CNDI - Nuclear Power Aff PT 1

CNDI08 EF/ML/MB
NUCLEAR ENERGY AFF
NUCLEAR ENERGY AFFIRMATIVE

NUCLEAR ENERGY AFFIRMATIVE 1
1 AC-INHERENCY 5
1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE 6
1 AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE 9
1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE : 11
1 AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE 16
1 AC-WARMING ADVANTAGE 18
1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE 20
1 AC-ECONOMY ADVANTAGE 21
1 AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE 22
1 AC-ECONOMY AD VANTAGE 29
1 AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE 33
1 AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE 34
1AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE 35
1AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE 36
1 AC-PLAN 37
1 AC-SOLVENCY 38
1 AC-SOLVENCY 39
1 AC-SOLVENCY 40
1 AC-SOLVENCY 41
1 AC-SOLVENCY 42
1AC-SOLVENCY 43
1 AC-SOLVENCY 44
1 AC-SOLVENCY 45
INHERENCY - CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL 47
INHERENCY - CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL . 48
Nuclear Energy Affirmative
INHERENCY-NUCLEAR POWER DYING 49

INHERENCY - NUCLEAR POWER DYING 50
WARMING ADV U - CONSENSUS 51
WARMING ADV U - HUMANS 52
WARMING ADV - LINK - NUCLEAR POWER 54
WARMING ADV - IL - NUKE POWER GOOD 57
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - RUNAWAY 58
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - FOOD SHORTAGE 60
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - FOOD SHORTAGE 61
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - ECOSYSTEMS 62
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - BIODIVERSITY 63
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - CO2 64
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - CO2 65
ECONOMY ADV - U - OIL 66
ECONOMY ADV - U - ECONOMY 67
ECONOMY ADV - U - ECONOMIC INSTABILITY 68
ECONOMY ADV - U - ENERGY CRISIS 69
ECONOMY ADV - U - ENERGY CRISIS 70
ECONOMY ADV - U - OIL NOT ENOUGH 71
ECONOMY ADV - L - OIL NOT ENOUGH 72
ECONOMY ADV - L - NUKE POWER IMPERATIVE 73
ECONOMY ADV - L - NUKE ENERGY IS THE ONLY SOLUTION 74
ECONOMY ADV - L - ELECTRICITY GRID KEY 75
ECONOMY ADV - L - ECONOMY 84
ECONOMY ADV - L - NATURAL GAS CAN HURT ECONOMY 88
ECONOMY ADV - L - NAT GAS CAN HURT ECONOMY 89
ECONOMY ADV - L - NUKE ENERGY GOOD AND NEEDED 90
ECONOMY ADV - L - IMPERATIVE TO INVEST IN NUKE POWER 91
ECONOMY ADV - L - NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE ONLY SOLUTION 92
ECONOMY ADV - IL - NUKE ENERGY KEY 93
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - NAT GAS 94
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - NAT GAS 95
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - PRICE SHOCK 96
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - FOOD PRICES 97
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - PRODUCTION DEMAND 98
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - BLACKOUTS 99
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - ECONOMY IMPACT 101
ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - BLACKOUTS 102
ECONOMY ADV-IMP ACT-PRICE SHOCK.. ... ....... 107

NUCLEAR PROLIF ADV - U - PROLIF NOW 109
NUCLEAR PROLIF ADV - L - NUKE ENERGY PREVENTS PROLIF 112
NUCLEAR PROLIF - L - NUKE ENERGY PREVENTS PROLIF 113
NUCLEAR PROLIF ADV - L - NUK ENERGY PREVENTS PROLIF 114
NUCLEAR PROLIF ADV - IMPACTS - TERRORISM 115
NUCLEAR PROLIF ADV - IMPACTS - SELF-DESTRUCTION 116
SOLVENCY - LOAN GURANTEE 117
SOLVENCY-LOAN GURANTEE 118
SOLVENCY-LOAN GURANTEES AND TAXES 119
SOLVENCY - LOAN GURANTEES AND TAX INCENTIVES 120
SOLVENCY - MODELLING / GLOBAL LEADERSHIP 121
SOLVENCY - LIGHT WATER 129
SOLVENCY-LIGHT WATER 130
SOLVENCY - LIGHT WATER 131
SOLVENCY - HEAVY WATER 132
SOLVENCY - HEAVY WATER 133
SOLVENCY -DUPIC 134
SOLVENCY-DUPIC 136
SOLVENCY-DUPIC 137
SOLVENCY-DUPIC 138
SOLVENCY-DUPIC 139
SOLVENCY-ACCIDENTS 140
SOLVENCY - ACCIDENTS 141
SOLVENCY-WASTE 146
SOLVENCY-WASTE 147
SOLVENCY-WASTE 148
SOLVENCY - WASTE 149
SOLVENCY - ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY 150
SOLVENCY-ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY 154
SOLVENCY-ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY 155
SOLVENCY-ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY.. .. 159
SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION 160

SOLVENCY - SOLVES ENERGY 168
SOLVENCY-SOLVES ENERGY 172
SOLVENCY-COST EFFECTIVE 175
SOLVENCY - COST EFFECTIVE 178
SOLVENCY - COST EFFECTIVE 179
SOLVENCY - RADIATION GOOD 180
SOLVENCY - RADIATION 181
SOLVENCY-TERRORISM 185
SOLVENCY - TERRORISM 186
SOLVENCY - TERRORISM 187
SOLVENCY - INCENTIVES KEY 188
SOLVENCY - FEDERAL KEY 193
SOLVENCY-FEDERAL KEY 194
TOPICALITY - AFFIRMATIVE 195
TOPICALITY-NEGATIVE 196
INHERENCY-NEGATIVE - CURRENT INCENTIVES WORK 197
ALTERNATE CAUSES 198
SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - PROLIFERATION 199
SOLVENCY-NEGATIVE-NOT COST EFFECTIVE 200
SOLVENCY-NEGATIVE-RADIATION 201
SOLVENCY-NEGATIVE-TERRORISM 202
SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - PBMR NOT SAFE 203
SOLVENCY - NEGATIVE - PBMR WASTE PROBLEMS .... ....... 204
1AC - INHERENCY
CURRENT INCENTIVES ARE NOT ENOUGH. NUCLEAR ENERGY FACES MANY HURDLES
TO GET OFF THE GROUND.
CDP 2008 - CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS AND PUBLICATIONS
FURTHER CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT NEEDED FOR RESURGANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER, US
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DOCUMENTS, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, 4-23
WASHINGTON D.C. - The Science and Technology Committee today held a hearing to explore the
potential for nuclear power to provide an increased proportion of electricity in the U.S. Witnesses at the
hearing highlighted the environmental and strategic benefits of nuclear energy and pointed to ways
Congress can support the development of new nuclear power plants. "Nuclear energy has all the properties
and benefits our world needs to successfully combat global climate change and meet our energy needs."
said Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA). "Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest energy sources known to
mankind, but the United States has not built a new nuclear power plant in nearly 20 years. If we are to
truly harness this great technology and solve our environmental problems, we must make a commitment to
nuclear research and development as well as the production of new nuclear facilities." Companies over the
last nine months have filed nine license applications with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to
build a total of fifteen new nuclear reactors in the U.S. No new reactors have been built in the U.S. in over
twenty years, largely due to high upfront costs and uncertainty, deterring investments in such
facilities. Further, Mr. Robert Van Namen, Senior Vice President of Uranium Enrichment at USEC, said
that our domestic companies are at a disadvantage. "Domestic fuel companies constructing new facilities
face stiff competition in a market dominated by foreign, vertically integrated Finns, many of which benefit
from the financial and political support of their .governments." He continued, "Now is the time for the U.S.
government to encourage the efforts of our domestic companies to rejuvenate the U.S. nuclear fuel cycle
so it can meet the demand of an expanded nuclear power generating capacity in the decades to
come." Many in the industry have expressed that strong federal incentives are necessary to build new
plants. Incentives authorized within the last three years include: loan guarantees for new nuclear plants;
cost-overrun support; a production tax credit; and a joint government-industry cost-shared program to help
utilities prepare for a new licensing process. However, it is expected that currently authorized loan
guarantees will only cover the first 4-6 new plants. Representing the largest owner and operator of
commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S., Marilyn C. Kray, Vice President of Exelon Nuclear and
President of NuStart Energy Development, highlighted the challenges a company faces when attempting to
build a new nuclear plant. These impediments include lack of confidence in a long-term solution for
used fuel disposal, and lack of public confidence in nuclear power.
1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE
WARMING IS HAPPENING, AND THE CONSENSUS IS DOMINANT - EVEN MAINSTREAM

