WHAM Nuclear Power Supplement

8/14/2019 WHAM Nuclear Power Supplement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wham-nuclear-power-supplement 1/113

SDI 2008 p. 1 of 113

WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret...........................................................................................................................3

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret ..........................................................................................................................4

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret...........................................................................................................................5




Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret ..........................................................................................................................9Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret ........................................................................................................................10

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret ................................................................................................................ ...... .11

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret .......................................................................................................................12

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret ........................................................................................................................13

Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret ........................................................................................................................14

ADV US-Russian relations.........................................................................................................................................15

ADV Poverty................................................................................................................................................................16

ADD ON Soft Power...................................................................................................................................................17

AT CA they say “China and India stop solvency”...................................................................................................19

AT CA they say “Proliferation good”........................................................................................................................21

AT CA they say “Global warming stops the ice age”...............................................................................................22

AT CA they say “Backstopping”................................................................................................................................24

AT CP Loan guarantees..............................................................................................................................................26

AT CP Russian international repository...................................................................................................................27

AT CP Sub Seabed disposal .......................................................................................................................................28

AT CP Space Disposal Repositories...........................................................................................................................31

AT CP Ice Sheet Repositories.....................................................................................................................................32

AT CP Remote Island disposal...................................................................................................................................34

AT CP Reprocessing instead of repository................................................................................................................36

AT CP Reprocessing – it causes proliferation extensions........................................................................................38

AT CP Reprocessing – it’s expensive extensions......................................................................................................39

AT CP States................................................................................................................................................................40

AT CP States doesn’t solve proliferation extensions................................................................................................44

AT CP States no jurisdiction extensions...................................................................................................................45

AT CP States lack of consolidation increases terrorism risk extensions................................................................46

AT CP Alternative Energy generic............................................................................................................................47

AT DA Coal..................................................................................................................................................................48AT DA Politics they say “plan is unpopular”...........................................................................................................49

AT DA Politics they say “plan is popular”................................................................................................................51

AT DA Politics they say “Plan costs political capital”.............................................................................................52

AT DA Politics Obama Good – Iran scenario...........................................................................................................53

AT DA Politics Obama good – Global Gag Rule Scenario......................................................................................55

AT DA Politics Obama good – Global Gag Rule Scenario species loss won’t cause extinction extensions..... ...63

AT DA Politics McCain good – LOST BAD scenario..............................................................................................65

AT DA Russian oil ......................................................................................................................................................67

AT DA: Silver..............................................................................................................................................................71

AT K Framework........................................................................................................................................................73

AT K Generic...............................................................................................................................................................76

AT K Capitalism – Version........................................................................................................................................83

AT K Capitalism – Short Version.............................................................................................................................85AT K Economic Management – Externalization Module.......................................................................................87

AT K Free Market Environmentalism......................................................................................................................88

AT K Native Americans ......................................................................................................................................... ...89

AT K You Hurt the Poor.............................................................................................................................................91

AT T they say “Nuclear isn’t an alternative energy”...............................................................................................94

AT T Nuclear isn’t an alternative energy – contextual evidence extensions..........................................................97

AT T Only renewables are topical.............................................................................................................................98

AT T Only renewables are topical – contextual evidence extensions...................................................................101

AT T – Substantially.................................................................................................................................................102

GNEP.........................................................................................................................................................................103



SDI 2008 p. 2 of 113


*******MORE NEGATIVE*******......................................................................................................................105

CP Russian international depository.......................................................................................................................106

DA Politics links - International repositories are unpopular................................................................................110

DA Yucca bad – links................................................................................................................................................112

DA Terrorism – Impacts...........................................................................................................................................113



SDI 2008 p. 3 of 113


Nuclear Waste Disposal 1AC – Jaret

Contention 1: InherencyDespite a host of incentives the nuclear industry needs one more – a place for waste disposal.Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VPAlthough a dozen years have elapsed since any new nuclear power reactor has come online in the U.S., there

are now stirrings of a nuclear renaissance. The incentives are certainly in place: the costs of natural gas and

oil have skyrocketed; the public increasingly objects to the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil

fuels; and the federal government has offered up to $8 billion in subsidies and insurance against delays in

licensing (with new laws to streamline the process) and $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. What more could the

moribund nuclear power industry possibly want? Just one thing: a place to ship its used reactor fuel. Indeed,

the lack of a disposal site remains a dark cloud hanging over the entire enterprise. The projected opening of a

federal waste storage repository in Yucca Mountain in Nevada (now anticipated for 2017 at the earliest) has

already slipped by two decades, and the cooling pools holding spent fuel at the nation’s nuclear power plants

are running out of space.



SDI 2008 p. 4 of 113



Plan: The United States Federal Government should pursue a dual track approach to nuclear waste storage allowinginterim dry cask storage and developing a permanent repository.



SDI 2008 p. 5 of 113



Contention 2: SolvencyThe plan would save the nuclear power industry.Charles D. Ferguson, Council on Foreign Relations28, APRIL 2007 “NUCLEAR ENERGY AT ACROSSROADS”(DS) – Lexis, dru

The waste storage problem in the United States is manageable. The United Statesshould pursue a dual-track approach: commit to developing a consensus and then opening

up a permanent repository and in parallel store as much spent fuel as possible in dry casks

that are hardened against attack at existing reactor sites. The combination of interim

storage and commitment to a permanent repository would provide the assurances needed

by the public and the investment community for continued use of nuclear power.

And, New technology makes nuclear power more effective and safer.

James M. Taylor 12/1/06 “MIT Scientists Find a Nuclear Fuel Design that Is Safer and More Efficient”Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20260&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241

A new fuel design created by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) promises to

increase nuclear power output by 50 percent at existing plants, MIT announced on September 20.

After three years of research and testing of next-generation fuel technology, MIT scientists discovered thatforming uranium into the shape of hollow tubes rather" than solid cylinders allows for more efficient

energy exchange and safer operations. Currently, uranium is formed into solid, cylinder-shaped pellets of less than an inch in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, fission releases a tremendous amount of energy in the formof heat that turns water into steam. The steam is then captured and funneled to power turbines that generateelectricity. Lower Temperatures Possible The MIT scientists discovered that forming uranium into

hollow tubes prior to fission allows more efficient energy exchange by allowing water to interact with a

greater uranium surface area. The new design also increases safety because it requires an operating

temperature of only 700 degrees Celsius, as compared to 1,800 to 2,800 degrees Celsius under the

current design. Currently, a single pickup-truck load of uranium fuel is sufficient to run an entire city

for a year. Under the new design, the same amount of uranium fuel will power that city for an extra six

months. Promising Nuclear Future According to Pavel Hejzlar and Mujid Kazimi, the MIT scientists who

made the discovery, the new fuel design should be available commercially within 10 years. The discovery isexpected to form an important bridge to new technologies, such as pebble bed reactors, which areroughly 20 years away from commercial use in the United States. "Nuclear power already was one of the

most promising energy sources of the future," observed Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for The

Heartland Institute. "This breakthrough adds still more momentum to our most affordable clean-

burning fuel source. "Pebble bed reactors are the exciting future of nuclear power," Lehr added, "but

increasing energy output by 50 percent in existing reactors certainly bridges nuclear power's present to

its future. Nuclear power makes more and more economic and environmental sense with each passing

day."



SDI 2008 p. 6 of 113



And, We spur a move to dry cask storage which solves the terrorism risk.

William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis

In considering alternative storage options, the study assessed, “Dry cask storage has inherent security

advantages over spent fuel storage, but it can only be used to store older spent fuel.”24 Removal of older spent fuel would also relieve overcrowded conditions in many spent fuel pools, thus decreasing safety andsecurity risks of the remaining spent fuel in the pools. While some plants have begun using dry cask

storage on-site to relieve the storage burden on spent fuel pools, most plants have not. Hardened on-

site storage of dry spent fuel casks would reduce the risk of attack or sabotage. Spent fuel could be

moved to dry cask storage after cooling for five years in pools. Estimates are that dry cask storage can

safely and securely store spent fuel for up to one hundred years.



SDI 2008 p. 7 of 113



Contention 3: Drop It Like Its Hot [Prolif]Investors need a clear signal that the federal government will allow nuclear power to

flourish.

Jack Spencer,

Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at

The Heritage Foundation, November 15, 2007, The Heritage Foundation, Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment:Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes, nnahttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/bg2086.cfm

Nuclear power is a proven, safe, affordable, and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels. It

can generate massive quantities of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions and can offset

Amer ica's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. The French have used it to minimize their dependence on foreign energy, and at one time the United States was on the path to do the same. However,

the commercial nuclear energy industry in the U.S. is no longer thriving. Investors hesitate to embrace

nuclear power fully, despite significant regu latory relief and economic incentives. This reluctance is

not due to any inherent flaw in the economics of nuclear power or some unavoidable risk. Instead,

investors are reacting to the historic role that federal, state, and local governments have played both in

encouraging growth in the industry and in bringing on its demise. Investors doubt that federal, state,

and local governments will allow nuclear energy to flourish in the long term. They have already lost bil-lions of dollars because of bad public policy. The United States once led the world in commer cial nuclear

technology. Indeed, the world's leading nuclear companies continue to rely on American technologies.

However, in the 1970s and 1980s, federal, state, and local governments nearly regu lated the U.S.

commercial nuclear industry out of existence. U.S. companies responded by reallocating their assets,consolidating or selling their commercial nuclear capabilities to foreign companies in pro-nuclear countries.This paper reviews how overregulation largely destroyed the nuclear industry and why it remains an obstacleto investment in the industry. This dynamic must be understood and mitigated before the true economics of nuclear power can be harnessed for the benefit of the American people.

Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries, which undermines U.S. nuclear

power leadership.

Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International StudiesWashington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf

Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist theseconsumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to

supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power

as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking

plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently

stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. DoesChina? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by

the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans

to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear

option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our judgment that the market alone won't do it).



SDI 2008 p. 8 of 113



U.S. needs to add nuclear power plants to internationally extend its influence and stop

proliferation.

American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC

www.nuclearcompetitiveness.orgThe influence of the United States internationally could be enhanced significantly if the U.S. is able to

achieve success in its Nuclear Power 2010 program and place several new orders in the next decade

and beyond. There is a clear upsurge of interest in nuclear power in various parts of the world.

[Thus], if the U.S. aspires to participate in these programs and to shape them in ways that are most

conducive to nonproliferation, it will need to promote the health and viability of the American

nuclear infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, if it wishes to exert a positive influence in shaping

the nonproliferation policies of other countries, it can do so more effectively by being an active

supplier to and partner in the evolution of those programs. Concurrent with the prospective growth inthe use of nuclear power, the global nonproliferation regime is facing some direct assaults that areunprecedented in nature. International confidence in the effectiveness of developments underscore theimportance of maintaining the greatest integrity and effectiveness of the nuclear export conditions applied

by the major suppliers. They also underscore the importance of the U.S. maintain in effective policies toachieve these objectives. Constructive U.S. influence will be best achieved to the extent that the U.S. is

perceived as a major technological leader, supplier and partner in the field of nuclear technology. As

the sole superpower, the U.S. will have considerable, on-going influence on the international

nonproliferation regime, regardless of how active and successful it is in the nuclear export market.However, the erosion of the U.S. nuclear infrastructure has begun to weaken the ability of the U.S. to

participate actively in the international nuclear market. If the U.S. becomes more dependent on

foreign nuclear suppliers or if it leaves the international nuclear market to other suppliers, the ability

of the U.S. to influence nonproliferation policy will diminish. It is, therefore, essential that the United

States have vibrant nuclear reactor, enrichment services, and spent fuel storage and disposal

industries that can not only meet the needs of U.S. utilities but will also enable the United States to

promote effective safeguards and other nonproliferation controls through close peaceful nuclear

cooperation with other countries. U.S. nuclear exports can be used to influence other states’ nuclear

programs through the nonproliferation commitments that the U.S. requires. The U.S. has so-called

consent rights over the enrichment, reprocessing and alteration in form or content of the nuclear

materials that it has provided to other countries, as well as to the nuclear materials that are producedfrom the nuclear materials and equipment that the U.S. has supplied. Further, the ability of the U.S. to

develop improved and advanced nuclear technologies will depend on its ability to provide consistentand vigorous support for nuclear R&D programs that will enjoy solid bipartisan political support in

order that they can be sustained from one administration to another. As the U.S. Government expendstaxpayer funds on the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, theGeneration IV initiative and other programs, it should consider the benefit to the U.S. industrial base and toU.S. non-proliferation posture as criteria in project design and source selection where possible.



SDI 2008 p. 9 of 113



And, Prolif will spread globally – timeframe is immediateUtgoff 2, [VICTOR, Dep. Director of Strategy Force and Resources Div of Institute for Defense

Analysis,Survival summer, Vol 44, no 2, pg 87-90) Many readers are probably willing to accept that nuclear proliferation is such a grave threat to world peace that

every effort should be made to avoid it. However, every effort has not been made in the past, and we are talkingabout much more substantial efforts now. For new and substantially more burdensome efforts to be made to slow or stop nuclear proliferation, it needs to be established that the highly proliferated nuclear world that would sooner or later evolve without such efforts is not going to be acceptable. And, for many reasons it is not. First, the dynamics

of getting to a highly proliferated world could be very dangerous. Proliferating states will feel great pressures toobtain nuclear weapons and delivery systems before any potential opponent does. Those who succeed in outracing

an opponent may consider preemptive nuclear war before the opponent becomes capable of nuclear

retaliation. Those who lag behind might try to preempt their opponent's nuclear programme or defeat the opponentusing conventional forces. And those who feel threatened but are incapable of building nuclear weapons may

still be able to join in this arms race by building other types of weapons of mass destruction, such as biological

weapons. Second, as the world approached complete proliferation, the hazards posed by nuclear weapons today

will be magnified many times over. Fifty or more nations capable of launching nuclear weapons means that the

risk of nuclear accidents that could causes serious damage not only to their own populations and environments, but

those of others, is hugely increased. The chances of such weapons falling into the hands of renegade militaryunits or terrorists is far greater, as is the number of nations carrying out hazardous manufacturing and storageactivities.

This will be the end of civilization – it is the most probable scenario



SDI 2008 p. 10 of 113



Contention 4: Commie Love [Russia Relations]Nuclear energy programs provide a framework for US-Russian cooperation but those

frameworks need to be implemented.

DanielHorner

, 7-16-07

, Nuclear Fuels, Bush-Putin statement pledges increased effort on nuclear issues, lexis, bcThe US and Russia this month announced "a new format for enhanced cooperation" on nuclear

energy and nonproliferation, pledging to work together to promote the global expansion of nuclear

energy, particularly in developing countries, while controlling proliferation. The statement was issuedJuly 3 by US President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, after their July 1-2 meetingin Maine. At a July 3 briefing in Washington, US Special Envoy for Nuclear Nonproliferation Robert Josephsaid a "model" for the initiative is the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, which the US andRussia launched a year ago (Nucleonics Week, 27 July '06, 9) and now has more than 50 members. The

new initiative, Joseph said, shows how the US and Russia can "work together when our interests

intersect." The declaration, he said, "reflects a shared vision of the future in which nuclear power

plays a central role." Analysts said the Bush-Putin statement contained little policy language that

went beyond previous statements on nuclear energy and nonproliferation. A US official familiar with

the issue did not dispute that point and characterized the document as a "broad statement of intent."

One section that drew the attention of some analysts speaks of "facilitating and supporting financing to

aid construction of nuclear power plants through public and private national and multinational

mechanisms, including international financial institutions" and of "providing assistance to states to

develop the necessary infrastructure to support nuclear energy , including development of appropriate

regulatory frameworks, safety and security programs to assist states in meeting international

standards, and training of personnel." The US official described those provisions as "down-the-roadstuff" that would not require US government expenditures for at least the next several years. For now, theIAEA's technical cooperation programs are sufficient to provide the needed assistance, he said. Thedeclaration specifically pledges support for expansion of the technical cooperation programs. Bush and Putinalso said they want to ensure that the IAEA "has the resources it needs to meet its safeguards responsibilitiesas nuclear power expands worldwide." In a July 9 interview, Henry Sokolski, the executive director of the

Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Washington, said "there is an awful lot of government in thisdocument, and not much of markets." The statement indicates the two presidents would be willing to providefinancial support to projects that private industry would not be willing to finance, he said. It seems "weird"

to "pay extra for nuclear," Sokolski said. It could make more sense to provide government support for non-nuclear energy options and thus avoid the risks of nuclear proliferation, he said. At the same time, he said,the declaration suggests that Bush and Putin might be willing to interfere with the nuclear fuel market, theone part of the nuclear marketplace that "looks to be commercially viable on its own terms," Sokolski said.One section of the document deals with nuclear fuel assurances, a key part of separate but similar

proposals by Bush and Putin to provide enriched uranium as an incentive to countries to refrain from

pursuing indigenous enrichment programs. According to the document, US and Russian efforts will

include "taking steps to ensure that the commercial nuclear fuel market remains stable and that states are assured of reliable access to nuclear fuel and fuel services for the lifetime of reactors."



SDI 2008 p. 11 of 113



And, Development of civilian nuclear technology key to us leadership and relations with

Russia.

William J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear

Leadership” (DS) LexisOver a half-century ago, at the dawn of the atomic age, President Eisenhower outlined in a speech before

the United Nations General Assembly, a plain but powerful vision for cooperation among the world’s

nuclear powers. In his “Atoms for Peace” address, he described a shared agenda which had essentially

three parts: harnessing the power of the atom for peaceful purposes; curbing the proliferation of

nuclear weapons; and urging responsible leadership from America and Russia in managing our ownnuclear arsenals. Eisenhower’s proposals led to the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency

and later to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), but Cold War conflict eroded much of the promise of his ideas. Fifty years later, the world is a much different place, and Russia and the United Stateshave a much different relationship. We have disagreements and mutual grievances, and obvious elements of competition and rivalry in relations between us, but we are no longer enemies. We have had enough of ColdWars and disastrous arms races, and while we may not have a strategic partnership that produces a neatcoincidence of interest on every issue, we certainly can have a partnership on key strategic issues. Never has

there been a moment when the kinds of nuclear questions that Eisenhower foresaw have been more

important than they are today, and never has there been a moment when America and Russia, still

possessing nuclear capabilities and responsibilities that no other nations on earth can match, have had

a greater opportunity to demonstrate real leadership. It would be a huge mistake, not only for the twoof us but for the sake of global order, to miss that opportunity. That is exactly why President Bush and

President Putin, in Kennebunkport last July, placed such emphasis on realizing the full potential of US-Russian nuclear cooperation. Their efforts are already creating a significant legacy, and much more is

possible in the months and years ahead. President Putin and President Bush have both recognized the

importance of rapidly developing civilian nuclear technology, and making its benefits available to the

developing world. For the first time in our history, we initialed a civilian nuclear cooperation

framework agreement, commonly known as a “123 Agreement” after Section 123 of the US Atomic EnergyAct, which will help to normalize our commercial nuclear relationship and open up new avenues for collaborative activities on civil nuclear energy, including possibilities for research on advanced reactors anddevelopment of innovative recycling and fuel development technologies. If the first pillar in US-Russian

nuclear leadership, as Eisenhower foresaw 50 years ago, is the development of civilian nuclear power forthe benefit of the entire world, the second indispensable element is ensuring that that happens in a way

that does not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. For precisely that purpose, PresidentPutin and President Bush have made similar proposals in recent years to provide nuclear fuel services

to other nations under strict international supervision.



SDI 2008 p. 12 of 113



And, Cooperation is critical to prevent the spread of disease and every major impactSestanovich ‘06 (Stephen- Senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies, “Russia's Wrong Direction: What theUnited States Can and Should Do”, Council on Foreign Relations, March,http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/ )U.S.-Russian cooperation can help the United States to handle some of the most difficult challenges it faces:terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, tight energy markets, climate change, the drug

trade, infectious diseases, and human trafficking. These problems are more manageable when the United

States has Russia on its side rather than aligned against it.

And, Emerging diseases are threatens extinctionZimmerman and Zimmerman, ’96 [Barry and David, both have M.S. Degrees from Long Island University, citing NobelPrize Winner and Leading authority on emerging diseases Joshua Lederberg, Killer Germs, p. 132]Then came AIDS…and Ebola and Lassa fever and Marburg and dengue fever. They came, for the most part, fromthe steamy jungles of the world. Lush tropical rain forests are ablaze with deadly viruses. And changing lifestyles aswell as changing environmental conditions are flushing them out. Air travel, deforestation, global warming areforcing never-before-encountered viruses to suddenly cross the path of humanity. The result – emerging diseases.

Today some five thousand vials of exotic viruses sit, freeze-dried, at Yale University – imports from the rain forests.They await the outbreak of diseases that can be ascribed to them. Many are carried by insects and are termedarboviruses (ar thropod borne). Others, of even greater concern, are airborne and can simply be breathed in. Some,no doubt, could threaten humanity’s very existence. Joshua Lederberg, 1958 winner of the Nobel Prize inPhysiology or Medicine and foremost authority on emerging viruses, warned in a December 1990 article in

Discover magazine: “It is still not comprehended widely that AIDS is a natural, almost predictable phenomenon. It isnot going to be a unique event. Pandemics will be more surprises, because our fertile imagination does not begin tomatch all the tricks that nature can play…” According to Lederberg, “The survival of humanity is not preordained…The single biggest threat to man’s continued dominance on the planet is the virus” ( A Dancing Matrix, by RobinMarantz Hening.)

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9997/




SDI 2008 p. 13 of 113



Contention 5: The AddictionOver-reliance on oil makes us dependent on unstable producer states. These states will continue to work ascounterweights to American hegemony

Josef Braml is editor-in-chief of the Yearbook on International Relations at the German Council on Foreign

Relations (DGAP) in Berlin. The Washington Quarterly • 30:4 pp. 117–130. 2007 Can the United States Shed Its OilAddiction?

If the United States continues its overreliance on fossil fuels, it will become increasingly dependent on producingnations that are unstable and that pose a risk to its interests and could come into conflict with other consumer states.Although the United States can still count on Canada and Mexico, which are its two most important petroleum providers, its tenserelationship with Venezuela illustrates the challenges in securing energy resources even in its own backyard, letalone the Middle East and other volatile areas. Some observers of petropolitics go as far as to describe an “axis of oil” (Russia, China, and eventually Iran) at work that is “acting as a counterweight to American hegemony”and willdeprive the United States of its oil supplies and strategic interests.6 The Persian Gulf, another region the UnitedStates used to dominate, has become very volatile and unreliable in terms of delivering energy resources. Thisregion will continue to be vital to U.S. interests in reliable oil supply for at least the next two decades.7 The U.S.–SaudiArabian relationship in particular is well rooted in bilateral economic and political ties. The Saudi monarchy possesses the world’s largest oil

reserves and is one of the United States’ main suppliers of oil. U.S. energy dependence, however, undermines the U.S. National SecurityStrategy’s aim of fighting terrorism by demanding meaningful political reform from authoritarian regimes to become more democratic and marketoriented.8 Through interventions in the markets, Saudi Arabia has helped the United States to stabilize the price of oil, allowing oil consumers toenjoy relatively steady prices from the mid-1980s to 2003. Nevertheless, because oil production has not kept pace with increased worldwidedemand for oil, especially from the United States and China, there has been a sharp increase in the price of oil over the past three years.

And, Oil Dependence constrains US Hegemony

Council on Foreign Relations 2006http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/EnergyTFR.pdf

First, the control over enormous oil revenues gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that opposeU.S. interests and values. Iran proceeds with a program that appears to be headed toward acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. Russia is able to ignore Western attitudes as it has moved to authoritarian policies in part

because huge revenues from oil and gas exports are available to finance that style of government. Venezuela has the resourcesfrom its oil exports to invite realignment in Latin American political relationships and to fund changes such as Argentina’s exit from its International Monetary Fund (IMF) standby agreementand Bolivia’s recent decision to nationalize its oil and gas resources. Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer countries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests

inimical to our national securit y. Second, oil dependence causes political realignments that constrain the ability of the United Statesto form partnerships to achieve common objectives. Perhaps the most pervasive effect arises as countriesdependent on imports subtly modify their policies to be more congenial to suppliers. For example, China isaligning its relationships in the Middle East (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia) and Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Sudan) because of itsdesire to secure oil supplies. France and Germany, and with them much of the European Union, are more reluctant to confront difficult issues with Russia a nd Iran because

of their dependence on imported oil and gas as well as the desire to pursue business opportunities in those countries. These new realignments have further diminished U.S. leverage, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. For example, Chinese interest insecuring oil and gas supplies challenges U.S. influence in central Asia, notably in Kazakhstan. And Russia’sinfluence is likely to grow as it exports oil and (within perhaps a decade) large amounts of natural gas to Japan and China.



SDI 2008 p. 14 of 113



And, The loss of heg leads to multiple scenarios for extinctionFerguson, 2k4 (Niall, Professor of History at NYU, “A World Without Power,” Foreign Policy, Jul/Aug)For more than two decades, globalization--the integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capital--has raised living standards

throughout the world, except where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and

even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it wouldinevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslimenclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the

breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashingthe centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are

preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The

wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the

targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting

oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports

secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean

peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens

would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of aids and malariawould continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in thesecontinents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should

frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global

hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they

are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The

alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. And far moredangerous forces than rival great powers would benefit from such a not-so-new world disorder.

And, Nuclear Power is the only option to solve our oil dependencyDaniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills,lexis, bc

A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promisedyesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton saidnuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable

regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would seehousehold electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. Theysaid plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, saidyesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, alsoexpressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in

providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Set

against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear

power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this

important part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build

and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline withinthe next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range

of new energy infrastructure.'



