Changes for page West Nelson Neg
Summary
-
Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 19 removed)
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
- Caselist.CitesClass[1]
- Caselist.CitesClass[2]
- Caselist.CitesClass[3]
- Caselist.CitesClass[4]
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
- Caselist.RoundClass[1]
- Caselist.RoundClass[2]
- Caselist.RoundClass[3]
- Caselist.RoundClass[4]
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
Details
- Caselist.CitesClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,45 +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 -Err neg on this question: The impacts are underestimated – coal is more likely than gas to be substituted – multiple warrants. Hansen and Kharecha 13 13 -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 14 -On the other hand, if coal would not have been as dominant a replacement for nuclear as assumed in our baseline historical scenario, then our avoided historical impacts could be overestimates, since coal causes much larger impacts than gas (Table 1). However, there are several reasons this is unlikely. Key characteristics of coal plants (e.g., plant capacity, capacity factor, and total production costs) are historically much more similar to nuclear plants than are those of natural gas plants.13 Also, the vast majority of existing nuclear plants were built before 1990, but advanced gas plants that would be suitable replacements for base-load nuclear plants (i.e., combined-cycle gas turbines) have only become available since the early 1990s.13 Furthermore, coal resources are highly abundant and widespread,24,25 and coal fuel and total production costs have long been relatively low, unlike historically available gas resources and production costs.13 Thus, it is not surprising that coal has been by far the dominant source of global electricity thus far (Figure 1). We therefore assess that our baseline historical replacement scenario is plausible and that it is not as significant an uncertainty source as the impact factors; that is, our avoided historical impacts are more likely underestimates, as discussed in the above paragraph. 15 -Coal O/W 16 -Coal is comparatively worse for death and health – it is constant exposure vs temporary exposure. Baum 15 17 -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 18 -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. 19 -Desal DA: 20 -Nuclear power k2 stable desalinization IAEA 15 21 -~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015 Premier 22 -It is anticipated that by 2025, 33 of the world population, or more than 1.8 billion people, will live in countries or regions without adequate supplies of water unless new desalination plants become operational. In many areas, the rate of water usage already exceeds the rate of replenishment. Nuclear reactors have already been used for desalination on relatively small-scale projects. In total, more than 150 reactor-years of operating experience with nuclear desalination has been accumulated worldwide. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination projects are currently in operation in Japan. India commissioned the ND demonstration project in the year 2008 and the plant has been in continuous operation supplying demineralised (DM) quality water to the nuclear power plant and potable quality to the reservoir. Pakistan has launched a similar project in 2010. However, the great majority of the more than 7500 desalination plants in operation worldwide today use fossil fuels with the attendant emission of carbon dioxide and other GHG. Increasing the use of fossil fuels for energy-intensive processes such as large-scale desalination plants is not a sustainable long-term option in view of the associated environmental impacts. Thus, the main energy sources for future desalination are nuclear power reactors and renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, or wind, but only nuclear reactors are capable of delivering the copious quantities of energy required for large-scale desalination projects. Algeria is participating in an IAEA’s CRP in the subject related to “New technologies for seawater desalination using nuclear energy’’ with a project entitled “Optimization of coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for an Algerian site Skikda”. This project is a contribution to the IAEA CRP to enrich the economic data corresponding to the choice of technical and economical options for coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for specific sites in the Mediterranean region 23 -Only solution to water shortages IAEA 2 24 -~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015 Premier 25 -Addressing water shortages is a difficult challenge for many countries due to population growth and the increasing need for water to support industry, agriculture and urban development. Innovative water management strategies are certainly needed to preserve water resources. But they may not be sufficient. Throughout the world, many highly populated regions face frequent and prolonged droughts. In these areas, where, for some reason, the natural hydrologic cycle cannot provide people with water, desalination is used to provide people with potable water. Desalination systems fall into two main design categories, namely thermal and membrane types. Thermal designs –including MSF and MED- use flashing and evaporation to produce potable water while membrane designs use the method of RO. Desalination is the main technology being used to augment fresh water resources in water scarce coastal regions. With almost 64.4 million m3 /day (GWI 2012) of worldwide desalination water production capacity, about two third is produced by thermal distillation, mainly in the Middle East. Outside this region, membrane-based systems predominate. Both processes are energy-intensive (Fig. I-1.). Even if power consumption has been reduced as technological innovations, such as energy recovery systems and variable frequency pumps (reverse RO plants), are introduced, it remains the main cost factor in water desalination. Traditionally, fossil fuels such as oil and gas have been the major energy sources. However, fuel price hikes and volatility as well as concerns about long term supplies and environmental release is prompting consideration of alternative energy sources for seawater desalination, such as nuclear desalination and the use of renewable energy sources. Replacing fossil fuel by renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass) or nuclear energy, could reduce the impacts on air quality and climate. FIG. I-1. Typical energy consumption of technologically mature desalination processes. The idea of using nuclear energy to desalinate seawater is not new. Since the USS nautilus was commissioned more than a half century ago, the drinking water on nuclear submarines has come from reactor-powered desalination systems. Today, nuclear desalination is being 106 used by a number of countries, including India and Japan, to provide fresh water for growing populations and irrigation. Commercial uses are also being considered in Europe, the Middle East and South America. The IAEA has always been an important contributor to the RandD effort in nuclear desalination. In 2009, it launched a coordinated research programme entitled “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination using Nuclear Energy”, focusing on the introduction of innovative nuclear desalination technologies, producing desalted water at the lowest possible cost and in a sustainable manner. The French atomic and alternative energies commission (CEA) expressed interest in participating to the CRP. A research proposal, aiming at using CEA software tools to develop optimized nuclear desalination systems was established and submitted to the IAEA. The studies focused on the development of optimized nuclear desalination systems producing large amounts of desalinated water while minimizing the impact on the efficiency of power conversion. Technologically mature desalination processes viz. MEE and RO have been considered for the study. Each of these systems will be modelled using innovative techniques developed in CEA. Models would first be validated (against experimental results published in literature, or obtained through bilateral collaborations involving CEA) and then applied to optimize the energy use in the integrated power and water plants. 26 -Empirics prove water shortages are an impact multiplier and increase war. Maddocks et al. 15 27 -8-26-2015, "Ranking the World’s Most Water-Stressed Countries in 2040,"World Resource Institute, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/ranking-worldE28099s-most-water-stressed-countries-2040 . Andrew Maddocks Previously worked in journalism and communications, has reported on global water, food, and energy issues for Circle of Blue, co-managed research, proposals, and outreach at the Woodrow Wilson Center, researched journalism ethics for NPR’s ombudsman, holds a B.A. in conflict studies from DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., Paul Reig Associate with the Water Program and Business Center, worked in apparel sectors on water risk assessments, published author quoted in mainstream and specialist media on the topics of corporate water risk and stewardship, Quoted in The Financial Times, CNN, the Guardian, Fortune, LA Times, The Oil and Gas Journal, MS in Water Resource Management from McGill University, BS in Environmental and Agricultural Biology from the University of Navarra, Robert Samuel Young Interned at George Mason University, performing research into computational protein engineering for use in biofuel production, worked for the Friends of Hidden Oaks Nature Center, founded a non-profit STEM education organization called Project BEST, working toward a B.S. in Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, to be completed in 2018, was an intern at WRI. 28 - 29 -Fourteen of the 33 likely most water stressed countries in 2040 are in the Middle East, including nine considered extremely highly stressed with a score of 5.0 out of 5.0: Bahrain, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Lebanon. The region, already arguably the least water-secure in the world, draws heavily upon groundwater and desalinated sea water, and faces exceptional water-related challenges for the foreseeable future. With regional violence and political turmoil commanding global attention, water may seem tangential. However, drought and water shortages in Syria likely contributed to the unrest that stoked the country’s 2011 civil war. Dwindling water resources and chronic mismanagement forced 1.5 million people, primarily farmers and herders, to lose their livelihoods and leave their land, move to urban areas, and magnify Syria’s general destabilization. The problem extends to other countries. Water is a significant dimension of the decades-old conflict between Palestine and Israel. Saudi Arabia’s government said its people will depend entirely on grain imports by 2016, a change from decades of growing all they need, due to fear of water-resource depletion. The U.S. National Intelligence Council wrote that water problems will put key North African and Middle Eastern countries at greater risk of instability and state failure and distract them from foreign policy engagements with the U.S. 30 -Water crises cause escalating global conflict. 31 -Rasmussen 11 (Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12 32 -For years experts have set out warnings of how the earth will be affected by the water crises, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources. They have proclaimed ~-~- in line with the report from the US Senate ~-~- that the water scarcity is a security issue, and that it will yield political stress with a risk of international water wars. This has been reflected in the oft-repeated observation that water will likely replace oil as a future cause of war between nations. Today the first glimpses of the coming water wars are emerging. Many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South Asia ~-~- e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Kenya, Egypt, and India ~-~- are already feeling the direct consequences of the water scarcity ~-~- with the competition for water leading to social unrest, conflict and migration. This month the escalating concerns about the possibility of water wars triggered calls by Zafar Adeel, chair of UN-Water, for the UN to promote "hydro-diplomacy" in the Middle East and North Africa in order to avoid or at least manage emerging tensions over access to water. The gloomy outlook of our global fresh water resources points in the direction that the current conflicts and instability in these countries are only glimpses of the water wars expected to unfold in the future. Thus we need to address the water crisis that can quickly escalate and become a great humanitarian crisis and also a global safety problem. A revolution The current effort is nowhere near what is needed to deal with the water-challenge ~-~- the world community has yet to find the solutions. Even though the 'water issue' is moving further up the agenda all over the globe: the US foreign assistance is investing massively in activities that promote water security, the European Commission is planning to present a "Blueprint for Safeguarding Europe's Water" in 2012 and the Chinese government plans to spend $600 billion over the next 10 years on measures to ensure adequate water supplies for the country. But it is not enough. The situation requires a response that goes far beyond regional and national initiatives ~-~- we need a global water plan. With the current state of affairs, correcting measures still can be taken to avoid the crisis to be worsening. But it demands that we act now. We need a new way of thinking about water. We need to stop depleting our water resources, and urge water conservation on a global scale. This calls for a global awareness that water is a very scarce and valuable natural resource and that we need to initiate fundamental technological and management changes, and combine this with international solidarity and cooperation. In 2009, The International Water Management Institute called for a blue revolution as the only way to move forward: "We will need nothing less than a 'Blue Revolution', if we are to achieve food security and avert a serious water crisis in the future" said Dr. Colin Chartres, Director General of the International Water Management Institute. This meaning that we need ensure "more crop per drop": while many developing countries use precious water to grow 1 ton of rice per hectare, other countries produce 5 tons per hectare under similar social and water conditions, but with better technology and management. Thus, if we behave intelligently, and collaborate between neighbors, between neighboring countries, between North and South, and in the global trading system, we shall not 'run out of water'. If we do not, and "business as usual" prevails, then water wars will accelerate. 33 -That goes nuclear 34 -Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk) 35 -Water is an ambient source, which unlike human beings does not respect boundaries. Water has been a permanent source of conflict between the tribes since biblical times and now between the states. The conflicts are much more likely among those states, which are mainly dependent on shared water sources. The likelihood of turning these conflicts into wars is increased when these countries or states are mainly arid or receive low precipitations. In this situation, the upper riparian states (situated on upper parts of a river basin) often try to maximize water utility by neglecting the needs of the lower riparian states (situated on low lying areas of a river basin). However, international law on distribution of trans-boundary river water and mutually agreed treaties by the states have helped to some extent in overcoming these conflicts. In the recent times, the climate change has also affected the water availability. The absence of water management and conservation mechanisms in some regions particularly in the third world countries have exacerbated the water crisis. These states have become prone to wars in future. South Asia is among one of those regions where water needs are growing disproportionately to its availability. The high increase in population besides large-scale cultivation has turned South Asia into a water scarce region. The two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India share the waters** of Indus Basin. All the major rivers stem from the Himalyan region and pass through Kashmir down to the planes of Punjab and Sindh empty into Arabic ocean. It is pertinent that the strategic importance of Kashmir, a source of all major rivers, for Pakistan and symbolic importance of Kashmir for India are maximum list positions. Both the countries have fought two major wars in 1948, 1965 and a limited war in Kargil specifically on the Kashmir dispute. Among other issues, the newly born states fell into water sharing dispute right after their partition. Initially under an agreed formula, Pakistan paid for the river waters to India, which is an upper riparian state. After a decade long negotiations, both the states signed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. Under the treaty, India was given an exclusive right of three eastern rivers Sutlej, Bias and Ravi while Pakistan was given the right of three Western Rivers, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. The tributaries of these rivers are also considered their part under the treaty. It was assumed that the treaty had permanently resolved the water issue, which proved a nightmare in the latter course. India by exploiting the provisions of IWT started wanton construction of dams on Pakistani rivers thus scaling down the water availability to Pakistan (a lower riparian state). The treaty only allows run of the river hydropower projects and does not permit to construct such water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers, which may affect the water flow to the low lying areas. According to the statistics of Hydel power Development Corporation of Indian Occupied Kashmir, India has a plan to construct 310 small, medium and large dams in the territory. India has already started work on 62 dams in the first phase. The cumulative dead and live storage of these dams will be so great that India can easily manipulate the water of Pakistani rivers. India has set up a department called the Chenab Valley Power Projects to construct power plants on the Chenab River in occupied Kashmir. India is also constructing three major hydro-power projects on Indus River which include Nimoo Bazgo power project, Dumkhar project and Chutak project. On the other hand, it has started Kishan ***** hydropower project by diverting the waters of Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum, in sheer violation of the IWT. The gratuitous construction of dams by India has created serious water shortages in Pakistan. The construction of Kishan ***** dam will turn the Neelum valley, which is located in Azad Kashmir into a barren land. The water shortage will not only affect the cultivation but it has serious social, political and economic ramifications for Pakistan. The farmer associations have already started protests in Southern Punjab and Sindh against the non-availability of water. These protests are so far limited and under control. The reports of international organizations suggest that the water availability in Pakistan will reduce further in the coming years. If the situation remains unchanged, the violent mobs of villagers across the country will be a major law and order challenge for the government. The water shortage has also created mistrust among the federative units, which is evident from the fact that the President and the Prime Minister had to intervene for convincing Sindh and Punjab provinces on water sharing formula. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) is responsible for distribution of water among the provinces but in the current situation it has also lost its credibility. The provinces often accuse each other of water theft. In the given circumstances, Pakistan desperately wants to talk on water issue with India. The meetings between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India have so far yielded no tangible results. The recent meeting in Lahore has also ended without concrete results. India is continuously using delaying tactics to under pressure Pakistan. The Indus Water Commissioners are supposed to resolve the issues bilaterally through talks. The success of their meetings can be measured from the fact that Pakistan has to knock at international court of arbitration for the settlement of Kishan ***** hydropower project. The recently held foreign minister level talks between both the countries ended inconclusively in Islamabad, which only resulted in heightening the mistrust and suspicions. The water stress in Pakistan is increasing day by day. The construction of dams will not only cause damage to the agriculture sector but India can manipulate the river water to create inundations in Pakistan. The rivers in Pakistan are also vital for defense during wartime. The control over the water will provide an edge to India during war with Pakistan. The failure of diplomacy, manipulation of IWT provisions by India and growing water scarcity in Pakistan and its social, political and economic repercussions for the country can lead both the countries toward a war. The existent asymmetry between the conventional forces of both the countries will compel the weaker side to use nuclear weapons to prevent the opponent from taking any advantage of the situation. Pakistan's nuclear programme is aimed at to create minimum credible deterrence. India has a declared nuclear doctrine which intends to retaliate massively in case of first strike by its' enemy. In 2003, India expanded the operational parameters for its nuclear doctrine. Under the new parameters, it will not only use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike but will also use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike on Indian forces anywhere. Pakistan has a draft nuclear doctrine, which consists on the statements of high ups. Describing the nuclear thresh-hold in January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, in an interview to Landau Network, said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in case India occupies large parts of its territory, economic strangling by India, political disruption and if India destroys Pakistan's forces. The analysis of the ambitious nuclear doctrines of both the countries clearly points out that any military confrontation in the region can result in a nuclear catastrophe. The rivers flowing from Kashmir are Pakistan's lifeline, which are essential for the livelihood of 170 million people of the country and the cohesion of federative units. The failure of dialogue will leave no option but to achieve the ends through military means. The only way to discard the lurking fear of a nuclear cataclysm is to settle all the outstanding disputes amicably through dialogue. The international community has a special role in this regard. It should impress upon India to initiate meaningful talks to resolve the lingering Kashmir dispute with Pakistan and implement the water treaty in its letter and spirit. The Indian leadership should drive out its policy towards Pakistan from terrorism mantra to a solution-oriented dialogue process. Both the countries should adopt a joint mechanism to maximize the utility of river waters by implementing the 1960 treaty, Besides negotiations with India, Pakistan should start massive water conservation and management projects. The modern techniques in agriculture like i.e. drip irrigation, should be adopted. On the other hand, there is a dire need to gradually upgrade the obsolete irrigation system in Pakistan. The politicization of mega hydropower projects/dams is also a problem being faced by Pakistan, which can only be resolved through political will. 36 - 37 -AT Nuke Terror 38 -Automatic emergency procedures will prevent terrorists from achieving any destruction. 