SKEPTICS ONLY QUESTION THE MAGNITUDE OF THE IMPACTS
LE PAGE IN '2007IMichael, New Scientist, May 16, 2007,
http:/7environment.newscientist.coin/channel/earth/climate-change/dnl 1654^'Climate myths: Many leading
scientists question climate change", CNDI-TP )
Climate chanae sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change.
Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading
scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the
Kyoto protocol. This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the
60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and
at least 15 are retired. Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various
scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the
consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11.000 signatories to a petition
condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science. The fact is that there is an
overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There
are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing. Even the position
of perhaps the most respected sceptic. Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream:
he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most
predict. Of course. Just because most scientists t h i n k something is true does not necessarily
mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing
body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the
term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position.
One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong - but later quietly withdrew the claim.
WARMING IS REAL — OVERWHELMING DATA SHOWS SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE

INCREASES — HUMANS ARE THE CAUSE
SCIENCE IN '2007(Richard A. Kerr, "CLIMATE CHANGE: Scientists Tell Policymakers We're All
Warming the World", Vol. 315, No. 5813, February 9, p. 754-757, CNDI-TP)
They've said it before, but this time climate scientists are saying it with feeling: The WOrld JS Warming: it's not
aii natural, it's us: and if nothing is done, it will get a whole lot worse The last time the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessed the state of the climate, in early 2001, it got a polite
enough hearing. The world was warming, it said, and human activity was "likely" to be driving most of the warming. Back
then, the committee specified a better-than-60% chance-not exactly a ringing endorsement. And how bad might things
get? That depended on a 20-year-old guess about how sensitive the climate system might be to rising greenhouse gases.
Given the uncertainties, the IPCC report's reception was on the tepid side. Six years of research later, the heightened
confidence is obvious. Thewarminq is "unequivocal." Humans are "very likely" (higher
than 90% likelihood) behind the warming. And the climate system is "very
unlikely" to be so insensitive as to render future warming inconsequential, msisthe
way it was supposed to work, according tO qlaCJOlOQist Richard Alley Of Pennsylvania State University
in State College B lead author On this IPCC report. "The governments of the world said to scientists,
'Here's a few billion dollars-get this right,'" Alley says. "They took the money, and 17 years after the first IPCC report,
they got it right. It's still science, not revealed truth, but the science has gotten better and better and better. We're putting
CO2 in the air, and that's changing the climate." With such self-assurance, this IPCC report may really go somewhere,
especially in the newly receptive United States (see sidebar, p. 756), where a small band of scientists has long contested
IPCC reports. Coordinating lead author Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, certainly hopes
their report hits home this time. "I want societies to understand that this is a real problem, and it affects the life of my kids."
Down to work Created by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, the
IPCC had the process down for its fourth assessment report. Forty governments nominated the 150
lead authors and 450 Contributing authors of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
There was no clique of senior insiders: 75% of nominated lead authors were new
to that role, and one-third of authors got their final degree in the past 10 years.
Authors had their draft chapters reviewed by all comers. More than 600 volunteered, submitting 30,000 comments.
Authors responded to every comment, and reviewers certified each response. With their final draft of the science in hand,
authors gathered in Paris, France, with 300 representatives of 113 nations for 4 days to hash out the wording of a
scientist-written Summary for Policymakers The fact of Warming W3S perhaPS the mOSt
straightforward item of business For starters, the air is 0.74°C warmer than in 1906 up from
a century's warming of o 6°c in the last report Eleven of the last twelve years rank among
the 12 warmest years in the [150-vear-lonal instrumental record, notes the
summary (ipcc-wgi.ucar.edu). Warming ocean waters, shrinking mountain glaciers, and
retreating snow cover strengthened the evidence. So the IPCC authors weren't
impressed by the contrarian argument that the warming is just an "urban heat
island effect" driven by increasing amounts of heat-absorbing concrete and asphalt. That effect is real, the report
says, but it has "a negligible influence" on the global number. Likewise, new analyses have largely settled the hullabaloo
over why thermometers at Earth's surface measured more warming than remote-sensing satellites had detected higher in
the atmosphere (Science, 12 May 2006, p. 825). Studies by several groups have increased the
Satellite-determined Warming, largely reconciling the difference. This confidently observed warming of the
globe can't be anything but mostly human-induced, the IPCC finds. True, modeling Studies have Shown
that natural forces in the Climate SVStem-such as calmer volcanoes and the sun's brighteninq-have
in fact led tO Warming in the Past, as skeptics point out. And the natural ups and downs of climate have at
times warmed the globe. But all of these natural variations in combination have not warmed the world enough, fast
enough, and for long enough in the right geographic patterns to produce the observed warming, the report finds. In model
studies, nothing warms the world as observed except the addition of greenhouse gases in the actual amounts emitted.
1 AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE
From studies of long-past climate, including the famous hockey-stick curve of the past millennium's temperature
(Science, 4 August 2006, p. 603), the IPCC concludes that the recent warming is quite out of the ordinary. 'Northern
Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very
likely higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years." the
report concludes, "and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years contrarians
have conceded that greenhouse gases may be warming the planet, but not by much, they say. The climate system is not
sensitive enough to greenhouse gases to overheat the globe, they say. For the first time, the IPCC report directly counters
that argument. Several different lines of evidence point to a moderately strong climate
Sensitivity (Science, 21 April 2006, p. 351). The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 thickened the stratospheric haze
layer and cooled climate, providing a gauge of short-term climate sensitivity. Paleoclimatologists have determined how
hard the climate system was driven during long-past events such as the last ice age and how much climate changed then.
And models have converged on a narrower range of climate sensitivity. The IPCC concludes that both models and past
climate changes point to a fairly sensitive climate system. The Warming for 3 doubling Of CQ2 "JS
very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C," says the report, not the less than 0.5°C favored bv
some contrarians. A best estimate is about 3°C. with a iikeiy range of 2°c to 4.s°c. what next?
Looking ahead, the report projects a warming of about 0.4°C for the next 2 decades. That is about as rapid as the
warming of the past 15 years, but 50% faster than the warming of the past 50 years. By ttlG end Of thJS
century, global temperatures might rise anywhere between a substantial
1.7°C and a whOPPinq 4.0°C. depending on the amount of greenhouse gases emitted. In some model
projections, late-summer Arctic sea ice all but disappears late in this century. It is very likely that extremes of heat, heat
waves, and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent. Rain in lower latitudes will decrease,
leading to more drought.
WE ISOLATE FOUR SCENARIOS FOR THE IMPACT
7 - RUNA WA Y GLOBAL WARMING
WARMING IS ESCALATING OUT OF CONTROL - KILLING BILLIONS

STOKES IN 2007 (John, has extensive research on global warming, The Canadian,
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html. "Over 4.5 Billion people
could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012," CNDI-TP)
A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caised by a feedback
loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming. leading to further melting of
clathrates and bacterial growth.
In other words, like western Siberia the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate w i l l gradually mdt, and the released
methane w i l l speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year
would be catastrophic.
The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In
fact, you should remember this moment when you learned d>out this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life.
By the way. the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I
suggest you Google the term.
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted
to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the runaway Global Warming.
There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic
permafrost clathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.
The highest temperature increase from global wanning is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.
Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains
viable populations of bacteria that begin to convert the peat into methane and C02.
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat
bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane. Local atmospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global
concentrations.
By the way, warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have caused microbial activity to increase
dramatically in the soil around the world. This, in turn, means that much of the carbon long stored in the
soil is now being released into the atmosphere.
Releases of methane from melting oceanic ciathrates have caused severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic
clathrates has been estimated at 10.000 billion tons.
55 million years ago a global warmirg chain reaction (probably started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was one of
the most rapid and extreme global warming events in geologic history.
Humans appear to be capable of emitting CO2 in quantities comparable to the volcanic activity that started
these chain reactions. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, burning fossil fuels releases more than 150
times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.
Methane in the atmosphere does not remain long, persisting for about 10 years before being oxidized toCO2 (a greenhouse gas that
lasts for hundreds of thousands of years). Chronic methane releases oxidizing into C02 contribute as much to warming as does the
transient methane concentrations.
To summarize, human activity is causing the Earth to warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse
gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw;
peat and soil microbial activity will dramatically increase; and, finally, vast oceanic clathrates will melt. This global warming chain
reaction has happened in the past.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the third
successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to explain why the rapid rise
has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of runaway global warming.
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust worldwide by
2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale as military powers
including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's remaining resources.
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet Earth
accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
10
TWO - STARVATION
A - EXPERTS SAY GLOBAL WARMING WILL INTENSIFY WORLD FOOD SHORTAGES.