SDI 2008 p. 15 of 113


ADV US-Russian relations

US-Russian cooperation is key to solve many extinction scenarios.George F. Kennan, Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies, 06 , U.S.-Russia RelationsHeaded in Wrong Direction, Concludes Council Task Force Chaired by Edwards and Kemp,http://www.cfr.org/publication/10020/

As Russia prepares to host the G8 summit this summer , the report, Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the

United States Can and Should Do, affirms that Russia’s cooperation is central to achieving American

interests. “On a whole host of issues--Iran, energy, HIV/AIDS, and preventing terrorists from

acquiring weapons of mass destruction--it’s vital to have Russia on our side,” said Kemp. “The G8summit may be a watershed on many of these issues--Iran and energy in particular. It’s a real opportunity tolock in more helpful Russian policies. But if we don’t see progress, people are going to ask what Russia isdoing in the G8 in the first place.”









SDI 2008 p. 16 of 113


ADV Poverty

Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain

mired in poverty.

Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm

Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarizedthe current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear

power, or poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from

poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be

made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind

power and other forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to

resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of

renewables in EU energy demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time,

nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make muchdifference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol shouldsell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is thatthe West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide.

New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between global warming,

nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the courage to make.”

Poverty should be the impact you evaluate first – it’s a systemic impact based on the

human choices concerning how wealth is distributed.

Mumia Abu-Jamal, 9-19-1998, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” www1.minn.net/~meis/quietdv.htmWe live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging

"structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean

the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as

contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large

proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of

society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society.

These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals,such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This

form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is

invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really?

Gilligan notes: "[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty

as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to threetimes as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jewsover a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,

thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the

world." [Gilligan, p. 196]



SDI 2008 p. 17 of 113


ADD ON Soft Power

Protecting the environment is key to soft power

Nye 2004. (Joseph S. Nye, Jr. former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F.Kennedy School of Government. He is author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. The Declineof America's Soft Power fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org)

Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to attractothers by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a result.According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had anegative effect on their view of the United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans

believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, andmaintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve itsgoals without resorting to coercion or payment.

Soft power is key to maintaining heg.

Fried 06 (Eli, “The Soft Power of Multilateralism,” The Jerusalem Report, Oct 16, proquest)If there is one big lesson to be learned from the war in Lebanon and Iraq, it is that both Israel and the United

States can gain as much, if not more, from international cooperation as from the unilateral use of

naked power. America's experience in Iraq has demonstrated that no amount of military power can

make up for a lack of vital international support. Indeed, as a result of its aggressive and unilateralist

post- September 11 policies, Washington found itself unable to play the role of regional broker early on

in the Lebanon fighting. However, it went on to pursue a sustainable cease-fire through a process of multilateral engagement, and, with the passing of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, significantlyenhanced its persuasive capacity - or "soft power" - in the region. Its pursuit of an agreed- upon policyenabled the United States to co-opt the international community without sacrificing President Bush's

paradigmatic division between the forces of good and evil. In other words, it is not the U.S.'s moral partitioning that the world opposes, but rather its perceived neo-colonialist policies and unilateralisttendencies.

Heg is key to global stability

Gray ’06 (Colin S. Gray, June 22 2006, Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies, Director of the

Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, England, “Stability operations in strategic perspective: askeptical view; Quadrennial Defense Review”, Lexis)The United States is the global hegemon at present, by default we must add. This hegemony is real, but it isnonetheless only partial, it is context-specific, and it is certain to be challenged. As the hegemonic, "world-

ordering" power, America's competence, strengths, and reputation or prestige are of vital importance

for global stability. International order cannot afford its principal guardian to make major errors in

statecraft or strategy. America's national ideology, which is an integral part of its culture, does not travel aswell as many Americans believe. The issue is not the merit in the ideology, but rather the power of thatideology to misguide national security policy.

Soft power is key to democracy.

Joseph S. Nye, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at Harvard, Summer 2004, “Soft Power andAmerican Foreign Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, Iss.2; pg. 255, proquest, accessed 07/10/07

According to the National Security Strategy, the greatest threats the American people face aretransnational terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and particularly their combination. Yet,meeting the challenge posed by transnational military organizations that could acquire weapons of massdestruction requires the cooperation of other countries -and cooperation is strengthened by soft power.Similarly, efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and elsewhere will require the help of others.Reconstruction in Iraq and peacekeeping in failed states are far more likely to succeed and to be less costly if shared with others rather than appearing as American imperial occupation. The fact that the United Statessquandered its soft power in the way that it went to war meant that the aftermath turned out to be much morecostly than it need have been.



SDI 2008 p. 18 of 113


The impact is extinction.

Larry Diamond, Snr Research Fellow at the Hoover Institute, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, 1995 p. 6-7This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In theformer Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have madecommon cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic

ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life onEarth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional

threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THETWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern

themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against

their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not

ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass

destruction to use on or to threaten one another.

Soft Power prevents the spread of terrorism

Nye, 2004 (Joseph S. Nye, PhD in political science at Harvard, 2004, Perseus Books group, “Soft Power: The

Means to Success in World Politics”, book)Hard power remains crucial in a world of states trying to guard their independence and of non-state groupswilling to turn to violence. It forms the core of the Bush administration's new national security strategy. Butaccording to Joseph Nye, the neo-conservatives who advise the president are making a major miscalculation:They focus too heavily on using America's military power to force other nations to do our will, and they paytoo little heed to our soft power. It is soft power that will help prevent terrorists from recruiting

supporters from among the moderate majority. And it is soft power that will help us deal with critical

global issues that require multilateral cooperation among states. That is why it is so essential that

America better understands and applies our soft power. This is our guide.

Unchecked Terrorism Will Cause Extinction

Yonah Alexander, professor and director of the Inter-University for Terrorism Studies, WASHINGTON TIMES,

August 28, 2003, p. http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030827-084256-8999r.htmLast week's brutal suicide bombings in Baghdad and Jerusalem have once again illustrated dramatically thatthe international community failed, thus far at least, to understand the magnitude and implications of

the terrorist threats to the very survival of civilization itself. Even the United States and Israel have for decades tended to regard terrorism as a mere tactical nuisance or irritant rather than a critical strategicchallenge to their national security concerns. It is not surprising, therefore, that on September 11, 2001,Americans were stunned by the unprecedented tragedy of 19 al Qaeda terrorists striking a devastating blow atthe center of the nation's commercial and military powers. Likewise, Israel and its citizens, despite thecollapse of the Oslo Agreements of 1993 and numerous acts of terrorism triggered by the second intifada that

began almost three years ago, are still "shocked" by each suicide attack at a time of intensive diplomaticefforts to revive the moribund peace process through the now revoked cease-fire arrangements [hudna]. Whyare the United States and Israel, as well as scores of other countries affected by the universal nightmare of modern terrorism surprised by new terrorist "surprises"? There are many reasons, includingmisunderstanding of the manifold specific factors that contribute to terrorism's expansion, such as lack of auniversal definition of terrorism, the religionization of politics, double standards of morality, weak

punishment of terrorists, and the exploitation of the media by terrorist propaganda and psychological warfare.Unlike their historical counterparts, contemporary terrorists have introduced a new scale of violence in termsof conventional and unconventional threats and impact. The internationalization and brutalization of

current and future terrorism make it clear we have entered an Age of Super Terrorism [e.g. biological,

chemical, radiological, nuclear and cyber] with its serious implications concerning national, regional

and global security concerns.



SDI 2008 p. 19 of 113


AT CA they say “China and India stop solvency”

1. Nuclear power is increasing worldwide – that’s the first card in our 1AC that says

nuclear power is flourishing in Europe and Asia which also makes their DA’s and turns

non-unique.

2. Ambitious expansion of nuclear energy can solve worldwide

Micheal Totty, news editor for the Wall Street Journal, 6 Jun 2008, The Wall Street Journal, “Energy (a specialreport); The case for—and against—Nuclear Power”, Proquest, AB

The argument for nuclear power can be stated pretty simply: We have no choice. If the world intends

to address the threat of global warming and still satisfy its growing appetite for electricity, it needs an

ambitious expansion of nuclear power. Scientists agree that greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide, are building up in the atmosphere and contributing to a gradual increase in global average temperatures. At thesame time, making electricity accounts for about a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions, mostly from burningfossil fuels to produce power.

3. The U.S. is the number one emitter and countries like China and India won’t start to

reduce their emissions until the U.S. does. We can wait a few decades for them to act if we

start now.

Jay Apt (is executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business and the

Department of Engineering and Public Policy, where he is a Distinguished Service Professor) David W. Keith (is Professor and CanadaResearch Chair in Energy and the Environment in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and the Department of Economics at

the University of Calgary) and M. Granger Morgan (is University and Lord Professor and department head of the Department of

Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Electricity Industry Center ) Spring 2007 "PromotingLow-Carbon Electricity Production”, Issues in Science and Technology, v. 23,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200704/ai_n19198506

When past emissions are factored in, the United States is responsible for just over a quarter of all

anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels currently in the atmosphere. Europe, China, and India are

responsible for 19%, 9%, and 3% respectively. The EU has agreed to reduce emissions to 8% below 1990levels by 2012; the United States has not. EU emissions are the same as in 1990; U.S. emissions have

increased by 20%. And because CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for over a century, the largestsingle share of CO2 will continue to belong to the United States for many decades, despite China's growth.Since the United States has put the largest single share of CO2 into the air, it must begin to take the lead inreducing it. In a few decades, China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries also will have to

undertake serious controls. But they will not do so until we take the lead and show how it can be done

in an efficient and affordable way.

4. Turn - US Nuclear leadership can move the developing world toward nuclear power.

Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist theseconsumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to

supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power

as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking

plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently

stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. DoesChina? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by

the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans

to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our judgmentthat the market alone won't do it).



SDI 2008 p. 20 of 113


5. China increasing nuclear power now.

James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619

Pointing out that nuclear plants produce more than three-quarters of France's power, and that nations

such as Russia and China are rapidly expanding their nuclear power supply utilizing the latest

technological advances, McCain said nuclear roadblocks in the United States are "a NIMBY [not in my

backyard] problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem." "The potential for growth in the United States is positive," Heymer agreed.



SDI 2008 p. 21 of 113


AT CA they say “Proliferation good”

1. Extend Ugutoff 02 – Nuclear proliferation will lead to rampant spread of nuclear

weapons – it makes nuclear wars inevitable because of state perception

2. Taylor 02 – this will end in extinction – even the risk of one more state going nuclear cantrigger the extinction of civilization – prolif good can never o/w

3. Don’t Evaluate Waltz – Waltz is only talking about how a few states having nuclear

weapons is good – he doesn’t assume wildfire nuclear proliferation and is outdated

Drake Bennett, March 20, 2005, JaretLK,http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/03/20/give_nukes_a_chance/

KENNETH N. WALTZ, adjunct professor of political science at Columbia University, doesn't like the

phrase ''nuclear proliferation.'' ''The term proliferation' is a great misnomer,'' he said in a recent interview.''It refers to things that spread like wildfire. But we've had nuclear military capabilities extant in the worldfor 50 years and now, even counting North Korea, we only have nine nuclear countries.'' Strictly speaking,then, Waltz is as against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as the next sane human being. After all, he

argues, ''most countries don't need them.'' But the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by those

few countries that see fit to pursue them, that he's for. As he sees it, nuclear weapons prevent wars. ''Theonly thing a country can do with nuclear weapons is use them for a deterrent,'' Waltz told me. ''And thatmakes for internal stability, that makes for peace, and that makes for cautious behavior.'' Especially in aunipolar world, argues Waltz, the possession of nuclear deterrents by smaller nations can check the disruptiveambitions of a reckless superpower. As a result, in words Waltz wrote 10 years ago and has been reiteratingever since, ''The gradual spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared.'' Waltz is not acrank. He is not a member of an apocalyptic death cult. He is perhaps the leading living theorist of theforeign policy realists, a school that sees world politics as an unending, amoral contest between states driven

by the will to power. His 1959 book, ''Man, the State, and War,'' remains one of the most influential 20th-century works on international relations. In recent weeks, however, the spread of nuclear weapons has

taken on what might appear to be a wildfire-like quality. North Korea has just declared itself a nuclear

power. Iran is in negotiations with the United States and Europe over what is widely suspected to be a

secret weapons program of its own. Each could kick off a regional arms race. And North Korea in the

past has sold nuclear technology to Libya and Pakistan, while Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas. Asthe Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the backbone of nonproliferation efforts for the past 35 years, comes upfor review this May, there's an increasing sense that it is failing. In such a context, Waltz's argument may

seem a Panglossian rationalization of the inevitable.

Nuclear proliferation is spreading rapidly – letting weapons continue to spread makes self-

destruction inevitable

Tim Reid, February 13, 2004, “Blueprints 'prove Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons'”, JaretLK,http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1018735.ece

The discovery, made by inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were disclosed asthe agency’s head issued an urgent warning that the world faces destruction because of the rapid spread

of atomic weapons technology. Mohamed ElBaradei, following a call on Wednesday by President Bush for

tougher curbs on nuclear proliferation, delivered the direst official assessment of how far nuclear technologyhas spread to rogue nations and terror groups in recent years. Dr ElBaradei said that the possession of

nuclear weapons technology by terrorists was inevitable. “Nuclear proliferation is on the rise,” Dr ElBaradei wrote in The New York Times. “If we sit idly by, this trend will continue. Countries that

perceive themselves vulnerable . . . will pursue clandestine weapons programmes. “The supply

network will grow, making it easier to acquire nuclear weapon expertise and materials. Eventually,

inevitably, terrorists will gain technology, if not actual weapons. If the world does not change course,

we risk self-destruction.” The blueprints discovered in Iran are based on the “G2” centrifuge, a far moresophisticated design than the “G1” enrichment centrifuge, a version of which Iran has already been mass

producing.



SDI 2008 p. 22 of 113


AT CA they say “Global warming stops the ice age”

Global warming leads to Ice ageRoach 5John, National Geographic, Global Warming May Alter Atlantic Currents, Study Says,http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0627_050627_oceancurrent.html

Acting like a conveyor belt, the current transports warm, surface waters toward the Poles and cold,deep waters toward the Equator. In the Atlantic Ocean, these warm surface waters push northward,releasing heat into the atmosphere and becoming cooler and denser. As they do, the waters sink and flowsouthward in the deep ocean. "The Atlantic circulation moves heat toward the Arctic, and this helps

moderate wintertime temperatures in the high-latitude Northern Hemisphere," said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanography research specialist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod,Massachusetts. Curry noted that excessive amounts of freshwater dumped into the North Atlantic could

alter seawater density and, in time, affect the flow of the North Atlantic ocean current. (Global

warming has boosted freshwater runoff in the form of glacier meltwater and additional precipitation,Curry said.) Just how much extra freshwater it would take to alter the circulation system, known as theAtlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, is a gray area of climate science. Broken Belt? Suffice it to saythat the conveyor belt continues to work today. But freshwater runoff into the North Atlantic has

increased in recent decades, and runoff is expected to increase further as global temperatures climb

higher, Curry said.

link turn – Global warming causes quick coolingHartmann 4Thom, How Global Warming May Cause the Next Ice Age..., http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-

bin/print.cgi?file=/views04/0130-11.htmWhile global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and AlGore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the

greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a

new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting. In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water

coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern

Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America

warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a

few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters,

droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world

Here’s more comparative evidence: Global Warming is empirically proven to result in

global cooling.

Stefan Rahmstorf and Andrey Ganopolski, October 30, 2004, Springerlink, “Long-Term Global WarmingScenarios Computed with an Efficient Coupled Climate Model,” nnahttp://www.springerlink.com/content/l02mm8757231t250/

We present global warming scenarios computed with an intermediate-complexity atmosphere-ocean-

sea ice model which has been extensively validated for a range of past climates (e.g., the Last GlacialMaximum). Our simulations extend to the year 3000, beyond the expected peak of CO2 concentrations. The

thermohaline ocean circulation declines strongly in all our scenarios over the next 50 years due to a thermaleffect. Changes in the hydrological cycle determine whether the circulation recovers or collapses in the

long run. Both outcomes are possible within present uncertainty limits. In case of a collapse, a

substantial long-lasting cooling over the North Atlantic and a drying of Europe is simulated.

3. They say that cooling is worse than heating but Extend our Podesta, Stern, and Batten ’07 card that states thatGlobal warming will lead to widespread disease, regional conflicts, and environmental damage.

4. They say an Ice age will lead to global extinction but the probability of one is highly unlikely. The last time therewas an Ice Age humans lived through it so it is highly improbable that their impact will lead to human extinction



SDI 2008 p. 23 of 113


Here’s more comparative evidence:



SDI 2008 p. 24 of 113


AT CA they say “Backstopping”

Empirically Denied – Current transition to alternative energy should have caused the link,

but oil prices are still high.

No Timeframe: Backstopping won’t occur for a couple years. OPEC will do everythingpossible to continue selling oil at the high price that it is.

No Link: OPEC no longer has the capacity to flood the market

Hatch 8 Senator Orrin G. Hatch, HATCH ASKS ENERGY COMMITTEE TO LIFT MORATORIUM ON OIL SHALEDEVELOPMENT, Trade Observatory, http://www.tradeobservatory.org/headlines.cfm?refID=102799

Second, OPEC no longer has anywhere near the spare capacity necessary to flood the world market. In

fact, due to the meteoric rise in global demand for oil, I doubt OPEC has the capacity to cause even a

significant drop in the price of oil. Thirdly, technology and regulatory protections in every aspect of oil,gas, and mining have matured impressively since the early 1980's. Those advances not only make oil shaledevelopment much more viable, but they also ensure much better protections for the environment.

No Link: OPEC can no longer influence prices

Sodhi 2008 (The Myth of OPEC, The center for independent studieshttp://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2008/eh63608.html)

The massive reserves of Saudi Arabia have also historically been a tool to encourage quota compliance. The Saudis,with their massive oil reserves and high levels of spare production capacity, have in the past threatened to flood themarket with oil to engineer a collapse in price. With the world’s cheapest production costs and lots of spare capacity,it was a threat the Saudis could theoretically carry out. Not anymore.Saudi Arabia no longer has the buffer of excess production, and there is a lack of confidence in the sustainability of its largest fields. The long standing threat to flood the market with cheap oil has now become a bluff, and the other members of OPEC know it.OPEC goes to great trouble to pretend that it can influence prices. It holds regular meetings where it ordains a new

production target with much ceremony. But honestly, you would have to be a mug to believe that OPEC countriesare purposefully limiting production. When oil prices rise, so does the opportunity cost of sticking to the allocatedquota. So while its possible to maintain a cartel when prices are low, you can bet your life that each member is

pumping out as much crude as it possibly can at $140 a barrel.

No Link: OPEC can’t control pricing through flooding the market

Gary Nicks Daily Star June 23, 2008 HEADLINE: PLEASE SIR. . .COULD WE HAVE MORE OIL;Brown makes fuel plea to rich Saudis

It's the kind of thing he could do here at home." And Tory Alan Duncan blasted: "The idea that Opec can just go like that andflood the market with oil and bring the price down shows Gordon Brown does not understand global markets." Thesummit was arranged after oil doubled in a year to hit a record $140 per barrel two weeks ago, sending prices rocketing so high at UK forecourtsthat gangs of thieves are draining lorry fuel tanks across the country.

No Link: OPEC has lost control over prices- they’re on a downward spiral

Brown 2008 (May, OPEC's Days Are Numbered, http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/public/commentary.go/rsa/commentary/comm-energy/20080513_032411_msg.html/OPECs-Days-Are-Numbered.html)

There was an excellent article by Jim Kingsdale this weekend on the coming end of OPEC. You are probablythinking why would OPEC disappear when their control over oil prices is so strong. Unfortunately that is no longer true. OPEC has lost control over prices and that was the main reason the organization was formed in 1960.

http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2008/eh63608.html

http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/public/commentary.go/rsa/commentary/comm-energy/20080513_032411_msg.html/OPECs-Days-Are-Numbered.html




http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2008/eh63608.html





SDI 2008 p. 25 of 113


Nuclear Power will remain price competitive with oil. Thus, even if OPEC lowered prices

by a lot, the DA won’t occur.

Turn: Nuclear power solves dependency, it’s best for the environment and will save 100,000

lives per year from air pollution.

Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.htmlWith minor exceptions, these new plants will have to be powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear

fuels. There are lots of good reasons for avoiding the use of oil and gas to generate electricity: They are

substantially more expensive than coal or nuclear fuels. World supplies are quite limited on a long-term

perspective. They are essentially our only option for providing transportation by land, sea, or air. They arevitally needed as feedstock for manufacture of plastics, organic chemicals, and other products essential for our technology. Paying for imported oil is a heavy strain on our national economy, and this problem is

rapidly getting worse. Our oil supplies are vulnerable to being cut off for political reasons. Oil prices

are susceptible to very large and rapid increases. Oil dependence can lead to war. For the most part,therefore, our new electrical generating capacity must be powered by coal or nuclear fuels, although oiland gas will still be used to some degree. Burning coal, oil, and gas leads to a wide variety of

environmental problems. They are major contributors to the greenhouse effect, which threatens to

cause highly disruptive climate changes: Agriculture will suffer severe blows like an end to growing

soybeans and corn in the South and corn and wheat in the Great Plains. Farmers will also have to deal

with increased livestock disease, and heavy damage from insect pests. Forests will undergo stress, as

some species of trees will die off and have to be replaced by others. Seacoast areas will be subject to

flooding. Waterfowl and various types of aquatic life will be seriously affected by reduction in wetlands

areas. Insect plagues, droughts, forest fires, tornadoes, and floods will increase. Burning coal is the

major contributor to acid rain which, in some areas, is heavily damaging forests and fish in lakes. This

acid rain is straining relations between Canada and the United States, and between several pairs of

European nations. But perhaps the most serious environmental problem with burning fossil fuels is air

pollution, which is estimated to be killing about 100,000 Americans every year. Attempts to solve this

problem are very expensive, and there is little reason to be confident that the limited objectives these

attempts target will solve it. Air pollution causes a variety of illnesses, and it has several other

unpleasant aspects, such as foul odors and the degrading of all sorts of objects from stone carvings to

clothing. Coal burning causes many other environmental problems, such as destruction of land

surfaces by strip-mining, acid mine drainage, which pollutes our rivers and streams, land subsidence,which damages and destroys buildings, and waste banks from washing coal, which are ugly and lead to

air pollution. Coal mining is a harsh and unpleasant occupation. Miners are frequently killed in

accidents, and constant exposure to coal dust causes severe degradation in their health, often leading to

premature death from an assortment of lung diseases. Oil has its environmental problems too. It

contributes substantially to air pollution and to acid rain. Oil spills in our oceans have fouled beaches

and caused severe damage to aquatic life. Oil causes fires, odors, and water pollution. The use of

natural gas can lead to fires and explosions and can kill people through asphyxiation. All of the

adverse health and environmental effects resulting from burning coal, oil, or natural gas to produce

electricity can be avoided by the use of nuclear power.



SDI 2008 p. 26 of 113


AT CP Loan guarantees

Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan.

Lots of investors are interested in building nuclear power plants but want to ensure there

will be multiple projects not just one – that can’t happen without waste disposal options.WNN – World Nuclear News, 18 June 2008, “Global investors circle new nuclear markets” (ds)http://www.world-nuclear news.org/C_Global_investors_circle_new_nuclear_markets_1806081.html?jmid=2647&j=132755411&utm_source=JangoMail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=WNN+Weekly+18+%2D+25+June+2008+%28132755411%29&utm_content=comments%40usnuclearenergy%2Eorg

Investors see the USA as the best place in the world to engage in nuclear build projects. Next come theUK and China, followed by South Africa. Banks and utilities, however, are yet to make serious moves. Thelist of countries comes from Ernst & Young research commissioned by the UK government, a summary of which was presented in London today by Adam Dawson of the country's department of business andenterprise as part of SMI's inaugural Financing Nuclear Power conference. Delegates heard that there is

widespread confidence in the new nuclear power markets among investors. Pieter Stor of RBS presentedABN Amro research which had nuclear power as the cheapest generation source of all when carbon

costs were taken into account. He said his figures were based on conservative values of $60 per barrel of oil and €30 ($46) per tonne of carbon dioxide and concluded: "Why invest in nuclear new build? Because

it's deemed to be profitable." However, very large uncertainties remain in the market for new reactors,which is yet to see many significant orders outside of China. Items at the top of financiers' list of concernsaccording to both Stor and the Ernst & Young research concern political and regulatory stability as well asvolatility in prices for energy and carbon dioxide emissions. Stor said each investor had to make up its mindwhat energy prices would do in the long term. These concerns are compounded by the capital required to

build nuclear power plants - the cost of financing construction amounts to around 55% of the final cost of electricity. Stor said that banks are not keen to finance individual projects, which they think have too

much uncertainty during application and build, but would prefer to be involved in fleets of new

reactors and are becoming more comfortable with that idea. Ernst & Young's research consisted of interviews with 18 investors from Europe and North America. Dawson said the results indicated that the USAis "almost in a league of its own" because of its sheer scale, the ease of doing business and the relativeregulatory certainty. In addition, the US government has announced certain amounts of funding and

loan guarantees for the first companies to test the licensing process and begin building respectively.