39 -Cravens, Gwyneth. "Terrorism and Nuclear Energy: Understanding the Risks." Brookings. Brookings Institute, 1 Mar. 2002. Web. 25 Aug. 2016. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/terrorism-and-nuclear-energy-understanding-the-risks/. 40 -“Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, Americans have had to learn to discriminate between real and imagined risks in many areas. When it comes to domestic nuclear terrorism—a subject that has been touched recently by highly speculative journalism—making that distinction requires knowing some nuclear fundamentals. Based on science, what should Americans worry about? Is radiation always dangerous? How do we protect ourselves? Could terrorists unleash a Chernobyl on our soil? Could nuclear waste dumps or power plants be transformed into atomic weapons? Could terrorists make a ‘dirty’ bomb capable of widespread contamination and deaths from radiation? Could they steal an American nuclear weapon and detonate it? The Energy Department’s nine national laboratories have begun an extensive review of counterterrorism, including the vulnerability of U.S. nuclear sites and materials. Some findings may remain undisclosed for security reasons; others may be made public—soon, one hopes. Meanwhile, here are some basics. Radioactive materials contain unstable atoms, radionuclides, that emit excess energy as radiation, invisible but detectable by instrument. Some atoms lose their energy rapidly; others remain dangerous for thousands, even millions of years. Certain forms of radiation are more hazardous to humans, depending on the type of particles emitted. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), composed of scientists and consultants from 21 nations, provides comprehensive evaluations on sources and effects of radiation as the scientific basis for estimating health risk. UNSCEAR’s reports are almost universally considered objective and reliable. It recently listed annual average exposures per person worldwide. Natural background radiation: 240 millirem worldwide (300 millirem in the United States). The earth’s core is a natural reactor, and all life evolved within a cloud of radiation stronger than background radiation is today. Cosmic rays, sunlight, rocks, soil, radon, water, and even the human body are radioactive—blood and bones contain radionuclides. Exposure is higher in certain locations and occupations than in others (airline flight personnel receive greater than average lifetime doses of cosmic radiation). Diagnostic medical radiation: 40 millirem (60 millirem in the United States). This is the largest source of manmade radiation affecting humans. Other common manmade sources include mining residues, microwave ovens, televisions, smoke detectors, and cigarette smoke—a pack and a half a day equals four daily chest x-rays. Coal combustion: 2 millirem. Every year in the United States alone, coal-fired plants, which provide about half of the nation’s electricity, expel, along with toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases, 100 times the radioactivity of nuclear plants: hundreds of tons of uranium and thorium, daughter products like radium and radon, and hundreds of pounds of uranium-235. Radioactive fly ash, a coal byproduct used in building and paving materials, contributes an additional dose. Coal pollutants are estimated to cause about 15,000 premature deaths annually in the United States. Nuclear power: 0.02 millirem (0.05 in the United States). The Environmental Protection Agency, whose standards are the world’s strictest, limits exposure from a given site to 15 millirem a year—far lower than average background radiation. For radiation to begin to damage DNA enough to produce noticeable health effects, exposure must dramatically increase—to about 20 rem, or 20,000 millirem. Above 100 rem, or 100,000 millirem, diseases manifest. Whether low-dosage radiation below a certain threshold poses no danger and may in fact be essential to organisms is controversial (the Department of Energy began the human genome project to help determine if such a threshold exists). If exposure is not too intense or prolonged, cells can usually repair themselves. Radiation is used widely to treat and to research illnesses. The horrible—and preventable—reactor explosion at Chernobyl caused fatalities and suffering among the local population but increased the overall background radiation level by a factor of only 0.00083 worldwide. According to UNSCEAR, contamination greater than background radiation was limited to 20 square miles around the plant. The severest casualties occurred among plant workers and firemen, two of whom died from scalding. Another 134 suffered acute radiation sickness. Twenty-eight of those victims died within three months; 13 succumbed later. The rest survived. Among civilians in surrounding communities, UNSCEAR found 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer, mostly in children, and predicted more would develop. Thyroid cancer could have been avoided, however, had the entire population surrounding Chernobyl been promptly given potassium iodide, which blocks the uptake by the thyroid of radio-iodine, a radionuclide produced by reactors. Fourteen years after the accident, no other evidence of a major health effect attributable to radiation exposure had been found. The UNSCEAR report states: ‘There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of leukemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident.’ What UNSCEAR also found was that ‘the accident had a large negative psychological impact on thousands of people.’ Fear, born of ignorance of real risk coupled with anxiety about imagined harm, produced epidemics of psychosomatic illnesses and elective abortions. Better management of the emergency, including adequate dissemination of facts, probably could have prevented much of this psychic trauma. Risk perception tends to be skewed by unexpected, dramatic events—a quirk of human nature exploited by terrorists. More severe risks almost always lurk in everyday life: cardiovascular disease (about 2,286,000 U.S. deaths annually), smoking-related illnesses (over 400,000), and motor vehicle accidents (about 42,500). That other accident-related cancers may eventually appear around Chernobyl is possible but unlikely, given results of long-term surveys of the approximately 85,000 survivors of the bombs exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite the far higher dosages of radiation to which these victims were exposed, recent data cited by Fred Mettler, U.S. representative to UNSCEAR and chairman of the Radiology Department at the University of New Mexico, show that 12,000 have died of cancer—700 more than would be expected. (Normally about one in three humans gets cancer.) A few years ago, after much debate, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission offered free emergency contingency supplies of potassium iodide to the 31 states with reactors, but most declined. Illinois has 11 reactors; its officials feared that the pills—’a cruel hoax’— would fool people into thinking they were safe from radiation; they and officials in other states argued that evacuation was the best protection. Delay from the Food and Drug Administration regarding approval of the antidote, as well as opposition to it at the county level, created further obstacles. After September 11, communities and politicians expressed indignation that this inexpensive drug had not been stockpiled. Last December, the NRC announced that it would require states with populations within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of a nuclear power plant to consider ‘including potassium iodide (KI) as a protective measure for the general public in the unlikely event of a severe accident. This measure would supplement sheltering and evacuation, the usual protective measures.’ Nine states have now requested tablets. Could any of the 103 nuclear reactors in the United States be turned into a bomb? No. The laws of physics preclude it. In a nuclear weapon, radioactive atoms are packed densely enough within a small chamber to initiate an instantaneous explosive chain reaction. A reactor is far too large to produce the density and heat needed to create a nuclear explosion. Could terrorists turn any of our reactors into a Chernobyl? Again, extremely unlikely. American reactors have a completely different design. All reactors require a medium around the fuel rods to slow down the neutrons given off by the controlled chain reaction that ultimately produces heat to make steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. In the United States the medium is water, which also acts as a coolant. In the Chernobyl reactor it was graphite. Water is not combustible, but graphite—pure carbon—is combustible at high temperatures. Abysmal management, reckless errors, violation of basic safety procedures, and poor engineering at Chernobyl caused the core to melt down through several floors. A subsequent explosion involving steam and hydrogen blew off the roof (there was no containment structure) and ignited the graphite. Most of the radioactive core spewed out. A similar meltdown at the Three Mile Island power plant in 1979—one caused by equipment malfunctions and human failure to grasp what was happening and respond appropriately—involved no large explosion, no breach. The reactor automatically shut down. Loss of coolant water caused half the core to melt, but its debris was held by the containment vessel. Contaminated water flooded the reactor building, but no one was seriously injured. A minute quantity of radioactive gases (insignificant, especially in comparison to the radionuclides routinely discharged from coal-fired plants in the region) escaped through a charcoal-filtered stack and was dissipated by wind over the Atlantic, never reaching the ground. The people and land around the plant were unharmed. In response, the NRC initiated more safeguards at all plants, including improvements in equipment monitoring, redundancy (with two or more independent systems for every safety-related function), personnel training, and emergency responsiveness. The commission also started a safety rating system that can affect the price of plant owners’ stock. The new science of probabilistic risk assessment, developed to ensure the safety of the world’s first permanent underground nuclear waste-disposal facility, has led to new risk-informed regulation. In over two decades no meltdowns have occurred and minor mishaps at all nuclear plants have decreased sharply. Cuts by Congress in the NRC’s annual research budget over the past 20 years—from $200 million to $43 million—may have considerably compromised ongoing reforms and effectiveness, however. U.S. nuclear power plants, which are subject to both federal and international regulation, are designed to withstand extreme events and are among the sturdiest and most impenetrable structures on the planet—second only to nuclear bunkers. Three nesting containment barriers shield the fuel rods. First, metal cladding around the rods contains fission products during the life of the fuel. Then a large steel vessel with walls about five inches thick surrounds the reactor and its coolant. And enclosing that is a large building made of a shell of steel covered with reinforced concrete four to six feet thick. After the truck-bomb explosion at the World Trade Center in 1993 and the crash of a station wagon driven by a mentally ill intruder into the turbine building (not the reactor building) at Three Mile Island, plants multiplied vehicle and other barriers and stepped up detection systems, access controls, and alarm stations. Plants also enhanced response strategies tested by mock raids by commandos familiar with plant layouts. These staged intrusions have occasionally been successful, leading to further corrections. On September 11, all nuclear facilities were put on highest alert indefinitely. Still more protective barriers are being erected. The NRC, after completing a thorough review of all levels of plant security, has just mandated additional personnel screening and access controls as well as closer cooperation with local law-enforcement agencies. Local governments have posted state troopers or the National Guard around commercial plants, and military surveillance continues. What if terrorists gained access to a reactor? An attempt to melt down the core would activate multiple safeguards, including alternate means of providing coolant as well as withdrawal of the fuel rods from the chain reaction process. And if a jetliner slammed into a reactor? Given what is now publicly known, one could predict that earthquake sensors, required in all reactors, would trigger automatic shutdown to protect the core. Scientists at the national labs are calculating whether containment structures could withstand a jumbo jet, specifically the impact of its engines, which are heavier than the fuselage, and any subsequent fire. Even the worst case—a reactor vessel breach—would involve no nuclear explosion, only a limited dispersal of radioactive materials. The extent of the plume would depend on many variables, especially the weather. As a precaution, no-fly zones have been imposed over all nuclear power plants. Military reactors used for weapons production have all been closed for a decade and are spaced miles apart on isolated reservations hundreds of miles square. Any release of radioactivity would remain on site. Commercial radioactive waste is generated chiefly by nuclear power plants, medical labs and hospitals, uranium mine tailings, coal-fired power plants (fissionable materials are concentrated in fly ash), and oil drilling (drill-stems accumulate radioactive minerals and bring them to the surface). Nuclear power provides about one-fifth of the energy the United States needs for electricity generation. At plants around the nation, in deep, steel-lined, heat-reducing pools of water, spent-fuel rods are accumulating in temporary storage. In the 1950s the National Academy of Sciences determined that deep geologic disposal is the safest means on land of permanently isolating nuclear waste. Congress designated Yucca Mountain, at the Nevada Test Site—scene of more than 1,000 atomic blasts—as the first permanent U.S. repository for spent fuel. Its burial has been the goal of the Energy Department and the NRC for decades, but political and bureaucratic obstacles, rather than lack of scientific know-how, have slowed progress. If the present timetable holds, and if political support is forthcoming—still an open question despite President Bush’s recent approval of Yucca Mountain—shipments of spent fuel from plants will begin around 2015. These days citizens have become acutely aware of the waste pools and have questioned their presence in populated areas, yet environmental activists have long sought to keep nuclear waste at power plants, insisting that its removal poses grave dangers. This view, though unsupported by the EPA, the NRC, and numerous risk-assessment studies (nuclear materials are transported daily around the nation without mishap, in contrast to accidents regularly associated with transport of toxic chemicals), has also resonated with politicians. Nevertheless, growing concern about fossil-fuel pollutants and global warming and the realization that nuclear power has spared the atmosphere from billions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions may be encouraging a change of attitudes. Challenges regarding subterranean disposal have already been solved. Because of breakthrough methodologies evolved during construction (by the Energy Department) and certification (by the EPA), New Mexico’s Waste Isolation Pilot Plant is the world’s first successful deep geologic repository for the permanent isolation of federal (as opposed to commercial) nuclear waste. It is a model for other nations. For political reasons, WIPP is permitted by Congress and the state of New Mexico to accept only certain military waste. But nearly 1,000 detailed studies, as well as an innovation in probabilistic risk assessment invented by WIPP’s scientists, have demonstrated that its remoteness, size, and stable geological and climatological features make it the safest place to store any type of waste. In fact, if enlarged or annexed, the WIPP could hold all U.S. nuclear waste generated for decades to come. Would a jet plane crashing into a waste pool cause a nuclear explosion? Given information now available, one can state that if the small target a pool presents were actually hit and coolant water were drained, spent fuel bundles would melt, react with the concrete and soil below the pools, and solidify into a mass—in effect causing containment. Some radionuclides would be vaporized and scattered, but in a very limited fashion, since spent-fuel rods lack immediately releasable energy. The waste pools contain practically no burnable materials. In dry-cask storage, an innovation safer than waste pools, a single bundle of rods is entombed in a thick concrete cylinder, 18 feet tall and 8 feet across, designed to withstand powerful impacts and widely separated from its neighbors. Air is the coolant. If one bundle somehow failed, not enough heat would be available to cause it or other bundles to melt. Sixteen plants have already converted to dry casks, and more will follow. Could terrorists steal spent nuclear fuel? First they would have to get past multiple impediments: guards, high double fences with concertina wire, floodlights, motion detectors, and cameras. Fuel rods are so radioactive that anyone coming within a few feet of them would become extremely ill and die within hours if not minutes. The more radioactive something is, the harder it is for someone to steal—and survive. Special equipment and thick lead shields are required for handling, and spent fuel for transport must be placed in casks weighing about 90 tons that have been stringently tested (burned with jet fuel, dropped from great heights onto steel spikes, and otherwise assaulted) and have remained impervious. Could terrorists make a nuclear weapon from commercial U.S. reactor fuel? Not easily. It is enriched with uranium-235 but not nearly enough to make it weapons-grade. Extracting the enriched uranium-235 would require a large, sophisticated chemical separation plant. Could terrorists rob a weapons facility of weapons-grade plutonium or uranium? Mock raids of the kind used to test nuclear power plants have been conducted to uncover weaknesses at weapons research sites. The exercises have demonstrated the need for maximum protection and independent oversight of security forces as well as of the network used to transport weapons materials. Since 10 a.m. on September 11, these sites have been placed on highest security. Precautions at some nuclear weapons facilities abroad are almost certainly weaker than here—and international terrorists would seem more likely to make a run at those installations before challenging ours. Terrorists with sufficient expertise and resources could in theory build a nuclear bomb but only with enormous difficulty. Starting a chain reaction is not simple. Highly enriched uranium—very problematic to acquire—would have to be correctly contained to obtain an explosion. Terrorists stealing an American nuclear weapon couldn’t explode it without detailed knowledge of classified procedures that unlock numerous fail-safe mechanisms. Nuclear weapons that have been accidentally dropped from aircraft or involved in plane crashes, for instance, have not exploded. The reason: these devices are designed to blow up only when properly detonated. More than 61 million people live within 50 miles of temporary military nuclear waste sites, many of which hold—in antiquated, leaky enclosures or pressurized tents—the legacies of the Manhattan Project, the Cold War, and disarmament treaties requiring the dismantling of nuclear weapons. If politics do not interfere, within 10 years radioactive military waste will remain near 4 million people. In the 1980s, the Energy Department began a massive cleanup, the world’s largest public works project ever. After a decade of delays and lawsuits by environmentalists, the WIPP opened in 1999. The satellite-monitored trucks that transport the waste have been highly and redundantly engineered, and their casks subjected to the same tests as those for commercial waste. Drivers are thoroughly vetted. Most shipments consist of mildly radioactive trash like coveralls, paper cups, and sludge. The debris is entombed half a mile underground in steel drums in a salt bed sandwiched between water-impermeable rock strata. The salt, plastic at that depth, and impermeable to radionuclides, eventually encloses the drums, providing another natural barrier An aircraft diving into an above-ground nuclear waste dump could not cause a nuclear explosion. The materials are neither refined nor concentrated enough to start a chain reaction. (Any material that could sustain one has been removed to be reused.) And because most high-level waste is isolated on big reservations like Hanford and Savannah River, which are fenced in and under heavy surveillance, casual access is highly unlikely. Recently considerable apprehension has been expressed about nuclear materials being wrapped around conventional explosives to make a ‘dirty’ bomb. This relatively low-tech approach appears more feasible than other threats and could induce widespread panic by appearing to expose a population to radiation. But how radioactive could such a bomb be? Spent fuel would deliver the highest dose of radiation. Contamination from such a bomb would be serious. But wrapping the conventional explosives with spent fuel would be, as noted, a cumbersome operation and would promptly subject the perpetrators to fatal exposure. Suicidal terrorists might nevertheless make the attempt, but it would be surprising indeed if simpler projects that can also pack a big punch were not pursued first, even by fanatics who are less than entirely rational. Last winter’s ‘shoe bomber’ tried to detonate not a nuclear device but rather a relatively available, very dangerous chemical compound concealed in his shoes. Neither medical nor WIPP-destined waste would provide much radioactivity because of the low concentration of radionuclides. More accessible materials (syringes, fly ash, uranium mine tailings, smoke detectors) could be included in a conventional bomb to make a Geiger counter tick a little faster, but physical damage from an explosion would be limited to what the conventional blast could do. Radiological harm would be negligible, if any occurred at all. More must be done to secure our nuclear facilities. Operators must continue to improve safeguards, giving high priority to human engineering. Inexpensive but highly effective entry systems like those used at national laboratories should be instituted at power plants, and more fail-safe systems to compensate for human error ought to be installed. Safer, cleaner, more efficient reactor designs now exist and should replace outmoded ones. Without further delay, nuclear waste must be transferred to permanent repositories. Ultimately all nuclear facilities would be even safer if relocated underground. An infrastructure in which small reactors provided energy to regions, each independent of the national grid, would prevent a catastrophic nationwide power failure in the event of an attack. In recent years, the Energy Department has tried to make its operations more transparent, but it still needs to reach out to the public to win trust. The technological and political communities—now sharply divided—must begin dialogues at both national and local levels. Because people are now recognizing as never before government’s essential role in providing protection, aid, and counsel, the time is right for leaders and policymakers in both camps to clear up old misunderstandings.” 