THE FUTURE OF FOOD PRODUCTION IS BLEAK WITHOUT A RESPONSE TO CO2
EMISSIONS.
GREENPEACE IN 07 (International responders to climate control, GreenPeace, February 2007,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0207.html. "EXPERTS SAY GLOBAL
WARMING MAY EXACERBATE WORLD FOOD SHORTAGES" CNDI-TP)
The IPCC Working Group III Subgroup on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Systems (AFOS) report
concludes: The anticipated rise in global average temperature of about 2 to 3 oC over the next century
will most likely lead to severe impacts on agriculture and forestry such as: a shift of the climatic zones
by several hundred kilometres towards the poles, enlarging the arid zones in the tropical and subtropical
regions, and reducing the land available for agriculture, a rise in sea level of about 0.3 metres, inundating
valuable land in coastal areas, especially in tropical and subtropical zones, a gradual breakdown of many
ecosystems like forests in temperate and boreal regions, leading to additional CO2 emissions and thus to
further greenhouse warming, potentially increased effects from pests and weeds.
Marine and land food species may also be affected by the increasing levels of ultraviolet radiation reaching
the earth as a result of unavoidable ongoing depletion of stratospheric ozone. This could lead to a reduced
production of biomass and photosynthesis, thus again enhancing the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
The Group concludes that "it is likely to be enormously difficult task for mankind, not only to limit climate
change to a tolerable level, but also to simultaneously achieve sufficient food production for a still rising
WOrld p o p u l a t i o n . . . (K. Heinloth (Physikalisches Institutdes Universit t Bonn) & R P. Karimanzira, "Outcomes and policy recommendations from the IPCC/AFOS
working group on climate change response strategies and emission reductions", Climatic Change, v 27(1), p 139-146, May 1994)
Eminent US scientists. Henry Kendall and David Pimental. agree with the conclusions of the IPCC
workshop. In modelling food supply requirements for various population levels, they conclude that global
warming and ozone depletion may have catastrophic effects on global food production. While most
countries were food self-sufficient in the early 1960s, few remain so. The increasing reliance on fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation,
increasing spread of soil erosion, ground and surface water pollution, sal inisation, and rapid degradation of productive land has
contributed to significantly reduced food production. In Africa, per capita grain production has decreased by 22 percent since 1967.
Simultaneously, global population is projected to double in 40 years, necessitating a tripling of current food
production to maintain all peoples above the poverty line. Water is considered the major limiting factor, but
the problems associated with irrigation suggest that this is not the answer. Their study finds that while
global wanning may benefit some crops, it may also benefit pests, insects and weeds.
11
THREE - ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION
A - ECOSYSTEMS ARE ENDANGERED DUE TO RISING CO2 EMISSIONS. WE ARE

ALMOST AT THE TIPPING POINT OF NO RETURN - IMMEDIATE ACTION IS NECESSARY.
HINMAN IN 2008 (Pip, New Reporter, February 9, 2008, http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38269
"New report warns of runaway climate change" - CNDI- TP)
Philip Sutton from Greenleap and David Spratt from Carbon Equity argue that "human activity has
already pushed the planet's climate past several critical 'tipping points', including the initiation of
major ice sheet loss".
They quote US climate scientist James Hansen who warned in 2007 that the loss of 8 million square kilometres of Arctic sea ice now
seems inevitable, and may occur as early as 2010 — a century ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections.
"There is already enough carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere to initiate ice sheet disintegration in
West Antarctica and Greenland and to ensure that sea levels will rise metres in coming decades", the report's
authors say.
"The projected speed of change, with temperature increases greater than 0.3°C per decade and the
consequent rapid shifting of climatic zones will, if maintained, likely result in most ecosystems failing to
adapt, causing the extinction of many animal and plant species. The oceans will become more acidic.
endangering much marine life.
"The Earth's passage into an era of dangerous climate change accelerates as each of these tipping
points is passed. If this acceleration becomes too great, humanity will no longer have the power to
reverse the processes we have set in motion."
The authors conclude that we can avert this potential disaster, but warn that the science demands that "politics as usual'' be rejected.
"The climate crisis will not respond to incremental modification of the business as usual model."
"The sustainabilitv emergency is now not so much a radical idea as simply an indispensable course of
action if we are to return to a safe-climate planet", the authors conclude.
Cam Walker, spokesperson from FoE, usedthe report's launch on February 4 to call on the government to urgently review the role of
the Garnaut Climate Change Review w h i c h is to make recommendations on carbon emission targets.
Walker criticised the terms of reference for Ross Garnaut, and the government's policy of a60% cut in emissions by 2050, saying that
global warming of 3^ would lead to disaster.
"The government is potentially allowing Garnaut to engage in dangerous trade-offs with the lives of many species and many people
rather than setting a safe-climate target", he said.
Walker said the government is behind the times on climate science and urged it to bring James Hansen, head of the US NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Science, and that country's most eminent climate scientist, into the review process "so that the science
was put first rather than last in making climate policy".
Walker said that Hansen warned in December that climate tipping points have already been passed for large
ice sheet disintegration and species loss, and there is already enough carbon in the Earth's atmosphere for
massive ice sheets such as on Greenland to eventually melt away.
"These impacts are starting to happen at less than one degree of warming, yet the government E effectively planning on allowing
warming to run to 3 degrees", said Walker.
13
B - IMPACT - LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE ECOSYSTEM LEADS TO EXTINCTION.

Miguel SantOS. Environmental Crisis, 1999 p. 35-36
In addition, natural forests provide recreation and unique scientific beauty while at the same time serving as
the basis for natural communities that provide life support to organisms (including people). As mentioned,
one vital by-product of plant photosynthetic activity is oxygen, which is essential to human existence. In
addition, forests remove pollutants and odors from the atmosphere. The wilderness is highly effective in
metabolizing many toxic substances. The atmospheric concentration of pollutants over the forest, such as
particulates and sulfur dioxide, are measurably below thai of adjacent areas (see Figure 2.3).
In view of their ecological role in ecosystems, the impact of species extinction may be devastating. The rich
diversity of species and the ecosystems that support them are intimately connected to the long-term survival
of humankind. As the historic conservationist AJdo Leopold stated in 1949, "The outstanding scientific
discovery of the twentieth century is not television or radio, but the complexity of the land organisms... To
keep even,' cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."
An endangered species may have a significant role in its community. Such an organism may control the
structure and functioning of the community through its activities. The sea otter, for example, in relation to
its size, is perhaps the most voracious of ail marine mammals. The otter feeds on sea mollusks, sea urchins,
crabs, and fish. It needs to eat more than 20 percent of its weight every day to provide the necessary energy
to maintain its body temperature in a cold marine habitat. The_exliri£Ji2JD-fif such keystojlS or controller
species from the ecosystem would cause great damage, Its extinction could have cascading effects on many
species, even causing_secondary extinction.
Traditionally, species have always evolved along with their changing environment. As disease organisms
evolve, other organisms may evolve chemical defense mechanisms that confer disease resistance. As the
weather becomes drier, for example, plants may develop smaller, trucker leaves, which lose water slowly.
The environrrigiiL howeverJs now developing and changing rapidly, but evolutioms slow, requiring
hundreds of thousands of years. If species are allowed to become extinct^,jjic total.biological diversity
on Earth will be greatly reduced; therefore, the potential Connatural adaptation and change also will be
reduced, thus endangering the .diversity
14
FOUR-CARBON DIE-OXIDE
INDEPENDENT OF WARMING, INCREASING LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE

RESULTS IN DEADLY DISEASES AMONG HUMANKIND.
SEC in 2007 (Society for Environmental Communications. January 15, 2007,
http://w\v\v.downtoeailh.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070l I5&filename=news&sec_id=l2&sid=25.
"Runaway carbon dioxide bad news for humans" CNDI-TP)
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc) estimates that the range of stabilised atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
by 2050 will be between 450 parts per million (ppm) and 550 ppm. A paper published in the journal Current Science (Vol 90. No 12)
argues that these concentration levels have not been correlated to health impacts. According to the paper, 426 ppm is the permissible
exposure over a lifetime. The author says that increasing levels of carbon dioxide, apart from affecting climate, will
have serious toxic effects on humans and other mammals. Higher carbon dioxide concentration affects
health by reducing blood ph causing difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate, headache, hearing loss,
sweating and fatigue. Some studies have also shown possibilities of embryonic or foetal abnormalities due
to increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
A study on health effects of high indoor carbon dioxide concentrations has established that at 600 ppm.
occupants felt stuffy, and above this level, symptoms of poisoning started to show. At 1.000 ppm. nearly all
the occupants were affected.
All these effects were observed with only a transient exposure and not over a lifetime. On an average, carbon dioxide levels in offices
reach 800-1,200 ppm and up to 2,000 ppm in overcrowded conference room; At present, carbon dioxide concentration in
the atmosphere is about 380 ppm. When it reaches 600 ppm. the Earth will have a permanent outdoor
atmosphere exactly like that of a stuffy room, which life may not adapt to.
15
ONLY NUCLEAR POWER CAN HALT GLOBAL WARMING. LEADING

ENVIRONMENTALIST URGES NEW DIRECTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE .
MCCARTHY IN 2004,(Michael. Environmental Editor, 5/24/04,
http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/nuclear energy.html. "Leading environmentalist urges radical
rethink on climate change" CNDI-TP)
'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'
The ice is melting much faster than we thought'
Guru who tuned into Gaia was one of the first to warn of climate threat
James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution
Global wanning is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's
main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilization, the scientist and celebrated Green guru,
James Lovelock, says.
His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old
radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the
world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of
both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call.
Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that
the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers
to sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect.
He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's
Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.
He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even
more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it
would, in their last report in 2001.
On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar
power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power
stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm.
16
He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2. can now check
a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence
and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are
irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition.
In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular: the
melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of
extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a
direct result of global warming.
These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in
ignorance of this. Important among the reasons is "the denial of climate change is in the US. where
governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed".
17
NUCLEAR POWER ALONE PLAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE IN PREVENTING