The 32 new reactors at various stages of planning are testimony to this. Dawson said he was pleasedthe UK came in as the second best place to do nuclear business, with China at a similar level. Next he saidSouth Africa was moving up rapidly, and was ahead of European countries which had the possibility of multiple new reactors. He added that the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states were not yet on the list,

but they probably would be soon. The US government's financial support for nuclear has helped to

overcome nervousness among companies of being the first to try new regimes, said Malcolm Keay, afellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Referring to the USA and the UK, he said that once firm

orders are made for new nuclear plants there could be a "stampede" from companies that don't wish

to be left behind. Similarly, the current position of many companies expressing interest in nuclear is in some part due to strategic reasons. The real state of the market, he said, would only be known once companies begin to take hard decisions in a few years' time.



SDI 2008 p. 27 of 113


AT CP Russian international repository


Without a fix in Russian-Iranian weapons cooperation, the US won’t make a nuclear waste

trade treaty to use a Russian permanent repository.Glenn Schweitzer and Kelly Robbins, Editors, Committee on Issues in Consolidating Spent Nuclear Fuel at

International Storage Sites, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, National Research Council, 2008, National Academy of Sciences, “Setting the Stage for International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities:International Workshop Proceedings”, rks, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12191.html.

Finally, while the concept of spent fuel storage in Russia has promise, it will not be possible for the

United States to support practical steps in this direction until the problem of Russian cooperation with

Iran is resolved. The United States does not authorize retransfer of nuclear material to countries to

which it could not transfer nuclear material directly. Therefore, the United States and Russia must

have an agreement for cooperation in force before any spent fuel with U.S.-origin nuclear material

may be shipped to Russia. No such agreement is in force. The transmittal report to Congress for a proposedagreement for cooperation must include an assessment of the proliferation record of the other party. The

United States would only be in a position to negotiate such an agreement once Russia addressed U.S.

concerns regarding Russian-Iranian nuclear, missile, chemical, biological, and advanced conventionalweapons cooperation. The Bush administration has firmly linked the storage of spent fuel containing

U.S.-origin nuclear material in Russia to resolution of this concern.



SDI 2008 p. 28 of 113


AT CP Sub Seabed disposal


Yucca Mountain is the only option for a permanent repository.

Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08,

Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bcThe only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevadadesert about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste

Fund was set up in 1983. And it's likely to cost billions more as vociferous debate over the project

drags on.

Delay would be devastating for nuclear power – that’s our 1AC that investors are ready to go butthey need a strong signal from the federal government that they are committed to nuclear wastedisposal they don’t have any evidence that space disposal would accomplish that.

Sub-seabed disposal puts the ocean at risk and would violate international agreements.

U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)

Scientists considered burying nuclear waste under the ocean floor. This option could be viable because deepwithin the ocean floor, the radiation from the waste would not harm people or the environment. One of the

problems associated with this option includes the difficulty of recovering the waste, if necessary, once it

is emplaced deep in the ocean. Also, establishing an effective international structure to develop,

regulate, and monitor a sub-seabed repository would be extremely difficult. Beyond technical and

political considerations, the United States signed the London Convention in October 1993. This

international agreement, which remains in force until 2018, places prohibitions on disposing of

radioactive materials at sea. After that time, the sub-seabed disposal option can be revisited at 25-year

intervals.



SDI 2008 p. 29 of 113


Failure to protect the ocean risks extinction.Craig 3Robin Kundis, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, Lexis

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they dofor terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs

provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations,services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 Moregenerally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that

represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur,as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore,human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life . Maintaining

biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that,in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its

biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are

particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactionsand degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marineenvironment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components

is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of thereef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to

maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill inAlaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However,

economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the

forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about

the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to

protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we

now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakersand policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and

hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States haswithin its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not knowmuch about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take

most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productiveecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins,emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what ishappening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges,nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly atfirst, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to therest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stressesimposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to

respond to the emerging crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off

the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot.n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-

functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.

http://www.lexisnexis.com.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.109482.08236896172&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1215651060112&returnToKey=20_T4131210034&parent=docview#n856





































SDI 2008 p. 30 of 113


4. Sub Seabed Causes Many Potential ProblemsU.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)

Sub-seabed disposal has been studied to a much lesser extent than geologic repository disposal. It isimportant to distinguish sub-seabed disposal from sea dumping of radioactive waste. Sea dumping involves

the disposal of waste into the water, where it is certain to become dispersed. By contrast, sub-seabeddisposal would place the waste beneath the sea floor. If successfully accomplished, the waste would notdisperse into the oceans. There are two approaches to sub-seabed disposal as it has been considered so far:

put the waste in holes drilled tens of meters deep into the ocean floor put the waste in canisters shaped likelong projectiles that penetrate into the ocean floor. The penetration depth in soft clays may be several tens of meters.5 A site in the North Pacific Ocean with 100 million square kilometers of ocean floor covered withsoft red clays up to 100 meters deep has often been mentioned as a possible site. 6 The main advantage of sub-seabed disposal relative to geologic disposal is that large radiation doses via the drinking water pathwayare highly unlikely. Water used for drinking and irrigation is generally regarded as the most importantradiation exposure pathway that would result from geologic disposal.7 However , radiation doses via the

food pathway are possible. Based on current technology, deliberate human intrusion would be far

more difficult than with geologic disposal. Given that rapid technological change is likely to continue,

deliberate intrusion might be possible, though the lack of markers or any other surface manifestations

should make this less likely than for land-based repositories. Inadvertent intrusion would appear to befar more unlikely under the ocean, especially in areas away from coastal areas and where there are no

readily accessible seabed mineral resources. Because less research has been done into sub-seabed

disposal, less is known about the potential problems with this storage method. However, troubling

questions have been raised. For instance, oceanographers Hessler and Jumars have noted that while

the density of living matter in the deep sea is low, life there is very diverse. Several factors promote

this diversity of life in the deep-sea environment, notably the fact that it is very stable: "Such

stability minimizes the likelihood of extinctions even for species maintaining extremely low population

densities, and thereby allows the diversity of communities to build to high levels.... "While no one has

yet measured the tolerances of abyssal [deep-sea] organisms, it is almost a certainty that they can

adjust to only a small degree of environmental change....Thus any kind of human activity on the deep-

sea floor - be it waste disposal, nodule mining, or anything else - is likely to have a far more

deleterious effect than would a comparable disturbance in shallow water."8 In the long run, questionsof isolation from the human environment in the case of sub-seabed disposal may be broadly similar to thosefacing geologic disposal. Transportation, waste emplacement, and licensing also pose significant

challenges. Finally, the international convention against sea dumping of radioactive wastes may prohibitsub-seabed disposal. Given the potential vulnerability of life in the deep-sea to human activity, sub-seabeddisposal cannot be viewed as a "solution" to the waste disposal problem. But its relative problems may not

be more severe than those with geologic repositories, though the specific issues are somewhat different.Hence, at the present time, sub-seabed disposal should be allocated significant research resources. Theseresources should not be used to add radioactive materials into the oceanic or sub-seabed environment.International collaborative sub-seabed disposal research could be a major component of the conversion of Cold War naval apparatus in the nuclear weapons states to peaceful purposes.9 One disadvantage of sub-

seabed disposal is that it would involve disposal in the global commons. Countries that have madeinadvisable decisions regarding nuclear power and weapons would be able to dispose of waste withouttaking the commensurate domestic liability for the problem. To make matters worse, countries that have notgenerated high-level radioactive wastes would share in potential adverse consequences. The use of sub-

seabed disposal or any other international approach should be considered only in the context of thecomplete and irrevocable phase-out of nuclear power and of fissile materials and tritium production

for weapons purposes.



SDI 2008 p. 31 of 113


AT CP Space Disposal Repositories


Yucca Mountain is the only option for a permanent repository.Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bcThe only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevadadesert about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste


drags on.


Space Disposal impossible and too risky.

U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department of Energy have researchedseveral methods of disposal in space. Possibilities included launching waste containers into orbit around thesun. Space disposal offers the attraction of permanent separation of waste from the human environment.However, the risk of an accident during launch makes this an unacceptable option. In addition, space

disposal is impractical because of the number of launches that would be required. Establishing

international agreements on how such a program would be operated and regulated would also be

difficult.



SDI 2008 p. 32 of 113


AT CP Ice Sheet Repositories


Yucca Mountain is the only option for a permanent repository.Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc

The only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevadadesert about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste


drags on.


Ice Sheet Disposal is expensive, violates international law and radioactive waste could bereleased into the ocean.U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)

Scientists have considered disposing of nuclear wastes in the ice at Antarctica or Greenland. This wouldinvolve placing waste containers on the surface or in a shallow hole where the heat from the waste wouldcause them to slowly melt to the bottom of the ice sheet. Cables could be used to anchor the waste containersto limit the descent depth and to allow retrieval. Advantages to this option include the lack of population in

polar regions and the stability and thickness of polar ice. As with sub-seabed or remote island disposal,

transportation of the waste would be a challenge. Another drawback to this option is the potential

effect of future climate changes on the stability and size of polar ice masses. Radioactive wastes could

be released into the environment if global climate changes increased polar ice melting. This option also

would be extremely expensive due to the remote locations and adverse weather. Finally, the Antarctic

Treaty of 1959 prohibits disposing of radioactive waste on the Antarctic continent.



SDI 2008 p. 33 of 113


Failure to protect the ocean risks extinction.Craig 3Robin Kundis, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, Lexis

Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they dofor terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs

provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations,services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 Moregenerally, "ocean ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that

represent the basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur,as well as other less abundant but necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore,human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to support life . Maintaining

biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that,in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its

biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are

particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactionsand degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marineenvironment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components

is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of thereef system. n860 Thus, maintaining and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to

maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill inAlaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness. However,

economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the

forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about

the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States has traditionally failed to

protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we

now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakersand policymakers to admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and

hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the United States haswithin its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not knowmuch about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take

most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, n863 its once-complex and productiveecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins,emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of jelly." n864 More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what ishappening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills, industrial discharges,nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly atfirst, then collapsed with [*266] shocking suddenness. The lessons of this tragedy should not be lost to therest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stressesimposed on the Black Sea were not unique to communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to

respond to the emerging crisis. n865 Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off

the coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot.n866 Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus suggest that the United States should protect fully-

functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.






































SDI 2008 p. 34 of 113


AT CP Remote Island disposal


Yucca Mountain is the only option for a permanent repository.

Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08,

Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bcThe only site earmarked by Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevadadesert about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste


drags on.


Remote Island Disposal expensive, risks the ocean, they can’t find any suitable islands

and is opposed internationally.

U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)

Scientists looked at burying radioactive waste beneath unpopulated remote islands. Islands that wereconsidered potential candidates lacked valuable resources and were far from large continental landmasses.One drawback to remote island disposal concerned the risks associated with ocean transport. The

potential for opposition from other countries was an additional consideration.





SDI 2008 p. 36 of 113


AT CP Reprocessing instead of repository

CP expensive and dangerous.Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VP

So this strategy is not without precedent. But, as I discuss below, reprocessing is an expensive and

dangerous road to take.

2. Status-Quo solves the CP. Extend our Hipple ’08 evidence from the 1A.C this assumes

Status Quo action indicating that all current, “Incentives,” to do Nuclear Power are failing.

The Plan is, uniquely, key to re-invigorate the Nuclear Industry; this is the internal link to

all of our Advs.

Extend our Bellatoni ’03 evidence from the 1A.C this evidence indicates the re-invigoration

of the Nuclear Industry, via Waste Repositories, is key to prevent proliferation. The Impact

is our Taylor ’02 evidence.

Dry Cast Storage Is the Safest Interim option for Waste ManagementFrank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VP

In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. And even after it is

placed in a geologic repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in the unlikely

event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of

reprocessing exceed the costs and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense nowto rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that

it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.

5. There is a significant TF to the CP. In the Sqou, Reprocessing is a greater RISK than a

Benefit to the Nuclear Industry. Even if the Negative can access a smaller TF than we can,

the probability of reprocessing to be a viable option is, incredibly, low.



SDI 2008 p. 37 of 113


Reprocessing can’t Solve the Waste ProblemsFrank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VP

These drawbacks become strikingly clear when one examines the experiences of the nations that haveembarked on reprocessing programs. In France, the world leader in reprocessing technology, the

separated plutonium (chemically combined with oxygen to form plutonium dioxide) is mixed with

uranium 238 (also as an oxide) to make a “mixed oxide,” or MOX, fuel. After being used to generate

more power, the spent MOX fuel still contains about 70 percent as much plutonium as when it was

manufactured; however, the addition of highly radioactive fission products created inside a reactor

makes this plutonium difficult to access and make into a bomb. The used MOX fuel is shipped back to

the reprocessing facility for indefinite storage. Thus, France is, in effect, using reprocessing to move its

problem with spent fuel from the reactor sites to the reprocessing plant. Japan is following France’sexample. The U.K. and Russia simply store their separated civilian plutonium—about 120 tons between themas of the end of 2005, enough to make 15,000 atom bombs.

Turn Reprocessing causes proliferation.

Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VPThe Element from Hell

Grasping my reasons for rejecting nuclear fuel reprocessing requires nothing more than a rudimentary

understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and a dollop of common sense. Power reactors generate heat—

which makes steam to turn electricity-generating turbines—by maintaining a nuclear chain reaction

that splits (or “fissions”) atoms. Most of the time the fuel is uranium, artificially enriched so that 4 to 5

percent is the chain-reacting isotope uranium 235; virtually all the rest is uranium 238. At an

enrichment of only 5 percent, stolen reactor fuel cannot be used to construct an illicit atom bomb.



SDI 2008 p. 38 of 113


AT CP Reprocessing – it causes proliferation extensions

That leads to Increased ProliferationFrank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear

Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VPIn the reactor, some of the uranium 238 absorbs a neutron and becomes plutonium 239, which is also chain-reactingand can in principle be partially “burned” if it is extracted and properly prepared. This approach has variousdrawbacks, however. One is that extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth. Another isthat Recycling the Plutonium reduces the Waste Problem only minimally. Most important, the separated

plutonium can readily serve to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the, Wong Hands; as a result, much effort

has to be expended to keep it secure until it is once more a part of Sent Fel.



SDI 2008 p. 39 of 113


AT CP Reprocessing – it’s expensive extensions

Reprocessing is expensive

Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 20

08, “Nuclear

Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VPIs there enough physical room to keep them? Yes, there is plenty of space for more casks at U.S. nuclear power

plants. Even the oldest operating U.S. reactors are having their licenses extended for another 20 years, and newreactors will likely be built on the same sites. So there is no reason to think that these storage areas are about

to disappear. Eventually, of course, it will be necessary to remove the spent fuel and put it elsewhere, but

there is no need to panic and adopt a policy of reprocessing, which would only make the situation much

more dangerous and costly than it is today.



SDI 2008 p. 40 of 113


AT CP States


The counterplan can’t offer cradle-to-grave fuel cycle services which undermines anti-

proliferation efforts - the impact to that is extinction.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LCwww.nuclearcompetitiveness.org

During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for

management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation

with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel

and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse

implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the

ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle-to- grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The

ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear

technologies.

Yucca will still be used for military waste which makes all their storage DA’s non-unique.Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump;State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc

The nation has been trying to resolve the issue since the late 1970s. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In his first term, President Bush, with congressional approval, selected Yucca Mountain

as the designated site for what is mostly spent fuel from commercial reactors but also military nuclear

waste. Since then, Nevada has waged an effective legal, political and technical fight against it, drawing onthe state's growing fiscal and political clout.

CP wouldn’t be able to use Yucca Mountain – it’s on federal land. This is a massive

solvency since it would take a long time to get another site approved.

Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science

Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nnaThe physical setting of the proposed YM repository (i.e., in consolidated rocks ~300 meters above thewater table) lends itself to such an approach by permitting ready access to and monitoring of the wastes (themajor assets of surface storage), while isolating them at depth at a single location (the chief asset of geologicdisposal) on remote federal land.

No solvency - Without Yucca no rebirth of nuclear power.

Hertel, professor of nuclear engineering @ Georgia Tech, ’07 (Nolan, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 27, p. A15, twm)

Nuclear waste, or rather the lack of a workable scheme for storing the waste at a central location,

could delay the rebirth of nuclear power simply because Wall Street wants to see some signs of

progress on resolving the waste problem before investing in a new generation of nuclear power plants.

The fact that no new nuclear plants have been built in the United States in years is a threat to all of us.

Nuclear power is needed to help meet the increasing demand for electricity, because it's the only energysource that can provide large amounts of power without emitting carbon dioxide or other global

warming gases. Nuclear power can also reduce our dependence on Middle East oil. It is safe, reliableand affordable. But unless more nuclear plants are built to replace older units and meet growing demand for clean power generation, nuclear power's share of the nation's electricity capacity will fall below its currentlevel of 20 percent. If that happens, the danger is that we will not have a balanced mix of clean energysources to keep electricity costs down. For nuclear power, Yucca Mountain is the key.



SDI 2008 p. 41 of 113


No solvency – the federal government has complete jurisdiction over nuclear waste disposal andso the courts would strike down any attempt by the states to do waste storage. The NRC hasallowed some states to control low level radioactive waste but even that required congressionalapproval which proves the cp links to politics.Kraft, Director Nuclear Energy Information Service, ’98 (David,

http://www.neis.org/literature/Reports&Testimonies/icctest-984.htm, April 24, twm)Recognizing their unique nature, Congress has enacted separate laws for the perpetual storage

("disposal") of these wastes. Jurisdiction over HLRW matters resides with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Department of Energy (DOE). NRC has, with Congress' approval,

bestowed jurisdiction over LLRW matters to "agreement states" which have demonstrated that

methods used in the storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of LLRW are not in contradiction

with federal standards. Illinois is an "agreement state."

Consolidation of nuclear wastes decreases the risk of terrorism – the cp would result in

states all over having waste dumps.

Struglinski ’02 (Suzanne, Enviornment and Energy Daily, Feb. 18, Vol. 10, #9, twmh , p. l/n)

"I want to praise President Bush for keeping the federal government's commitment to electric utility customers

who have invested over $16 billion for the future development of a safe, secure and centralized facility,"Hastert said. "In these times, Americans deserve the peace of mind that spent nuclear fuel will be consolidated

into one secure location rather than scattered across the country in over 130 various sites."

the impact is us lashout killing hundreds of millions

Easterbrook – Fellow at the Brookings Institute – 2001 (Greg, CNN, “America's New War: Nuclear Threats,”11-1-2001, http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html)

EASTERBROOK: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousandsof nuclear weapons pointed at each other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they wererational. They knew that if they struck, they would be struck in turn. Terrorists may not be held by this,especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leaveyou with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefitto the Muslim peoples of the world in addition to members, to people of the United States and WesternEurope, because if an atomic warhead goes off in Washington, say, in the current environment or anythinglike it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs raineddown on every conceivable military target in a dozen Muslim countries. And that -- it is very much in theinterest the Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, inaddition to being in our interests.

or

no state will take it - nimbyNo other subject of regulatory licensing triggers the NIMBY syndrome more than nukes' spent fuel.

Michael Skelly , the Democratic candidate for the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston, told Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next

wave of nuclear generation.

No Solvency advocate – this is a voting issue for reasons of predictability. No requirement

to have evidence gives the negative virtually infinite counterplan options.

Zero solvency - If they don’t have an advocate you should assign their counterplan ZERO

solvency.

http://www.neis.org/literature/Reports&Testimonies/icctest-984.htm

http://www.neis.org/literature/Reports&Testimonies/icctest-984.htm



SDI 2008 p. 42 of 113


The California economy is on the brink because of budget deficits – the plan would force

shortfalls or raising taxes, ensuring there’s no change a budget gets passed

Evan Halper, LA Times, 7-1-2008, “State will pay,” lnLegislators are making little progress closing a $15.2-billion shortfall. Democrats demand new taxes.

Republicans say that is out of the question. Meanwhile, their inability to strike a deal threatens millions

of Californians who rely on the government for healthcare and other services. Budget delays are not

unusual. But the consequences will be particularly harsh this year. Many of the healthcare clinics andother service providers that have used private loans to get by during past budget stalemates are unlikely tohave easy access to such cash this year, as a result of the ongoing credit crunch brought on by themortgage crisis. Independent service providers aren't the only ones that could soon be scraping to findmoney. Short-term bonds that finance officials rely upon to replenish state coffers cannot be sold without a

budget in place, and getting them to market takes at least a month. The state may have to turn to asyndicate of investment banks for short-term financing, on terms that could prove costly, said H.D. Palmer,deputy director of the state Department of Finance. The financing could cost $140 million more than bond

borrowing would have, he said. "In this budget environment," he said," I can think of a lot better uses

for that money." Despite the grim state of affairs at the Capitol, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger andlawmakers Monday played down their failure to get a budget together and the dim prospects of reaching adeal soon. "I don't know at what stage they are in at this time," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference. "Iknow one thing, they are all working. . . . Everyone knows we are short on time. I think everyone knows it

is a complicated, difficult budget." Schwarzenegger, who has been playing only a minor role in budgetdeliberations of late, turned the microphone over to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. "We have been

working," she said. "We spent four hours yesterday working." Democrats in both houses have released budget plans that call for asmuch as $11 billion in new taxes. But so far they have not identified which taxes they would like to raise. Bass demurred again Monday."We will see what happens as the process moves forward this week," she said. The governor later joked about his optimism that the statewill not run out of cash by pulling out a personal money clip full of bills. "I still have some left," he said. Not all Republicans were in

such good spirits. "Until we get to a spot where Democrats realize that taxes are not going to work, it will

be tough to move the budget forward," said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis. Credit

agencies will be watching closely: California has the second-lowest credit rating among states in the

country, and some economists say a downgrade could be coming. The last time the state's creditworthiness wasdowngraded was during the budget crisis of 2003, when its bond ratings fell to nearly junk status. The shortfall lawmakers faced thenwas roughly the size it is now.

California is key to the US economy and they are cutting budgets to save their economy.

Nutting, 11-9-2007, MarketWatch, “Could California be in recession?” lexis, tk The state of California isn't taking any chances. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered state agenciesto plan for a 10% cutback in their budgets for next year, figuring that tax receipts could fall significantlyalong with home prices. California matters to the national economy, but trends in California do notnecessarily presage what will happen nationally. About one in every eight Americans live in California. Its

state gross product was $1.6 trillion in 2005, representing about 13% of the nation's economic output,

slightly more than its 12% share of the population. In 2006, the median household income in Californiawas $54,385, compared with $48,023 nationally. Between 1997 and 2005, California household incomesgrew 4.4% annually, the fourth fastest growing state. Some of that growth came from the technology boom of the late 1990s, and some came from the housing boom, which, in just five years, doubled average home

prices in the state to about $500,000. Now, of course, home prices are falling nationally, but especially inCalifornia. California's economy has a lot going for it. It's incredibly diverse, from the highest of high

tech and Hollywood to the basic old-economy industries of agriculture, retail and manufacturing.

California is by far the biggest farming state, with its annual output nearly three times its nearestcompetitor, Texas. California's agricultural output - nearly 20% of the nation's total -- matches the output of all the Farm Belt states combined. California accounts for about 11% of U.S. manufacturing output by

value and 13% of construction. California accounts for 19% of the country's information services -including media and software. And it contributes 12% of the national output of financial services, trailingonly New York in the financial sector.



SDI 2008 p. 43 of 113


Failure to create a federal repository means the federal government has to pay $300 million

per year for dry casks – the states counterplan doesn’t solve this because it’s a legal

obligation the federal government has to energy companies.

Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University'sProgram on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-recycling&page=5, VP

Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks,

each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel

to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S.

nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses

had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally

planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and

operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.



SDI 2008 p. 44 of 113


AT CP States doesn’t solve proliferation extensions

No solvency for proliferation – the USFG has to take back some waste to ensure conversion

to low-enriched uranium fuels worldwide – the impact to this is extinction.

Glenn Schweitzer and Kelly Robbins, Editors, Committee on Issues in Consolidating Spent Nuclear Fuel at


The United States has maintained a strong program of international cooperation in the area of radioactivewaste management to assist other states in managing their own spent fuel and radioactive waste. For example, U.S. nuclear cooperation committee meetings with Taiwan and the Republic of Korea have

been held for more than 15 and 25 years, respectively, and spent fuel and radioactive waste

management have been on the agenda of most of those meetings. Many states have gained anunderstanding of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) site evaluation methodology and repository science

programs. States, however, should not expect to see the United States giving consideration to takingirradiated U.S.-origin fuel supplied for electricity generation back for storage and/or disposal, in YuccaMountain or elsewhere. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Act of 1978 makes any plan for the return of such fuelsubject to stringent conditions, including submission to Congress, which has the option to reject it.Subsequently, Congress has prohibited the executive branch from even spending money to formulate or review such a plan. Despite U.S. policy against taking back spent nuclear power reactor fuel, the United

States has operated an international spent fuel disposal system of sorts, taking back spent U.S.-origin

research reactor fuel for disposal. This is part of the effort to reduce worldwide use of highly enriched

uranium , an effort that has been successful in encouraging the conversion of most research reactors to

the use of low-enriched uranium fuels. The bulk of spent highly enriched uranium fuel will be

repatriated before the U.S. program ends in 2009. The United States is also working with Russia and theIAEA on a similar program involving the return to Russia of highly enriched uranium fuel and spent fuelfrom exported Soviet-era research reactors.



SDI 2008 p. 45 of 113


AT CP States no jurisdiction extensions

They States are UNABLE to solve; due to a 1959 court case, the state cannot regulate

radiological hazards.

