Tournament: Valley | Round: 1 | Opponent: X | Judge: X

Framework

I affirm.

The value is morality, because the resolution is a question of what governments ought to do.

Phenomenal introspection shows that morality requires the maximization of well-being.  Sinhababu:

Neil Sinahababu (National University of Singapore). "The epistemic argument for hedonism." 2012. JY.
Pleasure" here refers to the hedonic tone of experience. Having pleasure consists in
AND
favors the kind of universal hedonism that supports utilitarianism, not egoistic hedonism.

And, all governmental actions and inactions are choices that should be judged based on their outcomes and overall good produced. Sunstein and Vermeule:

Cass Sunstein (professor of jurisprudence at U Chicago Law School) and Adrian Vermeule (professor of law at U Chicago Law School). "Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs." Stanford Law Review, December 2005.
In our view, any effort to distinguish between acts and omissions goes wrong by
AND
the distinction between authorizing murder and failing to prevent it would become thin.

Also, the government must always deal with differing individual perspectives by promoting general welfare. Woller:

Woller 97 ~Woller, Gary BYU Prof., "An Overview by Gary Woller", A Forum on the Role of Environmental Ethics, June 1997, pg. 10~
Moreover, virtually all public policies entail some redistribution of economic or political resources,
AND
perhaps at times a necessary, basis for public policy in a democracy.

And, even moral arguments requiring universalizability will require maximizing expected utility. Lazari-Radek and Singer explain Hare’s argument:

Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer, The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics, 2014.
For Hare, when I prescribe something, using moral language, my prescription commits
AND
the maximal satisfaction of interests of desires—commonly known as preference utilitarianism.

Moreover, governments empirically use my framework – I outweigh on probability. Goodin:

Robert Goodin, Fellow in Philosophy @ Australian National Defense University, THE UTILITARIAN RESPONSE
My larger argument turns on the proposition that there is something special about the situation
AND
policy-makers to use the utilitarian calculus – assuming they want to.

Therefore, the standard for morality is maximizing expected utility.

Contention One: Nuclear energy is a threat to the planet.

Nuclear energy is becoming increasingly irrelevant as the cost of renewables continues to go down dramatically.  Lindon 15.

Henry Lindon, "Study: Wind Energy and Solar Energy Beating Conventional Generation Modalities On Costs Of Production", http://sustainnovate.ae/en/industry-news/detail/study-wind-energy-solar-energy-beating-conventional-generation-modalities-o/  11/30/15.
Wind energy and solar energy are notably beating out conventional generation modalities (coal,
AND
25 just over the last year, according to the new study.

This also means the affirmative controls the fill-in debate because cost dictates that it will be renewables. If their evidence doesn’t specifically deal with recent economic efficiency gains, don’t let them get away with generic non-sense fill-in evidence that isn’t directly responsive.

And, falling storage costs mean that renewables will soon provide 100 of electricity, making nuclear obsolete. Evans-Pitchard:

Ambrose Evans-Pitchard (International Business Editor of The Daily Telegraph). "Holy Grail of energy policy in sight as battery technology smashes the old order." The Telegraph. August 10, 2016. JY. 
The world's next energy revolution is probably no more than five or ten years away
AND
-wreck of a project was not killed long ago," he said.

And, the myth that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly is totally unfounded relative to renewables and because of the emissions in the fuel cycle process. Diesendorf 16:

Mark Diesendorf, Associate Professor at the University of New South Wales, "Renewable Energy versus Nuclear: Dispelling the Myths", Energy Post, 5/31/16, http://www.energypost.eu/renewable-energy-versus-nuclear-dispelling-myths/**
Neither nuclear energy nor most renewable technologies emit CO2 during operation. However, meaningful
AND
neither of these conditions is likely to be met for decades at least.

Nuclear energy doesn’t solve climate change. Morris 15:

Morris, Craig, ~Founder of Petite Planète~, ed. Energy Revolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Greenpeace, Sept. 2015. Web. 9 Aug. 2016. CR
The nuclear industry promises that nuclear energy can contribute to both climate protection and energy
AND
power towards reducing emissions would come too late to help save the climate.

The problem is not just that nuclear power is dirty and will become more dirty, it detracts from real solutions to climate change because: A.) nuclear energy consumes political attention, which means that renewables and efficiency standards get less political support, further delaying a move to radical energy efficiency.  Porritt 11:

Jonathan Porritt, Director of Forum for the Future, Why the UK must choose renewables over nuclear: an answer to Monbiot", The Guardian, 7/26/11, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/jul/26/george-monbiot-renewable-nuclear**
The Sustainable Development Commission's 2006 report commented specifically on this: "Were it to
AND
and absolutely nothing to put efficiency at the heart of that reform process.

And B.) because of efficiency of renewables, the nuclear industry is working to actively make renewables more expensive in order to make them more cost effective, meaning any negative cost argument is based on a cruel lie. Cooper 14:

Mark Cooper, PhD and Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, The Economic Failure of Nuclear Power and the Development of a Low Carbon Electricity Future: Why Small Modular Reactors are Part of the Problem, Not the Solution, May 2014, http://216.30.191.148/Cooper20SMRs20are20Part20of20the20Problem,20Not20the20Solution20FINAL2.pdf
The collapse of nuclear economics has two immediate and important implications for public policy.  
AND
of nuclear power, it is about the fundamental direction of climate policy.

Not switching to renewables is not only economically wasteful, but threatens human survival.  Auerbach 15.

David Auerbach, "A child born today may live to see humanity’s end, unless…" Reuters, June 18, 2015, http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/18/a-child-born-today-may-live-to-see-humanitys-end-unless/**
Humans will be extinct in 100 years because the planet will be uninhabitable, said
AND
multiplier" and is considering its potential disruptive impact across all its planning.