GLOBAL WARMING.
USA TODAY IN 2000 (Society for the Advancement of Education, August, 2000,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ml272/is_2663_129/ai_63986733 "A Nuclear Solution to Global
Warming" - CNDI-TP)
Nuclear power can play a significant role in preventing catastrophic global warming, maintain
William C. Sailor and Bob van der Zwaan. visiting science fellows at the Center for International Security
and Cooperation. Stanford (Calif.) University. They are affiliated with Nuclear Power Issues and Choices
for the 21st Century, a CISAC project investigating whether nuclear energy has a legitimate role in
preventing global warming."Mankind is facing a tremendous challenge with global climate change. In the
coming two decades, we have to consider new energy sources, including nuclear," indicates Van der
Zwaan, on leave from the Free University of the Netherlands, though he admits that widespread public
concern has led several countries to halt development of nuclear energy. "Eighty-five percent of ail Dutch people are
opposed to it," he notes, and the numbers are similar in other European countries.
Most of the world's energy is derived from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. Only about six percent
comes from nuclear power plants However, burning fossil fuels emits large amounts of carbon dioxide
([CO.sub.21) and other gases that trap infrared radiation from the sun. As a result say many climatologists.
the atmosphere is heating up like the inside of a greenhouse, and unless the rate of [CO.sub.2] gas
emissions is reduced the temperature of the Earth will increase by as much as 6 [degrees] F in the 21st
century. Such global warming, according to worst-case scenarios, will cause disastrous floods, droughts,
and erratic changes in ocean currents, and even will spread tropical diseases and parasites throughout the
planet. Advocates say that nuclear power can help prevent global warming because reactors produce
virtually no greenhouse gases. They point to France, where about 60 nuclear power plants provide three-fourths of the country's electricity.
Critics argue that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and prohibitively expensive. They point out that accidents like the 1986 Chemobyi power plant
disaster in the former Soviet Union can result in radiation poisoning that lasts many generations. Opponents also maintain that safely storing radioactive
waste is difficult and that newly designed breeder reactors could make it easier for plutonium fuel to get into the hands of terrorists and others eager to
build small-scale nuclear weapons. Van der Zwaan and Sailor point to recent studies showing that, to prevent dangerous climate change from occurring in
the next 50 years, the [CO sub.2]-gas emissions must remain at current levels—despite a projected 50% population increase by the year 2050 that could
double or triple world demand for energy. "Lacking a crystal ball that tells us the future, we simply select one possible
scenario that achieves the emissions target." Their scenario envisions a world in which one-third of all
energy comes from fossil fuels; one-third from renewable resources, like solar and wind power and one-
third from nuclear power. To achieve that ambitious goal, all the nations of the world would have to
consume less oil, coal, and natural gas than they do today, while increasing renewable and nuclear energy
SOUrceS at least tenfold. To accomplish that will require increasing the number of nuclear reactors from about 430 to roughly 4,000, which
means that more than one nuclear reactor would have to be built every week for the next 50 years. "That would require a massive industrial effort" Van
der Zwaan concedes, costing trillions of dollars, but he believes that developed nations like the U.S. can achieve this
Objective if there is Strong popular Support. (According to the Department of Energy, the U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors in operation
today. Twenty-eight have been shut down permanently since 1953, and there are no plans to build new ones.) Sailor, who is on a one-year sabbatical from
the Los Alamos (N.M.) National Laboratory and holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering, argues that renewable forms of energy such as hydro, wind,
and solar power are fraught with technical or environmental problems that make them unlikely substitutes. Once it S realized that we
cannot make ends meet without nuclear energy, there is a chance that public opinion will turn greatly so
that nuclear power w i l l Once again be acceptable." Before thai can happen, the issues of safety, cost, waste, and proliferation must
be addressed Economics is another major obstacle to the development of nuclear power. The average nuclear power plant costs about 51,500,000.000
and takes four years to build. Since natural gas power plants are cheaper and faster to construct. Sailor and Van der Zwaan recommend gradually phasing
in a "carbon tax" of about 30 cents per gallon on petroleum to make nuclear power more competitive In the meantime, the Department
of Energy and other agencies worldwide should increase reactor research efforts aimed at simplified
designs and economies of scale in construction."
18
1 AC - WARMINGADVANTAGE
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING.

LAWSON IN 2004 (Richard, Green Health Reporter, November 26, 2004,
http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/nuclear.htm. "The paradox : Gaian system and nuclear process" CNDI-TP)
In May 2004 James Lovelock, originator of the Gaian (earth systems) hypothesis, stirred media interest when he
reiterated his support for nuclear power (NP) as part of the solution to the overwhelming threat that humanity
(and the planet) is facing from global wanning. Since then the nuclear industry has been lobbying hard to restart
its failing programme by presenting it as the answer to global warming.
James Lovelock knows better than any of us that the solution to global warming will involve complex
changes involving everything from finance to forestry and gigawatts to goat management, interacting together in a huge system
change. Above all, it will involve a shift in our perception of the world. Literally hundreds of new technologies
will be rolled out, primarily in energy conservation, energy efficiency, and many modes of renewable
energy technology.
The key to all this, as James taught us, is that Gaia moves in cycles that interact in mutually complementary ways, sometimes
facilitating each other and sometimes inhibiting each other. We must leave behind our old ways of thinking in isolated, linear, cause
and effect modules, and learn to think in the way that nature moves, in interrelated web-like systems.
The paradox is that nuclear power is an outstanding example of linear thinking. You dig out your uranium, you
bum it, and you bun,' it (or fire it off into the sun or something, whatever). From a systems point of view, the main thing to
bear in mind is that you must try to cause as few cancers as you can reasonably get away with, which
means isolating the nuclear cycle as best you can from the rest of nature, (and of course, you have make sure that
nobody with brown skin gets hold ofnuclear power, because they might develop nuclear weapons from it, and give them to Osama bin
Laden.).
When I put this systems argument to James Lovelock, his only response was that nuclear fission reactions have occurred in nature.
This is true: but asteroid hits are also a part of nature, but this does not mean that we should contemplating attracting asteroid hits in an
effort to extract energy from them. His response is not a valid defence of his position, and the systems argument against nuclear power
still stands.
James recognises that nuclear power is a risky business, but says that we must use it, because if we
continue to use coal oil and gas, it is certain that global warming will cause immense damage to
planet and people.
We must address the question raised by an environmentalist of the stature of James Lovelock. Should we accept nuclear power,
despite its dangers and drawbacks, as a necessary instrument in the battle against global warming''
19
1 AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE
ENERGY DEMAND SKYROCKETING

FOX NEWS 2008
(June 25 2008, "Worldwide Energy Demand Will Rise 51 Percent by 2030, Energy Department Report
Says", pg online @ http://www.foxnews.eom/story/0,2933,371286,00.html)
WASHINGTON — Despite persistently high oil prices, global energy demand will grow by 50 percent over the next
two decades with continued heavy reliance on environmentally troublesome fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, the
government predicted Wednesday.
The report forecast the steepest increases in China and other emerging economies where energy demand is expected to
be 85 percent greater in 2030 than it is today.
"What jumps out is the very strong growth in the emerging economies," said Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy Information
Administration, which conducted the long-term energy outlook.
The projections said that without mandatory actions to address global warming, the amount of heat-trapping carbon
dioxide flowing into the atmosphere each year from energy use will be 51 percent greater in 2030 than it was three
years ago.
HIGH COST OF ENERGY MAKES ECONOMIC DECLINE INEVITABLE

LOS ANGELES TIMES 2008
(Januar> : 22 2008, "All eyes on U.S. as world markets dive; Investors fear that American woes could hurt
other economies. The sell-off continues in Asia early today", pg online @
http://proquest.umi. com/pqdweb?index=7&did=1416289321&SrchMode=l&sid=ll&Fmt=3&VInst=PRO
D&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1214676470&clientId=1566)
Stock markets worldwide on Monday suffered one of their worst routs since the 2001 terrorist attacks on
growing fears that U.S. economic woes could turn global boom times to bust.Foreign markets, most of
which had been sliding in recent weeks along with U.S. shares, faced a ban-age of selling that left many of
them down more than 5% for the day, and some down as much as 8%.The German market dived 7.2% -
the equivalent of the U.S. Dow Jones industrial average plummeting 871 points. Stocks sank 5.5% in Hong
Kong. 7.4% in India and 6.6% in Brazil.Early today in Asia, the selling wave continued, setting a
worrisome tone for a beleaguered Wall Street when U.S. markets reopen after being closed Monday in
observance of Martin Luther King Day.The pain overseas will be felt keenly by American individual
investors, who have funneled large sums into foreign shares in this decade as those markets have rocketed.
Mutual funds that buy foreign stocks have been among the most popular investments in many 401(k)
retirement savings plans.The heavy losses in world markets could increase pressure on the Federal Reserve
and other central banks to cut short-term interest rates further. Rumors of emergency rate cuts swept the
financial world early today.Most foreign stock markets have tumbled since the start of the year as the
outlook for the U.S. economy has gone from bad to worse amid the housing crisis and rising losses on
mortgages and other consumer loans at major banks."The U.S.' problems are stretching out globally." said
Alan Ruskin, chief international strategist at investment firm RBS Greenwich Capital in Greenwich, Conn.
"Clearly these markets are very vulnerable, plainly nervous — and uncertainty rules."The main concern is
that, despite the spectacular growth of many up-and-coming economies such as China, India and Brazil, the
world couldn't easily withstand a severe downturn in the U.S., which consumed $2.1 trillion of foreign
goods and services in the first 11 months of 2007."If the States really goes into a serious recession, it will
have knock-on effects for all other major economies." said Ruth Lea, economic advisor to Arbuthnot
Banking Group in London, where the main British stock index plunged 5.5% on Monday.
20
WE ISOLATE THREE IMPACT SCENARIOS
FIRST, BLACKOUTS!
POOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS MAKE ROLLING BLACKOUTS INEVITABLE-