Alden Solovy, The education reporter for the Decatur Herald & Review, He was an Illinois Issues intern this spring

under the Public Affairs Reporting Program at Sangamon State University, 10-24-1980, “Federal preemption of nuclear power regulation”, Illinois Issue, rks, http://www.lib.niu.edu/1980/ii801024.html.THE CONFLICT between state sovereignty and federal supremacy has found another battleground:

regulation of the nuclear power industry. And in cases like Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota thestates haven't fared well. For the past few years the Illinois General Assembly has attempted to passlegislation regulating nuclear power plants and disposal of high level nuclear waste legislation similar to thatstruck down in Northern States. The courts have consistently quashed state attempts to regulate nuclear

power in California, New York, New Jersey and Oklahoma. In 1959 Congress amended the Atomic

Energy Act to clarify those areas of the nuclear power industry which states could regulate. The

amendment allowed "State regulation of activities for purposes other than protection against radiation

hazards." Regulation of radiation hazards was preempted in the amendment, but Congress left the

interpretation of radiation hazards up to the courts. The courts have not set a specific rule of thumb indetermining the difference between radiological hazards (which the states can't regulate) and

nonradiological hazards (which they can). Yet, the courts seem to have established on a case-by-case

basis that any state law or regulation dealing however tangentially with radiological matters is

preempted by the federal government. The Northern States case is probably the leading court test on the preemption question. This 1971 case, heard in the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals and affirmed insummary judgment by the Supreme Court, was over a Minnesota state waste disposal permit which limitedthe level of radioactive discharges (liquid and gaseous) from a nuclear power plant and required specific

programs for detecting radioactive releases. These requirements were more stringent than the federalregulations.



SDI 2008 p. 46 of 113


AT CP States lack of consolidation increases terrorism riskextensions

Consolidation decreases terrorism risk.

Sherman ’02 (Mark, AP Online, April 18, p. l/n)

"There are compelling national interests that require us to complete the siting process and move forward withthe development of a repository as Congress mandated 20 years ago," Abraham wrote in January. He saidincreased unease about terrorist attacks makes it even more important that the nation's radioactive

waste be consolidated.



SDI 2008 p. 47 of 113


AT CP Alternative Energy generic

1. Cant Solve the Advantages --A. Prolif – a strong nuclear power industry is key to asserting influence globally on non-prolif issues – the impact israpid nuclear war and extinctionB. Russia – US must expand its nuclear power capacity in order to foster relationship with Russia – only nuclear

power can foster this framework – the impact is extinctionC. Oil Dependence – Nuclear power is the best option in order to solve this -- impact is nuclear war and all impactsfor extinction

2. Perm: Do Both – there is no reason why we cant use both AE

3. It will take 1200 years for other alternative energies to catch nuclear power CFR , Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KPIt’s a shame this is an online discussion, because surely Michael Mariotte couldn’t have written his remarks with astraight face. You do the math: Nuclear energy annually has provided 20 percent of U.S. electricity supplies

since the early 1990s, and even with a marked increase in overall electricity demand, it constitutes more than

70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or controlled

pollutants into the atmosphere. Renewable energy technologies over that same time period—even withsubsidies like production tax credits in place—have increased their share of U.S. electricity production to 3.1

percent from 2.9 percent. At that rate of growth, it will take renewable technologies another twelve hundred

years just to equal the share of electricity production that nuclear energy has provided since 1992.

4. Nuclear power is comparatively the superior alternative – all the others cant solve our advantagesDaniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nnahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energyNuclear power is green in multiple senses. The most important criteria by which to judge any viable

alternative to petroleum is the magnitude of its contribution to global warming. Well, uranium or petroleum

fission produces no carbon emissions whatsoever, since there is no carbon involved. The cooling process does produce water vapour, but water vapour and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gases in the same sense that Roger Federer and I are both tennis players (and water vapour emissions, moreover, can be controlled). The

environmental downsides of nuclear power are therefore not any more severe than other alternative energysources, such as wind or solar power, and are arguably less severe than biofuels like the ethanol that Obama

heartily supports. These energy sources all entail waste heat, produce solid waste and have other drawbacks -

but the environmental drawbacks of all of them, nukes included, are quite modest. From a fiscal perspective,

nuclear power enjoys enormous advantages over other environmentally friendly energies. At their present stateof technological development, nuclear reactors can already power large industrial societies. Wind and solar

power are not there yet, and biofuels (particularly ethanol) are something of an embarrassing racket, being

extraordinarily inefficient and requiring huge government subsidies to be propped up.

5. Independently, Nuclear energy key to prevent a nuclear holocaustBernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.htmlIf one attempts to develop scenarios that might lead to a major nuclear holocaust, fights over energy

resources such as Middle East oil must be at or near the top of the list. Anything that can give all of the majornations secure energy sources must therefore be viewed as a major deterrent to nuclear war. Reprocessing of

power reactor fuel can provide this energy security, and therefore has an important role in averting a nuclear

holocaust. That positive role of reprocessing is, to most observers, more important than any negative role it

might play in causing such a war through proliferation of nuclear weapons.



SDI 2008 p. 48 of 113


AT DA Coal

1. Non-unique: Nuclear power currently produced within the USM2 PressWIRE March 13, 2008, Research and Markets: Most Comprehensive Report on U.S. Nuclear

Power Plants, Lexis VF

The United States produces the most nuclear energy, with nuclear power providing 20% of theelectricity it consumes, while France produces the highest percentage of its electrical energy fromnuclear reactors - 80% as of 2006. In the European Union as a whole, nuclear energy provides30% of the electricity. Nuclear energy policy differs between European Union countries, andsome, such as Austria and Ireland, have no active nuclear power stations. In comparison, Francehas a large number of these plants, with 16 multi-unit stations in current use. Analysis of the Major

Nuclear Power Plants in the United States takes a view of the overall nuclear power industryworldwide, with an analysis of the basics of nuclear power, and an overview of the nuclear power industry in the United States. The report focuses on the major nuclear power plants in the U.S. -over 75 plants are focused upon in this report.

2. No Link : Our plan won’t cause an immediate decrease in the coal industry. It will not affect themarket for a year or two.

3. No specific link - They do not read a specific link to nuclear energy. They only state that anincrease in alternative energy will lead to a coal industry tradeoff. Any increase in alternativeenergy would lead to the negative’s impacts.

4. No Impact: Extend our Oxford Economics from 2007 that says nuclear energy is key to thesustaining the growth of the United States economy.

5. Nuclear energy boosts the economy

States News Service, July 14, 2008, Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Guiterrez Remarks to DetroitEconomic Club Detroit, Michigan, Lexis VFBut we also need to diversify our sources. Take nuclear power, for example. The last construction

permit for a currently operating nuclear reactor in the United States was approved in 1978 . We getroughly 20 percent of our electricity from nuclear, while France gets more than 80 percent. Buildingnew nuclear power plants will boost our economy. This high-tech industry spurs innovation, has largetrade and investment potential, can assure the retention of high-skilled U.S. manufacturing capacity,and can create or sustain tens of thousands of jobs.

Impact Turn: The current global coal boom will lead to global warming – advancing theindustry is suicide

Jeff Goodell, January 25, 2007, “Big Coal’s Dirty Move”, JaretLK,http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13159559/national_affairs_big_coals_dirty_move

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is "dangerous to

oneself or to one's interests; self-destructive or ruinous." By this standard, the coal boom

that is currently sweeping America is the atmospheric equivalent of a swan dive off avery tall building. At precisely the moment that scientists have reached a consensus that

we need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is

racing to build more than 150 new coal plants across the United States. Coal is by far the

dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dump hundreds of millions of tons

of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come — virtually

guaranteeing that the U.S. will join China in leading civilization's plunge into a

superheated future.



SDI 2008 p. 49 of 113


AT DA Politics they say “plan is unpopular”

Public loves it – environmental benefits and reduced safety fearsWood and McKibbon, 3/23/08 (Susan and Mal, chairwoman of the board of directors for Citizens for Nuclear Technology Awareness in Aiken, S.C.; and the executive director emeritus and a consultant for CNTA, augustachronicle)

A much-needed nuclear power renaissance is sweeping the worldThere is no doubt that a renaissance of nuclear power is under way in the United States and around theworld.The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which licenses and regulates commercial nuclear activities, hasreceived expressions of interest for building 32 new reactors. They have received four license applications for combined construction and operation, and several utilities have submitted Early Site Permits, including Southern

Nuclear (Georgia Power) and Duke Power. Many countries are building new reactors or plan to, including Canada,Brazil, England, France, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Finland, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and others.

The reason is clear. People have become aware that for several decades, nuclear power has had an incredibly

good record of safety, environmental protection and low costs, and everyone wants a way to produce

electricity that does not pollute. A wise person once said, "Facts are stubborn things." Here are some pertinentfacts:* Safety. No one has died from the radiation from power reactors, spent fuel or radioactive waste except in theChernobyl accident, which could not happen anywhere else - yet the only competitors of nuclear power, coal and

natural gas, each cause several thousand deaths each year, worldwide, from coal-mining accidents, gas explosionsand fires. Also, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have estimated that 30,000 people die prematurelyeach year in the United States from the emissions of coal-powered plants. Nuclear is safer by a huge margin, andthe next generation of nuclear plants, already being built, will be even safer.* Environment. The outstanding environmental record of nuclear power plants is becoming legendary. Theyhave no emissions that make acid rain, smog, global warming, ozone depletion or heavy-metal pollution. Many

professional environmentalists and ecologists support nuclear power. A partial list includes: Dr. Patrick Moore, founder and past president of Greenpeace; Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalogue; JamesLovelock, considered the founder of the environmental movement; Anglican Bishop Hugh Montefiore; Friends of the Earth; and Jonathan Lash, president of the World Resources Institute.Global warming is indeed occurring, and the principal human contributor is carbon dioxide released into theatmosphere from the burning of trees, coal, oil, and gas. Fortunately, we can do something about that withoutreducing our standard of living by going to nuclear production of electricity and using hydrogen for transportation. It is likely that the cheapest way to make hydrogen will be in nuclear plants.* Cost. The operating cost for making electricity in nuclear plants is lower than any of its competitors. In 2006,nuclear plant operating cost in the United States averaged 1.72 cents per kilowatt-hour, coal 2.37, natural gas 6.75and oil 9.63. Since then, the cost advantage of nuclear over coal has grown in part because coal plants arespending money to reduce their emissions. If construction costs are included, nuclear is already competitive, andis expected to gain an advantage as the price of new nuclear plants comes down, and the cost and time to getlicenses is reduced.* Public support. Americans have become aware of these advantages, and are supportive of nuclear power.

Several national polls show that 68 to 70 percent of adult Americans support building more to meet our growing need for electricity. Support among people living near existing nuclear plants is 87 percent, and

among college graduates with a technical degree is 85 percent.



SDI 2008 p. 50 of 113


Global warming concerns have made nuclear power popular.

Tribune Business News ’08 (9 Jul, Dee DePass, Financial and Political reporter for the Tribune Business News, “An enriched opportunity for Alliant: As the appeal of nuclear power grows, Alliant Techsystems is set to become a key player”, AB, Proquest)The 'clear' in nuclear power ATK's foray into nuclear energy comes at an opportune time. After accidents at

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island put nuclear power in the hot seat, the idea of nuclear's carbon-neutral

energy production has found favor again amid worries about global warming.

Majority of American public supports nuclear energyBisconti, 2006 (Ann Stouffer, Ph.D. and President of Bisconti Research Inc., “Clear Majority of Americans Agree

Nuclear Energy Will Play Important Future Role in Electricity Supply”, May)There is a consensus among Americans that nuclear energy will play an important role in meeting the

nation’s electricity needs in the years ahead, according to two March national public opinion surveys

conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with GfK NOP (formerly NOPWorld and RoperASW). Eighty-six percent

of the public and 88 percent of college graduate voters agree that nuclear energy will play an important role

in meeting future electricity demand. Majorities also support license renewal for existing nuclear power

plants and “definitely building” new nuclear power plants. Seventy-three percent of Americans would find itacceptable to add a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear power plant site. The Nuclear Energy Institutesponsored the two surveys. The general public survey was based on telephone interviews with a nationally

representative sample of 1,000 U.S. adults age 18 and older. The margin of error in this survey was plus or minusthree percentage points. A national sample of 500 college graduates who are registered to vote also was surveyed,with a margin of error of plus or minus five percentage points.

Congress supports dry cask storage.Whitney ’08, staff writer, McClatchy Newspapers, Lexis, tk.

At a House Science and Technology Committee hearing Wednesday, expansion of nuclear power was viewedas an opportunity. Gone are the days when lawmakers questioned the safety of reactor technology. Evenamong those for whom waste is an issue, there is a high comfort level with storing used fuel in dry casks for decades at the reactor sites while a more comprehensive solution is studied.



SDI 2008 p. 51 of 113


AT DA Politics they say “plan is popular”

Yucca mountain is a key issue for Nevada voters – they oppose it stronglyLas Vegas Review-Journal, Nov. 28, 2007, “Poll finds Nevada voters strongly oppose Yucca, Survey shows76 percent are against nuclear waste project”, JaretLK, http://www.lvrj.com/news/11882701.html ellipses in originalRENO -- Nevada voters remain overwhelmingly opposed to federal plans to store the nation's nuclear waste at

Yucca Mountain, according to a statewide poll published Tuesday. The survey of 600 likely Nevada votersconducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal found that 76 percent oppose the project and 57 percent say the issue

will be important in making their choice for president. The survey also found that opposition to the project

crosses party lines, but Democrats think it's a more important issue in the presidential election than

Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Democrats said the issue is important to them in the presidential race,

compared with 38 percent of Republicans. The poll was conducted Nov. 16-19 by Maryland-based Research2000. The margin of error is 4 percent. "From a national perspective, any campaign that wants to win the

hearts and minds of Nevada voters has to be prepared to talk about long-term radioactive storage," said GOPstrategist Greg Ferraro of Reno. "These numbers will also force the candidates to look at alternatives for the

waste." Yucca Mountain has gained more attention from presidential candidates since Nevada moved up its

presidential caucuses to Jan. 19, following Iowa on Jan. 3 and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. Nevada's

congressional delegation is adamantly opposed to the project. Congress in 2002 picked the Yucca Mountain siteabout 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas to entomb 77,000 tons of spent nuclear reactor fuel. Political analysts said

the issue's importance in presidential elections has been questionable. They cite President Bush's ability to carry Nevada in 2004, despite his support of the Yucca Mountain site. "Yucca Mountain is not going to swing it for themfrom one candidate to another," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno."Among Democrats, this is a far more salient issue. There is no nuance allowed. ... Republicans, even those

who are opposed to Yucca Mountain, are not as adamant as are the Democrats," he said. Every Democratic presidential candidate has come out against Yucca Mountain, but Rep. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate tocome out strongly against it. The Department of Energy is preparing a license application to the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission to construct the project.

Yucca is one of the nation’s biggest political disputes.Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump;State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc

The dump has become one of the biggest geographic disputes in modern U.S. history, pitting Nevada against

a nuclear power industry centered in the East. California's two senators, as well as others in the West, havesupported Nevada's opposition to the dump.

Empirically, introducing Yucca causes political controversy.Alexander Duncan,12-10-07, Electric Utility Week, Climate bill wins crucial approval, sending measure on toaction by Senate next year, lexis, bc

The Isakson package would have clarified federal loan guarantee language to facilitate new projects,eliminated the mandatory adjudicatory hearing for uncontested nuclear power plant license applications,encouraged policies to develop a skilled workforce to build nuclear reactors and provided tax incentives for new construction of nuclear plants. Boxer, a noted nuclear skeptic, said she would consider the nuclear issues on the floor. Yet overall she decried these and other Republican "killer amendments" designed to

fracture the "delicate balance" in her committee. "I don't think we want to bring Yucca Mountain into

this," she said. "That would sink this bill pretty fast." Long-time nuclear advocate and bill cosponsor Lieberman said that carbon caps would be plenty to help the industry. "You've got to set the goal, and

American innovation will meet them," he said. Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware, also plans tooffer an amendment on the Senate floor aimed at giving emission allowances to nuclear and renewable

plants.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/11882701.html





SDI 2008 p. 52 of 113


AT DA Politics they say “Plan costs political capital”

alternative energy builds political capital

McGinnis 08 [Michael P. McGinnis, Staff Writer, “Inland Views; Bush Can Still Salvage His Energy Legacy”,

The Press Enterprise, 06/25/08, LexisNexis]There is plenty of room for criticism in the handling of the wars, and undoubtedly, it will be discussed in great detail for

many years to come. But I feel that Bush's greatest failure will be his energy policy, or moreprecisely, the lack of a cohesive energy policy. In his final months as a lame-duck president, Bush

still has one deadly weapon: the veto. Our president makes no bones about being an oilman, and it's no great secret thatoil money has played a role throughout his presidency. Bush is blatantly pandering to big oil by threatening to veto any

action by Congress to remove oil-industry tax breaks and use those funds to further the development of alternative fuels. This would undoubtedly be the crowning touch to an ignobleadministration. We have an energy crisis. There is no doubt that we are a great nation that is full of rich resources

and a tremendous wealth of brainpower. We have demonstrated time and again our "can-do" attitude. So why do we insiston an energy policy that depends on foreign oil and the utilization of food crops to augment our fuel supply? We aresubsidizing every gallon of ethanol produced in this country and placing a tariff on every gallon imported to protect this

boondoggle. Some California utilities are showing leadership, such as Southern California Edison's commitment to alarge-scale solar energy installation, which will exceed 250 megawatts. Additionally, Edison will be involved in one of the

largest wind turbine parks with the Tehachapi wind project. This is the kind of leadership that mustcome from our president and Congress. We must have a viable national energy policy with clearly

defined goals. We need to develop our vast coal reserves; and yes, we have the technology to make coal energy cleaner.But, as always, it is expensive to make a clean-burning fuel. Nuclear generation looks interesting, but only if we canresolve the problem with the disposal of spent fuel. Unfortunately, the free ride with cheap energy is over, but as I see it,solar energy is the Holy Grail, the panacea for our future. It's not cheap (yet), but the price is dropping and newtechnologies are coming forth. The amount of money going to an exceedingly wealthy industry (big oil) could be better

spent on developing more efficient alternative fuels. Bush can still shape his presidential legacy ina positive way by just doing the right thing to establish a viable energy policy thatlessens our dependence on oil.



SDI 2008 p. 53 of 113


AT DA Politics Obama Good – Iran scenario

1. Mccain will win – hillary defectors, independents and latin voters

Perce, 7-3-08 (Joseph, Editor @ Political Bull,http://www.politicalbull.net/why_i_believe_mccain_will_win_the_election.html)

Help for McCain will come from former Clinton supporters that will come to his side during the November Election. According to a recent article on CBS News, "Twelve percent of Democrats say theywill support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected toPresident Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of

Obama in the general election". The same article goes on to point out that McCain leads Obama by 8 votesamong registered Independent voters. Two other important factors to consider in November are the Latinovote and the vote from the so-called "Red States". Despite claims that Obama is making in-roads in the RedStates, the numbers seem to prove otherwise. Obama has won 14 red states and over half of them have notvoted for a Democrat to be president in the general election in over 40 years, according to an article on theWashington Post. The article states, "Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 campaign was the last Democrat who wonAlaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed aDemocratic presidential candidate sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri(1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa (2000)." Obama will certainly have a tough time getting a majority of

the Latino vote as well, as the Florida primary exemplifies (Despite the fact that it was not counted).Ultimately, it is my opinion for the reasons stated above, that McCain will win the 2008 election.

2. Storage is very controversial.

Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energy-

partnership/?searchterm=legislateRADIOACTIVE WASTE Establishing interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for nuclear

waste has been a protracted and controversial issue in the US and it is a long way from resolution. Thewaste management problems could jeopardise plans to build new reactors. The US House Committee (2006)questions whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would licence new reactors in the absence of a clear disposal path for spent fuel, and notes that DOE's response is to seek legislation eliminating the availabilityof disposal space in a permanent repository as a consideration for the NRC in licensing new reactors. The

Committee argues that attempting to "legislate away" the waste problem is not a responsible course of action.The estimated opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada has been pushed back to 2017

— initially it was planned to be in operation in 1998.

3. Turn - Nuclear power is still a hot button issue.

Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bcIt's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new

facilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accidentat Three Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since

then.



SDI 2008 p. 54 of 113


Turn - Public opinion changing is changing. Support for alternate energy and emission

limits are declining.

Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom aboutglobal warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but

telling shift in public opinion.Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energyand environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climatechange.

None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused mediaand government studies for considerable time.However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, twonews outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning

basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way.Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" onthe newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site.In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over GlobalWarming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation

and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful."Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growingchorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approachyields, it will be too little and come too late," the Times said.

McCain’s hardline stance is limited to sanctions – he does not want a military strike

Rosen 7-9-08. (James, Washington Correspondent, “America’s Election Headquarters for July 9, 2008”, Fox News Network, lexis)

ROSEN: To that, John McCain, the likely Republican nominee said, "Channels of communication have beenopened and will remain open." I would continue to quote McCain, "but the time has now come for effective

sanctions on Iran which will then," McCain said, "or can have a modifying effect on their very aggressive

behavior." To be clear about this, E.D., neither Democrat Barack Obama nor Republican John McCain

presently advocates a military strike on Iran, which is also why they are suspected of developing a nuclear

weapons capability - - E.D.

6. Iraq empirically denies their impacts – all of their impacts say what other countries

would do if we attacked a country in the middle east which we have already done.



SDI 2008 p. 55 of 113


AT DA Politics Obama good – Global Gag Rule Scenario

McCain will win – Hillary defectors, independents, red states and Latin votersPerce, 7/3/08 (Joseph, Editor @ Political Bull,

http://www.politicalbull.net/why_i_believe_mccain_will_win_the_election.html)

Help for McCain will come from former Clinton supporters that will come to his side during the November

Election. According to a recent article on CBS News, "Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support

McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general

election". The same article goes on to point out that McCain leads Obama by 8 votes among registered

Independent voters. Two other important factors to consider in November are the Latino vote and the vote

from the so-called "Red States". Despite claims that Obama is making in-roads in the Red States, the

numbers seem to prove otherwise. Obama has won 14 red states and over half of them have not voted for a

Democrat to be president in the general election in over 40 years, according to an article on the Washington Post.The article states, "Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 campaign was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas,

Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate

sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa(2000)." Obama will certainly have a tough time getting a majority of the Latino vote as well, as the Florida

primary exemplifies (Despite the fact that it was not counted). Ultimately, it is my opinion for the reasons statedabove, that McCain will win the 2008 election.

Polls are wrong – electoral votes favor McCain

MONTOPOLI 6/25/06 [BRIAN political correspondent, CBS NEWShttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/25/politics/horserace/entry4207063.shtml]Obama is no Dukakis: The Illinois senator is a far more charismatic campaigner, and will not take the sort of timeoff from running for president that Dukakis disastrously did in 1988. And as Power Line points out, June polls have

become far more predictive of final results since Dukakis’ failed run. But even now, McCain’s chances may be

better than these early national polls suggest: CBS News chief political consultant Marc Ambinder examined

the general election map Friday and found that between base states and those leaning towards McCain, the

Arizona senator could claim 220 electoral votes. Obama could claim 212.



SDI 2008 p. 56 of 113


Obama Will lose – Iraq flip flop dooms him – 3 reasons

Telegraph, 7/4/08Senator Barack Obama has rushed to clarify his position on the Iraq War after he appeared to wobble

on a commitment to withdraw US ground troops within 16 months, a central plank of his candidacy.

The Democratic presidential nominee used a press conference to say that the timetable was not set in stoneand that he would adjust his plans based on conditions on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month. On

his website, Mr Obama promises he "will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months". But he told journalists in North Dakota that those

policies could be "refined" in the light of what he finds in Iraq. "I've always said the pace of withdrawalwould be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability," he said. "WhenI go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have moreinformation and will continue to refine my policies." The comments were immediately seized upon by his

rival, Republican Senator John McCain, a supporter of the Iraq War who has taunted Mr Obama over hisfailure to visit Iraq for more than two years. Brian Rogers, a spokesman for Mr McCain, said: “Sinceannouncing his campaign in 2007, the central premise of Barack Obama’s candidacy was his commitment to

begin withdrawing American troops from Iraq immediately. Today, Barack Obama reversed that position proving once again that his words do not matter. "Now that Barack Obama has changed course and provenhis past positions to be just empty words, we would like to congratulate him for accepting John McCain’s

principled stand on this critical national security issue. "If he had visited Iraq sooner or actually had a one-

on-one meeting with General (David) Petraeus, he would have changed his position long ago.” The chargestung Mr Obama into a swift response. He held a second press conference just a few hours later to clarify hiscomments. He accused the McCain camp of suggesting "we were changing our policy when we haven't"."I've given no indication of a change in policy. I intend to end this war. That position has not changed. I havenot equivocated on that position. I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position," Mr.Obama said. The charge that he is changing his mind is toxic for three reasons. It allows Mr McCain

to argue that he, not Mr. Obama, has a better understanding of what now needs to be done in Iraq.

Secondly, it gives Republicans evidence to use to depict Mr. Obama as just another cynical politician

prepared to change his position to win votes. Finally, any shift on Iraq risks alienating the left-wing of

his own party, who have grown uneasy at some more moderate positions he has struck in recent weeks.

link turn - Storage is very controversial.

Jim Green, National nuclear campaigner - Friends of the Earth, Australia, 2007-05-29, “US-led Global Nuclear

Energy Partnership”, jlk, http://www.foe.org.au/campaigns/anti-nuclear/issues/power/us-led-global-nuclear-energy- partnership/?searchterm=legislateRADIOACTIVE WASTE Establishing interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for nuclear

waste has been a protracted and controversial issue in the US and it is a long way from resolution. Thewaste management problems could jeopardise plans to build new reactors. The US House Committee (2006)questions whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would licence new reactors in the absence of a clear disposal path for spent fuel, and notes that DOE's response is to seek legislation eliminating the availabilityof disposal space in a permanent repository as a consideration for the NRC in licensing new reactors. TheCommittee argues that attempting to "legislate away" the waste problem is not a responsible course of action.The estimated opening date for the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada has been pushed back to 2017

— initially it was planned to be in operation in 1998.