41 -AT Accidents 42 -Strict regulations prevent accidents 43 -EIA ‘15 44 -, “Nuclear Power and the Environment”, US Energy Information Administration, 12 Nov 2015 45 -An uncontrolled nuclear reaction in a nuclear reactor can potentially result in widespread contamination of air and water. The risk of this happening at nuclear power plants in the United States is considered to be small because of the diverse and redundant barriers and many safety systems in place at nuclear power plants, the training and skills of the reactor operators, testing and maintenance activities, and the regulatory requirements and oversight of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A large area surrounding nuclear power plants is restricted and guarded by armed security teams. U.S. reactors have containment vessels that are designed to withstand extreme weather events and earthquakes. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 17:22:19.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Varad Agarwala - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunset RB - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Nelson Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC ShiftDesal Greenhill Round 2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- 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.CitesClass[4]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,87 +1,0 @@ 1 -Case Neg 2 -Desal DA 3 -Nuclear power is key to desalination of water. IAEA 15 4 -~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015 Premier 5 -It is anticipated that by 2025, 33 of the world population, or more than 1.8 billion people, will live in countries or regions without adequate supplies of water unless new desalination plants become operational. In many areas, the rate of water usage already exceeds the rate of replenishment. Nuclear reactors have already been used for desalination on relatively small-scale projects. In total, more than 150 reactor-years of operating experience with nuclear desalination has been accumulated worldwide. Eight nuclear reactors coupled to desalination projects are currently in operation in Japan. India commissioned the ND demonstration project in the year 2008 and the plant has been in continuous operation supplying demineralised (DM) quality water to the nuclear power plant and potable quality to the reservoir. Pakistan has launched a similar project in 2010. However, the great majority of the more than 7500 desalination plants in operation worldwide today use fossil fuels with the attendant emission of carbon dioxide and other GHG. Increasing the use of fossil fuels for energy-intensive processes such as large-scale desalination plants is not a sustainable long-term option in view of the associated environmental impacts. Thus, the main energy sources for future desalination are nuclear power reactors and renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro, or wind, but only nuclear reactors are capable of delivering the copious quantities of energy required for large-scale desalination projects. Algeria is participating in an IAEA’s CRP in the subject related to “New technologies for seawater desalination using nuclear energy’’ with a project entitled “Optimization of coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for an Algerian site Skikda”. This project is a contribution to the IAEA CRP to enrich the economic data corresponding to the choice of technical and economical options for coupling nuclear reactors and desalination systems for specific sites in the Mediterranean region 6 -Only solution to water shortages IAEA 2 7 -~-~- widely known as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization within the United Nations family. Set up in 1957 as the world's centre for cooperation in the nuclear field, the Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technologies, “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination Using Nuclear Energy,” IEAE TecDoc Series, 2015 Premier 8 -Addressing water shortages is a difficult challenge for many countries due to population growth and the increasing need for water to support industry, agriculture and urban development. Innovative water management strategies are certainly needed to preserve water resources. But they may not be sufficient. Throughout the world, many highly populated regions face frequent and prolonged droughts. In these areas, where, for some reason, the natural hydrologic cycle cannot provide people with water, desalination is used to provide people with potable water. Desalination systems fall into two main design categories, namely thermal and membrane types. Thermal designs –including MSF and MED- use flashing and evaporation to produce potable water while membrane designs use the method of RO. Desalination is the main technology being used to augment fresh water resources in water scarce coastal regions. With almost 64.4 million m3 /day (GWI 2012) of worldwide desalination water production capacity, about two third is produced by thermal distillation, mainly in the Middle East. Outside this region, membrane-based systems predominate. Both processes are energy-intensive (Fig. I-1.). Even if power consumption has been reduced as technological innovations, such as energy recovery systems and variable frequency pumps (reverse RO plants), are introduced, it remains the main cost factor in water desalination. Traditionally, fossil fuels such as oil and gas have been the major energy sources. However, fuel price hikes and volatility as well as concerns about long term supplies and environmental release is prompting consideration of alternative energy sources for seawater desalination, such as nuclear desalination and the use of renewable energy sources. Replacing fossil fuel by renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass) or nuclear energy, could reduce the impacts on air quality and climate. FIG. I-1. Typical energy consumption of technologically mature desalination processes. The idea of using nuclear energy to desalinate seawater is not new. Since the USS nautilus was commissioned more than a half century ago, the drinking water on nuclear submarines has come from reactor-powered desalination systems. Today, nuclear desalination is being 106 used by a number of countries, including India and Japan, to provide fresh water for growing populations and irrigation. Commercial uses are also being considered in Europe, the Middle East and South America. The IAEA has always been an important contributor to the RandD effort in nuclear desalination. In 2009, it launched a coordinated research programme entitled “New Technologies for Seawater Desalination using Nuclear Energy”, focusing on the introduction of innovative nuclear desalination technologies, producing desalted water at the lowest possible cost and in a sustainable manner. The French atomic and alternative energies commission (CEA) expressed interest in participating to the CRP. A research proposal, aiming at using CEA software tools to develop optimized nuclear desalination systems was established and submitted to the IAEA. The studies focused on the development of optimized nuclear desalination systems producing large amounts of desalinated water while minimizing the impact on the efficiency of power conversion. Technologically mature desalination processes viz. MEE and RO have been considered for the study. Each of these systems will be modelled using innovative techniques developed in CEA. Models would first be validated (against experimental results published in literature, or obtained through bilateral collaborations involving CEA) and then applied to optimize the energy use in the integrated power and water plants. 9 -Empirics prove water shortages are an impact multiplier and increase war. Maddocks et al. 15 10 -8-26-2015, "Ranking the World’s Most Water-Stressed Countries in 2040,"World Resource Institute, http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/08/ranking-worldE28099s-most-water-stressed-countries-2040 . Andrew Maddocks Previously worked in journalism and communications, has reported on global water, food, and energy issues for Circle of Blue, co-managed research, proposals, and outreach at the Woodrow Wilson Center, researched journalism ethics for NPR’s ombudsman, holds a B.A. in conflict studies from DePauw University in Greencastle, Ind., Paul Reig Associate with the Water Program and Business Center, worked in apparel sectors on water risk assessments, published author quoted in mainstream and specialist media on the topics of corporate water risk and stewardship, Quoted in The Financial Times, CNN, the Guardian, Fortune, LA Times, The Oil and Gas Journal, MS in Water Resource Management from McGill University, BS in Environmental and Agricultural Biology from the University of Navarra, Robert Samuel Young Interned at George Mason University, performing research into computational protein engineering for use in biofuel production, worked for the Friends of Hidden Oaks Nature Center, founded a non-profit STEM education organization called Project BEST, working toward a B.S. in Electrical Engineering at Stanford University, to be completed in 2018, was an intern at WRI. 11 - 12 -Fourteen of the 33 likely most water stressed countries in 2040 are in the Middle East, including nine considered extremely highly stressed with a score of 5.0 out of 5.0: Bahrain, Kuwait, Palestine, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Lebanon. The region, already arguably the least water-secure in the world, draws heavily upon groundwater and desalinated sea water, and faces exceptional water-related challenges for the foreseeable future. With regional violence and political turmoil commanding global attention, water may seem tangential. However, drought and water shortages in Syria likely contributed to the unrest that stoked the country’s 2011 civil war. Dwindling water resources and chronic mismanagement forced 1.5 million people, primarily farmers and herders, to lose their livelihoods and leave their land, move to urban areas, and magnify Syria’s general destabilization. The problem extends to other countries. Water is a significant dimension of the decades-old conflict between Palestine and Israel. Saudi Arabia’s government said its people will depend entirely on grain imports by 2016, a change from decades of growing all they need, due to fear of water-resource depletion. The U.S. National Intelligence Council wrote that water problems will put key North African and Middle Eastern countries at greater risk of instability and state failure and distract them from foreign policy engagements with the U.S. 13 -Water crises cause escalating global conflict. 14 -Rasmussen 11 (Erik, CEO, Monday Morning; Founder, Green Growth Leaders) “Prepare for the Next Conflict: Water Wars” HuffPo 4/12 15 -For years experts have set out warnings of how the earth will be affected by the water crises, with millions dying and increasing conflicts over dwindling resources. They have proclaimed ~-~- in line with the report from the US Senate ~-~- that the water scarcity is a security issue, and that it will yield political stress with a risk of international water wars. This has been reflected in the oft-repeated observation that water will likely replace oil as a future cause of war between nations. Today the first glimpses of the coming water wars are emerging. Many countries in the Middle East, Africa, Central and South Asia ~-~- e.g. Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Kenya, Egypt, and India ~-~- are already feeling the direct consequences of the water scarcity ~-~- with the competition for water leading to social unrest, conflict and migration. This month the escalating concerns about the possibility of water wars triggered calls by Zafar Adeel, chair of UN-Water, for the UN to promote "hydro-diplomacy" in the Middle East and North Africa in order to avoid or at least manage emerging tensions over access to water. The gloomy outlook of our global fresh water resources points in the direction that the current conflicts and instability in these countries are only glimpses of the water wars expected to unfold in the future. Thus we need to address the water crisis that can quickly escalate and become a great humanitarian crisis and also a global safety problem. A revolution The current effort is nowhere near what is needed to deal with the water-challenge ~-~- the world community has yet to find the solutions. Even though the 'water issue' is moving further up the agenda all over the globe: the US foreign assistance is investing massively in activities that promote water security, the European Commission is planning to present a "Blueprint for Safeguarding Europe's Water" in 2012 and the Chinese government plans to spend $600 billion over the next 10 years on measures to ensure adequate water supplies for the country. But it is not enough. The situation requires a response that goes far beyond regional and national initiatives ~-~- we need a global water plan. With the current state of affairs, correcting measures still can be taken to avoid the crisis to be worsening. But it demands that we act now. We need a new way of thinking about water. We need to stop depleting our water resources, and urge water conservation on a global scale. This calls for a global awareness that water is a very scarce and valuable natural resource and that we need to initiate fundamental technological and management changes, and combine this with international solidarity and cooperation. In 2009, The International Water Management Institute called for a blue revolution as the only way to move forward: "We will need nothing less than a 'Blue Revolution', if we are to achieve food security and avert a serious water crisis in the future" said Dr. Colin Chartres, Director General of the International Water Management Institute. This meaning that we need ensure "more crop per drop": while many developing countries use precious water to grow 1 ton of rice per hectare, other countries produce 5 tons per hectare under similar social and water conditions, but with better technology and management. Thus, if we behave intelligently, and collaborate between neighbors, between neighboring countries, between North and South, and in the global trading system, we shall not 'run out of water'. If we do not, and "business as usual" prevails, then water wars will accelerate. 16 -That goes nuclear 17 -Zahoor 12 (Musharaf, Researcher at Department of Nuclear Politics – National Defense University, Water Crisis can Trigger Nuclear War in South Asia, http://www.siasat.pk) 18 -Water is an ambient source, which unlike human beings does not respect boundaries. Water has been a permanent source of conflict between the tribes since biblical times and now between the states. The conflicts are much more likely among those states, which are mainly dependent on shared water sources. The likelihood of turning these conflicts into wars is increased when these countries or states are mainly arid or receive low precipitations. In this situation, the upper riparian states (situated on upper parts of a river basin) often try to maximize water utility by neglecting the needs of the lower riparian states (situated on low lying areas of a river basin). However, international law on distribution of trans-boundary river water and mutually agreed treaties by the states have helped to some extent in overcoming these conflicts. In the recent times, the climate change has also affected the water availability. The absence of water management and conservation mechanisms in some regions particularly in the third world countries have exacerbated the water crisis. These states have become prone to wars in future. South Asia is among one of those regions where water needs are growing disproportionately to its availability. The high increase in population besides large-scale cultivation has turned South Asia into a water scarce region. The two nuclear neighbors Pakistan and India share the waters** of Indus Basin. All the major rivers stem from the Himalyan region and pass through Kashmir down to the planes of Punjab and Sindh empty into Arabic ocean. It is pertinent that the strategic importance of Kashmir, a source of all major rivers, for Pakistan and symbolic importance of Kashmir for India are maximum list positions. Both the countries have fought two major wars in 1948, 1965 and a limited war in Kargil specifically on the Kashmir dispute. Among other issues, the newly born states fell into water sharing dispute right after their partition. Initially under an agreed formula, Pakistan paid for the river waters to India, which is an upper riparian state. After a decade long negotiations, both the states signed Indus Water Treaty in 1960. Under the treaty, India was given an exclusive right of three eastern rivers Sutlej, Bias and Ravi while Pakistan was given the right of three Western Rivers, Indus, Chenab and Jhelum. The tributaries of these rivers are also considered their part under the treaty. It was assumed that the treaty had permanently resolved the water issue, which proved a nightmare in the latter course. India by exploiting the provisions of IWT started wanton construction of dams on Pakistani rivers thus scaling down the water availability to Pakistan (a lower riparian state). The treaty only allows run of the river hydropower projects and does not permit to construct such water reservoirs on Pakistani rivers, which may affect the water flow to the low lying areas. According to the statistics of Hydel power Development Corporation of Indian Occupied Kashmir, India has a plan to construct 310 small, medium and large dams in the territory. India has already started work on 62 dams in the first phase. The cumulative dead and live storage of these dams will be so great that India can easily manipulate the water of Pakistani rivers. India has set up a department called the Chenab Valley Power Projects to construct power plants on the Chenab River in occupied Kashmir. India is also constructing three major hydro-power projects on Indus River which include Nimoo Bazgo power project, Dumkhar project and Chutak project. On the other hand, it has started Kishan ***** hydropower project by diverting the waters of Neelum River, a tributary of the Jhelum, in sheer violation of the IWT. The gratuitous construction of dams by India has created serious water shortages in Pakistan. The construction of Kishan ***** dam will turn the Neelum valley, which is located in Azad Kashmir into a barren land. The water shortage will not only affect the cultivation but it has serious social, political and economic ramifications for Pakistan. The farmer associations have already started protests in Southern Punjab and Sindh against the non-availability of water. These protests are so far limited and under control. The reports of international organizations suggest that the water availability in Pakistan will reduce further in the coming years. If the situation remains unchanged, the violent mobs of villagers across the country will be a major law and order challenge for the government. The water shortage has also created mistrust among the federative units, which is evident from the fact that the President and the Prime Minister had to intervene for convincing Sindh and Punjab provinces on water sharing formula. The Indus River System Authority (IRSA) is responsible for distribution of water among the provinces but in the current situation it has also lost its credibility. The provinces often accuse each other of water theft. In the given circumstances, Pakistan desperately wants to talk on water issue with India. The meetings between Indus Water Commissioners of Pakistan and India have so far yielded no tangible results. The recent meeting in Lahore has also ended without concrete results. India is continuously using delaying tactics to under pressure Pakistan. The Indus Water Commissioners are supposed to resolve the issues bilaterally through talks. The success of their meetings can be measured from the fact that Pakistan has to knock at international court of arbitration for the settlement of Kishan ***** hydropower project. The recently held foreign minister level talks between both the countries ended inconclusively in Islamabad, which only resulted in heightening the mistrust and suspicions. The water stress in Pakistan is increasing day by day. The construction of dams will not only cause damage to the agriculture sector but India can manipulate the river water to create inundations in Pakistan. The rivers in Pakistan are also vital for defense during wartime. The control over the water will provide an edge to India during war with Pakistan. The failure of diplomacy, manipulation of IWT provisions by India and growing water scarcity in Pakistan and its social, political and economic repercussions for the country can lead both the countries toward a war. The existent asymmetry between the conventional forces of both the countries will compel the weaker side to use nuclear weapons to prevent the opponent from taking any advantage of the situation. Pakistan's nuclear programme is aimed at to create minimum credible deterrence. India has a declared nuclear doctrine which intends to retaliate massively in case of first strike by its' enemy. In 2003, India expanded the operational parameters for its nuclear doctrine. Under the new parameters, it will not only use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike but will also use nuclear weapons against a nuclear strike on Indian forces anywhere. Pakistan has a draft nuclear doctrine, which consists on the statements of high ups. Describing the nuclear thresh-hold in January 2002, General Khalid Kidwai, the head of Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, in an interview to Landau Network, said that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons in case India occupies large parts of its territory, economic strangling by India, political disruption and if India destroys Pakistan's forces. The analysis of the ambitious nuclear doctrines of both the countries clearly points out that any military confrontation in the region can result in a nuclear catastrophe. The rivers flowing from Kashmir are Pakistan's lifeline, which are essential for the livelihood of 170 million people of the country and the cohesion of federative units. The failure of dialogue will leave no option but to achieve the ends through military means. The only way to discard the lurking fear of a nuclear cataclysm is to settle all the outstanding disputes amicably through dialogue. The international community has a special role in this regard. It should impress upon India to initiate meaningful talks to resolve the lingering Kashmir dispute with Pakistan and implement the water treaty in its letter and spirit. The Indian leadership should drive out its policy towards Pakistan from terrorism mantra to a solution-oriented dialogue process. Both the countries should adopt a joint mechanism to maximize the utility of river waters by implementing the 1960 treaty, Besides negotiations with India, Pakistan should start massive water conservation and management projects. The modern techniques in agriculture like i.e. drip irrigation, should be adopted. On the other hand, there is a dire need to gradually upgrade the obsolete irrigation system in Pakistan. The politicization of mega hydropower projects/dams is also a problem being faced by Pakistan, which can only be resolved through political will. 19 - 20 - 21 -SMR CP: 22 -Counterplan text: Ukraine will increase the development, importation, and research into small modular reactors – importation will come from Russia. 