DEVASTATES THE ECONOMY
FREEMAN 2006
(Marsha, National Association of Science Writers Fellow, British Interplanetary Society, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Astronautical Society, History Committee of the
AIAA, History Committtee of the International Academy of Astronautics, September 22 2006, "U.S.
Electric Grid Is Reach the End Game", Executive Intelligence Review, pg online @
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/333 8electric_grid.html)
As NERC warned a decade ago, the transmission system was not designed to handle rapidly-changing bulk,
so-called "economy" power transfers. On the three-year anniversary of the "Great 2003 Blackout." NERC
vice president Donald Cook explained, "There's no question that the grid is being used now in ways for
which it wasn't really designed. It was built to connect neighbor to neighbor, over the last several decades.
It was not designed to move large blocks of power from one region to another. "The Federally built
Tennessee Valley Authority system is illustrative. TVA built, owns, and operates 17,000 miles of
transmission lines, to service its customers over an area including all or parts of seven Southeastern states.
FERC has been trying to force the TVA to join a Federally regulated Regional Transmission Organization,
which would require it to cede control of its transmission grid, and force it to build new transmission
capacity (for which its customers would have to pay), not to service its own ratepayers, but to allow
"economy" wheeling over its wires. So far, the TVA has refused.lt is often stated that the solution to this
transmission congestion is to build new power lines. But while more transmission capacity is certainly
needed, that in itself, will not solve the problem.Blackout BlowbackFollowing the August 2003 blackout.
which left 50 million people from the Midwest to the East Coast in the dark, multiple Congressional
hearings and a Federal investigation were conducted to examine the problem and propose solutions. The
Department of Energy was tasked with identifying the cause. Its final report blamed everything possible—
including operators and fallen trees—except deregulation.But the Congress mandated that the Department
produce a report, the National Electric Transmission Congestion Study, which it released in August 2006.
The report duly noted what everyone already knew—that areas of Critical Congestion included the New
York City and Connecticut service areas, with Congestion Areas of Concern all the way from New York
through Northern Virginia. The Los Angeles area was noted as a Critical Congestion area, with parts of the
West Coast, from Seattle to San Diego, in the Areas of Concern category. But it is not in these regions that
profit-conscious, and even foreign-owned companies, are proposing to build new power lines, or the new
local generating plants that would obviate the need for long-distance transmission lines. Whv?Thanks to 30
years of irrational "environmentalist" brainwashing of sections of the U.S. population, particularly in
"liberal" large urban regions such as New York and California, it is almost impossible to build new
generating capacity—much less nuclear power plants—where the greatest needs are. Therefore, these
regions, which do not generate enough power locally, are forced to import power from other utilities.
Thanks to the efforts of the same so-called environmentalists, these cities have not even been able to build
enough power lines to bring in the electricity from elsewhere.Under the no-holds-barred market of
deregulation, this "elsewhere" has moved further and further away from the large cities, with their large
power requirements, to areas of the country where power can be produced more cheaply, and new plants
can be built with the minimum amount of local political opposition and legal interference.For example,
PJM is a regional transmission interconnection, which coordinates the operation of the transmission grid
that now includes Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. It oversees 56,070
miles of transmission lines, and plans regional transmission expansion to maintain grid reliability and
relieve congestion.In March, PJM identified transmission constraints in its region, which were standing in
the way of "bringing resources to a broader market." PJM identified two transmission paths requiring
21
significant investment: a high-voltage line from the coal fields of West Virginia to Baltimore and
Washington, D.C. and another, extending from West Virginia to Philadelphia, New Jersey, and Delaware.
However, these lines, hundreds of miles long, would not be necessary, if the mandate existed to build new
nuclear plants where the capacity would be near the load centers.While Virginia and Maryland utilities are
considering such new builds, most of the nuclear power plants that are under consideration by utilities are
in the semi-rural Southeast, where there is political support for new plants, and building more high-voltage
transmission lines to carry the power is unlikely to be held up for 15 years by "environmental" court
challenges. Some of that new nuclear-generated power from the Southeast will be used locally, for growing
demand, and some will be wheeled to the energy-short regions of the mid-Atlantic and Northeast, which
refuse to build their own capacity. Companies that have been buying up transmission capacity will make a
bundle, in the process.Investment in new transmission capacity overall has left the grid system vulnerable
to even small instabilities. The industry estimates that $100 billion is needed in new transmission capacity
and upgrades, as quickly as possible. The 2003 blackout did spur some increase in investment industry-
wide, from $3.5 billion per year to $6 billion in 2006. But profit-minded companies are only willing to
invest funds where there is a profit to be made, namely to carry their "economy transfers." regardless of
how that destabilizes the grid system overall. In a July 2006 article, three former electric utility executives,
who formed the organization, Power Engineers Supporting Truth (PEST), out of disgust with the refusal of
the government to pinpoint deregulation as the cause of the massive grid failure, after the 2003 New York
blackout, stated that the "core issue is an almost fundamentalist reliance on markets to solve even the most
scientifically complex problems... [Plolicy makers continue to act as if some adjustment in market
protocols is all that is required, and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the accumulating mass of evidence
that deregulation ... is itself the problem. Social scientists call this kind of denial, cognitive dissonance."The
engineers, who have among them, more than five decades of experience in the electrical utility industry,
insist that "new transmission lines will not by themselves improve reliability. They may increase transfer
capacities, and hence improve commercial use of the grid," but will not necessarily improve performance of
the system. "Reliability standards have already been reduced to accomodate greater use of the grid for
commercial transactions," they warned (Table IQ.There has been a huge penalty for this disruption of the
functioning of the electric grid. PEST estimates that the 2003 blackout incurred economic losses in excess
of S5 billion. The California blackouts cost in excess of SI billion each. The national impact of declining
reliability and quality, they estimate, is in excess of S50 billion. Where To Go From Here When the
California energy crisis of 2000-2001 was raging, distraught state legislators and the embattled Gov. Gray
Davis searched for a solution. Although they knew what that solution was, they protested that it would be
impossible to put the toothpaste of deregulation back in the tube. Lyndon LaRouche and EIR proposed that
that was exactly what needed to be done.On Monday, July 17, 2006, in the midst of an intense Summer
heat wave, one of Con Edison's 22 primary feeder lines failed, below the streets of the City of New York.
Over the next several hours, five more feeder lines were lost. Voltage was reduced 8% to limit the
instability, and the utility was faced with 25,000 customers—about 100,000 people—in the heat and dark.
It took until midnight July 23—seven days later—to restore 20,000 of the affected customers, according to
Con Edison.The New York City blackout was the result not of a Summer heatwave, but of the decades of
underinvestment in the infrastructure that distributes electric power from central feeder lines, through
transformers, to the wires that deliver power to each home, school, factory, office building, small business,
and hospital. Some of Con Edison's underground infrastructure goes back almost as far as Thomas Edison's
first central generating station and underground cable, on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan, in 1882. It was a
length of 59-year-old cable whose failure was a factor in the July blackout. A couple of years ago in
Philadelphia, workers for PECO Energy found that some underground utility cable still in service dated to
1899. In July 1999. the failure of outdated cable was blamed for power outages in Manhattan affecting
200.000 people. In San Francisco, a failed cable in December 2003 created an outage for 100.000 residents.
"We've been using equipment far beyond its original intended life because we've been concerned with the
cost of replacement and the need to keep utility rates down," remarked Dean Oskvig, president of Black &
Veatch, an engineering firm based in St. Louis, last month.Industry-wide, there is agreement that
weaknesses due to the age of the underground distribution cable have been exacerbated by the way the
22
1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE
system is run in today's deregulated world. To "save money." the industry has turned to a policy of "run to
failure," where a company waits for a failure before replacing aged power lines and other equipment. Black
& Veatch reports that although utilities currently spend more than $18 billion on local distribution systems,
most of that is to string new wire to new housing developments (which will likely come to an end soon,
along with the housing boom), and that an additional $8-10 billion per year is needed to replace obsolete
and corroded equipment.On top of this disinvestment policy, local distribution systems, like the
transmission system, are being stretched beyond their design limits. In addition to chronological age,
overheating of equipment that is caused by heavy electricity use and is repeatedly stressed will age faster,
and is more likely to fail suddenly.In 1986, Con Edison began a program to replace all of its older cable
with a newer design. It is spending about $25 million per year, and at that rate, the utility will not finish
until 2024. By that time, some of its replacement cable will be 38 years old. Con Edison delivers electricity
to 3.2 million customers, through 95,000 miles of underground cable, and 33,000 miles of overhead wires.
Estimates are that about 27% of its underground cable needs to be replaced. Why is it taking decades to
replace old cable?According to media reports, recently Southern California Edison sought approval from
the state Public Utilities Commission to replace 800 miles of aging underground cable, after concluding
that cable failures were the leading cause of outages that could be prevented. But "consumer advocates"
opposed the utility's request to recoup the $145 million cost of replacement, on the grounds that the utility's
records were not adequate to ensure the worst cables would be replaced first. The utility will proceed and
spend $250 million more than is recouped in customers' bills anyway, because they "don't want to get too
far behind." Apparently the shareholder-driven "consumer advocates" never added up the economic, and
sometimes, life-threatening costs, of the alternative—blackouts.Before deregulation, companies like Con
Edison would make investments in infrastructure that were deemed necessary, to maintain a level of service
and reliability that met industry-wide standards, assured that state regulators would allow them to recover
the costs, and maintain their financial health. Today, many states have no authority to either order
investments or compensate companies that make them, leaving Wall Street and the "free market" to decide
who shall have reliable electric power.Between 1990 and the year 2000, utility employment in power
generation dropped from 350,000 to 280,000, as utilities looked for ways to slash costs, to be
"competitive." Over the same decade, employment in transmission and distribution went from 196,000 to
156,000, in a system that is growing more complex by the day. Today, the average age of a power lineman
is 50 years."Quick profit," deregulation, shareholder values, environmentalism. have all run their course,
and nearly taken down the electricity grid. It is time to change the axioms.Transmitting Power, or Just
Profits?Yes, there need to be more power plants built, to make up for the deficits in electric-generating
capacity in many parts of the country. It is also the case that entire regions, in particular the West and East
Coasts, have so much congestion on their transmission lines, that they cannot import the power they need.
And as seen in New York City this past July, breakdowns in 100-year-old underground local distribution
systems are now leaving tens of thousands of people in the dark, and must be replaced.But it is foolhardy to
think that the needed investments will be made under the present regime. Today, thanks to deregulation, a
company can earn more profits by not building anything, and instead charging more for what they already
produce, by creating shortages. This strategy was implemented to perfection six years ago by Enron and
other power pirates in California, which withheld power to raise prices through the roof, allowing them to
steal tens of billions of dollars out of the pockets of electricity consumers throughout the West
Coast.Today, unregulated utility companies do not plow a large portion of their profits back into improving
infrastructure, but instead pay out higher dividends to stockholders. If even a regulated company has any
hope of raising hundreds of millions of dollars on Wall Street to finance growth, it must prove itself
creditworthy, by cutting costs and showing it can abide by shareholder values.Individual companies no
longer cooperate to ensure the overall reliability of the electric grid. They compete to build power plants
and transmission lines based on their return on investment, not on the physical requirements of a regional
system. They make themselves "competitive" to undercut the competition by cutting maintenance costs and
getting rid of as many employees as they can.For two decades, industry officials and the North American
Electric Reliability Council (NERC) have warned that restructuring the electricity system would destroy it.
An understanding of that danger provoked Dr. Anjan Bose, former Dean of Engineering at Washington
State University, to comment, citing the advancement of power systems expertise in China and India that
"the next time a grandstanding politician in North America compares our grid to that of the Third World, he
may actually mean it as a compliment."There is no way to "Fix" the system, as Congress has tried to do. by
piling on more and more Federal regulations, to try to patch up the gaping holes in the broken system that
now exists. The only remedy is to return the intention of the industry to one of providing universally
reliable service, by putting the toothpaste of deregulation back in the tube.The nearly two dozen states that
have restructured their local industry, forcing utilities to sell their generation assets to conglomerate holding
companies, in order to "compete," must return responsibility and oversight for electric generation and
disribution to the state utility commissions. These public servants should decide what should be built, and
where, on the basis of providing for the general welfare, not the profit profiles of companies headquartered
a half-continent away.The now-congested and unstable long-distance high-voltage transmission systems
that criss-cross the nation must be used for the purpose for which they were intended: to enable bulk power
transfer in case of emergency, not to wheel power from one end of the country to the other so a company
can import cheaper power, charge a few cents less, and beat out the competition. Responsibility for the
transmission system should be taken out of the hands of the Federal deregulators, and returned to the
regional reliability councils that formulated the rules of the road to keep the system robust.There are no
shortcuts. Decisive action is needed to reverse the past thirty years of failed policies.
24
ELECTRICITY IS THE KEY FABRIC OF THE ECONOMY