Turn - Nuclear power is still a hot button issue.

Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bcIt's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two new

facilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accidentat Three Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since

then.



SDI 2008 p. 57 of 113


Turn - Public opinion changing is changing. Support for alternate energy and emission

limits are declining.

Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom aboutglobal warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but

telling shift in public opinion.Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energyand environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climatechange.

None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused mediaand government studies for considerable time.However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, twonews outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning

basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way.Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" onthe newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site.In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over GlobalWarming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation

and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful."Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growingchorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approachyields, it will be too little and come too late," the Times said.

Case turns the DA prolif causes war which would be way more devastating to the

environment.

Internationally, women won’t choose abortion – they prefer large numbers of children for

subsistence and health careMargaret in 6

Non-Profit teacher and Social Worker, September 17, Living Economies, googleShiva also explains that overpopulation is the direct result of the scarcity of resources. This is another commonmisconception that I hear, that if people could only get affordable access to birth control, overpopulation would besolved. Access to family planning services is a human right, I agree. However, in many cases, impoverished "Third

World" families are actually engaging in family planning, just with different goals and results. In some cases, inorder for a family to survive they must "plan" for a certain number of children to contribute labor. In addition, withthe absence of adequate health care and social security, "an Indian woman has to produce six children to ensure atleast one son will survive to take care of her and her husband when she is 60." This is not unique to India.



SDI 2008 p. 58 of 113


AFF turns the DA - Global warming causes species loss that’s our 1ac evidence from Henderson ’05 – it says globalwarming will cause “the extinction of almost every existing species.”

And, WARMING KILLS AT LEAST 50 PERCENT OF ALL SPECIESLynas 7Mark, Environmental Activist, Educational focus on Politics and History, Six Degrees, pg. 177



SDI 2008 p. 59 of 113


Fertility is low nowLindsay in 5

Jeff, Is Human Population Really the Problem?, Corporate Patent Strategist, PhD in Chemical Engineering,http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml

A remarkable phenomenon has been observed in the past two centuries: a sustained decline in fertility, yieldinglong-term reductions in family size in many countries, particularly in Europe. But in the past few decades the trendhas also been seen on other countries like Japan, Cyprus, Puerto Rico and Costa Rica (Nicholas Eberstadt,"Population, Food, and Income: Global Trends in the Twentieth Century," in The True State of the Planet, ed. RonaldBailey, New York: The Free Press, 1995, pp. 7-47, esp. pp. 15-16). Total fertility rate (TFR ), the average number of

births per woman during childbearing years, has been tracked by the United Nations and shows a consistent declinein the past few decades for both developed and less developed countries. Around 1950 TFR was around 5, but by1995 dropped to about 3 -- a 40% decline (Eberstadt, pp. 18-19). Some countries have TFR rates below thereplacement level of 2.1, so that the population of those countries is currently shrinking (this is true of sixty-onecountries according to the article "Total Fertility Rates" at Overpopulation.com). In fact, officials at the PopulationDivision of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in the United Nations have expressed concern over theimplications of the low fertility rates, as discussed by Austin Russe in the online article, "United Nations WarnsAbout Declining Population." The UN report can be found athttp://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/migration/migration.htm. See also "U.N. Study Ends OverpopulationFears."

Population is declining nowBrand in 5

Environmental Heresies, Stewart, http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/14406/page1/Take population growth. For 50 years, the demographers in charge of human population projections for theUnited Nations released hard numbers that substantiated environmentalists' greatest fears about indefiniteexponential population increase. For a while, those projections proved fairly accurate. However, in the 1990s,the U.N. started taking a closer look at fertility patterns, and in 2002, it adopted a new theory that shockedmany demographers: human population is leveling off rapidly, even precipitously, in developed countries,with the rest of the world soon to follow. Most environmentalists still haven't got the word. Worldwide,

birthrates are in free fall. Around one-third of countries now have birthrates below replacement level (2.1children per woman) and sinking. Nowhere does the downward trend show signs of leveling off. Nationsalready in a birth dearth crisis include Japan, Italy, Spain, Germany, and Russia -- whose population is now inabsolute decline and is expected to be 30 percent lower by 2050. On every part of every continent and inevery culture (even Mormon), birthrates are headed down. They reach replacement level and keep ondropping. It turns out that population decrease accelerates downward just as fiercely as population increaseaccelerated upward, for the same reason. Any variation from the 2.1 rate compounds over time.



SDI 2008 p. 60 of 113


Gag rule is toothless – pro-abortion groups can still receive funding via huge loopholesFreddoso 03. (David, political reporter for Evans and Novak Inside Report and Capital Hill commentator,“Abortion Groups Can Circumvent Mexico City Policy”, Human Events Online, April 17, lexis)

International family planning groups have discovered a huge loophole in the policy that is supposed to

prevent them from getting U.S. tax dollars. The "Mexico City" policy -a Reagan directive revived by President

Bush to keep foreign aid out of the hands of abortion providers and promoters-has developed such enormousloopholes it is now practically meaningless, say congressional pro-lifers. Last October, ten conservativecongressmen, including Reps. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) and Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.), decried the ineffectual policy.The congressmen signed a letter to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) citing a grantof $65 million to a program run by the Population Council, the group that holds the patent on the abortion drug RU-486. A spokesman for USAID-the government's main foreign aid arm-agreed that abortion groups, while following

the strict letter of the Mexico City rule, can continue to collect government money without substantially

changing their activities. The Mexico City policy forbids U.S. foreign aid designated for "family planning" fromgoing to groups that provide or promote abortions. However, the policy does not prevent abortion groups fromcollecting other kinds of federal grants. Population Action International (PAI) has published a 16-page bookletinstructing groups on how to circumvent the Mexico City policy (it is available on that PAI's website). PAI, whichsays it does not receive government funding, seeks to promote international family-planning NGOs-helping them tohelp themselves to federal money. Their booklet, "What You Need to Know about the Global Gag Rule Restrictions:the Unofficial Guide," explains that simply by altering its stated mission from "family planning" to other terms thatcover the same activities a group can get U.S. tax dollars. For example, if a group says it does "birth spacing"

instead of "family planning," or if it refers to condom distribution as "HIV prevention," it ceases to be a

"family planning" operation and falls outside the Mexico City policy. Reagan's Original Intent The booklet alsonotes that while groups that receive family planning funds cannot lobby foreign governments for certain abortionlaws, "eligibility for USAID support is not jeopardized merely by participating in research that others may use inadvancing abortion law reform." Thus abortion groups can continue to receive federal funds while advocating,

referring and performing abortions overseas. "I think that you're saying is very true. It's all about how you package it," PAI spokeswoman Kimberly Cline told HUMAN EVENTS when asked about her group's booklet.USAID spokesman Alfonso Aguilar agreed with PAI's analysis, telling HUMAN EVENTS that these groups cancontinue to collect tax dollars by repackaging their family planning activities as "AIDS prevention" or "child health"activities. "Yes, I would say that's right," he said. "The Mexico City policy applies only to family planning funding."Last week, conservatives called on the Bush administration to correct the situation by strengthening the Mexico Cityrules. They are especially worried that funds from the President's planned $15 billion program to alleviate AIDS in

Africa might go to abortion groups.



SDI 2008 p. 61 of 113


Empirically proven there is no impact to species loss – they are redundant and won’t

collapse the ecosystem

Davidson 00 [Carlos, Conservation biologist with background in economics Economic Growth and theEnvironment: Alternatives to the Limits Paradigm 5-1]

Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit to human population and the economy. A wave of species extinctions is

occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988, 1992, Reid and Miller 1989). Thedecline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans. Is

biodiversity loss a case of limits, as suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation withlocal tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of species by itself that is the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the speciesloss. But it is unclear that biodiversity loss will lead to ecosystem collapse. Research in this area is still

in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies are mixed. Some studies show a positiverelationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosy stem function, such as the rate of nitrogen cycling(Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown

1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional species are redundant

in terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994),in which loss of some species reduces some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others mayincrease that aspect of ecosystem function. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is

undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry metaphor provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread pulled from the tapestry. With each thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of somespecies may lead to local tears. Although everything is linked to everything else, ecosystems are not

delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I

study California frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances

signal some as yet unknown threat to humans (the miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs

themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The situation is the same for most rare

organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black

toad (Bufoexsul) were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study

would be unlikely to reveal ecosystem changes. To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselvesthat count, not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.



SDI 2008 p. 62 of 113


Even if you win a risk of ecosystem collapse, the time frame is incredibly long

The San Francisco Chronicle 01 [7-26 lexis]The collapse of ecosystems often occur over a long period. In one example, when Aleut hunters killed

the Alaskan sea otter about 2,500 years ago, the population of their natural prey, the sea urchin, grew

larger than its normal size. In turn, the urchins grazed down the kelp forests, important habitat for a wholehost of ocean life. Then, when fur traders in the 1800s hunted the otters and sea cows almost to

extinction, the kelp forests disappeared and didn't start to regenerate until the federal governmentprotected the sea otters in the 20th century. In California, the diversity of spiny lobsters, sheephead fishand abalone kept down the urchin numbers. At present in Alaska, the kelp beds are declining again in

areas where killer whales are preying on sea otters. Biologists think the killer whales switched to otters

for food because there are fewer seals and sea lions to eat.



SDI 2008 p. 63 of 113


AT DA Politics Obama good – Global Gag Rule Scenario species losswon’t cause extinction extensions

Species extinction won't cause human extinction – humans and the environment are

adaptable.

Doremus 00. [Holly, Professor of Law at UC Davis Washington & Lee Law Review, "The Rhetoric and Realityof Nature Protection: Toward a New Discourse," 57 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 11]

In recent years, this discourse frequently has taken the form of the ecological horror story. That too isno mystery. The ecological horror story is unquestionably an attention-getter, especially in the hands of skilled writers [*46] like Carson and the Ehrlichs. The image of the airplane earth, its wings wobbling asrivet after rivet is carelessly popped out, is difficult to ignore. The apocalyptic depiction of an impending

crisis of potentially dire proportions is designed to spur the political community to quick action .

Furthermore, this story suggests a goal that appeals to many nature lovers: that virtually everything must be protected. To reinforce this suggestion, tellers of the ecological horror story often imply that the relativeimportance of various rivets to the ecological plane cannot be determined. They offer reams of data anddozens of anecdotes demonstrating the unexpected value of apparently useless parts of nature. The moth thatsaved Australia from prickly pear invasion, the scrubby Pacific yew, and the downright unattractive leech areamong the uncharismatic flora and fauna who star in these anecdotes. n211 The moral is obvious: because

we cannot be sure which rivets are holding the plane together, saving them all is the only sensiblecourse. Notwithstanding its attractions, the material discourse in general, and the ecological horror story in

particular, are not likely to generate policies that will satisfy nature lovers. The ecological horror storyimplies that there is no reason to protect nature until catastrophe looms. The Ehrlichs' rivet-popper account,for example, presents species simply as the (fungible) hardware holding together the ecosystem. If we could

be reasonably certain that a particular rivet was not needed to prevent a crash, the rivet-popper story suggeststhat we would lose very little by pulling it out. Many environmentalists, though, would disagree. n212Reluctant to concede such losses, tellers of the ecological horror story highlight how close a catastrophemight be, and how little we know about what actions might trigger one. But the apocalyptic vision is less

credible today than it seemed in the 1970s. Although it is clear that the earth is experiencing a mass

wave of extinctions, n213 the complete elimination of life on earth seems unlikely. n214 Life is

remarkably robust. Nor is human extinction probable any time soon. Homo sapiens is adaptable to

nearly any environment. Even if the world of the future includes far fewer species, it likely will hold

people. n215 One response to this credibility problem tones the story down a bit, arguing not that

humans will go extinct but that ecological disruption will bring economies, and consequently

civilizations, to their knees. n216 But this too may be overstating the case. Most ecosystem functions

are performed by multiple species. This functional redundancy means that a high proportion of species

can be lost without precipitating a collapse.

Species loss won’t risk extinction – no credible reason it will snowball

Sagoff – 1997 [Mark, Pew Scholar in Conservation and the Environment and past President of the InternationalSociety of Environmental Ethics “Do we consume too much?” The Atlantic Monthly, June]

There is no credible argument, moreover, that all or even most of the species we are concerned to protect

are essential to the functioning of the ecological systems on which we depend. (If whales went extinct,

for example, the seas would not fill up with krill.) David Ehrenfeld, a biologist at Rutgers University,

makes this point in relation to the vast ecological changes we have already survived. "Even a mighty

dominant like the American chestnut," Ehrenfeld has written, "extending over half a continent, all butdisappeared without bringing the eastern deciduous forest down with it." Ehrenfeld points out that the

species most likely to be endangered are those the biosphere is least likely to miss. "Many of these

species were never common or ecologically influential; by no stretch of the imagination can we make

them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine."



SDI 2008 p. 64 of 113


Only a small number of species are needed – your concerns of extinction are exaggerated.

Kimbrell 02 [Andrew, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and the Center for Food Safety , The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, p. 83-4]

There is a second practical problem with assigning value to biological diversity. In a chapter called “The

Conservation Dileema” in my book The Arrogance of Humanism, I discuss the problem of what I callnonresources. The sad fact that few conservationists care to face is that many species, perhaps most,

probably do not have any conventional value at all, even hidden conventional value. True, we cannot besure which particular species fall into this category, but it is hard to deny that a great many of them do. Andunfortunately, the species whose members are the fewest in number, the rarest, the most narrowly

distributed – in short, the ones most likely to become extinct – are obviously the ones least likely to be

missed by the biosphere. Many of these species were never common or ecologically influential; by no

stretch of the imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine. If theCalifornia condor disappears forever from the California hills, it will be a tragedy. But don’t expect thechaparral to die, the redwoods to wither, the San Andreas Fault to open up, or even the California touristindustry to suffer – they won’t.So it is with plants. We do not know how many species are needed to keep the planet green and healthy,

but it seems very unlikely to be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now.





SDI 2008 p. 66 of 113


America’s maverick refusal to sign LOST undermines multilaterism

Chayes ‘8, Antonia, Summer 2008, professor of International Politics and Law at Tufts University,“How American Treaty Behavior Threatens National Security”, International Security Magazine, Lexis. tk American treaty behavior is no longer an esoteric subject. Many people outside legal, academic, anddiplomatic circles have taken notice, and what they observe does not reflect well upon the United States.America has been both lauded and criticized for its exceptionalism in the past. But even America's staunchest

allies are concerned by behavior that goes beyond a superpower's notion of entitlement to special treatment.There is bewilderment at the inconsistency and unreliability that seem to characterize the United States'attitude and actions toward international agreements. On such fundamental issues as nuclear proliferation,terrorism, human rights, civil liberties, environmental disasters, and commerce, the United States hasgenerated both confusion and anger abroad. Such a climate is not conducive to needed cooperation in theconduct of foreign and security policy. Americans regard themselves as law-abiding and chide others whoare not. But to many in the world, the highly visible deviations from international legal obligations by theUnited States, such as failing to pay UN dues and attacking a nation without UN approval, are signs of lawlessness. Refusal to accept agreements that most other nations regard as important--such as the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), prohibition against the use of land mines, goals andtimetables to slow climate change, and protection of the rights of the child--are viewed, incorrectly perhaps,as a disregard for international law. Historically, failure to join the rest of the world in the League of Nationsor to break agreements with Native American tribes--nations within U.S. borders--had little impact on U.S.security. Today American treaty behavior serves neither the national interest nor American security. CurrentU.S. treaty behavior is anachronistic in an era of globalization and interdependence. It denies Americans theinternational support required to resolve critical global and regional problems. The United States has long

been ambivalent in its attitude toward international agreements; both leader and laggard. It exhorts others tochange their behavior in international law but hedges American acquiescence with delays and conditions.Today this attitude has hardened into near contempt for the law of nations. Ironically, the exhortation of other nations to change their ways continues unabated. But to the rest of the world, it sounds like hypocrisy. Untilnow, this American behavior has sought justification in the U.S. constitutional system. Now, however, thevery constitution and domestic laws on which American treaty behavior relied seem to be undermined by thesame contempt and arrogance that has pervaded U.S. attitudes toward international law. Although the UnitedStates remains the world's sole superpower, the inconvenient fact is that it can neither accomplish its goalsnor function effectively in this "flattened" world without the lubricant of dependable, cooperativeinternational treaty behavior. Time is running out.

A lack of multilateralism leads to nuke war—look at the Cold WarIgnatius ‘7, staff writer, Washington Post, May 7, “New World Disorder”, Lexis. tk

After the Iraq debacle, nearly everyone seems to agree that "unilateralism" in foreign policy is a bad thing.Leading the march of born-again multilateralists is Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has beenmeeting with representatives of Syria, Iran and several dozen other nations in the hope that they can apply acollective tourniquet to Iraq, where America's go-it-alone approach is failing. The "neighbors" meeting is anexample of the kind of cooperative problem solving that everyone favors in theory. The difficulty is thatnobody today has any real experience with how a genuinely multilateral system might work. And the moreyou think about it, the more potential obstacles you begin to see in the passage from unilateral hell tomultilateral heaven. The nuclear strategist Herman Kahn pondered this problem in a 1983 essay on"multipolarity and stability." Kahn made his name by "thinking about the unthinkable" -- namely, theconsequences of nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union. But he recognized that the

bipolar world of the Cold War had an inherent stability. The two superpowers understood the rules of the

game, and because the dangers of conflict were so great, they learned to discipline themselves and their respective allies. A multipolar world eventually would be stable, too, Kahn argued. He hypothesized that by2000, there would be seven economic giants -- the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany,France and Brazil -- and that they would gradually work out orderly rules.







SDI 2008 p. 69 of 113


No Impact – Low oil prices will not affect Russia - they have shielded themselves from price

decline and diversified their economy.

Belfast Telegraph, Mary Dejevsky, "Russia will not cut oil and gas production, Putin says" September

17, 2007 lexisMr Putin was answering questions from foreign Russia-watchers at his summer residence near the southern resort city of Sochi. Whathad prompted a response that should reassure Russia's Western customers, at least in the short term, was a comment by a senior official

two days before to the effect that Russia's oil and gas bonanza was almost as much trouble as it was worth. He had said that, whileRussia had benefited hugely from the high energy prices of recent years, these had also created problems. Because the Russian

economy simply could not absorb so much money productively in such a short time, the government

had to spend much specialist time and energy on how best to use it. A proportion goes to the

"stabilisation fund", now standing at $130bn, seen as an insurance against energy prices falling.

Another share goes into an "investment fund" for infrastructure projects, higher pensions and public

service salaries. What is left over is invested abroad, much of it in foreign bonds, to be as safe as

possible. Russia's foreign investment policy was, the official said, deliberately"conservative". The official alsosaid that Russia was looking to invest more in foreign companies, and would already have done so but for what it saw as unwarrantedsuspicion of Russia's intentions and closet protectionism on the part of foreign governments. It was in this context that a participant inthe discussion with Mr Putin asked this question: Why, if Russia found administering its new oil and gas wealth so burdensome, did itnot consider cutting production? Keeping the stuff in the ground, he suggested, would have several beneficial effects for Russia. It wouldraise the world price, so yielding more money for less effort. It would, assuming no dramatic fall in prices in the near future, guaranteeRussia a good income for many more years. And it would save ministers the time and effort involved in figuring out how to invest itswindfall. The question clearly appealed to Mr Putin. He smiled and described the proposition as interesting, as he seemed to turn it over

in his mind. But his response was categorical. "We will extend and increase production of both oil and gas, and we

will do that because global demand is growing." He said that Russia had no intention of banking on

further rises in energy prices. "We remember that there was a time when coal was the main source of

energy, and then all at once the price fell sharply. What good would come of speculating?" Russia, he

said, "wants to behave responsibly" not for its own sake, but because "harmonious relations" with the

rest of the world was as much in the national interest as high energy prices. Apparently alluding to Westerncharges that Russia used its position as an energy supplier as a weapon, Mr Putin said that Russia had never " blackmailed" the worldmarket. He went on: "We are not a member of Opec though we keep a close eye on what it does and one reason is that we don't have thelevel of state monopoly over energy production that most Opec countries have."

Impact Turn – Democracy High oil prices are collapsing democracyand creating increased authoritarianism in Russia

States News Service 6/24, 2008 HEADLINE: AS OIL WEALTH RISES IN EURASIA, DEMOCRACY DECLINESSIGNIFICANTLY

To coincide with today's release of the Freedom House Nations in Transit 2008 report, three of the study's authors gathered at RFE/RL's

Washington, DC headquarters to discuss one of its key findings - that, as oil and natural gas revenues surge in Russia

and Central Asia, democratic institutions in these countries are eroding significantly. [Read more about the

Nations in Transit 2008 Report] "The resource curse is taking root," Freedom House Director of Studies Christopher

Walker told the group. "The growing authoritarianism in oil and natural gas-rich countries such as Russia,

Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan is severely restricting the ability of democratic institutions to operate." According tothe report, the regression in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia has occurred systematically and across sectors, including in the areas of

electoral process, civil society, independent media and judicial independence. "Russia's decline in all of the report's

categories over the past eight years is dramatic," said Robert Orttung, the author of the section on Russia and a Senior Fellow atthe Jefferson Institute. "For years, Vladimir Putin has been using oil and natural gas revenues to build up his police forces and

consolidate power in such a way that there is no space for democracy to grow. "



SDI 2008 p. 70 of 113


Failure of democracy in Russia will cause global nuclear war

Muravchik 2001 (Joshua- Resident Scholar at the AEI, “Democracy and Nuclear Peace” July 14,http://www.npec-web.org/Syllabus/Muravchik.pdf, Date Accessed 7/29/2006)

That this momentum has slackened somewhat since its pinnacle in 1989, destined to be remembered as oneof the most revolutionary years in all history, was inevitable. So many peoples were swept up in thedemocratic tide that there was certain to be some backsliding. Most countries' democratic evolution has

included some fits and starts rather than a smooth progression. So it must be for the world as a whole. Nonetheless, the overall trend remains powerful and clear. Despite the backsliding, the number andproportion of democracies stands higher today than ever before. This progress offers a source of hope

for enduring nuclear peace. The danger of nuclear war was radically reduced almost overnight when

Russia abandoned Communism and turned to democracy. For other ominous corners of the world, we

may be in a kind of race between the emergence or growth of nuclear arsenals and the advent of

democratization. If this is so, the greatest cause for worry may rest with the Moslem Middle East wherenuclear arsenals do not yet exist but where the prospects for democracy may be still more remote.



SDI 2008 p. 71 of 113


AT DA: Silver

1. Alt causes to silver demand.

Mike Caggeso, Associate Editor, 7/8/08. Straight Stocks. “Silver Prices Ready to Rocket; Four Reasons Why andTwo Ways to Buy,” http://www.straightstocks.com/current-market-news/silver-prices-ready-to-rocket-four-reasons-why-and-two-ways-to-buy/ MH

Silver prices have vaulted an extraordinary 106% in the past two and a half years. More impressive, silver prices have gained 33% since mid December. Now, compare that to how U.S. stocks have fared since then:The Dow Jones Industrial Average has plunged 13.6%; The Nasdaq Composite Index tumbled 10.5%; TheS&P 500 Index has fallen 11.1%. Like gold, silver is a safe haven from inflation and a weak dollar. The

prices of the two metals often move parallel to one another. However, silver is poised to rocket - handinginvestors not only gains in our bear-market economy, but steeper gains than gold. James Turk, founder of GoldMoney, said in his annual forecast that the U.S. economy “will get much worse in 2008, making goldthe premier asset of choice, but not the best performing precious metal. That honor will go to silver, which Iexpect will clear $30 in 2008.” From silver’s current price of $18.33 an ounce, $30 an ounce would be a63.7% gain. And here are four reasons why that’s more than probable: * Supply and Demand: Silver,quite simply, has better supply and demand characteristics than gold. For 18 straight years now, we’ve

consumed more silver above ground than we’ve been able to extract from below ground (compared toonly four to five years for gold). That’s because only a portion of silver demand comes from investors.

Commercial demand for silver is growing, whether for jewelry, electrical conductors, photographicfilm or disinfectants. And the rate at which iyndustry finds new, unique uses for the white metal is

staggering compared to gold. * Above Ground Supply: Unlike gold, which has been hoarded by central banks for decades, there’s no appreciable aboveground supply of silver. Therefore, whatever is needed must be mined. And there’s very little threat of central banks selling large tranches of silver into the market, whichis always an overhanging concern with gold. * Emerging Markets: Despite fears to the contrary, robustindustrial demand for silver will continue even if United States slips into recession. That’s because the truedriver toward higher commodity prices, in general, is emerging markets like China, India, Russia and EasternEurope. China’s expansion alone can be compared to the industrial explosions that took place in Japan in the1960s and the United States at the turn of the last millennium. * Market Capitalization: The silver marketis much less capitalized than the gold market. Fewer dollars trade daily on the silver exchange than on thegold exchange. As a result, every dollar spent on silver will have a greater impact on the silver market thandollars spent on gold will have on the gold market. To visualize this concept, consider the relative impact of a

rock tossed into a pond versus the same rock being tossed into a puddle.