23 -The CP solves escalating water wars across the globe – smr’s are the only solution. Hillard 14 24 -“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 25 -A third positive aspect of SMRs is their ability to desalinate water. Even though much of the world is covered in water, scarcity of access to this resource is a major problem that causes conflicts around the world. Countries fight over access to rivers and water ways. An example of such conflicts is the tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt over the Nile (Dinar, 2012). Dinar, an FIU International Relations professor, asserts that “There are no strong treaties governing the use of these water reserves in tense territories. Should conflicts break out, there are no good mechanisms in place for dealing with them” (para. 6). Tensions over water create larger conflicts that will eventually escalate because water is a vital resource to life. With the uneven distribution of water and only .008 of the world’s water directly accessible for human use, water poverty and wars fought over water are realistic threats (IAEA, 2007). Desalination is the process of removing salt from water, usually from sea water, so it can be viably used as drinking water or for the irrigation of crops (USGS, 2014). The process allows for more of the world’s water to be used for human consumption which could eliminate the threat of resource wars fought over water. The option of using nuclear energy to power desalination plants is the best in order to make enough water to meet the growing demands of the world. The IAEA argue that small reactors would be more beneficial in the countries that are in desperate need of freshwater because they commonly have a weaker infrastructure and a smaller electrical grid. They claim “The size of the grid limits the possibilities for integrating a cogenerating nuclear power plant into the grid to supply the electricity market, in addition to meeting the energy requirements of a desalination plant” (IAEA, p. 5). A SMR would be more feasible than a large nuclear plant because a smaller reactor would put less strain on the electrical grid and allow full power to the desalination plant. Seneviratne (2007), a Nuclear News Vienna Correspondent, informs that researchers from ten different countries conducted research that concluded that nuclear energy was economically competitive with other energy sources to use to power desalination plants. Two factors held nuclear desalination back from being used earlier: economy and inappropriately sized reactors. The first challenge was disproven by the studies done by the ten different countries (Seneviratne). The second challenge is remedied by the creation of small modular reactors because they would be an appropriate size for the countries that need desalination for freshwater sources (Seneviratne). In The Answer: Why Only Inherently Safe, Mini Nuclear Power Plans Can Save Our World, Palley (2011) expresses the dangers of countries not having a sufficient water supply. He speculates that over one billion people do not have access to clean water, and with population growth inevitable, conflicts over water or the control of waterways will continue to escalate. He concludes that the problem must be quickly fixed in which case only small desalination plants powered by SMRs are a viable option because they have the ability to be put into remote locations where the water is desperately needed. Palley states, “We now have the power, by means of SMRs profile to local conditions, not only to attend to existing water shortages but also to smooth out disproportionate water distribution and create green habitation where historically it has never existed” (p. 170- 171). Mass production of SMRs would be able to help create a stable environment around the world because of easier access to freshwater for those countries that have been deprived. This provides a unique export opportunity for the United States. SMRs open up a new market for the United States to tap in to by exporting them to mostly lesser developed or underdeveloped countries. Not only would they be a great economic opportunity, but SMRs also have the opportunity to spread the United States’ nonproliferation policies around the world (Rosner and Goldberg, 2011). 26 - 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 - 31 - 32 - 33 - 34 - 35 - 36 - 37 - 38 - 39 - 40 - 41 - 42 - 43 - 44 -Solves the nuclear terror – inherently safer. . Hillard 14 45 -“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 46 -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. 47 - 48 -Hormesis DA 49 -Exposure to low levels of radiation solves disease. Solomon 12 50 -Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe, “ Lawrence Solomon: Evacuation a worse killer than radiation,” ENERGY PROBE, 9-21-12.http://ep.probeinternational.org/2012/09/24/lawrence-solomon-evacuation-a-worse-killer-than-radiation/. 51 -If a terrorist in New York or London exploded a dirty bomb, if a nuclear reactor near Toronto or Chicago suffered a meltdown, would we know how to deal with the danger of radioactive fallout? Evidence from the evacuation that followed the Japanese earthquake and tsunami in Japan last year says no. The calamity claimed almost 16,000 lives, with another 3,500 missing and feared lost. This toll from one of the worst natural disasters of all time was then followed by a tragedy of another kind — the evacuation of 90,000 people in a broad swatch around nuclear reactors that were leaking radioactivity. According to Japanese government authorities, “disaster-related deaths” among the nuclear evacuees number more than 700, a number that continues to rise. Most of those deaths were needless, a man-made disaster born of human ignorance and incompetence. These people died in a chaotic scramble to escape presumably deadly radiation. One example involved some 340 mostly elderly patients evacuated by bus from a hospital facility near the nuclear plant. During almost 12 hours on the bus, eight died. During the following three weeks in an evacuation centre, another 32 patients died, some from the lack of medical care, some from physical and psychological fatigue — afflictions scarring many of the 90,000 surviving evacuees. Based on studies of other traumas involving relocations, the number of Fukushima evacuees who will die from the consequences of severe stress could number in the thousands. According to many nuclear experts, most of those 90,000 should never have been evacuated — radiation levels not only didn’t approach what are known as lethal doses, making them immediate threats, the radiation also didn’t approach levels that should ring alarm bells. A calculation by Richard Wilson, professor of physics emeritus at Harvard University, in Evacuation Criteria After A Nuclear Accident: A Personal Perspective, soon to be published by the International Dose-Response Society, finds that releases of Fukushima radioactivity last year that were presented as scary were anything but. Based on actual measurements, a hypothetical resident who received a constant dose of radiation for a full year from the crippled nuclear reactor in one contaminated area — the Ibaraki prefecture — would absorb a dose of 876 mrems. “What does this mean?” Prof. Wilson asks in his study. “Many actions can give anyone a dose of 876 mrems,” he answers, including a CAT scan. An astronaut is allowed to absorb 100 times as much radiation as this hypothetical person would have received. Yet the Japanese authorities decided to evacuate 90,000 people, placing them in harm’s way when they were relatively safe, or entirely safe. The authorities’ behaviour, Prof. Wilson believes, stems from an irrational phobia that the public has of radiation, coupled with politicians’ dread of the wrath of voters. “There is no politician who would not prefer a dead body to a frightened voter,” he writes, quoting a former head of the U.K.’s Health and Safety Executive. As a result, a politically correct standard has long been in place worldwide that requires exposure levels to radiation to be kept “as low as reasonably achievable.” This feel-good standard is technical in nature — it asks nuclear operators and government regulators to lower exposure whenever they’re able to, regardless of whether doing so can be demonstrated to save lives. By blind obeisance to this standard, the nuclear industry has set ever-tighter standards for itself that limit to ridiculously small levels the radiation the public can receive. In the case of Fukushima, this standard led to the decision to evacuate an immense number of people instead of the few who might have been in true peril. Prof. Wilson suggests that a truly precautionary approach, one which would save lives, would see the allowable emissions increase by a factor of four in case of emergency. Others, such as Dr. Jerry Cuttler, a Canadian nuclear expert who is also about to release a study on the Fukushima disaster, would like to see it increase by a factor of 50, and to see the standard of “as low as reasonably achievable” replaced with “as high as reasonably safe” in the case of evacuations. These changes would greatly reduce the number of evacuees and thus the complexity of any evacuation that might be needed in future. The American Nuclear Society in its June annual meeting likewise supported a dramatic increase in permitted emissions in light of the perverse effects of today’s standards on public health. This society, and these scientists, are going further, too. They are giving credibility to radiation hormesis, a fast growing body of science supported by an overwhelming number of studies that find low levels of radiation — unlike high levels, which are dangerous — to prolong life and health. Studies show, for example, that nuclear workers, or people who live in naturally radioactive regions of North America, log many fewer cancers and other diseases than those who work and live in low-radiation environments. Prof. Wilson calls such lives saved “negative” deaths. Radiation hormesis, if accepted by the public and adopted by emergency-preparedness authorities, would not only reduce the size of evacuation areas, it would also be a wet blanket for terrorists. Their perennial goal of taking out a nuclear reactor would lose its appeal, as would detonating a dirty bomb — the radiation lacing the bomb could act to save lives down the road, making it less deadly than a conventional bomb and costing terrorists one of their preferred instruments of mayhem. 52 -Statistical evidence of wide range of data proves that hormesis/threshold analysis of radiation is most probable. Dobryznski et al 15. 53 -Ludwik Dobrzyński professor of physics and Director of the Department of Education and Trainings at the National Centre for Nuclear Research, Graduated from University of Warsaw, specializing in solid state and nuclear physics with special emphasis on the nuclear methods in condensed matter studies, Krzysztof W. Fornalski Researcher with expertise in: Nuclear physics, Biophysics and Computational Physics, PhD in Engineering, and Ludwig E. Feinendegen MD from University of Cologne, Germany; Medicine, Research Center Juelich, and simultaneously professor and director of the Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Heinrich-Heine-University, 6-2-15, "Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation," PubMed Central (PMC), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4674188/ 54 -Since our article deals with ecological data, one should be aware of the so-called ecological fallacy argument (Seiler and Alvarez 2000; Hart 2011b), usually referred to in ecological analyses. In such studies, the dose–effect dependence in the case of, for example, cancer incidence in some geographical regions are statistically analyzed without knowing individual human exposure conditions. The statistical powers of ecological studies are, however, only a little lower than those of the case–control ones with individual exposure histories, as discussed by Hart (2011b). Ecological studies are reported widely, and our knowledge of the health effects of ionizing radiation is largely based on such studies. As an example, the much debated Cohen’s analysis of radon risk (Cohen 1995), showing a decreased lung cancer incidence with increased radon exposure, was recently confirmed in the course of case–control studies by Thompson et al. (2008). Additional ecological studies are the analyses of the cancer risk due to natural radiation in China (Sun et al. 2000), Guam (Denton and Namazi 2013), Poland (Fornalski and Dobrzyński 2012), United States (Hart 2010, 2011a), and Switzerland (Hauri 2013). Another recent study used the case–control approach (Jaikrishnan 2013) and, although not directly related to cancer, shows that the HNBR level in Kerala, India, has no influence on stillbirth and major congenital anomalies among newborns. Regardless whether it is a case–control study or an ecological study, the application of the Bayesian analysis allows the identification of essential trends of data. The application of the Bayesian analysis to the Körblein and Hoffmann (2006) article presented here is an example which overwhelmingly shows the dilemma of relating risk to low doses: Many models may be applied to the data, but the model showing no dose dependence has the highest plausibility based on the measured data. Which of the models has the highest probability of being correct appears answerable only on the basis of a holistic view of all available appropriate epidemiological and experimental data. For instance, if our analysis of the data presented in Figure 1 results in the conclusion that a no dose dependence model is 7 times more plausible than the LNT model (Model 2), one may still favor the LNT model, however, only on the assumption that the LNT model is at least 7 times more likely than model 1. There is no support for such an a priori assumption. Therefore, the aforementioned set of data from areas with elevated natural background radiation supports the current analyses and speaks in favor of a threshold and/or hormesis. 55 -Low doses of radiation reduces global cancer and increases reparations of DNA – study of 10,000 people proves. Cuttler 4 56 -Jerry Cuttler University of Toronto (Engineering Physics, Nuclear), M.Sc. and D.Sc. degrees from the Israel Institute of Technology, research engineer and by the IIT as a laboratory manager, former Technical Manager of Seforad Applied Radiation., 2004, "What Becomes of Nuclear Risk Assessment in Light of Radiation Hormesis" Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/35/066/35066123.pdf 57 -Recent discoveries indicate that oxidative DNA damage occurs naturally to living cells at an enormous rate. Survival to old age depends on the performance of a very capable damage-control biosystem, which prevents, repairs, or removes almost all the DNA alterations.11 Those DNA alterations not eliminated by this protective system are residual mutations, a very small fraction of which eventually develops into cancer. The rate of DNA mutations caused directly by background radiation compared with the rate produced by endogenous oxygen metabolism is extremely small. While high doses decrease biosystem activity, causing increased cancer mortality, low doses stimulate biosystem activity causing lower-than-normal cancer mortality. Stimulation of the immune system increases the attack and killing of cancer cells (including metastases) globally.12 Figure 1. Idealized dose-response curve. The ordinate indicates approximate responses compared with the controls. The abscissa suggests mammalian whole-body exposures as mGy/y. The numbered areas are: (1) deficient, (2) ambient, (3) hormetic, (4) optimum, (5) zero equivalent point, and (6) harmful. The evidence of hormetic effects of radiation exposure on cancer has lead to recent applications of whole-body, low-dose irradiation therapy for cancer, with no symptomatic side effects.13 Research has demonstrated that a low dose increases cancer latency even in individuals who are radiation sensitive and cancer prone.14 Even chronic exposures appear to prevent cancer and genetic defects, based on a study of 10,000 residents who lived 9-20 years in Co-60 contaminated apartments – a collective dose of 4000 person-Sv.15 About 230 cancer deaths were expected, plus 70 radiation-induced deaths, but only 7 were observed. Forty-six genetic defects plus 18 radiation-induced cases were expected, but only 3 were observed. In 1983, the average dose was about 74 mGy, and the maximum was 910 mGy – well within the range of biopositive effects shown in Figure 1. 58 -New disease is uniquely dangerous. Jonas 5. 59 - 60 -Wayne B. Jonas 5, MD Director, Samueli Institute for Information Biology A Publication of the Northeast Regional Environmental Public Health Center, University of Massachusetts, School of Public Health, Amherst, MA 01003 Vol. 13 No. 2 Part I, September 2005, ISSN 1092-4736 Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures BIOMEDICAL IMPLICATIONS OF HORMESIS – PART 1http://www.belleonline.com/newsletters/volume13/vol13-2.pdf 61 -Emerging Infections Many infectious viral and bacterial organisms rapidly mutate and evolve into either more virulent or drugresistant forms. With increasingly mobile world populations and wide use of anti-viral and anti-bacterial drugs the stage is set for an accelerated emergence of more virulent viruses that are resistant to treatment. Examples include SARS, Avian flu, influenza, tuberculosis and malaria. The possible emergence of Avian flu in Vietnam further highlights the urgent need for alternative approaches to protection and treatment. For over a hundred years certain physicians have claimed, with no scientific evidence, that low-dose preparations of such agents can protect and mitigate the effects of infectious disease. 62 -Disease causes extinction 63 -Yu 9 Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science (Victoria, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of Our Fate, 22 May 2009, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-our-fate, AMiles) 64 -A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10). 65 -Sharing CP 66 -CP Text: Countries ought to develop information sharing systems that combat nuclear terrorism and investigate and shut down loopholes in cybersecurity protocols. Levi 8 67 -Michael Levi, 1-1-2008, "Stopping Nuclear Terrorism," Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2008-01-01/stopping-nuclear-terrorism//KOHS-AG 68 -An integrated approach to defending the United States against nuclear terrorism will require institutional and bureaucratic changes. As part of a move toward a more coherent and well-grounded homeland security and counterterrorism policy, U.S. officials must mandate a new strategic intelligence assessment of the nuclear threat. This assessment should combine expertise on nuclear weapons with expertise on terrorism, disciplines that, according to the final report of the president's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (released in 2005), have often failed to work together. Moreover, since so many ideas about nuclear terrorism are deeply ingrained, the effort must include analysts who have never studied nuclear terrorism in the past and can therefore bring fresh ideas to the table. Rather than focusing narrowly on the United States' vulnerabilities, this assessment should also catalogue opportunities for exploiting terrorists' weak points in order to derail and deter nuclear plots. That intelligence assessment should form the foundation for ongoing "red team" exercises, in which the government tasks certain individuals with defeating and exposing holes in existing defenses. Red-teaming tests the ability of defensive planners to counter threats that they might otherwise ignore or fail to anticipate. Such exercises must not emphasize the most dramatic threats while ignoring lesser ones. When governments test defenses by trying to defeat them by any means possible, they implicitly emphasize worst-case scenarios. Although this is a necessary tool for auditing counterterrorism efforts, it is misleading when used by itself. Government Accountability Office red-teaming tests of U.S. border security, for example, have found important holes in U.S. defenses. But they have also obscured the potential of many defensive strategies that could target lesser but still realistic threats. In so doing, they have convinced many members of Congress that those strategies are largely useless. Active efforts to integrate defenses are also essential. But many of the tools needed for fighting nuclear terrorism are not nuclear-specific: instead, they span the full range of homeland security and counterterrorism. That makes it impossible to cordon off nuclear terrorism and appoint a single powerful official to fully orchestrate a strategy against it. Multiple attempts to do so have sparked turf wars and failed. An effort to create a national domestic nuclear defense office in the White House in 2004 ran into insurmountable bureaucratic resistance; the new National Counterproliferation Center, housed in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is barred from coordinating efforts to secure nuclear weapons and materials so as to prevent it from stepping on the Department of Energy's toes; and the National Counterterrorism Center, also in the ODNI and perhaps the likeliest candidate for lead coordinator, faces sharp limits on its power to mandate action. Still, coordination on a narrower scale is essential and feasible. The recently established Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, located in the Department of Homeland Security, already plays a useful if limited role in coordinating nuclear detection efforts. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism provides a forum for international discussion on aligning counterterrorism efforts. A lead senior official reporting directly to the president should be appointed to coordinate nuclear-specific elements of a defense. That official should also contribute to broader counterterrorism and homeland security planning. Meanwhile, the National Counterterrorism Center must create a strategic operational plan, as it did for combating terrorist travel. This would allow each branch of the government to evaluate its efforts not in isolation but in the context of a broader defense. U.S. policymakers will also need to carefully reassess their approach to secrecy. For example, many of those on the frontlines of the war against terrorism are local law enforcement officers who do not have high-level security clearances. Joint counterterrorism task forces have been established, and their members have better access to information, but these groups are relatively small and typically operate in response to intelligence about a specific plot. Empowering beat cops to spot telltale signs of a nuclear plot in the course of their normal activities may require sharing more information about nuclear terrorism with them. There are, of course, dangers involved in sharing secrets, but a careful reassessment of secrecy policies is long overdue. 69 -Information sharing is uniquely key to solving the war on terror. Gareau 5 70 -Joel Garreau, staff writer for the Washington Post, “Intelligence Gathering Is the Best Way to Reduce Terrorism,” Are Efforts to Reduce Terrorism Successful?, published by Lauri Friedman, 71 -Terrorist organizations are human networks, not armies. They rely on trust, relationships, and communication to operate. Military operations and bombing campaigns will be ineffective against such groups because they will not destroy the trust and connections those networks are built upon. Therefore, the most effective way to reduce terrorism is to wage a war of wits. With good intelligence gathering techniques, authorities can learn who the key terrorists are and either eliminate them or tarnish their reputations in the eyes of others in the network. Unraveling the ties that bind terrorists will win the war on terrorism. The essence of this first war of the 21st century is that it’s not like the old ones. That’s why, as $40 billion is voted for the new war on terrorism, 35,000 reservists are called up and two aircraft carrier battle groups hover near Afghanistan,1 some warriors and analysts have questions: In the Information Age, they ask, how do you attack, degrade or destroy a small, shadowy, globally distributed, stateless network of intensely loyal partisans with few fixed assets or addresses? If bombers are not the right hammer for this nail, what is? Bombers worked well in wars in which one Industrial Age military threw steel at another. World War II, for instance, was a matchup of roughly symmetrical forces. This is not true today. That’s why people who think about these things call this new conflict “asymmetric warfare.” The terrorist side is different: different organization, different methods of attack—and of defense. “It takes a tank to fight a tank. It takes a network to fight a network,” says John Arquilla, senior consultant to the international security group Rand and co-author of the forthcoming “Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy.” He asks: “How do you attack a trust structure—which is what a network is? You’re not going to do this with Tomahawk missiles or strategic bombardment.” “It’s a whole new playing field. You’re not attacking a nation, but a network,” says Karen Stephenson, who studies everything from corporations to the U.S. Navy as if they were tribes. Trained as a chemist and anthropologist, she now teaches at Harvard and the University of London. “You have to understand what holds those networks in place, what makes them strong and where the leverage points are. They’re not random connections,” she says. Human networks are distinct from electronic ones. They are not the Internet. They are political and emotional connections among people who must trust each other in order to function, like Colombian drug cartels and Spanish Basque separatists and the Irish Republican Army. Not to mention high-seas pirates, smugglers of illegal immigrants, and rogue brokers of weapons of mass destruction. But how to a network? The good news is that in the last decade we have developed a whole new set of weapons to figure that out. 72 - 73 - 74 - 75 -Case 76 -AT: Terrorists Get Into Plants 77 -No impact to terrorists getting into plants – the fuel is either useless, would kill them instantly, or is gigantic. Neuhauser 3/24 cites Acton. 78 -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 79 -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." 80 -AT: They Make a Bomb 81 -No risk of nuclear terror – assumes every warrant 82 -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) 83 -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. 84 -AT: Terrorists Cause Meltdowns 85 -Redundancies check meltdown from terrorist attack. Neuhauser 3/24. Cites Tobey 86 -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: William Tobey deputy administrator at the National Nuclear Security Administration from 2006 to 2009, now a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 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 87 -Reactors need constant cooling, and meltdowns happen when those systems fail and the nuclear core overheats. Power plants are built with redundancies and "concentric circles of probability" to prevent that from happening, says Tobey, now a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. The problem, he adds, is "terrorists don't respect the laws of probability, they work to overcome them." Take the meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011, for example: There were generators in place to keep power flowing to the site's cooling systems. But they were located at low elevations – when the tidal wave struck, the generators went down with the rest of the plant. "If a terrorist is going to attack a nuclear power facility, that terrorist would probably understand the need to attack more than one line of defense," Tobey says. And with plants protected by cameras, walls and well-armed guards, it would take far more than just one bomb or a simple attack to trigger meltdown – making the chances it could happen highly unlikely. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-28 23:01:39.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Ashan Peiris - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook AP - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -3 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Nelson Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Desal DA, SMR CP, Sharing CP, Radiation Impact Turn - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Meadows