SMALL TIMES, 2004
(August 9 2004, "Focus on energy: Nation's electric grid needs overhaul", pg online @
http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=Energ&ARTICLE_ID=2695
75&p=109)
-Chances are, the electric grid of the future will look a lot like the grid of today. But certainly it won't
behave the same as today's grid, whether it undergoes a massive overhaul, incremental upgrades or is left
unchanged. Like the industries that comprise it, the grid is a dynamic and complex construct linking power
generators, substa tions and transmission lines across continents. It's antiquated, inefficient and dumb,
hampered by half-century-old technologies that can't communicate and a quagmire of regulatory and free
enterprise pressures. It's too valuable to ignore, and too expensive to replace. "Elec tricity is the key fabric
of the economy," said Dan Rastler, a technical leader with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). a
nonprofit energy research consortium that promotes science and technology. "There's a real need to get the
industry as well as stakeholders on track." Deliberate attacks on grid infrastructure can cripple nations'
economies and undermine their stability.The grid became a frequent victim of war in Chechnya, where
Chechen rebels and Russian troops have fought off and on since the mid-1990s. In Iraq, guerrillas continue
to attack power lines and towers in an effort to impede recovery and foster unrest. The grid is often cited as
a vulnerable target for terrorism in the United States and in other developed nations, particularly after the
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania. Garden-variety outages
from storms and other causes sap $119 billion from the U.S. economy every year, according to an analysis
by the EPRI. The nation lost between $4 billion and $10 billion when a blackout shut down parts of the
East and Midwest last August. Canada, which also went dark in the cascading outage, estimated that its
gross domestic product declined 0.7 percent that month. Most energy experts agree that making the grid
less vulnerable to intentional and natural assaults, and more resilient when such assaults do occur, is
critical. They see wholesale change as prohibitively expensive, risky and impractical. Instead, they
advocate improving the grid internally with technologies
such as sensors linked to networks. They advocate reducing its burden externally through smart appliances
and back-up energy sources. "We're not going to rip out the entire infrastructure," said John Del Monaco,
manager of emerging technologies and transfer at Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) in New Jersey.
PSE&G initiated a program to use MEMS-based acoustic sensors to monitor transformers, and is
developing similar technologies for cables and power lines. "You overlay on top of what you already have,"
said Del Monaco.
25
ONLY NUCLEAR POWER CAN PROVIDE RELIABLE ELECTRICAL POWER TO KEEP OUR
NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE FROM GOING UNDER
FERTEL 2004
(March 4 2004, Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute,
"United States Senate Committee Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy", Testimony, pg
online @ http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)
America's 103 nuclear power plants are the most efficient and reliable in the world. Nuclear energy is the
largest source of emission-free electricity in the United States and our nation's second largest source of
electricity after coal. Nuclear power plants in 31 states provide electricity for one of every five U.S. homes
and businesses. Seven out of 10 Americans believe nuclear energy should play an important role in the
country's energy future. 1
Given these facts and the strategic importance of nuclear energy to our nation's energy security and
economic growth. NE1 encourages the Congress to adopt policies that foster continued expansion of
emission-free nuclear energy as a vital part of our nation's diverse energy mix.
ECONOMIC DECLINE RISKS GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