2. No shortage of silver coming.

Financial Express, 5/3/08. “Investment demand to drive silver prices later this year,” Lexis MH Net investor buying is expected to keep silver prices strong in 2008, although seasonal price weakness isanticipated during the second and third quarters this year, CPM Group said in its 2008 Silver Yearbook. On

silver outlook for 2008, the New York-based precious metals consultants predicted that higher silver

prices are expected later this year and in beginning 2009. Annual silver price volatility stood at 26.1%

in 2007, down from 45% in the prior year. The research report found that the sharp increase in the

price of silver last year reflected strong investment demand from many parts of the world and from

many types of investors. They also found silver interesting because it has stronger fundamentals

behind it. Investors were buying silver for all of the same reasons they were buying gold: As a safe

haven during times of financial market distress, as an inflation hedge, as a hedge against a falling

dollar, and more. Total silver fabrication demand is projected to rise modestly by 2.2% to 740.2 millionounces in 2008. Demand for silver use in jewellery and silverware is projected to rise 4.6% to 273.5million ounces this year. In 2007, silver fabrication demand increased by 0.9% to 724 million ounces. "While

higher prices should be expected to restrain the growth of silver use in jewellery and other

applications, the price effect may be relatively limited," CPM report said. In 2007, total silver supply was784.8 million ounces of which 68% came from mine production, according to CPM report. World mine

production of silver increased 4.1% to a record 533.7 million ounces last year. This year total supply is

projected to increase to 815.1 million ounce, a 3.9% increase mostly attributable to a sharp increase in

mine production. Total mine production is projected to be 557.4 million ounces, up 4.1% from last year.

3. No Link – Your evidence does not talk about nuclear power using silver.



SDI 2008 p. 72 of 113


4. Turn- alternative energy innovations spur breakthrough growth not decline.

William B. Bonvillian, Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center in D.C. Issues in Science

and Technology, 2004. “Meeting the new challenge to U.S economic competitiveness,” Lexis MHA school of economic theory that has developed during the past two decades argues that technological and

related innovation accounts for more than half of historical U.S. economic growth, which makes this a

far more significant factor than capital and labor supply, which are the dominant factors in traditional

economic analysis. These economic growth theorists see a pattern shared by important breakthrough

technologies such as railroads, steamships, electricity, telecommunications, aerospace, and computing. The

new technology ignites a chain reaction of related innovation that leads to a surge in productivity

improvements throughout the economy and thus to overall economic growth. The most recent exampleis the productivity boom that occurred in the mid-1990s following the IT revolution that spread through themanufacturing and service sectors.

5. No Internal Link - The US ran out of silver in 2002 and nothing happened.

Jason Hommel, Editorial writer for Gold-Eagle, 2005, Gold-Eagle, “Silver Users Fear Silver Shortage”, NM,http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/hommel102505.html

But what about the existing above ground supply of silver? Precious metals are held privately, and are not

able to be tracked or traced, so nobody truly knows what the above ground supply of silver of might be.However, experts maintain that about 40 billion ounces of silver has been mined throughout all of humanhistory, and that about 90% of that has been irretrevably consumed by industry, jewelry, and photography.Most of the approximately 3-5 billion ounces of silver left is in the form of jewelry, mostly held in India.Silver that is in the form of above-ground, refined, deliverable, identifiable silver is about 150 million

ounces, mostly held at COMEX. The U.S. government once held up to 6 billion ounces of silver, but

around 2002, the U.S. ran out, and had to buy silver on the open market for its Silver Eagle coin program. The COMEX once had up to 1.5 billion ounces of silver about 10-15 years ago, but today has

less than 1/10th of that: 117 million ounces.



SDI 2008 p. 73 of 113


AT K Framework

Our interpretation of fiat is that the aff should defend the political implementation of the plan and the

negative has to defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. This is a voter for the following

reasons. And, even if you don’t reject the team, reject the argument.

A- Reciprocity- Both sides should be prepared to debate implementation questions surrounding

resolutional focus

B- Plan is the focus of the debate where negative strategies should be based

C- Philosophical education isn’t unique- only plan provides relevant education about policy making

in terms of alternative energy

D- Ground- DAs and CPs check- these are CORE negative arguments that are essential to neg wins

E - Our framework for political action is the only way to prevent the collapse of progressive reform

and leftist politics

David McClean, philosopher, writer and business consultant, 2001, Society for the Advancement of AmericanPhilosophy, http://www.google.com/search?q=David+McClean&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Or we might take Foucault who, at best, has provided us with what may reasonably be described as a verylong and eccentric footnote to Nietzsche (I have once been accused, by a Foucaltian true believer, of "gelding" Foucault with other similar remarks). Foucault, who has provided the Left of the late 1960sthrough the present with such notions as "governmentality," "Limit," "archeology," "discourse" "power" and"ethics," creating or redefining their meanings, has made it overabundantly clear that all of our

moralities and practices are the successors of previous ones which derive from certain configurations of savoir and connaisance arising from or created by, respectively, the discourses of the various scientificschools. But I have not yet found in anything Foucault wrote or said how such observations may be

translated into a political movement or hammered into a political document or theory (let alone public

policies) that can be justified or founded on more than an arbitrary aesthetic experimentalism. In fact,Foucault would have shuddered if any one ever did, since he thought that anything as grand as a movement

went far beyond what he thought appropriate. This leads me to mildly rehabilitate Habermas, for at leasthe has been useful in exposing Foucault's shortcomings in this regard, just as he has been useful in

exposing the shortcomings of others enamored with the abstractions of various Marxian-Freudian socialcritiques. Yet for some reason, at least partially explicated in Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country, a

book that I think is long overdue, leftist critics continue to cite and refer to the eccentric and often a priori

ruminations of people like those just mentioned, and a litany of others including Derrida, Deleuze, Lyotard,Jameson, and Lacan, who are to me hugely more irrelevant than Habermas in their narrative attempts to

suggest policy prescriptions (when they actually do suggest them) aimed at curing the ills of

homelessness, poverty, market greed, national belligerence and racism. I would like to suggest that it is

time for American social critics who are enamored with this group, those who actually want to be

relevant, to recognize that they have a disease, and a disease regarding which I myself must remember tostay faithful to my own twelve step program of recovery. The disease is the need for elaborate theoretical

"remedies" wrapped in neological and multi-syllabic jargon. These elaborate theoretical remedies are

more "interesting," to be sure, than the pragmatically settled questions about what shape democracy

should take in various contexts, or whether private property should be protected by the state, or regarding our basic human nature (described, if not defined (heaven forbid!), in such statements as "We don't like to starve"and "We like to speak our minds without fear of death" and "We like to keep our children safe from

poverty"). As Rorty puts it, "When one of today's academic leftists says that some topic has been

'inadequately theorized,' you can be pretty certain that he or she is going to drag in either philosophy of language, or Lacanian psychoanalysis, or some neo-Marxist version of economic determinism. . . . These

futile attempts to philosophize one's way into political relevance are a symptom of what happens when

a Left retreats from activism and adopts a spectatorial approach to the problems of its country.Disengagement from practice produces theoretical hallucinations"(italics mine).(1) Or as John Dewey put itin his The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy, "I believe that philosophy in America will be lost betweenchewing a historical cud long since reduced to woody fiber, or an apologetics for lost causes, . . . . or ascholastic, schematic formalism, unless it can somehow bring to consciousness America's own needs and itsown implicit principle of successful action." Those who suffer or have suffered from this disease Rorty



SDI 2008 p. 74 of 113


refers to as the Cultural Left, which left is juxtaposed to the Political Left that Rorty prefers and prefers for good reason. Another attribute of the Cultural Left is that its members fancy themselves pure culture

critics who view the successes of America and the West, rather than some of the barbarous methods for

achieving those successes, as mostly evil, and who view anything like national pride as equally evil evenwhen that pride is tempered with the knowledge and admission of the nation's shortcomings. In other words,the Cultural Left, in this country, too often dismiss American society as beyond reform and redemption.

And Rorty correctly argues that this is a disastrous conclusion, i.e. disastrous for the Cultural Left. I think itmay also be disastrous for our social hopes, as I will explain. Leftist American culture critics might put

their considerable talents to better use if they bury some of their cynicism about America's social and

political prospects and help forge public and political possibilities in a spirit of determination to,indeed, achieve our country - the country of Jefferson and King; the country of John Dewey and Malcom X;the country of Franklin Roosevelt and Bayard Rustin, and of the later George Wallace and the later BarryGoldwater. To invoke the words of King, and with reference to the American society, the time is always ripe

to seize the opportunity to help create the "beloved community," one woven with the thread of agape

into a conceptually single yet diverse tapestry that shoots for nothing less than a true intra-American

cosmopolitan ethos, one wherein both same sex unions and faith-based initiatives will be able to be part

of the same social reality, one wherein business interests and the university are not seen as belonging to twoseparate galaxies but as part of the same answer to the threat of social and ethical nihilism. We who fancyourselves philosophers would do well to create from within ourselves and from within our ranks a new kindof public intellectual who has both a hungry theoretical mind and who is yet capable of seeing the need tomove past high theory to other important questions that are less bedazzling and "interesting" but moreimportant to the prospect of our flourishing - questions such as "How is it possible to develop a citizenry thatcherishes a certain hexis, one which prizes the character of the Samaritan on the road to Jericho almost morethan any other?" or "How can we square the political dogma that undergirds the fantasy of a missile defensesystem with the need to treat America as but one member in a community of nations under a "law of

peoples?" The new public philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theoryand doctrine as much as theories of surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements

as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity as much as the politics of

power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep into the guts of

our quotidian social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to

dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and often unpleasant,

imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means making honest attempts to truly

understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before howling for their

overthrow commences. This might help keep us from being slapped down in debates by true policypros who actually know what they are talking about but who lack awareness of the dogmatic

assumptions from which they proceed, and who have not yet found a good reason to listen to jargon-

riddled lectures from philosophers and culture critics with their snobish disrespect for the so-called

"managerial class."

A2: Negative Ground1) The affirmative always gets to choose the topic of the debate2) It’s on the burden of the negative to show why the plan is a bad idea. If they think it is outside the

resolution, then topicality is reserved for the negative teamA2: Affirmative Ground

1) Their interpretation is ridiculous. They can’t expect us to have answers to some K that more than 75%of the debate community doesn’t understand.

2) If we only had one thing to run against the negative, debate would become so boring and educationwould be compromisedA2: Limits

1) Their definition actually unlimits the topic to infinite CPs, DAs, and Ks. Our definition is better.2) By debating just policy debate, we are able to learn about all aspects of the educational world not just

philosophy.A2: Don’t solve Offense

1) Even if the negative could run something even sketchier, our definition of fiat remains…Ks are illegit



SDI 2008 p. 75 of 113




SDI 2008 p. 76 of 113


AT K Generic

Read Framework

Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative.

This perm proves there is no link because there is no reason why any type of society (even

an unknown one) can’t have nuclear waste storage.

Perm Double Bind: Either capitalism is so strong the alternative can never solve or the

perm captures enough solvency to remove any risk of their impacts and solves all their

ethical obligations.

Perm: Do the plan, keep nuclear power, and reject all other instances of capitalism.

The net benefit to this permutation is poverty. It makes no sense to have an ethical

obligation to keep people in povertyMyron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfmPoverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized

the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear


poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be

made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind




nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make muchdifference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should

sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is thatthe West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide.

New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between global warming,

nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the courage to make.”



SDI 2008 p. 77 of 113


This impact is substantially bigger than their’s and proves that their ethical framework is flawed.Mumia Abu-Jamal, 9-19-1998, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” www1.minn.net/~meis/quietdv.htm

We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging

"structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean

the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as

contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably largeproportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of

society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society.

These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals,such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This

form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is

invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really?

Gilligan notes: "[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty

as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to threetimes as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jewsover a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,

thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout theworld." [Gilligan, p. 196]



SDI 2008 p. 78 of 113


AT K Capitalism – Long Version

<Read Framework>

Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative. This solves

best because you get the 1AC advantages and reject capitalism

The permutation proves there is no link because there is no reason why any type of society

(even an unknown one) can’t have nuclear power repositories

By rejecting all capitalism except that needed to do the plan, we gain 99.9% of the K

impact. Thus, we o/w and remaining impact that they can claim

Perm Double Bind: A)Either capitalism is so strong to solve the SQUO and the plan, thus

the perm solves OR B)The alt doesn’t solve


The net benefit to this permutation is poverty. It makes no sense to have an ethical obligation to keep people in poverty. Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain mired in poverty.Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfmPoverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized the

current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear power, or

poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from poverty is

incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be made to keep

poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind power and other

forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to resolving this dilemma

in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energydemand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15

per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.” Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe

but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre toaccelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies.

For us the choice is between global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the courage to make.”

Since there are millions of instances of incentives, Double bind: either there is no residual link to the plan OR thealternative doesn’t solve – 1 rejection. This also answers their aff choice arbitrary argument: without a specific link to our nuclear affirmative, we win our interpretation of framework.

No link – the incentives we give is given to businesses. The companies can decide whether or not they want toaccept this aid or not, we aren’t deciding anything for them, couldn’t increase capitalism.



SDI 2008 p. 79 of 113


Capitalism and free trade are good – it’s responsible for most of the good in the world. The root cause of structuralviolence is a lack of free markets. Areas that have started to develop must transition to the next level of capitalism or theywill be locked in misery for a very long time. The plan is a swipe at institutions but instead you need to align yourself withthese institutions it is responsible for remarkable progress.

Goklany ’07 (Indur, Author of The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on aCleaner Planet, Mar. 23, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html , twm, Indur Golanky is an independent scholar who has morethan 25 years of experience working and writing on global and national environmental issues. He has published several peer-reviewed

papers and book chapters on an array of issues including air pollution, climate change, biodiversity, the role of technology and economicgrowth in creating, as well as solving, environmental problems, and the impact of international environmental regimes on people livingin less-developed countries.)

Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy,materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease suchas cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century.Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths haveactually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality hasdeclined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements haven’t beenrestricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from

chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase inpopulation. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of the planet's developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. Equallyimportant, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, andsocially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, andproperty. Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across theworld to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hoursand have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental recordis more complex. The early stages of development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societiespursue first-order problems affecting human well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of education, basic public health services, safe water, sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because greater wealth alleviates these problems while providing basic creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economicdevelopment, often neglecting other aspects of environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental

deterioration reduces their quality of life. Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital intodeveloping and implementing cleaner technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of economicdevelopment and technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to environmental problems instead of creating thoseproblems.All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many developing countrieshave yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s developed countries used to be when theywere equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to "environmental conscious" continues to fall. For example, theUS introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per capita exceeded $16,000. India and China did the same before theyreached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament to the power of globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (thatlead is harmful, for example). It's also testament to the importance of trade in transferring technology from developed to developingcountries—in this case, the technology needed to remove lead from gasoline. This hints at the answer to the question of why someparts of the world have been left behind while the rest of the world has thrived. Why have improvements in well-being stalled inareas such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world? The proximate cause of improvements in well-being is a “cycle of progress”composed of the mutually reinforcing forces of economic development and technological progress. But that cycle itself is propelledby a web of essential institutions, particularly property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Other important institutions would includescience- and technology-based problem-solving founded on skepticism and experimentation; receptiveness to new technologiesand ideas; and freer trade in goods, services—most importantly in knowledge and ideas. In short, free and open societies prosper.Isolation, intolerance, and hostility to the free exchange of knowledge, technology, people, and goods breed stagnation or

regression. Despite all of this progress and good news, then, there is still much unfinished business. Millions of people die fromhunger, malnutrition, and preventable disease such as malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Over a billion people still live in absolutepoverty, defined as less than a dollar per day. A third of the world’s eligible population is still not enrolled in secondary school.Barriers to globalization, economic development, and technological change—such as the use of DDT to eradicate malaria, geneticengineering, and biotechnology—are a big source of the problem. Moreover, the global population will grow 50 percent to 100percent this century, and per capita consumption of energy and materials will likely increase with wealth. Merely preserving thestatus quo is not enough. We need to protect the important sustaining institutions responsible for all of this progress in thedeveloped world, and we need to foster and nurture them in countries that are still developing. Man’s remarkable progress over thelast 100 years is unprecedented in human history. It’s also one of the more neglected big-picture stories. Ensuring that our incredible progress continues will require not only recognizing and appreciating the progress itself, but also recognizingand preserving the important ideas and institutions that caused it, and ensuring that they endure.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html






SDI 2008 p. 80 of 113


***Don’t Read Link Turns with Impact Turns***

Link Turn: The Aff is ethical – access to clean energy is a fundamental right – government

intrusion into the economy is justified in this instance

Tully Postdoctoral Fellow of the ESRC Centre for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation and of the Law Department

2006

Stephen Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights Spring page lexisThe human rights paradigm also pursues the accountability of governments and others through the application of therule of law. Persons or groups denied rights are entitled to access effective judicial and other remedies at nationaland international levels. n131 Victims of human rights violations are entitled to adequate reparations including restitution,

compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. National ombudsmen, human rights commissions, and similar institutions

may be entrusted with addressing violations. To a similar end the private sector can be made more responsive to the needs of low-

income urban households by increasing the latter's level of participation. n132 Although direct corporate accountability to their customers can be enhanced, legislative or policy measures crafted by governments could equally be avoided. n133 Nevertheless, the privatesector, under the human rights paradigm, is expected to contribute to realizing human rights. However, trend s toward direct corporate legalresponsibility for violations, while discernable, remain underdeveloped. n134

Further, an individual right affirms the obligations incumbent upon government. Governments have undertaken to promote

universal respect for and observation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. n135 They accordingly become subject to positive or negative obligations to protect, promote, and provide each human right and to abstain from violations. Providingaccess to basic social services, including energy, is considered to be a fundamental responsibility of government.n136 This responsibility arises even when governments delegate functional roles to third parties. Notwithstanding market-oriented electricitysector reforms, "in all cases the State remains ultimately responsible for the delivery of electricity." n137 For example, the Electricity Corporationof Guyana is obliged to provide public services which are safe, adequate, efficient, [*534] reasonable, and non-discriminatory. n138 The NewZealand Electricity Commission is similarly expected to produce and deliver electricity to all consumers in an efficient, fair, reliable, andenvironmentally sustainable manner. n139 A human rights obligation enforceable against governments would maintain their active participationwithin deregulated electricity markets and, moreover, circumscribe permissible behavior.

Capitalism is inevitable---only the plan can spread capitalism at a local level---this eliminates the negative aspects of it



SDI 2008 p. 81 of 113


Impact Turn: Imperial wars pre-date capitalism by centuries, war is illogical under

capitalism because it destroys wealth

MacKenzie 3D.W. MacKenzie graduate student in economics at George Mason University Does Capitalism Require War?Monday, April 07, 2003 http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1201Perhaps the oddest aspect of these various, but similar, claims is that their proponents appeal so often to historical

examples. They often claim that history shows how capitalism is imperialistic and warlike or at least benefits fromwar. Capitalism supposedly needs a boost from some war spending from time to time, and history shows this. RobertHiggs demonstrated that the wartime prosperity during the Second World War was illusory[i]. This should come to no surprise to those who lived through the deprivations of wartime rationing.

We do not need wars for prosperity, but does capitalism breed war and imperialism anyway? History is rife with examples of imperialism. The Romans, Alexander,and many others of the ancient world waged imperialistic wars. The Incan Empire and the empire of Ancient China stand as examples of the universal character of imperialism. Who could

possibly claim that imperialism grew out of the prosperity of these ancient civilizations? Imperialism precedes modern industrial capitalism by manycenturies. Uneven wealth distribution or underconsumption under capitalism obviously did not cause these instancesof imperialism . Of course, this fact does not prove that modern capitalism lacks its own imperialistic tendencies. The notion that income gets underspent or maldistributed lies at theheart of most claims that capitalism either needs or produces imperialistic wars. As J.B. Say argued, supply creates its own demand through payments to factors of production. Demand Sideeconomists Hobson and Keynes argued that there would be too little consumption and too little investment for continuous full employment. We save too much to have peace and prosperity. Thedifficulty we face is not in oversaving, but in underestimating the workings of markets and the desires of consumers. Doomsayers have been downplaying consumer demand for ages. As demandside economist J.K. Galbraith claimed, we live in an affluent society, where most private demands have been met. Of course, Hobson made the same claim much earlier. Earlier and stranger still,mercantilists claimed that 'wasteful acts' such as tea drinking, gathering at alehouses, taking snuff, and the wearing of ribbons were unnecessary luxuries that detracted from productive endeavors.The prognostications of esteemed opponents of capitalism have consistently failed to predict consumer demand. Today, consumers consume at levels that few long ago could have imagined possible. There is no reason to doubt that consumers will continue to press for ever higher levels of consumption. Though it is only a movie, Brewster's Millions illustrates how creative peoplecan be at spending money. People who do actually inherit, win, or earn large sums of money have little trouble spending it. Indeed, wealthy individuals usually have more trouble holding on totheir fortunes than in finding ways to spend them. We are never going to run out of ways to spend money. Many of the complaints about capitalism center on how people save too much. Oneshould remember that there really is no such thing as saving. Consumers defer consumption to the future only. As economist Eugen BÃ¶hm-Bawerk demonstrated, people save according to time

preference. Savings diverts resources into capital formation. This increases future production. Interest enhanced savings then can purchase these goods as some consumers cease to defer their consumption. Keynes' claim that animal spirits drive investment has no rational basis. Consumer preferences are the basis for investment. Investors forecast future consumer demand. Interestrates convey knowledge of these demands. The intertemporal coordination of production through capital markets and interest rates is not a simple matter. But Keynes' marginal propensities tosave and Hobson's concentration of wealth arguments fail to account for the real determinants of production through time. Say's Law of Markets holds precisely because people always want a better life for themselves and those close to them. Falling interest rates deter saving and increase investment. Rising interest rates induce saving and deter investment. This simple logic of supplyand demand derives from a quite basic notion of self interest. Keynes denied that the world worked this way. Instead, he claimed that bond holders hoard money outside of the banking system,investment periodically collapses from 'the dark forces of time and uncertainty, and consumers save income in a mechanical fashion according to marginal propensities to save. None of these propositions hold up to scrutiny, either deductive or empirical. Speculators do not hoard cash outside of banks. To do this means a loss of interest on assets. People do move assets from one partof the financial system to another. This does not cause deficient aggregate demand. Most money exists in the banking system, and is always available for lending. In fact, the advent of e-bankingmakes such a practice even less sensible. Why hoard cash when you can move money around with your computer? It is common knowledge that people save for homes, education, and other expensive items, not because they have some innate urge to squirrel some portion of their income away. This renders half of the market for credit rational. Investors do in fact calculate rates of return on investment. This is not a simple matter. Investment entails some speculation. Long term investment projects entail some uncertainty, but investors who want to actually reap profits willestimate the returns on investment using the best available data. Keynes feared that the dark forces of time and uncertainty could scare investors. This possibility, he thought, called for government intervention. However, government intervention (especially warfare) generally serves to increase uncertainty. Private markets have enough uncertainties without throwing politicsinto the fray. The vagaries of political intervention serve only to darken an already uncertain future. Capital markets are best left to capitalists. Nor is capital not extracted surplus value. It comesnot from exploitation. It is simply a matter of people valuing their future wellbeing. Capitalists will hire workers up to the point where the discounted marginal product of their labor equals thewage rate. To do otherwise would mean a loss of potential profit. Since workers earn the marginal product of labor and capital derives from deferred consumption, Marxist arguments aboutreserve armies of the unemployed and surplus extraction fail. It is quite odd to worry about capitalists oversaving when many complain about how the savings rate in the U.S. is too low. Whydoes the U.S., as the world's 'greatest capitalist/imperialist power', attract so much foreign investment? Many Americans worry about America's international accounts. Fears about foreigners buying up America are unfounded, but not because this does not happen. America does have a relatively low national savings rate. It does attract much foreign investment, precisely because it hasrelatively secure property rights. Indeed, much of the third world suffers from too little investment. The claims of Marxists, and Hobson, directly contradict the historical record. Sound theorytells us that it should. The Marxist claim that capitalists must find investments overseas fails miserably. Larry Kudlow has put his own spin on the false connection between capitalism and war.

