technology scenario, mitigation costs with both SMRs and large reactors competing for market share (green bars) are lesser than or equal to the cases where only SMRs are available (red bars). In other words, when there is substitutability, mitigation costs are lower or remain unchanged. These observations are consistent with the findings of previous studies on the availability of technology and benefits of advanced technologies (Clarke et al., 2008b; McJeon et al., 2011). The difference between abatement costs for the scenarios with and without SMRs can be seen as a measure of the economic “value” associated with SMRs (Fig. 6). While the reduction in mitigation costs associated with SMRs increases with more advanced technology, the reduction is notably greater when large reactors are not available. For instance, when SMRs and large reactors compete freely, the mitigation cost with MediumTech-SMRs is reduced by 1. On the other hand, if large reactors are not available, the reduction in cost is 12. This is because, in the latter scenario, the SMR is the only nuclear technology option available. Therefore, compared to a nuclear moratorium (where both large reactors and SMRs are not available), the availability of a nuclear energy technology option is important, especially on the long term; and if SMRs are the only nuclear technology option available, the reduction in mitigation cost may be as high as 27 (for the HighTech-SMR).
42 -SMRs make renewable energies more viable; they overcome the intermittency barrier. Fares 16
43 -Robert Fares (Postdoctoral Fellow at the University Texas at Austin, where he studies the economic and environmental implications of emerging energy technologies). “3 Ways Small Modular Reactors Overcome Existing Barriers to Nuclear.” Scientific American. 19 May 2016. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/3-ways-small-modular-reactors-overcomeexisting-barriers-to-nuclear/
44 -Flexible Enough to Be Friends with Renewables. Another factor that limits conventional nuclear power plants is that they were largely designed to operate as base load, i.e. produce electricity at their full output nearly 24 hours a day for every day of the year. In today’s dynamically priced electricity markets, it turns out this function is not actually very useful. The most valuable power plants can produce electricity at a low cost and quickly turn on an off in order to capture high electricity prices and avoid periods where the real-time price of electricity is low — especially periods where overproduction of renewable energy versus demand causes the price to become negative. A recent technical paper by researchers from NuScale, one of the leading SMR technology companies, titled “Can Nuclear Power and Renewables Be Friends?” shows the potential for NuScale’s SMR to ramp up and down to balance electricity supply with demand — even when renewables make up a significant portion of total generation. Their system can effectively adjust its power output over long, medium, and short timescales. One or more of the system’s modules can be taken offline to reduce power output for days or months at a time. The thermal output of the reactor can be modulated to adjust power output from one hour to the next. And steam can be diverted from the turbine to the condenser to adjust power output on the timescale of minutes. All of these features give NuScale’s system a decisive economic advantage over conventional nuclear — and will help to integrate renewable energy with the grid into the future.
45 -AT: Fish
46 -No impact: Radiation is natural for fish and they lose most of it after migrating. Buesseler 12
47 -Ken O. Buesseler, Senior Scientist @ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution w/ PhD in Marine Chemistry from MIT, “Fishing for Answers” https://darchive.mblwhoilibrary.org/bitstream/handle/1912/5816/Buesseler20Perspecitves 20Fukushima20Fish20final20revised.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y Premier
48 -
49 -Fortunately, the MAFF data show that the vast majority of fish remain below even the new, stricter regulatory limit for seafood consumption. In addition, it must be remembered that we are surrounded by a sea of radioactivity, in that many naturally occurring radionuclides appear in fish at similar or higher levels and are not considered a health threat. For example in fish we sampled in June 2011 off Japan, natural levels of potassium-40 were more than 10 times greater than Fukushima derived cesium (2). Moreover, because cesium is rapidly lost from muscle after exposure stops, fish that migrate to less affected waters will gradually lose much of their Fukushima-derived cesium, as seen in a report of tuna caught off San Diego (10).
50 -AT: Terrorists Get Into Plants
51 -No impact to terrorists getting into plants – the fuel is either useless, would kill them instantly, or is gigantic. Neuhauser 3/24 cites Acton.
52 -Alan Neuhauser Reporter for US News and World Report, has reported on: law enforcement and criminal justice for, STEM and Healthcare of Tomorrow, and energy and the environment. Citing: James Acton a director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3-24-2016, "How Real Is the Dirty Bomb Threat?," US News and World Report, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/how-real-is-the-dirty-bomb-threat
53 -How about from a nuclear power plant? It's not easy at all. "People have a view of there being all this nuclear material just floating around at nuclear power plants and people being able to steal them," Acton, of the Carnegie Endowment, says. That's just not true. Nuclear fuel, before it's used, is not very radioactive – it would need to be enriched to make a nuclear bomb, a highly complex and delicate process, and it also doesn't have enough radioactivity to make an effective dirty bomb. The waste that emerges after nuclear fuel is burned is highly radioactive – so potent, in fact, that it's known as "self-protecting": It would kill anyone trying to steal it. It's also "physically huge," Acton says. "Fuel bundles are enormous. The idea that terrorists are going to get their hands on spent nuclear fuel is very, very unlikely."