MEAD 1992 - Policy Analyst, World Policy Institute
New Perspectives Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, Summer
If so, this new failure - the failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of
worldwide depression - will open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions—billions—of people have
pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market
principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But
what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates—or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new
period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India—these
countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to
world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.
26
SECOND, OIL SHOCKS
OIL PEAK IMMINENT - PRICE SHOCKS WIL RIPPLE THROUGH OUR NATIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE
LANDRY 2007
(March 30 2007, Cathy, of the American Petroleum Institute, "GAO warns of peak oil threat to global
economies", pg LEXIS)
World oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040. the US Government Accountability
Office said March 29, cautioning that if the phenomenon occurs "soon" and "without warning." it could
cause oil prices to surge to unprecedented levels and result in "severe" economic damage. "The prospect
of a peak in oil production presents problems of global proportions whose consequences will depend
critically on our preparedness." GAO, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said in a report.
"While these consequences would be felt globally, the United States, as the largest consumer of oil and one
of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially vulnerable among the
industrialized nations of the world." Despite the threat of peak oil, the US government currently has no
"coordinated or well-defined strategy" to address the uncertainties about the timing of peak oil or to
mitigate its potential effects. For that reason. GAO recommended that the federal government take
immediate action, and suggested that the US energy secretary take the lead in coordinating a government
strategy. The government effort. GAO said, should include a monitoring of global supply and demand with
the intent of reducing uncertainty about the timing of peak oil production. It also should assess alternative
technologies in light of predictions about the timing of peak oil and periodically advise Congress on likely
cost-effective areas where government could assist the private sector with development or adoption of the
new technologies. GAO pointed out that there are "many possible alternatives" to using oil, but that
alternatives will require large investments and in some cases will require major investments or
breakthroughs in technology. "Investment, however, is determined largely by price expectations, so unless
high oil prices are sustained, we cannot expect private investment to continue at current levels," GAO said.
But if the peak were anticipated, it said, oil prices would rise, signaling industry to increase efforts to
develop alternatives and consumers of energy to conserve and look for more energy-efficient products.
27
ONLY NUCLEAR POWER RESOLVES THE SHOCKING PITFALLS OF ENERGY

DEPENDENCE
ST. PETERSBURG TIMES 2008
(May 21 2008, "WE WILL NEED POWER FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS", pg LEXIS)
The Florida Public Service Commission should approve the construction of the nuclear plant proposed by
Progress Energy. The case can be made that the situation is really different this time around and the PSC
should approve this additional capacity in the face of an economic downturn. It is hard to argue with slower
growth projections, but we should consider the following scenarios:
The first thing we need to seriously consider is the avoidance of new power generation capacity using
natural gas. Although natural gas is the energy resource of choice for new power generation plants, we are
now facing a downturn in domestic natural gas production capacity. Energy companies are drilling more
holes than ever but they have been unable to increase domestic production of natural gas for a number of
years. The addition of nuclear power plants will mitigate our dependence on costly domestic natural gas
and imported LNG to replace domestic production.
The second strategic issue of alternate energy for transportation is very important for utility companies. The
most compelling business case for cheaper transportation is the battery-operated automobile for commuting
short distances. These new cars are designed for short commutes of less than 100 miles and they will
require a battery charge-up after every trip. This demand is not yet quantified, but significant progress will
be made in the next 10 years, the time it will take to complete a nuclear power plant. The long-term nature
of nuclear power plant development will allow us time to recover from a routine economic downturn and
allow us to plan for new forms of transportation. 1 recommend that we add this nuclear capacity to avoid
further commitment to natural gas at higher prices and to provide the added capacity for alternative energy
platforms based on electricity. We should all think long-term and take control of our future by supporting
Progress Energy's project in Levy County.
28
OIL PEAK WILL CAUSE MASSIVE RESOURCE WARS RESULTING IN EXTINCTION

HEINBERG, core f a c u l t y member at New College of C a l i f o r n i a , 9 / 2 7 / 2 0 0 4
(http://www.energybulletin.net/2291.html)
Last One Standing - The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues
with current policies, the next decades will be filled with war, economic crises, and environmental
catastrophe. Resource depletion and population pressure are about to catch up with us, and no one is
prepared. The political elites, especially in the US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their
preferred "solution" is simply to commandeer other nations' resources, using military force.
The worst-case scenario would be the general destruction of human civilization and most of the
ecological life-support system of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As
such, we might prefer not to contemplate it - except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its
likelihood.
The notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded. This is
general true among non-human animals, among which competition for diminishing resources typically
leads to aggressive behaviour.
Iraq is actually the nexus of several different kinds of conflict - between consuming nations (e.g., France
and the US); between western industrial nations and "terrorist" groups; and - most obviously - between a
powerful consuming nation and a weaker, troublesome, producing nation.
Politicians may find it easier to persuade their constituents to fight a common enemy than to conserve and
share.
War is always grim, but as resources become more scarce and valuable, as societies become more
centralized and therefore more vulnerable, and as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and widely
dispersed, warfare could become even more destructive that the case during the past century.
By far the greatest concern for the future of warfare must be the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The US
is conducting research into new types of nuclear weapons—bunker busters, small earth-penetrators, etc.
Recent US administrations have enunciated a policy of nuclear first-strike.
Chemical and biological weapons are of secondary concern, although new genetic engineering techniques
may enable the creation of highly infectious and antibiotic-resistant "supergerms" cable of singling out
specific ethnic groups.
29
THREE, NATURAL GAS
NATURAL GAS MARKETS TIGHTENING DUE TO SUMMER DEMAND - PRICES ARE

SKYROCKETING
FOSTER NATURAL GAS REPORT 5-16-2008
Nonetheless, for this summer, the U.S. natural gas market "looks tight." with working gas storage levels
expected to be 142 Bcf lower by October, when compared to last year. Although U.S. natural gas
production is expected to be up 1.5 Bcf/d (2.8%), Canadian production and liquefied natural gas (LNG)
imports will be down 0.5Bcf/d and 1.5 Bcf/d. respectively. Lower gas demand in the electric power sector
due to improved hydroelectricity and nuclear generation could trigger a drop of 0.1 Bcf/d in gas deliveries
to the sector this year. A greater decrease will come from the U.S. industrial sector - with a 0.4 Bcf/d
decrease (or a 2.1% decrease).
ONLY NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT EASES PRESSURE ON NATURAL GAS PRICES

DOE NO DATE - DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
NUCLEAR POWER 2010, http://www.ne.doe.gov/np2010/neNP2010a.html
Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the electricity produced in this country; however, all recent
electric-generating capacity additions and projected future additions are primarily fueled by natural gas.
To help meet our growing demand for new baseload electricity generation, the NEP has recommended
expanding the role of nuclear energy as a major component of our Nation's energy picture. Despite the
excellent performance of current nuclear plants and decisions by power plant owners to seek license
renewal and power uprates, no new plant has been ordered in this country for more than 25 years. The
Department believes that an over reliance on a single fuel source, like natural gas, is a potential
vulnerability to the long-term security of our Nation's energy supply and new nuclear plants must be
built in the next decade to address increasing concerns over air quality and to ease the pressures on
natural gas supply.
NATURAL GAS IS KEY TO THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCTION OF A

LAUNDRY LIST OF VALUABLE INPUTS INTO THE ECONOMY AND ENERGY
GUPTA 2003 - Chairman and CEO, Rohm and Haas (Global Chemical Manufacturer)
Testimony before House Committee on House Resources, 3-19, FDCH
The current price of natural gas is the chemical industry's number one economic issue. Natural gas is the
lifeblood of the chemistry business in the U.S. Not only do we use natural gas as a fuel in our
manufacturing processes, much like other industries, but we also use it as an ingredient, or feedstock, for
many of the products we make.
Natural gas and natural gas liquids contain hydrocarbon molecules that are split apart during processing and
then recombined into useful chemical products. These products include life-saving medicines, health
improvement products, technology-enhanced agricultural products, more protective packaging materials,
synthetic Fibers and permanent press-clothing, longer-lasting paints, stronger adhesives. faster
microprocessor^, more durable and safer tires, lightweight automobile parts, and stronger composite
materials for aircraft and spacecraft. The business of chemistry also makes many of the products that help
save energy throughout the entire economy, including insulation, house wraps, lubricants, and high-
strength light-weight materials, enabling American industries and consumers to be more energy efficient.
The business of chemistry is the only part of the economy that adds value to these hydrocarbon molecules
rather than combusting them for energy.
30
CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SOLVES MULTIPLE SCENARIOS FOR EXTINCTION