- Caselist.CitesClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,60 +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 -Your Hovolko evidence says that it will get 27 percent of renewables BY 2030. Hovolko 12. 10 -Masters Degree in environmental science (Iryna How Ukraine can survive without nuclear - renewable energy potentials reviewed CEE Bankwatch Network 10/22/12 http://bankwatch.org/news-media/blog/how-ukraine-can-survive-without-nuclear-renewable-energy-potentials-reviewed Acc 9/24/16) CW 11 -Here is our estimation for the potential production capacity in 2030: According to our estimation, Ukraine could cover up to 27 per cent of its electricity demand in 2030 with renewable energy. 12 -The plan is for more gas and they’re heavily dependent on nuclear. WNA 16 13 -WNA, 2016 October, "Nuclear Power in Ukraine," http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/ukraine.aspx 14 -Ukraine is heavily dependent on nuclear energy – it has 15 reactors generating about half of its electricity. Ukraine receives most of its nuclear services and nuclear fuel from Russia, but is reducing this dependence by buying fuel from Westinghouse. In 2004 Ukraine commissioned two large new reactors. The government plans to maintain nuclear share in electricity production to 2030, which will involve substantial new build. The government is looking to the West for both technology and investment in its nuclear plants. A large share of primary energy supply in Ukraine comes from the country's uranium and substantial coal resources. The remainder is oil and gas, mostly imported from Russia. In 1991, due to breakdown of the Soviet Union, the country's economy collapsed and its electricity consumption declined dramatically from 296 TWh in 1990 to 170 TWh in 2000, all the decrease being from coal and gas plants. In December 2005 Ukraine and the EU signed an energy cooperation agreement which links the country more strongly to western Europe in respect to both nuclear energy and electricity supply. Today Ukraine is developing shale gas deposits and hoping to export this to western Europe by 2020 through the established pipeline infrastructure crossing its territory from the east. 15 -We control empirics. Nordhaus and Rothrock 7-15 16 -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 17 -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. 18 -Two Impacts: 19 -1 Nuclear power has prevented massive amounts of death as compared to coal and gas. Hansen and Kharecha 13 20 -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 21 -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). 22 -2 Coal causes huge harms and environmental racism—turns case. GEP ‘15 23 -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 24 -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.” 25 -Nuclear power and renewables are not mutually exclusive – nuclear allows renewables to expand. Plumer 8/2 26 -Plumer 8/2 Brad; enior editor at Vox.com, previously a reporter at the Washington Post; Vox; “Nuclear power and renewables don’t have to be enemies. New York just showed how.”; 8/2/16; http://www.vox.com/2016/8/2/12345572/new-york-nuclear-wind-solar; JLB (9/11/16) 27 -Consider, if you will, two basic facts about clean energy in the United States. Nuclear power is the country’s largest source of carbon-free energy, supplying about 19 percent of our electricity, but it’s barely growing. Wind and solar are smaller, at about 8 percent, but they’re growing much more rapidly. Put those together, and you get an intuitive blueprint for reducing US carbon dioxide emissions: Protect the nuclear base, and then scale up wind and solar on top of that, displacing fossil fuels as you go. Seems reasonable, no? Yet, oddly enough, many states have struggled with this simple concept. Even as policymakers have stepped up subsidies for renewable energy, they’ve been letting their nuclear plants shut down prematurely — to be replaced by dirtier natural gas. We’ve already seen this in California, Vermont, Wisconsin. And it’s going to keep happening in the years ahead without serious policy changes. These early nuclear retirements are poised to wipe out many of the impressive gains made by renewables. So it’s significant news that, this week, New York state offered a fresh approach to this problem. On Monday, the state’s public service commission approved an extremely aggressive clean energy standard that will require utilities to get 50 percent of their electricity from wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable sources by 2030. But — importantly — New York will also offer subsidies to keep open three large existing nuclear power plants that are suffering economically in this shifting energy landscape and were in danger of shutting down prematurely. This way, the state isn’t just taking one step forward, two steps back, on climate change. (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) The James A. Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant in Scriba, New York, was in danger of closing at the end of the year. It’s a potential template for other states with reactors in danger of closing before the end of their life span. New York’s move contrasts sharply with California, where regulators are mulling a proposal to close the state’s last nuclear plant, Diablo Canyon, and replace it entirely with renewables and efficiency. It will be interesting to compare the two states in the years ahead and see which approach yields better results. More broadly, New York’s plan offers a model of how renewables and nuclear might work together to fight global warming. This notion has been surprisingly controversial of late, particularly after the Diablo Canyon fight. Eduardo Porter of The New York Times recently wrote a column arguing that the growth of subsidized renewables is hurting nuclear in energy markets — a perverse outcome. Yet as Jesse Jenkins, an energy researcher studying low-carbon electricity systems at MIT, put it to me: “It’s important to unpack this. It’s not renewables killing nuclear. It’s policies that fail to recognize the contributions of both renewables and nuclear. But those policies can change — as they did this week in New York.” Why New York state wants both renewables and nukes Let’s start with a graph of New York’s electricity mix, circa 2014. It’s mostly natural gas, nuclear power, and hydro — with a bit of coal, solar, and wind mixed in: (Nuclear Energy Institute) Under Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the state is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030 and become a leader on climate change. With the cost of solar and wind falling dramatically, renewables were a natural focus. The state is embarking on a radical plan to revamp utility models to accommodate renewables. Hence the proposal to grow hydro, wind, solar, and biomass from 27 percent today to 50 percent by 2030. That’s a daunting goal, and we’ll see if it’s doable. (You can read a skeptical take here.) At the same time, New York’s other big source of clean energy — nuclear — was in danger. A combination of cheap natural gas from the US fracking boom and stagnating electricity demand has caused nuclear revenues to plummet. As a result, reactors at three upstate plants — Fitzpatrick, Ginna, and Nine Mile — were in danger of shutting down prematurely, squeezed between high fixed costs and declining revenues: (Nuclear Energy Institute) (I’ll get to the fourth plant, Indian Point, below: it’s in better financial shape due to higher revenues from downstate markets, but it’s facing political pressure to close.) One reaction here might be: “Fine, let the dinosaur reactors die. If they can’t compete in the market, who needs ’em?” But as it turns out, the state does need them if it wants to cut emissions. Among other things, New York’s Public Service Commission concluded that wind and solar wouldn’t be able to scale up fast enough to replace the lost reactors. If nuclear vanished, the state would end up burning more natural gas and greenhouse gas emissions would rise. What’s more, replacing the steady baseload power from reactors with intermittent renewables could create reliability problems in upstate regions. 28 -Warming DA 29 -The projected amount of nuclear power reduces climate change by up to 48 percent. Hansen and Kharecha 13 30 -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 31 -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). 32 -Without nuclear power, needed climate change reduction becomes impossible. Hansen and Kharecha 2 33 -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 34 -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 35 - 36 -Every country has to pitch in – otherwise countries will choose not to. Action by individual countries empirically results in international action. Steer 16 37 -(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) 38 -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. 39 -Climate change causes civilization collapse – disease, war, and multiple internals to extinction. Sharp and Kennedy 14 40 -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/ 41 -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! 42 -Sharing CP 43 -CP Text: Ukraine will develop information sharing systems that combat nuclear terrorism and investigate and shut down loopholes in cybersecurity protocols and share information with Russia, who will also do the counterplan. Levi 8 44 -Michael Levi, 1-1-2008, "Stopping Nuclear Terrorism," Foreign Affairs, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2008-01-01/stopping-nuclear-terrorism//KOHS-AG 45 -An integrated approach to defending the United States against nuclear terrorism will require institutional and bureaucratic changes. As part of a move toward a more coherent and well-grounded homeland security and counterterrorism policy, U.S. officials must mandate a new strategic intelligence assessment of the nuclear threat. This assessment should combine expertise on nuclear weapons with expertise on terrorism, disciplines that, according to the final report of the president's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (released in 2005), have often failed to work together. Moreover, since so many ideas about nuclear terrorism are deeply ingrained, the effort must include analysts who have never studied nuclear terrorism in the past and can therefore bring fresh ideas to the table. Rather than focusing narrowly on the United States' vulnerabilities, this assessment should also catalogue opportunities for exploiting terrorists' weak points in order to derail and deter nuclear plots. That intelligence assessment should form the foundation for ongoing "red team" exercises, in which the government tasks certain individuals with defeating and exposing holes in existing defenses. Red-teaming tests the ability of defensive planners to counter threats that they might otherwise ignore or fail to anticipate. Such exercises must not emphasize the most dramatic threats while ignoring lesser ones. When governments test defenses by trying to defeat them by any means possible, they implicitly emphasize worst-case scenarios. Although this is a necessary tool for auditing counterterrorism efforts, it is misleading when used by itself. Government Accountability Office red-teaming tests of U.S. border security, for example, have found important holes in U.S. defenses. But they have also obscured the potential of many defensive strategies that could target lesser but still realistic threats. In so doing, they have convinced many members of Congress that those strategies are largely useless. Active efforts to integrate defenses are also essential. But many of the tools needed for fighting nuclear terrorism are not nuclear-specific: instead, they span the full range of homeland security and counterterrorism. That makes it impossible to cordon off nuclear terrorism and appoint a single powerful official to fully orchestrate a strategy against it. Multiple attempts to do so have sparked turf wars and failed. An effort to create a national domestic nuclear defense office in the White House in 2004 ran into insurmountable bureaucratic resistance; the new National Counterproliferation Center, housed in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is barred from coordinating efforts to secure nuclear weapons and materials so as to prevent it from stepping on the Department of Energy's toes; and the National Counterterrorism Center, also in the ODNI and perhaps the likeliest candidate for lead coordinator, faces sharp limits on its power to mandate action. Still, coordination on a narrower scale is essential and feasible. The recently established Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, located in the Department of Homeland Security, already plays a useful if limited role in coordinating nuclear detection efforts. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism provides a forum for international discussion on aligning counterterrorism efforts. A lead senior official reporting directly to the president should be appointed to coordinate nuclear-specific elements of a defense. That official should also contribute to broader counterterrorism and homeland security planning. Meanwhile, the National Counterterrorism Center must create a strategic operational plan, as it did for combating terrorist travel. This would allow each branch of the government to evaluate its efforts not in isolation but in the context of a broader defense. U.S. policymakers will also need to carefully reassess their approach to secrecy. For example, many of those on the frontlines of the war against terrorism are local law enforcement officers who do not have high-level security clearances. Joint counterterrorism task forces have been established, and their members have better access to information, but these groups are relatively small and typically operate in response to intelligence about a specific plot. Empowering beat cops to spot telltale signs of a nuclear plot in the course of their normal activities may require sharing more information about nuclear terrorism with them. There are, of course, dangers involved in sharing secrets, but a careful reassessment of secrecy policies is long overdue. 46 -Information sharing is uniquely key to solving the war on terror. Gareau 5 47 -Joel Garreau, staff writer for the Washington Post, “Intelligence Gathering Is the Best Way to Reduce Terrorism,” Are Efforts to Reduce Terrorism Successful?, published by Lauri Friedman, 48 -Terrorist organizations are human networks, not armies. They rely on trust, relationships, and communication to operate. Military operations and bombing campaigns will be ineffective against such groups because they will not destroy the trust and connections those networks are built upon. Therefore, the most effective way to reduce terrorism is to wage a war of wits. With good intelligence gathering techniques, authorities can learn who the key terrorists are and either eliminate them or tarnish their reputations in the eyes of others in the network. Unraveling the ties that bind terrorists will win the war on terrorism. The essence of this first war of the 21st century is that it’s not like the old ones. That’s why, as $40 billion is voted for the new war on terrorism, 35,000 reservists are called up and two aircraft carrier battle groups hover near Afghanistan,1 some warriors and analysts have questions: In the Information Age, they ask, how do you attack, degrade or destroy a small, shadowy, globally distributed, stateless network of intensely loyal partisans with few fixed assets or addresses? If bombers are not the right hammer for this nail, what is? Bombers worked well in wars in which one Industrial Age military threw steel at another. World War II, for instance, was a matchup of roughly symmetrical forces. This is not true today. That’s why people who think about these things call this new conflict “asymmetric warfare.” The terrorist side is different: different organization, different methods of attack—and of defense. “It takes a tank to fight a tank. It takes a network to fight a network,” says John Arquilla, senior consultant to the international security group Rand and co-author of the forthcoming “Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy.” He asks: “How do you attack a trust structure—which is what a network is? You’re not going to do this with Tomahawk missiles or strategic bombardment.” “It’s a whole new playing field. You’re not attacking a nation, but a network,” says Karen Stephenson, who studies everything from corporations to the U.S. Navy as if they were tribes. Trained as a chemist and anthropologist, she now teaches at Harvard and the University of London. “You have to understand what holds those networks in place, what makes them strong and where the leverage points are. They’re not random connections,” she says. Human networks are distinct from electronic ones. They are not the Internet. They are political and emotional connections among people who must trust each other in order to function, like Colombian drug cartels and Spanish Basque separatists and the Irish Republican Army. Not to mention high-seas pirates, smugglers of illegal immigrants, and rogue brokers of weapons of mass destruction. But how to a network? The good news is that in the last decade we have developed a whole new set of weapons to figure that out. 49 -Your Capon evidence proves Counterplan solvency. Capon 15 50 -reporter for Newsweek Europe (Felicity SMUGGLERS ATTEMPT TO SELL RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL TO ISIS, INVESTIGATION REVEALS Newsweek 10/7/15 http://www.newsweek.com/russia-isis-islamic-state-moldova-radioactive-material-cesium-380816 Acc 9/25/16) CW 51 -Eastern European gangs are exploiting poor relations between Russia and the West to attempt to sell radioactive material to Islamic State militants, according to a new report by the Associated Press. The investigations into the illegal sales were carried out by Moldovan authorities working alongside the FBI. Investigators say they have interrupted four attempts in the past five years by gangs with suspected Russian connections to deliberately sell radioactive material to members of the extremist group, also known as ISIS. According to the AP, the latest incident occurred in February in the Moldovan capital of Chisinau, when a smuggler offered a huge cache of deadly cesium—enough to contaminate several city blocks—and made clear his intention to find a buyer from ISIS. The smuggler, Valentin Grossu, offered the supply of cesium in exchange for 2.5 million euros, according to the investigation, but the buyer turned out to be an informant 52 - 53 - 54 -AT: Nuclear Terror 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 -No impact to terrorists getting into plants – the fuel is either useless, would kill them instantly, or is gigantic. Neuhauser 3/24 cites Acton. 59 -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 60 -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." - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-29 21:12:01.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook CW - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Nelson Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Shift DA Ukraine, Warming DA, Sharing CP - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Meadows