54 -AT: They Make a Bomb
55 -No risk of nuclear terror – assumes every warrant
56 -Mueller 10 (John, professor of political science at Ohio State, 2010, Calming Our Nuclear Jitters, Issues in Science and Technology, Winter, http://www.issues.org/26.2/mueller.html)
57 -Politicians of all stripes preach to an anxious, appreciative, and very numerous choir when they, like President Obama, proclaim atomic terrorism to be “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.” It is the problem that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, currently keeps every senior leader awake at night. This is hardly a new anxiety. In 1946, atomic bomb maker J. Robert Oppenheimer ominously warned that if three or four men could smuggle in units for an atomic bomb, they could blow up New York. This was an early expression of a pattern of dramatic risk inflation that has persisted throughout the nuclear age. In fact, although expanding fires and fallout might increase the effective destructive radius, the blast of a Hiroshima-size device would “blow up” about 1 of the city’s area—a tragedy, of course, but not the same as one 100 times greater. In the early 1970s, nuclear physicist Theodore Taylor proclaimed the atomic terrorist problem to be “immediate,” explaining at length “how comparatively easy it would be to steal nuclear material and step by step make it into a bomb.” At the time he thought it was already too late to “prevent the making of a few bombs, here and there, now and then,” or “in another ten or fifteen years, it will be too late.” Three decades after Taylor, we continue to wait for terrorists to carry out their “easy” task. In contrast to these predictions, terrorist groups seem to have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. This may be because, after brief exploration of the possible routes, they, unlike generations of alarmists, have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to be successful. The most plausible route for terrorists, according to most experts, would be to manufacture an atomic device themselves from purloined fissile material (plutonium or, more likely, highly enriched uranium). This task, however, remains a daunting one, requiring that a considerable series of difficult hurdles be conquered and in sequence. Outright armed theft of fissile material is exceedingly unlikely not only because of the resistance of guards, but because chase would be immediate. A more promising approach would be to corrupt insiders to smuggle out the required substances. However, this requires the terrorists to pay off a host of greedy confederates, including brokers and money-transmitters, any one of whom could turn on them or, either out of guile or incompetence, furnish them with stuff that is useless. Insiders might also consider the possibility that once the heist was accomplished, the terrorists would, as analyst Brian Jenkins none too delicately puts it, “have every incentive to cover their trail, beginning with eliminating their confederates.” If terrorists were somehow successful at obtaining a sufficient mass of relevant material, they would then probably have to transport it a long distance over unfamiliar terrain and probably while being pursued by security forces. Crossing international borders would be facilitated by following established smuggling routes, but these are not as chaotic as they appear and are often under the watch of suspicious and careful criminal regulators. If border personnel became suspicious of the commodity being smuggled, some of them might find it in their interest to disrupt passage, perhaps to collect the bounteous reward money that would probably be offered by alarmed governments once the uranium theft had been discovered. Once outside the country with their precious booty, terrorists would need to set up a large and well-equipped machine shop to manufacture a bomb and then to populate it with a very select team of highly skilled scientists, technicians, machinists, and administrators. The group would have to be assembled and retained for the monumental task while no consequential suspicions were generated among friends, family, and police about their curious and sudden absence from normal pursuits back home. Members of the bomb-building team would also have to be utterly devoted to the cause, of course, and they would have to be willing to put their lives and certainly their careers at high risk, because after their bomb was discovered or exploded they would probably become the targets of an intense worldwide dragnet operation. Some observers have insisted that it would be easy for terrorists to assemble a crude bomb if they could get enough fissile material. But Christoph Wirz and Emmanuel Egger, two senior physicists in charge of nuclear issues at Switzerland‘s Spiez Laboratory, bluntly conclude that the task “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group.” They point out that precise blueprints are required, not just sketches and general ideas, and that even with a good blueprint the terrorist group would most certainly be forced to redesign. They also stress that the work is difficult, dangerous, and extremely exacting, and that the technical requirements in several fields verge on the unfeasible. Stephen Younger, former director of nuclear weapons research at Los Alamos Laboratories, has made a similar argument, pointing out that uranium is “exceptionally difficult to machine” whereas “plutonium is one of the most complex metals ever discovered, a material whose basic properties are sensitive to exactly how it is processed.