We need the War as shock therapy to get the economy on its feet. Kudlow also endorses massive airline subsidies as a means of restoring economic prosperity. Kudlow and Krugman bothendorse the alleged destructive creation of warfare and terrorism. Kudlow has rechristened the Broken Window fallacy the Broken Window principle. Kudlow claims that may lose money andwealth in one way, but we gain it back many time over when the rebuilding is done. Kudlow and Krugman have quite an affinity for deficits. Krugman sees debt as a sponge to absorb excesssaving. Kudlow see debt as a short term nuisance that we can dispel by maximizing growth. One would think that such famous economists would realize that competition does work to achieve

the goal of optimum growth based on time preference, but this is not the case. While these economists have expressed their belief in writing, theycould do more. If the destruction of assets leads to increased prosperity, then they should teach this principle byexample. Kudlow and Krugman could, for instance, help build the economy by demolishing their own privatehomes. This would have the immediate effect of stimulating demand for demolition experts, and the longer termaffect of stimulating the demand for construction workers. They can create additional wealth by financing the reconstruction of their homes through debt.By borrowing funds, they draw idle resources into use and stimulate financial activity. Of course, they would both initially lose wealth in one way. But if their thinking is sound, they will gain it

back many times over as they rebuild. The truth is that their beliefs are fallacious . Bastiat demonstrated the absurdity of destructivecreation in his original explanation of the opportunity costs from repairing broken windows. Kudlow is quite clear about hisintentions. He wants to grow the economy to finance the war. As Kudlow told some students, "The trick here is to grow the economy and let the economic growth raise the revenue for the war effort"[ii]. Kudlow also praises the Reagan Administration for growing the economy to fund national defense. Here Kudlow's attempts to give economic advice cease completely. His argumenthere is not that capitalism needs a shot in the arm. It is that resources should be redirected towards ends that he sees fit. Kudlow is a war hawk who, obviously, cannot fund this or any war personally. He instead favors using the state to tax others to fund what he wants, but cannot afford. He seems to think that his values matter more than any other's. Why should anyone else agreewith this? Kudlow tarnishes the image of laissez faire economics by parading his faulty reasoning and his claims that his wants should reign supreme as a pro-market stance. Unfortunately, it is

sometimes necessary to defend capitalism from alleged advocates of liberty, who employ false dogmas in pursuit of their own militaristic desires. Capitalism neither requiresnor promotes imperialist expansion. Capitalism did not create imperialism or warfare. Warlike societies predatesocieties with secure private property. The idea that inequity or underspending give rise to militarism lacks anyrational basis. Imperialistic tendencies exist due to ethnic and nationalistic bigotries, and the want for power. Prosperity depends upon our ability to prevent destructive acts. The dogmaof destructive creation fails as a silver lining to the cloud of warfare. Destructive acts entail real costs that diminish available opportunities. The idea that we need to find work for idle hands incapitalism at best leads to a kind of Sisyphus economy where unproductive industries garner subsidies from productive people. At worst, it serves as a supporting argument for war. The more

recent versions of the false charges against capitalism do nothing to invalidate two simple facts. Capitalism generates prosperity by creating new products. War inflicts poverty bydestroying existing wealth. There is no sound reason to think otherwise.





SDI 2008 p. 83 of 113


AT K Capitalism – Version

<Read Framework>

Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative. This solves

best because you get the 1AC advantages and reject capitalism














in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energy

demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15








SDI 2008 p. 84 of 113















SDI 2008 p. 85 of 113


AT K Capitalism – Short Version

<Read Framework>

Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative. This solvesbest because you get the 1AC advantages and reject capitalism














in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energydemand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15








SDI 2008 p. 86 of 113















SDI 2008 p. 87 of 113


AT K Economic Management – Externalization Module

1.No Link- the point of the plan is not to BLAME the nuclear industries, it is to promote

them in efforts to stop Global Warming

2. Alt doesn’t solve - Taking responsibility on a national level is key, there is no way toassure each individual will assume that responsibility for themselves if given the task.

3. The U.S. is responsible for the most emissions, which justifies the need for the US as a

whole to reduce their emissions.

Jay Apt (is executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business and the

Department of Engineering and Public Policy, where he is a Distinguished Service Professor) David W. Keith (is Professor and CanadaResearch Chair in Energy and the Environment in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and the Department of Economics at

the University of Calgary) and M. Granger Morgan (is University and Lord Professor and department head of the Department of

Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Electricity Industry Center ) Spring 2007 "PromotingLow-Carbon Electricity Production”, Issues in Science and Technology, v. 23,http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200704/ai_n19198506

When past emissions are factored in, the United States is responsible for just over a quarter of allanthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels currently in the atmosphere. Europe, China, and India are

responsible for 19%, 9%, and 3% respectively. The EU has agreed to reduce emissions to 8% below 1990levels by 2012; the United States has not. EU emissions are the same as in 1990; U.S. emissions haveincreased by 20%. And because CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for over a century, the largestsingle share of CO2 will continue to belong to the United States for many decades, despite China's growth.Since the United States has put the largest single share of CO2 into the air, it must begin to take the lead inreducing it. In a few decades, China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries also will have to

undertake serious controls. But they will not do so until we take the lead and show how it can be done

in an efficient and affordable way.

4. Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative.

5. Alt not competitive – the plan does not discourage individuals from taking responsibility,it only assumes that the US should – there is no reason why the perm doesn’t get double

solvency



SDI 2008 p. 88 of 113


AT K Free Market Environmentalism

Free market won’t spur nuclear energy.

Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies

Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf

Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist theseconsumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to supplyelectricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power as a viableoption in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking plan for nuclear

power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently stated that there are plansto quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. Does China? China today has 10nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by the year 2020. Does Japan’s,despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans to add 20 new reactors by the

year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear option faces a difficult choice:

Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our judgment that the market alone

won't do it).




SDI 2008 p. 89 of 113


AT K Native Americans

1. Perm: Do Plan and all non-competitive parts of the alternativeAnd, This solves – doing the plan would allow for US to take time to solve the social implications of the planPAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at

the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of Nuclear Waste, nna

The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been

impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these

perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since thediscovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality andthe mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed towardcreating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent

repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for

difficult social and political issues to be resolved.

2. Non-Unique – there is already dumping on Native Americans now – there harms are non-unique

3. Rejecting Nuclear Power cant solve – alternative cant get rid of existing waste

3. Even if there is nuclear power and waste by Native Americans – there is no impact to its radiation – it might evenhelp humansJack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in TheEnvironment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241The annual public radiation exposure permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nuclear facilitiesis 15 millirem. The average person in the United States is exposed to 200 millirem of radiation per year. If you spentall your time in Grand Central Station, you would get an annual radiation dose of nearly 600 millirem. At Three

Mile Island, the total calculated dose Pennsylvanians received after the accident was far less than the

measured dose New Mexicans receive from nature every day. Interestingly, in New Mexico the cancer rate is

much lower than the national average although natural background radiation is much higher than the

national average. The same is true for Denver. Residents of Finland receive an annual dose of radiation three

times higher than a person would receive living in the zone surrounding Chernobyl now excluded from habitation.As of 2006, nuclear-powered submarines and ships had safely traveled a total of 134 million miles and

registered 5,700 naval reactor years of safe operation with a total of 254 reactors. Hormesis What mayexplain these facts is the biological theory of hormesis: Organisms are made more resilient by low-level exposure

to a substance that is toxic in larger doses. Cravens covers this topic, but in attempting to present both sides of

the issue she does not cover the wide literature base of studies on animals and humans that confirm the

beneficial effects of low-level radiation. Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst has published extensively in this field and is a good source for additional information. In spite of this science,

governments continue to use the linear no-threshold model, which says any radiation dose, no matter how

small, is harmful. Misuse of this model has produced spending in excess of $1 trillion in the United States

alone for negligible health benefits just for government environmental cleanup programs, while truly

significant measures that would protect the public health remain unfunded.



SDI 2008 p. 90 of 113


4. Plan solves multiple waysA. Dry Caskets – they solve the waste problems the neg is K’ingBunn et al. ‘1, researchers from the Harvard University Project on Managing the Atom and the TokyoUniversity Project of Sociotechnics on Nuclear Energy, “Interim Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel”,http://lyman.q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~todoriki/BCSIA.pdf tk

The diverse technologies now available for storing spent nuclear fuel—from wet pools to dry casks—offersafe, secure, and cost-effective options for storing the spent fuel generated by the world’s power reactors for

decades, or for much shorter periods of time, as circumstances warrant. These interim storage possibilities

will allow time for permanent options for management and disposal of spent fuel and nuclear wastes to be

prepared and implemented with the care they require. Interim storage of spent fuel can also allow time for

spent fuel management technology to improve, and for the economic, environmental, and security advantages

of different approaches to permanent management of spent fuel and nuclear wastes to become clearer.

B. Permanent Waste Depository – By creating a new waste depository – we would end up solving the waste problem – meaning no more dumping in world of the plan

C. Recycling – Nuclear waste can be recycled – plan actually gets rid of current nuclear wasteGilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at

UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bcAs some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meetthe growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and

more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used

nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent

of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again.

D. Turn – Nuclear Power generates less hazardous waste than other power sources and they monitor it to ensuresafety.James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z.http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619Others Switching Sides Bourne joins a substantial number of environmental activists who have indicated supportfor nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;

James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Earth theory; and Hugh Montefiore, former chairman and trustee for Friends of the Earth, are just a few of the high-profile environmental activists who have recently switched sides on the nuclear issue. "Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases or nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide," explained

Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "This, of course,

gives nuclear a tremendous environmental advantage over other economically competitive power sources.

"Compared with a lot of other industries," Heymer added, "we don't generate as much hazardous waste.

Plus, we monitor it--we know where it is, and we make sure that people and the environment are adequately

protected from it."

5. Their alt cant solve waste – they reject plan which is key to solve it – we get risk of our impact versus the alt

http://lyman.q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~todoriki/BCSIA.pdf

http://lyman.q.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~todoriki/BCSIA.pdf



SDI 2008 p. 91 of 113


AT K You Hurt the Poor

1.Nuclear power helps the poor by lowering energy costs

Nicolas Loris and Jack Spencer, Research Fellow in Nuclear Energy and Nick Loris is Research Assistant in theThomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, November 14, 2007, TheHeritage Foundation, Congress Should Not Overlook Benefits of Nuclear Energy, nnahttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfm

Congress is considering an assortment of legislative proposals to ostensibly curb greenhouse gases and

promote energy independence. Unfortunately, the result of most of these proposals would be less

energy, greater dependence on foreign sources of energy, and higher prices. [1] Most of the bills focus toomuch on the process of energy production rather than on the product itself. For example, some language under consideration excludesnuclear power by creating mandates that can only be fulfilled with other sources of energy; or it creates so-called renewable portfoliostandards that mandate only certain types of energy production. This approach artificially eliminates energy sources that are compatiblewith Congress's proclaimed goals of reducing CO2 emissions and energy dependence. Nuclear technology is a proven, safe, affordable,and environmentally friendly energy source. It can generate massive amounts of electricity with almost no atmospheric emissions andcan offset America's growing dependence on foreign energy sources. If the desired result is clean, emissions-free, domestic energy, thelegislation should set the target and allow the market to determine the best way forward. If Congress passes any climate change bill, itshould endorse free-market solutions and not force specific technologies on Americans. The energy crises in the 1970s prompted asignificant expansion of publicly subsidized research and development for wind, solar, biofuel, and geothermal technology. Congress

passed a bevy of legislation in the late 1970s and 1980s designed to spur a renewable energy movement. For instance, the Energy TaxAct of 1978 promised residential energy tax credits for wind and energy equipment expenditures and business incentives that allowed

investors to receive tax credits of up to 25 percent of the cost of technology.[2] Subsequently, the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act of 1980, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001 all attempted to establish sustainableinvestments in and consumption of renewable energy.[3] More recently, the energy bill of 2005 required more agricultural-basedrenewable fuels; the proposed House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill would do the same. Notwithstanding Congress'sefforts, consumers have shown little faith in renewable energy's ability to meet energy demands. The portion of total energy consumption

provided by renewable energy sources is small and has remained relatively flat over the past 20 years. [4] Despite decades of governmentlargesse, the United States still gets only 2.4 percent of its electricity from non-hydro renewables such as solar and wind. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, provides about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. In and of itself, this statistic may be unremarkable.However, nuclear power continues to generate a significant portion of America's electricity despite over-burdensome regulation anddecades of organized anti-nuclear propaganda.[5] Given the fact that it emits no carbon dioxide, it would be extremely bad policy for Congress to create mandates meant to curb CO2 emissions that do not recognize the contribution of nuclear power. Congress should notchoose nuclear power over other carbon-free energy sources, but Congress should not discriminate against it either. The purpose of

public policy should be to protect Americans' freedom to choose courses of action that best suit them as individuals; it is not to engineer an America that is consistent with a specific political agenda. Unfortunately, Members of Congress often have too many conflicts of interest and represent too many special constituencies to always make objective decisions. It simply has neither the expertise nor themoral authority to tell Americans how to generate power or what kinds of power they should consume. Every time they do, Americansend up footing a higher energy bill. If CO2 emissions and foreign energy dependence are obstacles to individual freedom, then they are

legitimate subjects of public policy. Rather than picking winners and losers, Congress should allow the market economy to find the mostefficient and cost-effective solution to the proposed energy problems. Instead of telling America how to decrease CO2 emissions andforeign energy dependence, Congress should simply set the goals, remain technology-neutral, and allow the private sector to meet thosegoals. Most current energy legislation does the exact opposite. It not only sets an objective but then limits America's options for how toachieve it. Washington's heavy-handedness does not respect the uniqueness of America's diversity. Every region in the nation is differentand has different energy requirements. For example, according to the Energy Information Administration, the southern part of the UnitedStates, particularly the Southeast, has extremely poor wind-generating potential.[6] This means that to meet Washington's decrees,regional utilities cannot use wind power, the least expensive and most flexible of the very expensive and inflexible renewable options.So they will have to use something else, which will be even more expensive and limiting than wind. The irony is that most Southernutilities are clamoring to build nuclear power plants. They know their market and understand that meeting energy demand projectionswill require substantial increases in generating capacity. Yet if passed, most current legislation will force them to divert their scarceresources toward less efficient and sometimes unworkable projects. Ultimately, these will be exposed as bad energy choices, they will

fade when the subsidies go away, and the people of the Southeast will face even more energy problems than they do now. Current

legislative approaches will inevitably lead to higher costs for the consumer, which, because everyone

needs energy, disproportionately affects the poorest parts of the U.S. population. The political and socialelite pushing green initiatives have the financial means to pay higher electricity prices while America's poor suffer the consequences. The free market creates options and allocates resources to their most efficient use.Congress's view of a market solution for reducing energy dependence and curbing greenhouse emissions iscertainly a distorted one. With enough meddling, Members of Congress can engineer whatever outcome theylike and call it a market solution. By imposing enough restrictions on America's citizens, limiting their choices, and taxing their activities, Congress can make wind and solar the only options left to produceelectricity. But just because they can, it does not follow that they should.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1704.cfm#_ftn1

























SDI 2008 p. 92 of 113


2.Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should

remain mired in poverty.

Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfmPoverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized

the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear


poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to bemade to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind




nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make muchdifference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol

should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The

other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit

carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between

global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the

courage to make.”

3.Nuclear Power creates clean energy and boosts the economy.

Bonyun ’08 (30 Jun, Sean C. Bonyun, HT Media Inc., “Rep. Upton – A Greater Commitment to Nuclear WillPower Millions of Homes, US Economy”, AB, Proquest)

"The Cook and Palisades plants are such invaluable members of our community, providing stable

electricity and hundreds of high paying jobs, all the while pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into

our local economy," said Upton. "LMC is a prime example of the nuclear energy industry partnering

with local academic institutions to fill high paying jobs at our local plants," said Upton. "I commendLMC for creating this program which has already generated tremendous interest with 50 students alreadyenrolled for this autumn." Congress authorized the NRC to provide $15 million in grants for support of education in nuclear science, technology and engineering to develop a workforce capable of supporting thedesign, construction and operation, and regulation of commercial nuclear facilities, and the safe handling of nuclear materials. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, about 35 percent of the nuclear energy

workforce will retire within the next five years. Locally, over 600 nuclear job openings are anticipatedover the next 5 years. LMC scholarship recipients will receive funds to cover full tuition, fees and

textbooks as a full-time student enrolled in the fall, winter, spring and summer sessions. Studentschosen for these scholarship awards will be expected to sign a contract to work in the nuclear industry for sixmonths for each year of scholarship funding.



SDI 2008 p. 93 of 113


4.Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.S. economy – it could create a million jobs.American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed

in 2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008

Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefitsoffered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing from the

discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U.S.recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States greatly benefited from aninitial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. At that time,U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy representsa perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. In the ever-expanding

global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear

energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier position. A nuclear energy revivalis long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view thegrowth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and

unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply improves,

our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-

dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design,manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in:

o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories;o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; ando greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than

one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of

the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay closeattention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designersand operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will beneeded to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater

education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging

our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs

that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.

5. Our advantage impacts exacerbate poverty even more if they are not solved: Globalwarming will only increase it because of lack of resources and not solving for proliferation

will lead to wars which will also lead to a lack of resources especially for the poor.



SDI 2008 p. 94 of 113


AT T they say “Nuclear isn’t an alternative energy”

Counter-interpretation – alternative energy isn’t the same as renewable energy and it

excludes fossil fuels.

Hasan, no date - President of the Altenews Company (Russell, “Introduction to Alternative

Energy,”http://www.altenews.com/Alternative%20Energy%20Overview.pdf An overview of the various kinds of alternative energy follows. At the outset we must differentiate

between alternative energy, and renewable energy. Alternative energy refers to any form of energy

which is an alternative to the traditional fossil fuels of oil, natural gas and coal. Renewable energy arethe forms of alternative energy that are renewed by the natural processes of the Earth, such as sunlight fromthe sun or wind from the air, and so are environmentally friendly. We cover all alternative energies, but wewill begin the overview with the renewable energy sources.

we meet - Nuclear Power Is the Only Viable Alternative EnergyGail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis,

bcAs a cofounder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore used to call nuclear energy "synonymous with nuclear

holocaust." But he now believes "nuclear is the cleanest, safest and has the smallest footprint" of anymajor energy-alternative source. He says that nukes are cheap and reliable, unlike alternative-energysources like wind and solar. Neither do nuclear plants spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, like coal-

powered plants do, or create massive volumes of CO2 emissions, like gas-fired plants do. The attitude of Moore, who co-chairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an industry-backed supporter of nuclear energy,is virtually indistinguishable from that of David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG: "Advanced nuclear

technology is the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to produce none of the traditional air emissions--and most importantly in this age of climate change--no carbondioxide or other greenhouse gases." Another megatrend is working in nuclear's favor: demographics. In2006, an estimated 41.3 percent of the population was below 30. Which is to say that the percentage andnumber of Americans who remember the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl decline with every

passing year.

It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasingnuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to

debate it.

United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “DomeniciApplauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM

“It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change

must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on

policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as

other nations have done,” he continued.



SDI 2008 p. 95 of 113


Nuclear Energy is an emerging technology.


Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanentsubsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to

reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to rememberthat although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics

say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging

technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going.

The topic paper authors explicitly addressed nuclear power and made a distinction between

renewables and alternative energy.

McComas and Burgett, topic paper authors,’07 (Pam, Topeka High School, and Cindy, WashburnRural High School, twm, Summer,http://www.nfhs.org/Core/ContentManager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/Energy.pdf )

How Can the Problem Be Solved? Despite what appears to be a fairly grim outlook where energy availability,sustainability, and security (as well as environmental issues connected to energy) are concerned, there are a

number of ideas that have been proposed to move the United States away from its addiction to fossilfuels. These fall generally into two broad categories: increasing the use of renewable and alternative

energy sources, and conservation measures. 5 There are a vast number of renewable and alternativeenergy sources that are or may be more environmentally friendly and more sustainable, and there is a greatdeal of research that has already been done on the viability of these proposals. Biofuels – specifically the useof ethanol from corn and other crops – are currently generating a great deal of interest, especially in statesthat have large agricultural interests. While these sources are sustainable and (usually) cleaner than fossilfuels, there is some debate about whether or not these sources actually take more energy to produce than theythemselves provide in the end. Increasing the use of ethanol would boost the economies of agricultural states,

but it could ultimately create food shortages for livestock and humans as well. Solar energy has been a popular idea for nearly four decades. The technology needed to use solar panels on homes and other buildings to generate electricity and heat has improved greatly, although the costs to build such systems arestill high. Solar energy is quite reliable in some geographical regions, and less so in others. One of the

drawbacks of solar energy plans is that the technology is not yet available to produce vehicles that run onsolar energy, thus failing to decrease the need for crude oil and other petroleum products for thetransportation sector. Wind, water, and geothermal energy systems have improved over the years and thereare a number of possible affirmatives that might adopt these systems. There is excellent evidence on both

the affirmative and negative for any of these options, including both positive and negative environmentalimpacts generated by their use. Clean coal technologies are of interest in the status quo and while these arenot “renewable” sources of energy, coal is readily available and plentiful in the United States. The coalindustry is pursuing new methods of burning coal that do not pollute the environment. Nuclear energy is an

option that has been largely undeveloped in the United States in the last two decades. While it is “clean”in many ways, it does produce radioactive waste, the disposal of which the US has yet to fully address.

Only true alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bc

It's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two newfacilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident atThree Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then.What may be different now is that the nation is willing to take a more serious look at alternative forms of energy, as imperfect as they all are. Probably the biggest thing nuclear power has going for it right now is

that, at this point in time, it is the only real large-scale alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy. But towhat extent its pros outweigh its cons, if at all, continues to be heatedly debated. But the current energy

portfolio needs to change, and quickly. Part of that means throwing away some of our preconceptions of the past. This is a crucial crossroad for the nuclear power industry, and we hope they are up to the challenge.

http://www.nfhs.org/Core/ContentManager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/Energy.pdf




SDI 2008 p. 96 of 113


A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for

America's energy game plan.





SDI 2008 p. 98 of 113


AT T Only renewables are topical

We meet - Nuclear waste is a renewable resource

Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nnahttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy

The case for nuclear power is even stronger when considering the weakness of the case against it, which restslargely on a series of panics 20 to 30 years old. For example, the Chernobyl disaster was the product of horrific Soviet mismanagement over the many years prior to the meltdown, followed by equally abysmalcrisis management. It simply had nothing to do with the upkeep challenges of a modern nuclear plant.Worries about the impact of radioactive waste, by contrast, are at least marginally connected to real featuresof current nuclear plants, but they are wildly overblown. For one thing, the vast majority of nuclear waste -

as much as 95% or more - can be reprocessed and reused, making it a truly renewable resource.

Counter-interpretation – alternative energy isn’t the same as renewable energy and it

excludes fossil fuels.

Hasan, no date - President of the Altenews Company (Russell, “Introduction to AlternativeEnergy,”http://www.altenews.com/Alternative%20Energy%20Overview.pdf

An overview of the various kinds of alternative energy follows. At the outset we must differentiatebetween alternative energy, and renewable energy. Alternative energy refers to any form of energy

which is an alternative to the traditional fossil fuels of oil, natural gas and coal. Renewable energy arethe forms of alternative energy that are renewed by the natural processes of the Earth, such as sunlight fromthe sun or wind from the air, and so are environmentally friendly. We cover all alternative energies, but wewill begin the overview with the renewable energy sources.

we meet - Nuclear Power Is the Only Viable Alternative EnergyGail Chaddock, Staff Writer, 6-5-08, Christian Science Monitor, Economic riskes imperil climate change, lexis,

bcAs a cofounder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore used to call nuclear energy "synonymous with nuclear holocaust." But he now believes "nuclear is the cleanest, safest and has the smallest footprint" of any

major energy-alternative source. He says that nukes are cheap and reliable, unlike alternative-energy

sources like wind and solar. Neither do nuclear plants spew sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, like coal- powered plants do, or create massive volumes of CO2 emissions, like gas-fired plants do. The attitude of Moore, who co-chairs the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an industry-backed supporter of nuclear energy,is virtually indistinguishable from that of David Crane, chief executive officer of NRG: "Advanced nuclear

technology is the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to produce none of the traditional air emissions--and most importantly in this age of climate change--no carbondioxide or other greenhouse gases." Another megatrend is working in nuclear's favor: demographics. In2006, an estimated 41.3 percent of the population was below 30. Which is to say that the percentage andnumber of Americans who remember the accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl decline with every

passing year.

It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing

nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to

debate it.United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “DomeniciApplauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”,http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM

“It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change

must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on

policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as

other nations have done,” he continued.



SDI 2008 p. 99 of 113


Nuclear Energy is an emerging technology.


Loan guarantees and other federal incentives are needed to get us over this hump. They are not permanentsubsidies for uneconomical ventures. Instead, they're limited to the first half dozen of plants as a way to

reassure investors that regulatory delays won't needlessly hold up construction. It's important to rememberthat although nuclear energy has been around a while, it's hardly a "mature" industry, as some critics

say. Because of the lack of new plants in so many years, nuclear in many ways is more like an emerging

technology, and so subsidies make sense to get it going.

The topic paper authors explicitly addressed nuclear power and made a distinction between

renewables and alternative energy.

McComas and Burgett, topic paper authors,’07 (Pam, Topeka High School, and Cindy, WashburnRural High School, twm, Summer,http://www.nfhs.org/Core/ContentManager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/Energy.pdf )

How Can the Problem Be Solved? Despite what appears to be a fairly grim outlook where energy availability,sustainability, and security (as well as environmental issues connected to energy) are concerned, there are a

number of ideas that have been proposed to move the United States away from its addiction to fossilfuels. These fall generally into two broad categories: increasing the use of renewable and alternative

energy sources, and conservation measures. 5 There are a vast number of renewable and alternativeenergy sources that are or may be more environmentally friendly and more sustainable, and there is a greatdeal of research that has already been done on the viability of these proposals. Biofuels – specifically the useof ethanol from corn and other crops – are currently generating a great deal of interest, especially in statesthat have large agricultural interests. While these sources are sustainable and (usually) cleaner than fossilfuels, there is some debate about whether or not these sources actually take more energy to produce than theythemselves provide in the end. Increasing the use of ethanol would boost the economies of agricultural states,

but it could ultimately create food shortages for livestock and humans as well. Solar energy has been a popular idea for nearly four decades. The technology needed to use solar panels on homes and other buildings to generate electricity and heat has improved greatly, although the costs to build such systems arestill high. Solar energy is quite reliable in some geographical regions, and less so in others. One of the

drawbacks of solar energy plans is that the technology is not yet available to produce vehicles that run onsolar energy, thus failing to decrease the need for crude oil and other petroleum products for thetransportation sector. Wind, water, and geothermal energy systems have improved over the years and thereare a number of possible affirmatives that might adopt these systems. There is excellent evidence on both

the affirmative and negative for any of these options, including both positive and negative environmentalimpacts generated by their use. Clean coal technologies are of interest in the status quo and while these arenot “renewable” sources of energy, coal is readily available and plentiful in the United States. The coalindustry is pursuing new methods of burning coal that do not pollute the environment. Nuclear energy is an

option that has been largely undeveloped in the United States in the last two decades. While it is “clean”in many ways, it does produce radioactive waste, the disposal of which the US has yet to fully address.