- Caselist.CitesClass[6]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,77 +1,0 @@ 1 -NC V Meltdowns 2 -CP 3 -Counterplan text: nuclear power plants will be evaluated by nuclear regulatory agencies in their respective countries with safety indicators. Safety thresholds will be raised to 1 in 10 million, those below safety thresholds will be closed, and nuclear power plants will implement the results of what the safety indicators show. 4 -The counterplan is literally based on the frequency of core melt accidents with statistics – solves all of your offense. WNA 16 5 -World Nuclear Association, 10/30/16, "Safety of Nuclear Reactors," , http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx 6 -A mandated safety indicator is the calculated probable frequency of degraded core or core melt accidents. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) specifies that reactor designs must meet a 1 in 10,000 year core damage frequency, but modern designs exceed this. US utility requirements are 1 in 100,000 years, the best currently operating plants are about 1 in 1 million and those likely to be built in the next decade are almost 1 in 10 million. While this calculated core damage frequency has been one of the main metrics to assess reactor safety, European safety authorities prefer a deterministic approach, focusing on actual provision of back-up hardware, though they also undertake probabilistic safety analysis (PSA) for core damage frequency. 7 -Empirically, safety indicators are used to improve and control aging plants – CP solves – also helps us know how to improve plants 8 -Seidel 00 (Ernst R Seidel, Bavarian State Ministry for State Department and Environmental Affairs, Papers of Specialist Meeting on Safety Performance Indicators, Reportable Events as Safety Indicators for Bavarian Nuclear Power Plants?, 10/19/00) 9 - 10 -The recent liberalisation of the electricity market within the European Union has put considerable pressure on the companies operating the Bavarian nuclear power plants with respect to competitiveness and costs. It is therefore expected that in future, the plant operators will apply strict criteria on their willingness to carry out voluntary additional safety improvements, which will also depend on the remaining time of operation for the respective plant. Even if the respective plant continues to formally fulfil the nuclear safety regulations and the conditions of the license, there is a risk that over the course of time, the overall safety level of the plant will fail to keep up with the latest state-of-the-art in science and technology. Due to technological ageing of the plants and the cost-induced reduction of the plant staff, the BStMLU as the competent supervisory authority will have to face new challenges. Since the regulatory supervision quite naturally cannot exercise 100 control over the technical, organisational and personnel situation of a nuclear power plant, the supervisory authority increasingly has to rely on safety indicators which can deliver a sufficiently reliable and fast assessment of the safety level of a plant and its operating mode on the basis of incomplete information. These safety indicators should also help the supervisory authority to distinguish between essential and non-essential safety improvements. 11 - 12 -Safety indicators empirically solved assessing both individual plants and nuclear power more broadly. 13 -Calduch 00 (Francisco Calduch, Cofrentes NPP, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency NEA. October 17, 00. COfrentes NPP Indicators to monitor operational safety perforamcne) 14 -The Cofrentes Pilot Study to validate the applicability and viability of the approach for implementation of a programme to monitor its operational safety performance has been accomplished with successful results. The set of indicators finally established, after including plant insights as well as new thoughts and comments from the IAEA´s meetings held throughout 1998, is considered as a very valuable tool at all tiers of plant management for sound decision making based on indicators data and trends. It is a good complementary programme to others developed at Cofrentes NPP such as, self-assessment deployment, continuous quality improvement, safety culture strengthening, etc., to help the plant management in handling nuclear safety avoiding complacency and detecting incipient weaknesses. General and plant specific objectives were fulfilled about the feasibility of the programme, its usefulness and management feedback on plant performance and weak points to pay attention to. Improve understanding of plant section leaders regarding this set of indicators has been achieved in spite of the large number of indicators depicted and because of its comprehensiveness. We believe that this programme can be considered as the basis for development of an indicators subset to which the Spanish Regulatory Body and Plants management, through the Spanish Nuclear Energy Committee of UNESA, could reach an agreement on a new assessment framework that builds upon specific indicators to monitor operational safety performance. The new set of indicators and its clear thresholds will constitute the key material for making performance based and risk informed inspection and it will ensure adequate Regulators oversight and assessment of licensee performance. This future assessment process will drive into results which can be communicated to the public based upon objective conclusions. It will finally help to focus Regulators and Operators attention to measure NPP´s safety programmes outcomes to: • maintain safety. • reduce unnecessary burden. • increase public confidence. • increase efficiency / effectiveness of key processes. 15 - 16 -Econ DA 17 -Multiple disruptions throughout the international economy right now. On the brink of economic collapse. McBride 16 18 - James McBride, writer and editor @ Council on Foreign Relations, “5 Expert Predictions for the Global Economy in 2016,” The Atlantic, January 4, 2016, 7/20/2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/global-economy-2016/422475/ JW 19 -The world will face economic challenges on multiple fronts in 2016. As the U.S. Federal Reserve begins its monetary tightening, Europe is struggling to manage migrant and debt crises, China’s financial stability is in doubt, and emerging economies are increasingly fragile. The global economy “could be doing much worse,” writes the Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Low oil prices and weak currencies are keeping the European and Japanese economies afloat, but Rogoff warns of “a slowing Chinese economy, collapsing commodity prices, and the beginning of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s rate-hiking cycle.” Emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey, rather than China, will be the real sources of concern in 2016, argues U.C. Berkeley’s Barry Eichengreen. With their high levels of short-term debt, these countries are vulnerable to currency crisis, “potentially leading to economic collapse.” For CFR’s Varun Sivaram, new investments announced at the Paris climate talks are reason for optimism in the energy sector. In particular, the $20 billion earmarked for clean-energy research and development “could make it more likely for breakthrough technologies to emerge.” In the United States, meanwhile, steady GDP and job growth has been constrained by weak productivity gains, writes the American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis. Without increased productivity delivering higher living standards, the United States could face decades of “unhealthy economic populism.” Europe continues to face the risk of debt crises, writes CFR’s Robert Kahn, but the most dangerous economic risk for the continent in 2016 is “a growing populist challenge from both the Left and Right,” which could create economic-policy uncertainty and constrain policymakers. 20 -Plan collapses the world economy – energy shortages, inflation, and natural gas spikes. Bauschard 8/12 cites Our Energy Policy Organization 1/6, Cicio no date, and Bezdek and Wendling 4. 21 -Stefan Bauschard, Debate Coach citing multiple economists, 8-12-2016, "Essay — Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.," Millennial Speech andamp; Debate, http://millennialsd.com/2016/08/12/essay-resolved-countries-ought-to-prohibit-the-production-of-nuclear-power/ 22 -The basic problem with banning nuclear power is that it would substantially undermine, if not completely eviscerate, the world economy. Why? To begin with, nuclear power would eliminate 11 of the world’s electricity supply1. That’s a lot. But even if you don’t’ think it’s a lot, consider that 20 of US electricity and nearly 80 of France’s electricity is generated from nuclear power2. Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity3. That’s a lot of electricity to suddenly lose, especially when you consider that nearly all businesses depend on electricity to function. Some will argue that traditional renewable energy resources could replace nuclear power, but it would take at least 25 years for renewable energy to even replace existing nuclear power Our Energy Policy Organization, July 1-6, 2016, Nuclear Energy: Overview, http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEO.pdf DOA: 8-10-16 For those who hope that renewables can quickly fill the gap left by closed nuclear energy facilities, NEI points out that wind and solar lack the scale and reliability of nuclear power plants that usually run 24/7 except when they are in refueling outages “Renewable sources are intermittent and do not have the same value to the grid as dispatchable baseload resources like nuclear plants. And renewables do not have the scale necessary to replace existing nuclear plants,” NEI say NEI’s comments also point to analysis by the independent market monitor for the New England and New York independent system operators (ISO) demonstrating that preserving existing nuclear power plants has a lower carbon abatement cost than renewables sources like wind and solar. “Looking to the future, the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook expects nuclear energy to produce 789 billion kWh in 2040. By then, EIA forecasts wind and solar will produce 818 billion kWh. So it will take the next 25 years for wind and solar to catch up to where nuclear energy is today,” NEI says. So, if nuclear power was banned, in at least the short-term there would be a massive energy shortage. Renewable energy would not be able to cover the difference, meaning that we would turn to natural gas and coal to make up the existing difference. Our Energy Policy Organization, July 1-6, 2016, Nuclear Energy: Overview, http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEO.pdf Recent closures of nuclear power plants hit the bottom line of those who can afford it least: households and businesses. After the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2013, California consumers paid $350 million more for electricity the following year “Sooner or later, that nuclear capacity must be replaced and, when it is replaced with new gas fired combined cycle capacity, consumers will pay more on a levelized lifecycle cost basis,” NEI warns This would massively increase demand for both energy sources. And what happens when demand for a product goes up, especially suddenly? The price skyrockets, as limited supplies go to the highest bidder/purchaser, threatening the economy. Bezdek and Wendling, Energy Consultants at Management Information Services, April 2004 (Public Utilities Fortnightly) The Economy and Demand Destruction The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated the harmful impact on jobs and the economy that natural gas shortages can have. The U.S. economy suffered through recessions, widespread unemployment, inflation, and record-high interest rates. In the winter of 1975-76, unemployment resulting from gas curtailments in hard-hit regions ran as high as 100,000 for periods lasting from 20 to 90 days. These effects were especially serious for the poor and for the nation’s minorities. More recently, the winter of 2002-2003 brought higher natural gas bills to many consumers, and low-income families were especially hard hit. As Paul Cicio, director of the Industrial Energy Consumers Association, notes: “The economic welfare of our economy, the competitiveness of our industries, the affordability of natural gas for all consumers are at risk. We cannot afford another natural gas crisis. Every U.S. energy crisis in the last 30 years has been followed by an economic recession, and the 2000-2001 price spike was no exception. The energy crisis devastated industrial consumers. When natural gas prices reached $4/MMBtu, manufacturing began to reduce Just think about it: When energy prices rise, every consumer has to pay more for energy, reducing demand for every day goods, such as clothes, vacations, electronics, and even food. And what happens to the cost of producing those goods? Those costs increase because energy is an essential element in the production of every good. This would trigger massive inflation in the economy, making it even more difficult for consumers to purchase goods. A spike in natural gas prices would threaten many industries, including the chemical industry, the steel industry, and all manufacturing industries that depend on energy inputs for production. Many more impacts to high natural gas prices are included in the August nuclear power update. Icon of Nuclear Power Update ~-~- August 2016 ~-~- In Progress ~-~- Updated 8-11-16 Nuclear Power Update ~-~- August 2016 ~-~- In Progress ~-~- Updated 8-11-16 ~-~- Subscribers Only (356.2 KiB) Simply put, banning nuclear power would be an economic disaster. 23 -Economic decline causes global nuclear war 24 -Stein Tønnesson 15, Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo; Leader of East Asia Peace program, Uppsala University, 2015, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-311 25 -Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly, i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. 26 -Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious. If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility: one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene. 27 - 28 - 29 - 30 -Warming DA 31 -Nuclear power is increasing – many plans are being built or are under consideration. Groskopf ‘01/26 32 -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 33 -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. 34 - 35 -Renewables cannot provide baseload power and accommodate population growth. Abernathy 15 36 -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 37 -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." 38 - 39 -We control empirics. Nordhaus and Rothrock 7-15 40 -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 41 -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. 42 -The projected amount of nuclear power reduces climate change by up to 48 percent. Hansen and Kharecha 13 43 -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 44 -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). 45 -Without nuclear power, needed climate change reduction becomes impossible. Hansen and Kharecha 2 46 -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 47 -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 48 -Climate change causes civilization collapse – disease, war, and multiple internals to extinction. Sharp and Kennedy 14 49 -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/ 50 -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! 51 - 52 - 53 -Case 54 -AT: Warming Over the Brink 55 -1 This justifies try or die – any risk that we solve warming proves that we solve the biggest impact in the round. 56 -2 400 parts per million was reached but we can still work to solve climate- tech is key 57 -Hefferman 10/24/16 - (Marissa Hefferan- Arizona university, “400 parts per million: We've reached a climate change 'tipping point'”, http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/2016/10/400-parts-per-million-weve-reached-a-climate-change-tipping-point)//NP 58 -In September, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stayed over 400 parts per million for the first time in thousands of years—a level more than 100 ppm over the atmosphere’s natural variations. Four hundred ppm had been labeled as a “tipping point” at which the climate would begin an unstoppable slide into hotter temperatures. Yet Jonathan Overpeck Ph.D., co-director of the Institute of the Environment, said the number is more symbolic than scientific, though it’s still a cause for concern. “We don’t know if the tipping point was higher or lower than this,” Overpeck said. “There are actually many different tipping points.” Even though the tipping point is unclear, Overpeck said that the future is not. “We’re at the point where we’re not going below 400 ppm for thousands of years,” Overpeck said. “This is just the tip of the iceberg.” Ben Champion, director of the Office of Sustainability, agreed that 400 ppm is more of a rallying cry—a “nice, round number” people can latch on to. “We as human creatures, as social beings, as homo sapiens, have a tendency to like symbolism,” Champion said. Champion is more concerned with the way we’re using our carbon budget—the amount of carbon we can burn without pushing the earth above two degrees of warming. “We’re only now feeling the effects from emissions from decades ago,” Champion said. “We’ve got to bring it back down.” While the passing of 400 ppm was certainly foreseen, it was not projected to happen so soon. Overpeck said the factor that threw off predictions was the emergence of China. “It was the super-charging of China people failed to anticipate 25 years ago,” Overpeck said. “We saw that coming, we just didn’t see how fast. However, we also didn’t see how fast China would realize it was a problem.” China is doing the most out of the big emitters to reduce emissions. Overpeck said that while it’s sweeping proactivity was good, it’s something the Chinese society and government allows for, unlike America’s. Champion followed that idea, saying the only way for the UA to become carbon neutral quickly would be to essentially shut campus down. “Our mission isn’t served if we shut campus down,” Champion said. “What do post-2050 universities need to look like? There’s no model, but it means systematic change, not incremental refinements. We’re not planning for that right now, but my job is to figure out how to get us there.” The UA may not be planning for sweeping changes, but it’s still a leader in climate research and climate solutions, and has been working to help inform decision makers on human adaptation techniques and the maintenance of natural ecosystems, according to Overpeck. “We are ground zero for climate change in the U.S.,” Overpeck said. “We have the most urgent reasons to act on climate change.” Those reasons are increases in severe droughts and storms, insect infestations, tree deaths, the frequency and size of fires and dwindling fresh water resources. Overpeck sees solar technology as a way to help move Arizona forward—technologically and economically. “We can solve our problem with technology that will be a really large resource for Arizona in particular,” Overpeck said. “Shifting away from fossil fuel burning will bring jobs to Arizona. It’s not just solving our problems locally—people around the world will be buying the technology.” 59 - 60 -3 The DA is linear, the more cuts the better. There’s also multiple tipping points ~-~- means that we definitely have an impact. Layton 9 61 -Julia Layton Reporter for HowStuffWorks, April 14, 2009"Is global warming irreversible?," HowStuffWorks, http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming-irreversible2.htm 62 -Many people believe this goal isn't politically feasible, and have set 550 ppm as a more reasonable target source: New Scientist. But new research suggests it may not even matter. That 2009 NOAA-led study states that at 450 ppm, we're still looking at severe, unavoidable drought conditions in Africa, southern Europe, western Australia and the American southwest. And if we reach 600 ppm, expanding warm waters could make ocean levels rise by 3 feet (1 meter) in the next thousand years source: Modine. That number gets even higher if you take into account melting glaciers. Scientists aren't proposing we stop buying hybrid cars, though. The faster we act to make huge cuts in CO2, the better the prognosis. If we can make dramatic changes right now, perhaps we could get the atmosphere stabilized at 400 ppm instead of 550 ppm. That would at least increase the chances that the U.S. West Coast will still be above water in 3000. Probably. 63 -AT: Kenward 64 -Squo solves the warming arguments. Kenward 11 65 -Alyson Kenward 11 "In Tennessee, Heat Waves Diminish Nuclear Power Output" Published: April 10th, 2011 66 -But nuclear power has a paradoxical relationship with climate change. Even though it might help mitigate long-term global warming, nuclear power is already being challenged by rising temperatures and the increasing number of heat waves around the world. Throughout the last decade, several plants have had to reduce electricity production during heat waves, just when when electricity demand typically reaches peak levels. “It’s a dilemma between mitigation of climate change, and adaptation to it,” says Natalie Kopytko, an energy policy doctoral student at the University of York in England. Having recently studied the ways in which climate change could have a negative impact on nuclear power, she says nuclear power is caught in the middle because it could be used to help lower greenhouse gas emissions, but global warming is making the technology less effective at providing electricity. Most nuclear power plants draw water from nearby sources to help cool the reactors. Several American plants are on the coast and rely on ocean water, but the vast majority of nuclear reactors in this country (89 of the total 104) are inland, next to freshwater sources, and many of these are constantly cycling through river or lake water. Normally, there isn’t much difference between the water cooling process of inland and coastal facilities, but when hot weather strikes, a slow-moving and shallow river or a lake heats up a lot quicker than the ocean does. And when a nuclear power plant is drawing in such warm water, it can end up releasing unusually hot water back into the river. That's because the water gains heat while cycling through the plant. The March-August 2010 was the warmest such period on record in the Southeast. Studies show that by the end of the century, the number of hot days in the summer could double for this region. Credit: NOAA NCDC. Power companies like the TVA can’t control the weather. Nevertheless, plant operators are bound by environmental guidelines that are meant to keep temperatures at a safe level for fish in the river. For example, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) stipulates Browns Ferry cannot release water back into the Tennessee River that is above 90°F. 67 -Won’t Happen 68 -Accidents are rare and nuclear is better than alternatives. Walsh 13 69 -Bryan, Writes for Time (“Nuclear Energy Is Largely Safe. But Can It Be Cheap?” http://science.time.com/2013/07/08/nuclear-energy-is-largely-safe-but-can-it-be-cheap/) LADI 70 -Is it safe? That’s what most people — brought up on Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and The Simpsons — want to know about nuclear power. And for the most part, the answer is yes. Accidents are rare, and those that have occurred — including the partial meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 — have resulted in few deaths. On a megawatt-per-megawatt basis, nuclear kills fewer people than almost any other source of electricity — especially compared with air pollution from coal, the single biggest supplier of electricity in the U.S., which contributes to the deaths of 14,000 Americans each year. And nuclear energy, unlike every other form of electricity — save hydro and renewables, doesn’t contribute to man-made climate change. 71 -New tech solves – plants are safer now. Stockton 4-3 72 -Nick Stockton Current Science Reporter for the Wired, Former Health and Tech Reporter for Quartz, NYU, Graduate school for science, health and environmental reporting., 4-3-2016, "Nuclear Power Is Too Safe to Save the World From Climate Change," WIRED, https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/ 73 -These disasters were the result of a meltdown, which occurs when something impedes a reactor’s ability to cool the fuel. The US, where nearly 20 percent of electricity comes from 99 nuclear plants, uses uranium. Older reactors—which is every reactor in the US, including Watts Bar Unit 2—use electric pumps to move water through the system. The Fukushima disaster showed what happens it you have pumps but no power to use them. Newer generations rely on gravity instead, draining cooling water from elevated storage tanks to send it through the reactor core. Those updates mean serious nuclear accidents are becoming ever more rare. Since Three Mile Island in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission found that the rate of shut-down-the-reactor-level problems has dropped from 2.5 per plant per year to around 0.1 (One such happened on March 29 in Washington). Even Three Mile Island wasn’t the disaster it could have been, because of that plant’s layers of redundant protection. 74 -No Impact 75 -Historical evidence proves that the impact of the case is small- related deaths caused by nuclear power is under 5,000 over 38 years. Hansen and Kharecha 13 76 -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 77 -Although our analysis reflects mortality from all stages of the fuel cycle for each energy source, it excludes serious illnesses, including respiratory and cerebrovascular hospitalizations, chronic bronchitis, congestive heart failure, nonfatal cancers, and hereditary effects. For fossil fuels, such illnesses are estimated to be approximately 10 times higher than the mortality factors in Table 1, while for nuclear power, they are ∼3 times higher.16 Another important limitation is that the mortality factors exclude the impacts of anthropogenic climate change and development-related differences, as explained in the Results and Discussion section. Aspects of nuclear power that cannot meaningfully be quantified due to very large uncertainties (e.g., potential mortality from proliferation of weapons-grade material) are also not included in our analysis. Proportions of fossil fuels in our projection cases are assumed to be fixed (for the purpose of determining upper and lower bounds) but will almost certainly vary across years and decades, as in the historical period (Figure 1). The dominance of coal in the global average electricity mix seems likely for the near future though (e.g., Figure 5.2 of ref 2). However, even if there is large-scale worldwide electric fuel switching from coal to gas, our assessment is that the ultimate GHG savings from such a transition are unlikely to be sufficient to minimize the risk of dangerous anthropogenic climate change (unless the resulting emissions are captured and stored), as discussed in the next section. ■ RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Mortality. 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 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-31 05:03:38.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kinkaid JY - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Nelson Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Indicators CP, Econ DA, Warming DA - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Meadows