“ Stressing the “daunting problems associated with material purity, machining, and a host of other issues,” Younger concludes, “to think that a terrorist group, working in isolation with an unreliable supply of electricity and little access to tools and supplies” could fabricate a bomb “is farfetched at best.” Under the best circumstances, the process of making a bomb could take months or even a year or more, which would, of course, have to be carried out in utter secrecy. In addition, people in the area, including criminals, may observe with increasing curiosity and puzzlement the constant coming and going of technicians unlikely to be locals. If the effort to build a bomb was successful, the finished product, weighing a ton or more, would then have to be transported to and smuggled into the relevant target country where it would have to be received by collaborators who are at once totally dedicated and technically proficient at handling, maintaining, detonating, and perhaps assembling the weapon after it arrives. The financial costs of this extensive and extended operation could easily become monumental. There would be expensive equipment to buy, smuggle, and set up and people to pay or pay off. Some operatives might work for free out of utter dedication to the cause, but the vast conspiracy also requires the subversion of a considerable array of criminals and opportunists, each of whom has every incentive to push the price for cooperation as high as possible. Any criminals competent and capable enough to be effective allies are also likely to be both smart enough to see boundless opportunities for extortion and psychologically equipped by their profession to be willing to exploit them. Those who warn about the likelihood of a terrorist bomb contend that a terrorist group could, if with great difficulty, overcome each obstacle and that doing so in each case is “not impossible.” But although it may not be impossible to surmount each individual step, the likelihood that a group could surmount a series of them quickly becomes vanishingly small. Table 1 attempts to catalogue the barriers that must be overcome under the scenario considered most likely to be successful. In contemplating the task before them, would-be atomic terrorists would effectively be required to go though an exercise that looks much like this. If and when they do, they will undoubtedly conclude that their prospects are daunting and accordingly uninspiring or even terminally dispiriting. It is possible to calculate the chances for success. Adopting probability estimates that purposely and heavily bias the case in the terrorists’ favor—for example, assuming the terrorists have a 50 chance of overcoming each of the 20 obstacles—the chances that a concerted effort would be successful comes out to be less than one in a million. If one assumes, somewhat more realistically, that their chances at each barrier are one in three, the cumulative odds that they will be able to pull off the deed drop to one in well over three billion.
58 -AT: Biodiversity Collapse
59 -No decline in biodiversity—latest study proves
60 -St. Andrews 14 citing Dr Maria Dornelas and Dr Anne Magurran and Dr Nick Gotelli and Dr Brian McGill, “New research challenges understanding of biodiversity crisis”, University of St. Andrews, April 17 2014, https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/news/archive/2014/title,241670,en.php AW
61 -A University of St Andrews study has found that, despite fears of a biodiversity crisis, there has in fact not been a consistent drop in numbers of species found locally around the world. Instead, in a study of 100 communities and a total of 35,000 species that span from trees to starfish, scientists found a consistent change in which species are found in any one place. The researchers, who were surprised by the findings, say that the study should not detract from the threat many of the world’s species are under, but that policy-makers should focus on changes in biodiversity composition as well as loss. The findings, published by the leading journal Science this week, are the result of research led by Dr Maria Dornelas and Professor Anne Magurran of the Centre for Biological Diversity and Scottish Oceans Institute at the University of St Andrews. The full text of the paper is available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1248484. An international research team studied over 6 million observations in terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats from the poles to the equator. Instead of finding a loss in biodiversity, they discovered that the species inhabitance of different locations has been systematically changing over time. Dr Dornelas said, “Contrary to expectations, we did not observe consistent loss of species through time – indeed we found as many surveys with a systematic loss as well as gain in the number of species recorded through time. This is surprising given current concerns of a biodiversity crisis and abnormally high extinction rates.” The team studied everything from trees, birds and mammals, to fish and invertebrates. Professor Magurran commented, “We observed consistent change in species composition of communities. This surprising finding could be due largely to invasive species, which have been rapidly spreading around the globe, and the shifting ranges of species in response to climate change.”
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-28 20:16:32.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Zane Miller
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rancho Bernardo AW
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Team
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -West Nelson Neg
Title
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1NC Turkey Warming and SMRs
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Meadows
Caselist.RoundClass[0]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -0
Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-18 01:13:05.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Felix Tan
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Marlborough MC
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -4
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-09-18 04:26:12.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -James Braden
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -St Agnes CD
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -5
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[3]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-28 20:16:28.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Zane Miller
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Rancho Bernardo AW
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -1
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Meadows
Caselist.RoundClass[4]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -2016-10-28 23:01:36.608
Judge
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Ashan Peiris
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Lynbrook AP
Round
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -3
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1 -Meadows

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)