Only true alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power.Waste News, 10-1-07, Revisiting the nuke debate, lexis, bc

It's back! After some 30 years, applications have been made for two new nuclear power plants in the UnitedStates. And that likely will heat up the nuclear power debate. NRG Energy is seeking to build two newfacilities in Texas, the first serious attempt at new nuclear power operations since the infamous accident atThree Mile Island in 1979. Time only has slightly cooled nuclear power as a hot button topic since then.What may be different now is that the nation is willing to take a more serious look at alternative forms of energy, as imperfect as they all are. Probably the biggest thing nuclear power has going for it right now is

that, at this point in time, it is the only real large-scale alternative to fossil-fuel generated energy. But towhat extent its pros outweigh its cons, if at all, continues to be heatedly debated. But the current energy

portfolio needs to change, and quickly. Part of that means throwing away some of our preconceptions of the past. This is a crucial crossroad for the nuclear power industry, and we hope they are up to the challenge.





SDI 2008 p. 100 of 113


A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for

America's energy game plan.



SDI 2008 p. 101 of 113


AT T Only renewables are topical – contextual evidence extensions

Alternative Energy includes nuclear energy

Wells 08 [Paul Wells, Canada West Calls For Harmonized Climate Change Policy, Daily Oil Bulletin, February 5, 2008, Jaretlk, Lexis]

"Moving to alternative energy sources such as wind power and solar power are also means by which provinces are

seeking to reduce GHG emissions," the report said. "Alternative energy options are pursued through general programsoffering development incentives and sector-specific programs designed to increase the installed capacity of nuclear, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydrogen energy, and biofuels."



SDI 2008 p. 102 of 113


AT T – Substantially

1. We Meet: Hippel and Furguson say that there already are incentives towards NP now –

but they are not enough, only the plan would be substantial

2. We Meet: Contextual ev concludes aff – our incentive is substancialWilliam J. Burns, former director of the Bureau of Investigation 2007, “A New Agenda for US-Russian Nuclear Leadership” (DS) Lexis

More than fifty years of commercial nuclear energy use has left the world with a legacy of tens of thousandsof tons of highly radioactive waste that will last for tens of thousands of years. If nuclear power production

expands substantially in the coming decades, the amount of waste requiring safe and secure disposal

will also significantly increase. Although several countries are exploring various long-term disposal options,no country has begun to store waste from commercial power plants in permanent repositories. Industry

officials generally believe that further growth of nuclear energy depends on establishing these

repositories.

3. C/I -- “Substantially” would be a change that is noticeable to an expert in the fieldUnited States Patent and Trademark Office 2005

(http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2173_05_b.htm as retrieved on Jul 5, 2005 16:53:22)The term "substantially" is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). The court held that the limitation "to substantially increase theefficiency of the compound as a copper extractant" was definite in view of the general guidelines contained in the specification. In re Mattison,

509 F.2d 563, 184 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1975). The court held that the limitation "which produces substantially equal E and H plane

illumination patterns" was definite because one of ordinary skill in the art would know what was meant by "substantiallyequal." Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 6 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

4. We Meet Counter Interpretation – Burns says that industry officials say this would be a key incentive increase

5. Prefer our interp – A. Contextual – this is best because only an expert in the field can measure if its substantial – other interpretationswill explode the topic because they will allow any aff that has a card with substantial and AE in same sentence.B. Limits – Drastically holds aff’s to higher standard – means we turn their ground and topic education args.

C. Brightline – any other interp could say they are substantial but in reality we wont know – only allowing aff’s that prove they are a substantial increase in incentives to experts in field is most clear distinction.

6. Topicality is not a voter – Competing interpretations is a race to the bottom and Reasonability is a better method to evaluate T – they get their ground. Potential abuse is not a voter, only vote on in round abuse.

7. we meet any reasonable interpretation of substantial – our 1ac evidence says that the repository would be afinancially substantial incentive and it would cause a massive expansion of nuclear power so we are substantialin multiple ways.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2173_05_b.htm





SDI 2008 p. 103 of 113


GNEP

Passing GNEP will strengthen ties with RussiaState Department Press Release ‘8, 6/13, “Speeches: Agreement Between the United States and Russia for Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy”, Lexis, tk

Growing energy needs and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions have increased international demand for

nuclear power, which in an increasingly globalized nuclear industry places a premium on working withforeign partners. In addition, nuclear nonproliferation and the need to prevent nuclear terrorism are at the topof the U.S. national security agenda, including with Russia, generating strong interest in the development of more proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies and approaches to the fuel cycle that can be advancedthrough cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. Upon entry into force, this agreement would establish alegal basis for what we expect to be mutually beneficial peaceful nuclear cooperation between the UnitedStates and Russia. Some U.S.-Russia cooperation is already ongoing on nuclear safety and security, andRussian commercial nuclear fuel sales to the United States under the HEU Agreement. We believe that thisexisting cooperation will be enhanced by having this agreement in place. At the same time, the agreementlooks to additional possibilities in the future, both commercial and government-to-government. It establishesa framework of nonproliferation conditions and controls for transfers of civil nuclear commodities betweenthe two countries, but in itself it does not deal with specific projects. Implementation of this agreement wouldtake place on the basis of export licenses issued in conformity with the requirements of U.S. law and policy

at the time the license is applied for. For the United States, having the agreement in place will provide aframework for potential commercial sales of civil nuclear commodities like reactor fuel and major reactor components to Russia by U.S. industry. Under Russia's export system such commodities may be transferredto the United States without such an Agreement (and in fact are taking place right now). Having theAgreement in place will rectify an imbalance between the two countries in terms of the legal structureavailable to accommodate commercial opportunities for the United States. The Agreement would facilitategreater U.S.-Russia cooperation in developing technologies that are important to advancing our nuclear nonproliferation objectives under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), where we are seeking tocooperate with other nations to develop new technologies like advanced reactors that would consume

plutonium and new forms of recycling spent fuel that would reduce the risk of proliferation by not separating plutonium that could be diverted for use by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. In areas likeadvanced fast burner reactors and advanced nuclear fuel and fuel cycle facilities, Russia possesses experienceand facilities not widely available in the United States. For example, the Department of Energy would like to

send advanced fuel for testing in Russian fast neutron reactors, but can only do so with a 123 Agreement in place. The Agreement also advances mutual nonproliferation goals by facilitating the transfer of nuclear materials for forensic purposes in potential nuclear smuggling cases.

Passing GNEP will increase alternate energy innovation at the university levelOpar ‘8, Alisa, staff writer for Plenty magazine, Plenty magazine, 5/29, “In Depth: Can nuclear waste berecycled?”, Lexis, tk

Through this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department of Energy is awarding tens of millions of dollars to industry, federal labs, and universities for developing the technology needed to get thefirst American recycling facilities and reactors up and running by 2025. In April, the agency announced up to$7.3 million for advanced reactor research, and publicized an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority(TVA), which operates six nuclear reactors, to explore fuel recycling. "We're just getting started, but the

project is going to yield technical information used to develop national implementation strategies to manage

nuclear fuel," says TVA spokesman Gil Francis.



SDI 2008 p. 104 of 113


GNEP will aid anti-proliferation efforts dealing with IranSolomon ‘8, Jay, staff writer, Wall Street Journal, 7/1, “Nuclear Pact With Russia Faces Resistance”,http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121494534459920539.html?mod=googlenews_wsj. tk

The goal of the administration's nonproliferation strategy is to persuade developing nations to forgo their owndevelopment of nuclear fuel cycles. Washington's Global Nuclear Energy Partnership initiative, or GNEP,says the U.S. will assist in the development of civilian-nuclear power in return for commitments that

countries will buy nuclear fuel from internationally monitored fuel banks. That could help keep nuclear fuelout of the hands of rogue states or terrorist groups. Washington's conflict with Iran largely centers onTehran's aggressive pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle, which can be utilized for developing nuclear weapons.U.S. officials say they want to utilize GNEP to create an international regime to counter the Iranian model.The deal would allow U.S. firms to sell certain nuclear technologies to Russian companies. They would beallowed to cooperate in developing what U.S. officials say are more proliferation-resistant reactors. And the

pact would ease the sale of Russian nuclear fuels into the U.S.

GNEP is key to energy independenceCox ‘8, David, staff writer, The Paducah Sun (Kentucky), “OPINION: Nuclear: 'Green' France gets power fromsource U.S. shuns”, Lexis. Tk

President Bush has asked for $304 billion in the 2009 budget for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, down fromthe $406 billion he requested in FY 2008, as part of his Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. Congress

budgeted only $179 billion, enough for additional research but not enough to actually begin construction on areprocessing facility. GNEP is effectively on hold until the next president is inaugurated. McCain also favorsreprocessing spent nuclear fuel. Obama prefers a strategy of stalling by studying, a means of placatingAmericans who want the federal government to aggressively pursue energy independence without alienatingenvironmentalists. The issue is particularly pertinent to Paducah, since the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plantwas on the short list of proposed sites for the reprocessing facility, in part because of the 700,000 tons of spent uranium "tails" -- worth an estimated $20 billion -- that have been stockpiled at the site in a half century of operation. Congressman Ed Whitfield has introduced legislation, separate from the president'sGNEP plan, to re-enrich the tails. Setting aside the potential benefits for Paducah, the United States mustincrease its capacity for nuclear power production, including reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. That should

be part of a broader energy plan -- to also include increasing domestic oil production, clean coaltechnologies, alternative energy sources and conservation -- to wean the country off foreign oil. But withoutmore nuclear power, a likely outcome of electing the likely next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,America can forget any hope of achieving energy independence.

GNEP will strengthen ties with RussiaRood ‘8, John C., Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, State DepartmentPress Release, “Speeches: Agreement Between the United States and Russia for Cooperation in the Field of PeacefulUses of Nuclear Energy”, Lexis. Tk

The Agreement would facilitate greater U.S.-Russia cooperation in developing technologies that areimportant to advancing our nuclear nonproliferation objectives under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership(GNEP), where we are seeking to cooperate with other nations to develop new technologies like advancedreactors that would consume plutonium and new forms of recycling spent fuel that would reduce the risk of

proliferation by not separating plutonium that could be diverted for use by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. In areas like advanced fast burner reactors and advanced nuclear fuel and fuel cyclefacilities, Russia possesses experience and facilities not widely available in the United States. For example,the Department of Energy would like to send advanced fuel for testing in Russian fast neutron reactors, butcan only do so with a 123 Agreement in place. The Agreement also advances mutual nonproliferation goals

by facilitating the transfer of nuclear materials for forensic purposes in potential nuclear smuggling cases.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121494534459920539.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121494534459920539.html?mod=googlenews_wsj





SDI 2008 p. 106 of 113


CP Russian international depository

Observation 1 Counterplan Text

The United States Federal Government should coordinate with Russia to create aninternational depository for nuclear waste in Russia.

Observation 2 Net Benefits

The counterplan solves the case and avoids politics, terrorism and all of our Yucca bad

arguments.

Observation 3 Solvency

Russia has focused on reliable storage of spent nuclear fuel and has taken vital steps to

ensure success including matters of an international repository that can prevent

proliferation and reduce the risk of terrorism.

Glenn Schweitzer and Kelly Robbins, Editors, Committee on Issues in Consolidating Spent Nuclear Fuel atInternational Storage Sites, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, National Research Council, 2008,

National Academy of Sciences, “Setting the Stage for International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities:International Workshop Proceedings”, rks, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12191.html.

Recognizing the serious potential consequences of radiation terrorism, Russia’s leaders and public

have focused constant attention in recent years on the reliable long-term (50-100 years) storage of spent

fuel as one of the most important elements of the fuel cycle. Important steps have been taken with

regard to international efforts in the scientific-technical, socioeconomic, and legal sectors, including

matters related to the creation of a regional international spent fuel storage facility in Russia. In our opinion, multinational agreements on the creation of a spent fuel storage facility in Russia could be

implemented under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Here we are counting onthe fact that creation of such a facility will entail application of the world’s best technologies for design

and implementation of the storage process to ensure the safety of the population and reliable physical

protection of the materials, transportation, high-quality containers, methods for analyzing the

condition of the fuel rods, licensing and guarantees, hiring and training of personnel, site selection,

provision of accounting and control of operating status, and possibilities for professional exchanges

with other similar facilities. We proceed based on the belief that the creation of international regional

spent fuel storage facilities will undoubtedly promote nonproliferation of nuclear materials and should

be categorized as an antiterrorism measure.



SDI 2008 p. 107 of 113


DA’s to the counterplan are non-unique - International or regional nuclear waste

repositories are inevitable.



However, it seems inevitable that at least in some areas of the world, regional storage sites or

repositories will be built. There are presently 34 countries plus Taiwan that will have to dispose of

spent fuel and/or high-level waste from reprocessing. It is hard to imagine 35 separate deep geological

repositorie s or an indefinite continuation of the present situation where almost every nuclear reactor in

the world constitutes a long-term spent fuel storage facility. It is particularly hard to imagine these

outcomes in regions of closely grouped states, each with spent fuel from only a few nuclear power

plants. These states might conclude that their environs would be better served by one storage site

and/or repository rather than several.

Transporting nuclear waste internationally is safe. It’s subject to stringent IAEA and IMO

standards ensuring no terrorism or accidents.



Prior to providing consent for retransfer , the United States would further have to be assured that the

material would be handled safely in transit. Sea transport of radioactive materials is routinely carried

out with an exceptionally high degree of safety and security, in compliance with stringent IAEA and

International Maritime Organization standards. Nevertheless, such shipments are highly controversial,and some coastal and small island states are increasingly vocal in calling for greater regulation or an outright

ban. Attempts to ship through international choke points, like the Panama Canal, the Straits of Malacca, or the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, could risk attempts to pose unilateral restrictions or even attempts atinterception by protestors. Large-scale movement of nuclear material from a port to a repository, via

road or rail, might prove to be a challenge for many nations’ infrastructures and can be another focal

point for protests. However, the technology for the transport casks is well established, and any

foreseeable incidents are not likely to pose a safety risk.

Transportation issues can be solve through new railroads.



Western ports in Russia might be problematic as receiving stations for foreign spent fuel as they

require access through politically sensitive sea lanes and choke points. If spent fuel were shipped to aPacific port, there could be concerns about the ability of the old trans-Siberian rail lines to sustain traffic inheavy rail-mounted casks. However, a new rail line could easily be designed for such traffic.



SDI 2008 p. 108 of 113


Russia is the ideal country for an international nuclear waste repository



For the majority of countries, selecting a site for the construction of a spent fuel repository is an

exceptionally complex problem. In the 1970s, IAEA and a number of countries developed rules for decisionmaking on repository locations. These decisions are to be made taking geological, economic, legal, andsocioeconomic factors into account. In the various countries that use nuclear power, each of these factors haswidely varying significance. It is especially difficult to resolve the problem of selecting an underground

spent fuel repository site in countries with high population density and unfavorable geological

conditions. Russia is among those countries with a large land area, low population density, and an

enormous diversity of geological conditions. For these reasons it is possible to select spent fuel

repository and storage facility sites in Russia with practically ideal geological conditions.

International repository will improve Russia’s economy.

Neil Chapman and Charles McCombie, Arius Association, IBC Conference, June 2007, Arius Associationfor International and Regional Underground Storage, Switzerland, “Is Now the Time for Regional Repositories?”,rks, http://www.arius-world.org/pages/pdf_2006_7/01_Chapman_IBC_London_June_2007.pdf.

Economic advantages for user and supplier. Any scheme must benefit both implementer and user

economically. If the previous requirements are met, Russia stands to benefit substantially by charging

appropriate rates for a service not currently available anywhere else. The approach to compensating hostcommunities willing to accept an international responsibility needs to be set out clearly, so that users areconvinced of the equity of the scheme. Offering a service that enhances global security and helps smallcountries to meet their waste management responsibilities can also bring significant political advantages.Users should be prepared to pay for avoiding the problems and unpredictable costs of running their

own national disposal programmes, which can take decades and might never even reach a successful

conclusion. Disposal prices will thus be significant but, owing to the huge economies of scale in

repository implementation (e.g. as estimated in the SAPIERR-1 project), they may still be less than small

nuclear countries would have to pay for a national repository.



SDI 2008 p. 109 of 113


Only a Russian waste repository can gain international acceptability from nations and

agencies; this will increase the trade of wastes and boost safety.

Neil Chapman and Charles McCombie, Arius Association, IBC Conference, June 2007, Arius Associationfor International and Regional Underground Storage, Switzerland, “Is Now the Time for Regional Repositories?”,rks, http://www.arius-world.org/pages/pdf_2006_7/01_Chapman_IBC_London_June_2007.pdf.

3. International acceptability is essential, in particular to the European Union and the United States.

Disposal outside the EU is not current EU policy and the USA has strict requirements for US-flaggedmaterials. Any country (or group of countries) would have to present the scheme’s credentials to their

own public and institutions with great commitment. Acceptability will depend upon the scheme being

openly executed to the highest technical standards being developed internationally, using appropriate

best available technology and being subject to international monitoring. At present, politicians and the public tend to prefer national options, arguing that this enables closer control of possible environmental andsafety impacts. It will only be possible to gain support for export if Russia can demonstrate clearly that

there will be no relaxation of standards. 4. Economic advantages for user and supplier. Any scheme must benefit both implementer and user economically. If the previous requirements are met, Russia stands to benefit substantially by charging appropriate rates for a service not currently available anywhere else. Theapproach to compensating host communities willing to accept an international responsibility needs to be setout clearly, so that users are convinced of the equity of the scheme. Offering a service that enhances globalsecurity and helps small countries to meet their waste management responsibilities can also bring significant

political advantages. Users should be prepared to pay for avoiding the problems and unpredictable costs of running their own national disposal programmes, which can take decades and might never even reach asuccessful conclusion. Disposal prices will thus be significant but, owing to the huge economies of scale inrepository implementation (e.g. as estimated in the SAPIERR-1 project), they may still be less than smallnuclear countries would have to pay for a national repository. 5. Long-term availability of facilities should beguaranteed for user countries. The facilities offered by Russia may be unique. If so, they need to beavailable over the period that wastes will be generated by user countries, so that all wastes for geologicaldisposal can be exported – otherwise their national problems are not solved. This point is very important for some Central and Eastern European countries that began a nuclear power programme under the assumptionthat spent fuel would be returned to the USSR – an option that was later withdrawn. 6. International supportand recognition. If the scheme proves internationally acceptable (point 3, above) then the major nuclear

nations and international agencies and associations (IAEA, OECD-NEA, WNA) should throw their weight

behind it, acknowledging that Russia would be providing a service that will enhance global security

and safety. These organisations can promote groups to help establish and guard the rights of thevarious parties to any waste transfer agreements.



SDI 2008 p. 110 of 113


DA Politics links - International repositories are unpopular.

International repositories are unpopular.

Neil Chapman and Charles McCombie, Arius Association, IBC Conference, June 2007, Arius Association

for International and Regional Underground Storage, Switzerland, “Is Now the Time for Regional Repositories?”,rks, http://www.arius-world.org/pages/pdf_2006_7/01_Chapman_IBC_London_June_2007.pdf.3. International acceptability is essential, in particular to the European Union and the United States.

Disposal outside the EU is not current EU policy and the USA has strict requirements for US-flagged

materials. Any country (or group of countries) would have to present the scheme’s credentials to their own public and institutions with great commitment. Acceptability will depend upon the scheme being openlyexecuted to the highest technical standards being developed internationally, using appropriate best availabletechnology and being subject to international monitoring. At present, politicians and the public tend to

prefer national options, arguing that this enables closer control of possible environmental and safety

impacts.

International repository is unpopular – that’s why there isn’t one now.



The major problem facing any international storage or acceptance of a shared repositories disposal

scheme is public acceptance. If it were an easy problem, there would be a regional spent fuel repository

by now, because the concept has been around for at least 25 years.

AT CP causes Iranian proliferation – turn trying to create a wedge between Russia and

Iran just undermines antiproliferation efforts.

Pavel Podvig, A physicist trained at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Podvig works as a research associate at StanfordUniversity's Center for International Security and Cooperation. His expertise is in the Russian nuclear arsenal, U.S.-Russian relations, andnonproliferation. In 1995, he headed the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Research Project, editing the project’s eponymous book, which

provides an overview of the Soviet and Russian strategic forces and the technical capabilities of Russia's strategic weapon systems, 5-22-

2008, National Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Don't block U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation”, rks,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/dont-block-us-russian-nuclear-cooperation.

But Congress will be disappointed if it thinks this will hinder Iran's nuclear program. Russia is helping

Tehran construct a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, which has nothing to do with uranium enrichment--the

most serious proliferation danger. Theoretically, Russia could use Bushehr as leverage to influence

Iran's position on enrichment, but there are limits to that type of pressure. And at this point, any attempt

to stop the Bushehr reactor could harm nonproliferation not help it: The international community is

trying to assure non-nuclear states that they will have reliable access to civilian nuclear power; to do

so, it must prove that these commitments are safe from U.S. political pressure.



SDI 2008 p. 111 of 113


Undermining the US-Russian nuclear agreement over Iran would spur nationalists in

Russia.

Pavel Podvig, A physicist trained at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Podvig works as a research associate at StanfordUniversity's Center for International Security and Cooperation. His expertise is in the Russian nuclear arsenal, U.S.-Russian relations, andnonproliferation. In 1995, he headed the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Research Project, editing the project’s eponymous book, which

provides an overview of the Soviet and Russian strategic forces and the technical capabilities of Russia's strategic weapon systems, 5-22-

2008, National Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Don't block U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation”, rks,http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/dont-block-us-russian-nuclear-cooperation.Moreover, by blocking the U.S.-Russian agreement, Congress would undermine those in Russia who

are arguing that Moscow should position itself as a responsible supplier of nuclear services and help

the international community limit the scale of Iran's nuclear program. In addition, it would reinforce

an already popular view in Russia that Washington is an unreliable partner who is determined to limit

Moscow's access to Western markets. In other words, congressional disapproval would weaken pro-U.S.forces in Russia and empower those who engage in confrontational anti-American rhetoric. This is hardly a

smart policy.



SDI 2008 p. 112 of 113


DA Yucca bad – links

A permanent repository would have to be Yucca.

Natural Gas Weekly, 6-9-08, Yucca Mountain Application Hits Deadline, But Debate Still Raging lexis, bc Nonetheless, it doesn't hurt that the US Department of Energy finally has applied for the license to

operate the facility at the Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada. The only site earmarked by

Congress, the Yucca Mountain Repository, ensconced in the Nevada desert about 80 miles northwest of LasVegas, has already cost $27 billion since the Nuclear Waste Fund was set up in 1983. And it's likely to cost

billions more as vociferous debate over the project drags on. No other subject of regulatory licensing triggersthe NIMBY syndrome more than nukes' spent fuel. Michael Skelly , the Democratic candidate for thegerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston, told Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca

Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next wave of nuclear generation.



SDI 2008 p. 113 of 113


DA Terrorism – Impacts

An attack on a nuclear power plant would cause extinction and if it didn’t those who lived

would envy the people who died.

Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War, ’01 (Harvey, Oct. 10,

http://www.newhumanist.com/nuclear.html , twm)No sane nation hands to a wartime enemy atomic weapons set to go off within its own homeland, and then lights the fuse. Yet asthe bombs and missiles drop on Afghanistan, the certainty of terror retaliation inside America has turned our 103 nuclear power

plants into weapons of apocalyptic destruction, just waiting to be used against us. One or both planes that crashed into the

World Trade Center on September 11, could have easily obliterated the two atomic reactors now operating at Indian Point,

about 40 miles up the Hudson. The catastrophic devastation would have been unfathomable. But those and a hundred other

American reactors are still running. Security has been heightened. But all are vulnerable to another sophisticated terror attack aimed at perpetrating the unthinkable. Indian Point Unit One was shut long ago by public outcry. But Units 2 & 3 have operatedsince the 1970s. Back then there was talk of requiring reactor containment domes to be strong enough to withstand a jetliner

crash. But the biggest jets were far smaller than the ones that fly today. Nor did those early calculations account for the jet fuel

whose hellish fire melted the critical steel supports that ultimately brought down the Trade Center. Had one or both those jets

hit one or both the operating reactors at Indian Point, the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshimaand Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest

anywhere on the planet. So are the hellish levels of radioactivity. Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl, which ran only four years before it exploded. Some believe the WTC jets could have collapsed or breached either of the Indian Point containment domes. But at very least the massive impact and intense jet fuel fire would destroy the human ability to control the plants'functions. Vital cooling systems, backup power generators and communications networks would crumble. Indeed, Indian Point Unit One was shut becauseactivists warned that its lack of an emergency core cooling system made it an unacceptable risk. The government ultimately agreed. But today terroristattacks could destroy those same critical cooling and control systems that are vital to not only the Unit Two and Three reactor cores, but to the spent fuel pools that sit on site. The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible.

One or more could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or

even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force. Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even modest

security tests over the years. Even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitivecontrols required for reactor safety. Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive

rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava

that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river.Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initiallydrive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, windsultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point,thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that wouldkill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly di e en masse. Virtually all pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns wouldafflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea andincontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. Aterrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by thefliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and byvictims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors andhellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived theinitial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highwayswould become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts toquench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missionswould be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more

http://www.newhumanist.com/nuclear.html

http://www.newhumanist.com/nuclear.html

Documents

WHAM Nuclear Power Supplement