- Caselist.CitesClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,9 +1,0 @@ 1 -*If my opponent doesn't disclose, I'll put up a round report of what they read. 2 - 3 -Contact my phone number: 801-946-1446 to reach me about something. 4 - 5 -Pre-round: 6 -I'll tell you what the aff is if is broken. If it's not, I'll say new aff (and nothing else). I only do this if you agree to tell me what, if any, broken neg strats you'll run against it. 7 -If you tell me what the aff is, I'll tell you what broken neg strats I'm running against it. 8 - 9 -For coin flips, call phone number to find me. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-02 17:33:13.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Nelson Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0-Disclosure Note - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA
- Caselist.CitesClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,44 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC V Marlborough 2 -1 3 -THE PROMISE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM IS FUNDAMENTALLY CORRUPT. Belief in a “better America” simply starves critique of the capitalist system that allows black and brown bodies to be shot at will. The myth of reformism, that of the capitalist state, is especially true in the context of the endemic of police brutality 4 -The Internationalist ‘14 5 -The Internationalist, 8-1-2014, "Killer Cops, White Supremacists: Racist Terror Stalks Black America," No Publication, http://www.internationalist.org/killercopswstalkblackamerica1507.html.//KOHS-AG 6 -Every time there is an upsurge of popular unrest, the question of the state is posed point-blank. In 2011, leaders of Occupy Wall Street argued that beat cops were part of the “99.” Substituting income statistics for class analysis, they blinded demonstrators to the fact that the police are the armed fist of capital. They kept insisting on this (and tried to stop the Internationalists from chanting “We are all Sean Bell, NYPD go to hell”) even as cops were arresting hundreds on the Brooklyn Bridge. The populist Occupy “movement” disappeared after a few short months, partly due to coordinated national repression orchestrated from Obama’s Department of Homeland Security, but more fundamentally because protesters did not come to an understanding of the class nature of the capitalist state, and the fact that it cannot be reformed. Similarly with the abrupt collapse of the mass protests against police murder last December. Leftists chant “indict, convict, send the killer cops to jail” misleading protesters into thinking this is possible, although all of U.S. history shows the contrary. In the exceedingly rare case where a cop does time, it will be a slap on the wrist. And when they add “the whole damn system is guilty as hell” they don’t say what that system is. Yet for there to be a real struggle against the systematic racist police murder it is crucial to understand that this is rooted in racist American capitalism. Chants like “we want freedom, freedom – these racist cops, we don’t need ’em, need ’em” suggest that there could be non-racist cops, when the reality is that it is not just a matter of individual attitudes: all police are part of a machine of racist repression. The rhyming reformism serves to mask the stark reality – as revolutionaries from Marx and Engels to Lenin and Trotsky have stressed – that the state enforces the rule of the economically dominant class. “Who do you protect, who do you serve?” scream demonstration leaders as cops beat protesters bloody. For would-be socialists to pose this as a question to the cops, even rhetorically, buys into the lie (emblazoned on LAPD patrol cars) that police supposedly protect and serve “the people.” The task of revolutionary Marxists is to tell the truth to the masses, that the police defend the interests of capital. The capitalist-imperialist rulers of the United States enforce their world domination with bloody butchery just as they do inside the U.S. A black U.S. president, Barack Obama, a liberal Democrat, kills Muslims and U.S. citizens with his drones with as little regard for the lives of the oppressed as his Republican predecessor George W. Bush. And their killer cops will keep on killing until their bloody rule is overthrown. Most of the mobilizations against police murder have been led by liberals, black and white, and reformists – that is, leftists who may call themselves socialist and even communist, but whose actual program is only to reform (and thus ultimately uphold) capitalism. While revolutionaries support genuine reforms (from the minimum wage to the right to same-sex marriage), the idea that state repression can be reformed away is characteristic of reformists. One of the problems liberals and reformists face in turning the often massive protests into an ongoing “movement” like the civil rights movement they seek to emulate is the absence of any even remotely credible reform demands. Over the last several decades any number of supposed reforms have been tried and all have failed to even put a dent in the rampant racist police terror. Demilitarize the police? Akai Gurley, Tanish Anderson, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, and most of those murdered by police have been killed by one or two cops on regular patrol. Disarm the police? Impossible in racist capitalist America, but beyond that, Eric Garner and 20 years earlier Anthony Baez were killed by a cop’s bare hands. Dashboard cameras on police cars? When Walter Scott was pulled over in North Charleston on April 4 for a supposed broken taillight, the dashcam showed no such thing – but it didn’t stop him from getting shot in the back and killed by the racist cop. Body cameras on police officers? This is the latest fad. It didn’t stop the shooting of Eric Harris in Tulsa, Oklahoma on April 2, which was recorded by a bodycam, including the remark by the 73-year-old “reserve” cop that he thought he was firing a Taser. A new police chief? Under Republican plutocrat Bloomberg New York had Ray Kelly, under liberal Democrat de Blasio it has Bill Bratton, but the killing doesn’t stop. And now the liberal Democratic City Council has voted to hire 1,300 more cops than under Bloomberg/Kelly. A black police chief? A black mayor? Philadelphia has both, and its “stop and frisk” numbers rival New York’s. More black police? In the case of Baltimore, on top of a black mayor and police chief, almost half the cops are black, but both black and white officers were guilty of Freddie Gray’s murder. New police policies? “Stop and frisk” is now officially “reformed,” so now it’s back to “broken windows” – harassing black and Latino youth for minor “quality of life” infractions. Residency requirements? Instead of holing up in white suburbs like Walnut Creek, California or New York’s Rockland County, police will just congregate in cop enclaves like Howard Beach or Eltingville on Staten Island’s South Shore. Community policing? So instead of patrolling poor black and Latino areas in convoys, like Israeli occupation forces in the Palestinian West Bank, they will increase the number of cops in permanent outposts while assigning a few community relations officers to coordinate with church leaders … and the SWAT teams are held in reserve. Civilian review boards? NYC, Philly and Baltimore all have them, and they’re not only utterly worthless in controlling police violence, they actually serve to legitimize it. 7 -The aff is a technical fix which uses the master’s tools to deconstruct the master’s house – this allows neolib to offer up solutions like body cams which cause police violence. Lane 7/21 8 -Alycee Lane Writer for Counterpunch, 7-21-2016, "Violence, Death and Our Neoliberal Police," counterpunch.org, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/21/violence-death-and-our-neoliberal-police/ 9 -If what we are witnessing in these violent encounters with police is neoliberalism in action, then we have to come up with an entirely different set of solutions to change policing. This is not to dismiss body cameras and training, which will no doubt save some lives. But they are technical fixes that do not address at all the neoliberal character of our police departments, the transformation of peace officers into neoliberal police, the policies that align policing with corporate power, and the violence that neoliberalism produces. In fact, these fixes amount to our use of the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. After all, through neoliberal policies governments regularly take “outside of the realm of the political” the myriad problems that communities face and then render these problems “technical and actionable,” as Lester Spence has observed. So when we offer solutions like body cameras, we make fixing the police a technical matter rather than a political matter, and in so doing we legitimize and further entrench neoliberal policies and practices that enact invisible, spectacular, and ultimately normalized violence on those who don’t fit the mold. The consequence is that we’ll continue to receive tweets and Facebook feeds of police killings. But we’ll also see more retaliatory killings of police officers – like the killings that occurred recently in Dallas and Baton Rouge – as more people realize that neoliberal policing, and the violence it enacts, is exactly the kind of policing our governments intend. Such counter-violence, however, is extraordinarily ironic, for individuals who engage in retaliatory killings – individuals who are, and will likely continue to be, primarily men – ultimately express just how deeply they have internalized the ideals that constitute the Virtuous Neoliberal Citizen: self-reliance or rugged individualism, personal responsibility, distrust of government, efficiency, cruelty. With an Izhmash-Saiga 5.45 mm rifle or some other AK-style weapon in tow, they alone will fix the problem of police violence, and in so doing, they will precisely, and finally, fit the neoliberal mode. Repairing the police and our system of policing, then, clearly demands that we end not only neoliberal policing, but also the transformation of men and women people into neoliberal police. To do this, we must relentlessly break down these moments of violence between officers and the community in order to unearth the neoliberal politics they express and enact, and that our government officials (local, state, national) continue to impose upon us at our expense (and for the benefit of the wealthy), but most especially at the expense of our abandoned, disposed children, women and men. 10 -The aff’s focus on reforming police rather than capitalism obscures the root cause of police violence by focusing on individual actors rather than capitalism. Smith 15 11 -R.C. Smith researcher, lecturer and teaching-scholar in Philosophy of Science. He is the founder of Heathwood Institute and Press where he also presently serves as a member of the editorial board, and is currently also a member of the teaching staff at the Co-operative Institute for Transnational Studies. Robert is the author of several books and over 100 academic articles, including Society and Social Pathology (Palgrave, 2017)., 5-4-2015, "An Institution of Oppression or for Public Well-Being and Civil Rights? Reflections on the Institution of Police and a Radical Alternative," Heathwood Press, http://www.heathwoodpress.com/an-institution-of-oppression-or-for-public-well-being-and-civil-rights-reflections-on-the-institution-of-police-and-a-radical-alternative-r-c-smith/ 12 -If in the US, the first police departments were specifically instituted to hunt runaway slaves,4 fast forward to today and we can see understand clearly how modern American society has evolved along racist lines, including the very institution of the police and even law. It is without question that white supremacy resides at the heart of the modern political-economic system, its institutions of privilege, dominant media, and even education and legal systems. For those engaged in anti-oppression struggle in Ferguson or Baltimore or elsewhere, this reality of the police violently perpetuating white supremacy and settler colonialism is all too apparent.5 It is characteristic of everyday life. As others have already argued, it is important that we acknowledge the systemic relation between police as an oppressive force and their utilization and instrumentalism as an extension of the order of economic coercion and domination. “In spite of the prevalence of its brutality …/ in the end the institution of the police is but an extension of the more deeply rooted institution of property – which, in turn, is the manifestation of wealth and economic power (which, in a capitalist society, translates to political power as well). In light of this, in confronting racism it is insufficient (though nevertheless still crucial) to focus our efforts on the brutality of the police. The police is but the tip of the racist iceberg.”6 It is a mistake, in seeking police reform, to limit one’s campaign solely to the institution of police. Groups engaged in anti-oppression and racial struggle, like those engaged in anti-capitalist struggle, share in one way or another a common universal struggle against a system which runs against the well-being of all, against the prospect of actual democracy, equality and egalitarianism. This is not to take anything away from the particular suffering, conflict and fight experienced by black communities across the US. If Chris Hedges is right, moreover, in his observation that the “discontent in Ferguson, Athens, Cairo, Madrid and Ayotzinapa” and now Baltimore “is one discontent”, this is because the fundamental source of injustice that unites them all is an unjust social-political, economic system. Emerging revolts around the world by minority groups may ‘come in many colors, speak many languages and have many belief systems’, but the common antagonist is an economic system and political order which produces and reproduces the precise social coordinates of injustice, inequality, the legitimation of state violence, and fraudulent models of democracy. Slavoj Žižek once observed, “the link between democracy and capitalism has been broken.”7 Perhaps this is true, if we consider the dominant narrative of democracy in terms of its capitalist conception. But I think it is more consistent with fact or reality to suggest that, instead of the link being broken between the two, democracy simply never was. The link was always, in reality, non-existent. That is to say underlying the recent evolution of the institutions and structures of western society is not a sudden broken link, as if there has unfolded some ultimate social betrayal of actual democratic content on a structural and systemic level. In spite of the ballot-box elections and right to vote, democratic capitalism has never been actually democratic. To put it differently: modern democracy, as a concept and as a thing, has always had less to do with the actual content of “democracy” as an egalitarian system of political-economic values than with the neglect of this content for its (mere) form. The concept of democracy today is really the leftover after the actual content (Equality, Egalitarianism, Justice, Rights, etc.) has been boiled away.8 This sentiment is expressed most clearly on the streets, where the chant ‘there can be no democracy in capitalism’ is frequently voiced. Even if only intuitively expressed at times, there is a profound truth underlining this statement, one which discloses the all too known yet incredibly cloudy reality of the fraudulent status of western democracy. The sooner the fraudulent status of modern western democracy is comprehensively conceptualised as such, which includes challenging certain liberal resistances, might we begin to reframe the debate concerning the structural conflicts now prevalent under the rule of neoliberal policy. This point has particular relevance when it comes to understanding the recent uprisings in Baltimore as well as the conflicts in Ferguson and elsewhere. What we witnessed in the brutal killing of Freddie Gray and the mobilization of state violence in response to uprisings in Baltimore, “is symptomatic of the neoliberal, racist, punishing state emerging all over the world,” wherein one of the only modes “of control left by corporate-controlled societies is violence, but a violence that is waged against the most disposable such as immigrant children, protesting youth, the unemployed, the new precariat and black youth.”9 *** It is a credit to the many progressive movements that we are not short on literature concerning a critique of the modern political-economic system which establishes the context of unending injustice. Likewise, it is a credit to the many people on the streets and those in progressive academic arenas that we have a wealth of literature to support us in understanding the problem of modern policing and the crisis of mass incarceration, the injustice against minority communities across the US and the UK, the directly racist history of the institution of the police in the US, 10 and the neoliberal trend of increasing militarization.11 My aim here, however, has less to do with critique than with a consideration of alternatives, particularly when it comes to police. Movements in response to recent events in the US have rightly put demands for police reform at the top of the agenda. But there is something of a myth around such belief in reform. To paraphrase Ta-Nehisi Coates, when tackling the problem of the institution of police and the issue of “police authority” (not to mention “power”), the real problem is one of restoring democratic authority.12 To put it another way: “a reform that begins with the officer on the beat is not reform at all. It’s avoidance. It’s a continuance of the American preference for considering the actions of bad individuals, as opposed to the function and intention of systems.”13 One cannot meaningfully dismantle the racist and unjust institution of the police without, firstly, tackling the belief that all our social problems can be solved with force.14 Secondly, the question of modern political-economy and its principle mode of relations must also be brought into direct focus, especially considering the manner in which current social-economic conditions tend to foster deep alienation which, in turn, establishes a social world open to the reproduction of practical and institutional power, domination, and coercion. To this point, the American preference – as with much of the west in general – for considering the actions of ‘bad individuals’, as opposed to the function of ‘(bad) social systems’, represents a position of convenience. It deflects from the necessary course of difficult questions that need to be asked – a course that fundamentally challenges the status quo (Adorno). Regarding police brutality, is there an element of individual agency that we must recognize? Of course. If the modern institution of police represents a form of structural violence, as in the case of the almost daily murders of young black men and women, we must also bring into question the individual officer. Somewhere, at some point, the officer has a choice to stand-down, to drop the baton and shield, rip off the badge and refuse to partake in the violent repression of a citizen’s movement. On the side of structure, however, this choice is also defined within the context of economic coercion; ideological pressures to preserve status and economic benefits for one’s family; and twisted narratives of tribalism and of the positive values of a less-than-emancipatory system of law and order (what Sartre might have called “facticity”). In further considering this point, allow me to ask the following question. Can it be said that every police officer is racist or believes in the oppression of others? Is it possible that some believe in the role of policing as a community service, rather than as an oppressive institution? The question that each officer should ask themselves, as they stand together in their militarized lines, facing fellow citizens with their modern weaponry, is ‘what actually am I standing for?’ Does one stand for oppression? Does one stand for indifferent corporations? Or does one stand for community and the rights of each citizen? In case of the latter, the very institution, the validity or legitimacy of the very concept of modern policing, collapses under the weight of its own illegitimacy. If, as Luis Fernandez once said, asking the question ‘what are the alternatives to policing?’ is really to ask ‘what are the alternatives to capitalism?’, then the argument for or against the police boils down to either civil liberty or its opposite. And this is precisely the point or line of thought I would like to strike when reflecting on an alternative to police. In another way: it is along this line of thought that I think we might best formulate a structural critique of modern policing and an alternative, one that is for community, for the promotion of the “mediating subject”15 and mutual recognition16, and the protection of minority groups, civil rights and actual democracy. 13 -Neoliberalism causes departments to pursue profits from citizens via tickets – police compete with each other, exuding self sufficiency and oppressing those who don’t meet their standards of individualism – this culminates in cycles of violence against marginalized groups. Lane 7-21 14 -Alycee Lane Writer for Counterpunch, 7-21-2016, "Violence, Death and Our Neoliberal Police," counterpunch.org, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/21/violence-death-and-our-neoliberal-police/ 15 -If we examine through the prism of neoliberalism the killing of Philando Castile – that is, if we think of the killing as a “moment when violence and neoliberalism coalesced” – then we are immediately confronted with the fact that, to a great extent, the current problem of policing is a problem of neoliberal policing. It is a problem of the production of police as officers whose enforcement of the law is guided by neoliberal policies and procedures, the violence of which no amount of body cameras or use of force training or diversity training can adequately address. Indeed, the fact of neoliberal policing requires from all of us a radically different response to policing and police killings, a response by which we directly confront policing, and our governments’ constitution of law enforcement, as neoliberal practice. So let’s talk about this moment when neoliberalism and violence converged: Over the course of fourteen years, Minnesota police initiated at least 52 encounters (a staggering number) with Philando Castile, citing him for minor offenses like driving without wearing a seat belt, speeding, and driving without a muffler. These encounters resulted in Philando being assessed a total of $6,588 in fines and fees. Given these circumstances, let’s assume (indeed, it is probably safe to assume) that St. Anthony Police Department – the police department that employs Jeronimo Yanez, the officer who killed Philando – operates under a scheme similar to the one that was in place in Ferguson, Missouri when Officer Darren Wilson killed Michael Brown. Under that scheme (as the U.S. Department of Justice found), City of Ferguson officials “routinely” urged its Chief of Police “to generate more revenue” for the City “through enforcement” and to meet specific revenue goals. In response, the Chief pressured his officers and created a culture in which officers competed with one another in generating revenue; created opportunities to issue citations in order to meet revenue goals; engaged primarily African American citizens as objects from which they could profit as well as subjected them to the department’s and City’s market discipline; and, measured their own value and success as police officers in market terms (the department looked favorably upon and rewarded officers who met their revenue demands). Through this scheme, the City in essence transformed the police into neoliberal police officers, into men and women people who would enforce the law in ways that folded penal discipline into the “market-driven disciplinary logic” of neoliberalism, and whose policing became the expression of what Simon Springer calls neoliberalism’s “fundamental virtues”: “individualism, competitiveness and economic self-sufficiency.” As they sought out opportunities to generate revenue, officers also engaged in the kind of ‘Othering’ upon which neoliberalism depends. As Springer writes, neoliberalism not only “treats as enemies” those “who don’t fit the mold of a proper neoliberal subject” (e.g., possessive individualism, economic self-sufficiency); it also “actively facilitates the abandonment of ‘Others’ who fall outside of ‘neoliberal normativity’, a conceptual category that cuts across multiple categories of discrimination including class, race, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexuality, age and ability.” Ferguson’s neoliberal police officers (and city officials) regarded African Americans and poor people as those who don’t fit the mold. The latter were not the victims of neoliberal policies that had been embraced on a local, national and global scale. Instead, they were failures, people who were unwilling to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and remake themselves in the ways that the market demanded. Consequently, it was right to treat both them as objects by which to profit and “as enemies” who needed to be disciplined and controlled. That the City’s scheme and the neoliberal logic behind it would create the circumstances that led to Michael Brown’s death is clear. Indeed, through that scheme Ferguson officials and the police department produced a “‘state of exception,’ wherein…exceptional violence” – i.e.., violence that shocks, that “elicits a deep emotional response” – was “transformed into exemplary violence,” into violence that “forms the rule,” and particularly for those excluded and abandoned. Without social media, Brown’s death would have merely been a part of the everyday violence that police directed at Ferguson’s African American community and poor people generally, violence made increasingly likely by the market driven imperative of the Ferguson police force. And of course Brown’s death took place against the backdrop of the invisible violence of the City’s neoliberal policies (creation of unequal and increasingly privatized schools, attraction of business that paid little taxes and employed workers at low wages, privatization of public services, etc.). If Officer Yanez worked under a governmental scheme similar to the one in Ferguson, then in that moment when he pulled the trigger (four or five times) he embodied, expressed and enacted the neoliberal principles and logic by which his department and his city operate. 16 -The alt is historical materialism, the unique creation of pedagogical space through totalizing analysis is key to breaking down a system of globalization 17 -Rupert and Smith 2 (Mark Rupert is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University, Hazel Smith is Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, “Historical Materialism and Globalisation: Essays on Continuity and Change,” p. 2-3)SDL 18 -Perhaps ironically, during the last decade when liberal capitalism seemed to have attained a kind of global apotheosis, the study of international relations has witnessed a revival of intellectual traditions associated with the legacies of Karl Marx and his many and Various interpreters. Emailing practices of critical scholarship, the traditions of historical materialism share a set of family resemblances: they aim at dc-reifying the apparently natural, universal, and politically neutral appearances of capitalist social reality, explicitly to resituate those abstract appearances in relation to the processes and social power relations implicated in their production and thereby enable their transformation by the human social agents whose socially productive activity constitutes their condition of existence. Marx suggested that such a transformation might emerge out of the Confluence of Capitalism’s endemic crisis tendencies, the polarization of its class structure and the immisemtion of the proletariat and, most importantly, the emergence of the latter as a collective agent through the realization of its socially productive power, heretofore developed in distorted and self-limiting form under the conditions of concentered Capitalist production. Traditional interpretations of Marx tended towards mechanical and economistic visions in which the crisis tendencies of capitalism played themselves out 'behind the backs' of historical actors. Leninist interpretations re-injected a sense of historical agency into historical materialism, but did so by empowering a vanguard of professional revolutionaries to seize the state and transform social relations in the name of the oppressed. Viewed in the light of either of these interpretations, historical materialism may appear to have been discredited by the apparent robustness of capitalist economies and the failure of the oft-predicted final crisis to arrive, and by the degeneration of the Bolshevik revolution into a profoundly anti-democratic system of one-party rule. But, as contributors to this volume demonstrate, there are resources within the traditions of historical materialism which counteract these regressive tendencies and which offer hope for a more enabling and participatory form of social organization than either liberal capitalism or Soviet-style bureaucratic socialism. These new historical materialisms share a skepticism towards mechanistic or vanguardist visions of social change. Progressive social change need not automatically follow in train behind economic crisis, nor can such Change be enacted or imposed by a revolutionary elite acting in the name of the inert masses of the oppressed. Rather, progresive social change must be produced by historically situated social agents whose actions are enabled and constrained by their social self-understandings. This recognition highlights the practical, material significance of critical analysis. In an era when Soviet-style socialism has collapsed upon itself and liberal capitalism offers itself as the natural, necessary and absolute condition of human social life, the chapters in this volume insist that the potentially emancipatory resources of a renewed and perhaps reconstructed historical materialism are as relevant in today's world as ever. 19 -Case: 20 -Flypaper 21 -Court civil rights victories act as flypaper, drawing social movements into the court to focus on litigation strategies. Rosenberg 8 22 -Gerald N. Rosenberg University of Chicago political science and law professor, Ph.D. from Yale University, member of the Washington, D.C. bar, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?, p. 427) 23 -If this is the case, then there is another important way in which courts affect social change. It is, to put it simply, that courts act as “fly-paper” for social reformers who succumb to the “lure of litigation.” If the constraints of the Constrained Court view are correct, then courts can seldom produce significant social reform. Yet if groups advocating such reform continue to look to the courts for aid, and spend precious resources in litigation, then the courts also limit change by deflecting claims from substantive political battles, where success is possible, to harmless legal ones where it is not. Even when major cases are won, the achievement is often more symbolic that real. Thus, courts may serve an ideological function of luring movements for social reform to an institution that is structurally constrained from serving their needs, providing only an illusion of change. 24 -Increased judicial review produces divide and conquer—impacts the LGBTQ movement the most. Becker 93 25 -Mary Becker Prof of Law @ University of Chicago Law School, 64 U. Colo. L. Rev. 975 ln 26 -Binding judicial review can impede political movements even when the Supreme Court does not actually block success. The relegation of high matters, such as sexual equality, to the courts saps political movements of their strength, particularly after ineffective victories. 76 At the same time, judicial review can mobilize the opposition, and the Court itself will be influenced by the resulting political climate, a climate it has helped create. When ineffective judicial victories weaken a movement, there may be less grass-roots pressure for change. Yet, real change in the relationship between the sexes is unlikely without change at the grass-roots level. Decisions from on high are unlikely to transform intimate relationships. Judicial victories protecting one or some outsider groups, but not all such groups, also interfere with the development of effective coalitions. This may be most harmful to the most vulnerable groups, such as lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men. Real or perceived judicial protection of less marginal groups, such as straight women or racial minorities, may mean that these groups are less likely to form effective coalitions with the more marginal groups. Judicial review is, therefore, a "divide and conquer" strategy. 27 -Solvency 28 -Turn: suits are counter productive because they result in governments hiding information – this kills reforms. Schwartz 10 29 -Joanna C. Schwartz Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, 2010, "WHAT POLICE LEARN FROM LAWSUITS", CARDOZO L. REV. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1619997 30 -Some level criticism not at lawsuits themselves, but instead at the defensive culture created by the threat of being sued. In multiple industries, including aviation, manufacturing, nuclear power, and medical care, information about past performance is gathered and analyzed as a way of identifying the types of problems that lead to accidents.231 Reporting systems collect information about accidents and “near misses,” and officials analyze the data to identify system-wide problems that could cause future harms. And when accidents do occur, in-depth reviews are conducted to understand the root causes of error. The departments in this study – much like airliners, hospitals, and nuclear power plants – review information from a variety of sources to identify weaknesses and possible ways to improve. Police department early intervention systems – like near-miss reporting systems – gather information from multiple sources as a way of identifying problem officers, units, and practices. Police department closed claims reviews – like root cause analyses – sift through all available information about an incident as a way of diagnosing what went wrong. Although lawsuits play an important role in police department policies, scholars generally view suits to be counter-productive to error reducing efforts. The concern, most frequently articulated in the health care context, is that safety improvements require “an organizational culture of openness to discovery and discussion of problems” that will be stifled by the threat of discipline and liability.232 My research supports the concern that litigation can undermine efforts to understand error. In my research, I found that the threat of litigation and discipline caused government personnel – including, at times, personnel in the five departments in this study – to hide or misrepresent the kinds of information crucial to performance improvement efforts.233 Department officials have written reports that omit information harmful to their officers.234 City attorneys have refused to disclose information about pending claims.235 And internal affairs bureaus have suspended investigations while lawsuits are pending for fear that internal findings will compromise the defense of the case.236 Indeed, the internal investigation of James Chasse’s death was delayed by twenty-two months because the lawyer representing the county deputy did not allow department investigators to interview the deputy or others involved until they were deposed in the lawsuit.237 The attorney was afraid that statements made in the internal investigation could compromise the defense of the civil case.23 31 -Turn: Civil litigation empirically increases police violence. Patton 93 32 -ALISON L. PATTON Member, Third Year Class; B.A. 1988, University of California, Berkeley “The Endless Cycle of Abuse: Why 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Is Ineffective in Deterring Police Brutality.” Hastings Law Journal. March 1993. Accessed off HeinOnline. 33 -A. The Prevalence of Repeat Offenders Throughout the United States, the police officers who are sued for brutality are often repeat offenders.97 "Patterns do exist. It is common for attorneys to have cases against officers with histories of violence. These are not isolated incidents of violence. Officers have a pattern of escalation of violence. It starts with a little violence as a rookie, and then escalates because no one stops it early on."98s Expert witnesses, city per- sonnel, police officers, and attorneys who litigate section 1983 suits observe patterns of recidivism in their own practice and in that of their colleagues.99 On occasion, an attorney will even have multiple suits against the same officer. 1° ° Indeed, the prevalence of recidivism is so great that organizations have begun compiling data bases in order to identify repeat offenders.10' San Francisco journalist Ruth Keady of the Daily Journalnoticed the cycle of repeated brutality in San Francisco as she covered police misconduct litigation.10 2 Ms. Keady, frustrated by city agencies' "mas- sive indifference" to police misconduct issues, filed a taxpayers lawsuit 10 3 in 1989 against the mayor, the City and County of San Francisco, the Chief of Police, and the San Francisco Police Commission. 1° 4 The amended complaint made the following allegations: Over the course of the past three years, the City has paid over Three Million Dollars in judgments and settlements to individuals who have been injured by unlawful police conduct. In these instances, ju- ries have found that police used excessive force or the City Attorney has determined that the evidence would clearly indicate the excessive use of force. However, no police officer has been terminated for this violent and illegal conduct during the course of duty. In the over- whelming majority of instances, the defendants have instituted no disciplinary action whatsoever. In the rare instances in which some form of disciplinary action was taken, it involved suspension for short period of time, having no deterrent effect upon the police department. 10 5 Ms. Keady's suit was an attempt to address the prevalence of repeat offenders and to create a legal deterrent which does not yet exist. 106 Although an original goal of litigation was to deter police brutal- ity, 10 7 many attorneys have abandoned deterrence as a goal altogether, realizing that plaintiff compensation is usually the most that can be gained from a section 1983 suit.1 0 8 This lack of deterrence is attributable to a variety of factors that, when combined, create an environment in which there is no economic or professional incentive for an officer to change violent habits. 34 - 35 - 36 -No solvency – studies prove people won’t sue in the first place. Schwartz 10 37 -Joanna C. Schwartz Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, 2010, "WHAT POLICE LEARN FROM LAWSUITS", CARDOZO L. REV. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1619997 38 -Lawsuits also under-represent the universe of misconduct allegations. The same 2002 Bureau of Justice survey found that people who believed the police mistreated them sued infrequently – approximately one percent of the time.125 People harmed by the police may not sue for any number of reasons, including “ignorance of their rights, poverty, fear of police reprisals, or the burdens of incarceration.”126 But the same people who decide not to file civilian complaints may choose instead to file lawsuits. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have been known to discourage their clients from filing civilian complaints for fear that information in the internal investigation will be used against them in litigation.127 39 -Department decisions have no effect on officers. Schwartz 10 40 -Joanna C. Schwartz Acting Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law, 2010, "WHAT POLICE LEARN FROM LAWSUITS", CARDOZO L. REV. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1619997 41 -It is also difficult to measure the effect of department decisions on line officer behavior. There is no national data about how much misconduct exists in individual police departments, and no agreed upon metric to compare the quality of departments.110 Departments in this study continue to employ officers that engage in high-profile incidents of apparent police misconduct.111 One could conclude, based on these continuing instances of misconduct, that department policies are having little effect. On the other hand, departments might be even more dysfunctional without policies to review lawsuits and other data and auditors to oversee department practices. 42 -Civil litigation is ridiculously expensive – the most marginalized will never be solved for. Sutton 15 43 -RALPH SUTTON former litigator, is chief investment officer of Bentham in New York. “With America’s poor record on civil justice, shouldn’t we encourage litigation finance?.” The Hill. 8/7/15. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/251086-with-americas-poor-record-on-civil-justice-shouldnt-we-encourage 44 -The World Justice Project recently released its annual assessment of the “rule of law” as practiced by 102 countries across the globe. To put it mildly, the report contains disturbing findings on the state of civil justice in America. This independent analysis placed the U.S. in 65th place on the affordability and accessibility of our legal system, tied with those stalwarts of civil justice Botswana and Pakistan. Stunning, you say? Juan Carlos Botero, executive director of the WJP, a group led by a stellar board chosen from the highest ranks of the American legal profession, doesn’t think so. “We have done this study year after year,” says Botero, “and have always found the same thing...(civil justice) is significantly more accessible and affordable in Western European countries than it is in the United States.” Botero is being kind. According to the WJP’s report, not only do most advanced nations like Britain, Norway, Sweden and Germany outrank the US; so, too, do Third World countries like Moldova, Sri Lanka, Honduras, Colombia, Venezuela, and even Iran, Bulgaria and Russia. Why, in the United States, where we value equality and fairness, do we fail so miserably at providing access to justice for those who feel that they have been wronged? One plausible explanation is the extreme economic imbalance that exists in America’s judicial system, favoring favors parties with the deepest pockets. This is truer than ever in the civil context, where litigation has become an enormously expensive proposition for businesses and individuals without substantial financial resources. In addition to the cost of obtaining quality counsel there is the ever-expanding price tag associated with trial discovery, compounded by funds needed for a whole battery of trial necessities – from witness preparation to jury research, plus the small fortune needed in reserve in the likely event of an appeal. In short, litigation has have become America’s biggest money pit and good luck to any claimant who can’t ante up the stakes, no matter how righteous the cause. - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-02 17:35:02.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Maria Olsen - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough AJ - ParentRound
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -9 - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Team
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -West Nelson Neg - Title
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1NC Cap K, Flypaper DA, Case Turns - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alta
- Caselist.RoundClass[0]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -0 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-09-17 17:22:16.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Varad Agarwala - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Sunset RB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Greenhill
- 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]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-28 23:01:36.0 - 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
- Caselist.RoundClass[5]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-29 21:11:58.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -John Scoggin - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Lynbrook CW - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -5 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Meadows
- Caselist.RoundClass[7]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -6 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-10-31 05:03:36.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Panel - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Kinkaid JY - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Octas - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Meadows
- Caselist.RoundClass[8]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -7 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-02 17:33:11.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -1 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -NA
- Caselist.RoundClass[9]
-
- Cites
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -8 - EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-02 17:35:00.0 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Maria Olsen - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Marlborough AJ - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2 - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alta
- Caselist.RoundClass[10]
-
- EntryDate
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -2016-12-03 04:02:03.598 - Judge
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Claire Smith - Opponent
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Corner Canyon PB - Round
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -4 - RoundReport
-
... ... @@ -1,2 +1,0 @@ 1 -1AC Contractarianism Accountability 2 -1NC Court Clog DA Indemnification DA Case Turns - Tournament
-
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,0 @@ 1 -Alta