CHEMICAL AND ENGINEERING NEWS 1999 Vol. 77, No. 49. pp. Pp.46-47. http://pubs.acs.org/sci-
bin/bottom frame. sci?hotartcl/cenear/991206/7749spintro2
The pace of change in today's world is truly incomprehensible. Science is advancing on all fronts,
particularly chemistry and biology working together as they never have before to understand life in general
and human beings in particular at a breathtaking pace. Technology ranging from computers and the Internet
to medical devices to genetic engineering to nanotechnology is transforming our world and our existence in
it. It is, in fact, a fool's mission to predict where science and technology will take us in the coming decade,
let alone the coming century. We can say with finality only this: We don't know. We do know, however,
that we face enormous challenges, we 6 billion humans who now inhabit Earth. In its 1998 revision of world
population estimates and projections, the United Nations anticipates a world population in 2050 of 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion, with a
"medium-fertility projection," considered the most likely, indicating a world population of 8.9 billion people in 2050. According to the
UN. fertility now stands at 2.7 births per woman, down from 5 births per woman in the early 1950s. And fertility rates are declining in
all regions of the world. That's good news. But people are living a lot longer That is certainly good news for the individuals who are
living longer, but it also poses challenges for health care aid social services the world over. The 1998 UN report estimates for the first
time the number of octogenarians, nonagenarians, and centenarians living today and projected for 2050. The numbers are startling. In
1998. 66 million people were aged 80 or older, about one of every 100 persons. That number is expected to increase sixfold by 2050
to reach 370 million people, or one in every 24 persons. By 2050, more than 2.2 million people will be 100 years old or older! Mere is
the fundamental challenge we face: The world's grow ing and aging population must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in
wavs that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of industrialization of the 19th
and 20th centuries. As we increase our output of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of
energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us. we must learn
to carry out our economic activities sustainablv. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who
believe that the history of civilization is a long string of technological triumphs ofliumans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying
capacity" for Earth—a limit to the number of humans Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological advances will continuously
obviate previously perceived limits. This view has historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from
petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the
technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological
optimists either. There are environmental challenges of transcendent complexity that I fear may overcome us and our Earth before technological progress
can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the
plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science
and technology have brought us to where we are, and only science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to
where we need to be in the coming millennium. Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry—what we at
C&EN call the chemical enterprise—will play central roles in addressing these challenges. The first section
of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise
share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical
enterprise is making right now to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to
predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do notpretend to be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our
industry to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and
business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor Marc S. Reisch, is a
case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general
public, the chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero. Industry giants
DuPont and Dow Chemical are taking major strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the environmental
"footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and
Chief Executive Officer William S. Stavropolous: "We must integrate elements that historically have been seen asat odds with one
another: the triple bottom line of sustainability—economic and social and environmental needs." DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles
(Chad) O. Holliday envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable csources as feedstocks, use solar energy to drive
growth, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less
toxic." But sustainability is more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont
initiatives that are making sustainability a reality at Dow facilities in Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site near
Richmond, Va. Another manifestation of the chemical industry's evolution is its embrace of life sciences. Geneticengineering is a
revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of DNA. While it had always been
clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other chemicals—clipped
precisely, altered, stitched back together again into a functioning molecule. Recombiiant DNA techniques began the transformation of
DNA into just such a chemical, and the reverberations of that change are likely to be felt well into the next century.
Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and technology. It is one of the basic
tools chemists and biologists use to understand life at the molecular level. It provides new avenues to
Pharmaceuticals and new approaches to treat disease. It
expands enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability seized on by
31
numerous chemical companies. There is no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in
feeding the World's population in the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second essay, Editor-at-
Large Michael Heylin examines how the promise of agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of genetic manipulation and
corporate control over food. The third essay, by Senior Editor Mairin B. Brennan, looks al chemists embarking on what is perhaps the greatest intellectual
quest in the history of science—humans 1 attempt to understand the detailed chemistry of the human brain, and with it, human consciousness. While this
quest is, at one level, basic research at its most pure, it also has enormous practical significance. Brennan focuses on one such practical aspect: the effort
to understand neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease that predominantly plague older humans and are likely to
become increasingly difficult public health problems among an aging population. Science and technology are always two-edged swords. They bestow the
power to create and the power to destroy. In addition lo its enormous potential for health and agriculture, genetic engineering conceivably could be used
to create horrific biological warfare agents. In the fourth essay of this Millennium Special Report, Senior Correspondent Lois R. Ember examines the
challenge of developing methods to counter the threat of such biological weapons. "Science and technology will eventually produce sensors able to detect
the presence or release of biological agents, or devices that aid in forecasting, remediating, and ameliorating bioattacks," Ember writes. Finally,
Contributing Editor Wil Lepkowski discusses the most mundane, the most marvelous, and the most essential molecule on Earth, H20. Providing clean
water to Earth's population is already difficult—and tragically, not always accomplished. Lepkowski looks in depth at the situation in Bangladesh—
where a well-meaning UN program to deliver clean water from wells has poisoned millions with arsenic. Chemists are working to develop better ways to
detect arsenic in drinking water at meaningful concentrations and ways to remove it that will work in a poor, developing country. And he explores the
evolving water management philosophy, and the science that underpins it, that will be needed to provide adequate water for all its vital uses. In the past
two centuries, our science has transformed the world. Chemistry is a wondrous too! that has allowed us to understand the structure of matter and gives us
the ability to manipulate that structure to suit our own purposes. It allows us to dissect the molecules of life to see what makes them, and us, tick. It is
providing a glimpse into workings of what may be the most complex structure in the universe, the human brain, and with it hints about what
constitutes consciousness. In the coming decades, we will use chemistry to delve ever deeper into these
mysteries and provide for humanity's basic and not-so-basic needs.
32
1 AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS HAPPENING. IRAN, NORTH KOREA AND OTHERS HAVE

RAPIDLY ACCELERATED NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION.
Alexander H. MONTGOMERY. Reed College Dept. of Political Sciences, Fall 2005
Ringing in Proliferation. Project Muse
the nuclear nonproliferation regime has come under attack from a group of academics and policymakers
who argue that traditional tools such as export controls, diplomatic_pressure, arms control agreements, and
threats of economic sanctions are no longer suf cient to battle proliferation. They point to North Korea's
reinvigoration of its plutonium program, Iran's apparent progress in developing a nuclear capability, and
the breadth of the Abdul Qadeer (A.CO Khan network as evidence that the regime is failing.! In addition,
they claim that proliferation is driven by the inevitable spread of technology from a dense network of
suppliers and that certain "rogue" states possess an un°agging determination to acquire nuclear weapons.
Consequently, they argue that only extreme measures such as aggressively enforced containment or regime
change can slow the addition of several more countries to the nuclear club. This "proliferation
determinism," at least in rhetoric, is shared by many prominent members of President George W. Bush's
administration and has become the main thrust of U.S. counterproliferation policy .2 Yet current
proliferators are neither as "dead set" on proliferating nor as advanced in their nuclear capabilities as
determinists claim.3 To dismantle the network of existing proliferation programs, the administration should
instead move toward a policy of "proliferation pragmatism." This would entail abandoning extreme
rhetoric, using a full range of incentives and disincentives aimed at states seeking to acquire a nuclear
capability, targeting the hubs of proliferation networks, and engaging in direct talks with the Islamic
Republic of Iran and the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK). In practice, the Bush
administration's nonproliferation policies have been more varied and less aggressive than its rhetoric would
suggest. For example, it has been willing to enter talks with North Korea and Libya despite describing both
as "rogues." Strong words can be used strategically to convince proliferators that accepting a settlement
offer would be better than continuing to hold out. Yet the administration's unyielding rhetoric has placed
the United States in a position from which it is dif cult to back down;4 combined with a lack of positive
incentives, this stance has convinced proliferators that the United States will not agree to or uphold any
settlement short of regime change. Moreover, the administration has not formulated any coherent
counterproliferation policies other than regime change and an aggressive form of export control
enforcement known as the Proliferation Security Initiative. With respect to two of the key proliferators
today—Iran and North Korea—the Bush administration has shown little interest in offering any signiacant
incentives or establishing any clear red lines. Instead, it has relied almost exclusively on China to convince
the DPRK to give up its nuclear program and has declined to join the United Kingdom, France, and
Germany in talks with Iran. Proliferation determinists present two arguments. First, dense networks among
second-tier proliferators such as Iran. North Korea, and Libya and private agents—including A.Q. Khan
and two of his middlemen, Buhary Seyed Abu (B.S.A.) Tahir and Urs Tinner—have rapidly accelerated
proliferation and lowered technological barriers.5 Because these networks are widespread and
decentralized, global measures rather than strategies targeted at individual states are necessary to slow these
processes. Second, certain rogue states are dead set on proliferating and thus have no interest in bargaining.
33
1 AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE
CONTINUED US DEVELOPMENT IS KEY TO PREVENT PROLIFERATION. IT'S A TOP

PRIORITY.
LACY '08 (Ian Hore-Lacy, Director for Public Communications at the World Nuclear Association, "Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP)",http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_NucIear_Energy_Partnership_(GNEP), 6/26/2008)
GNEP is both a research and technology development initiative and an international policy initiative. It addresses the questions
of how to use sensitive technologies responsibly in a way that protects global security, and also how to manage and recycle
wastes more effectively and securely. The USA had a policy in place since 1977 which ruled out reprocessing used fuel, on non-
proliferation grounds. Under GNEP. reprocessing is to be a means of avoiding proliferation, as well as addressing problems
concerning high-leyel wastes. It is now a high priority of the US Department of Enerev to develop and deploy advanced
fuel cycle technologies on a commercial scale as soon as possible.
34
1AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE
THROUGH THE GNEP THE US PROMOTION OF CIVILIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY WILL

MINIMIZE THE THREAT OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND NUCLEAR TERRRORISM.
DOE '06 (Dent, of Energy. "Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative",
2/6/2006 http://www.doe.gov/news/3161.htm, 6/26/2008)
As part of President Bush's Advanced Energy Initiative, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced today a $250
million Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 request to launch the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This ne\v initiative is a
comprehensive strategy to enable the expansion of emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide by demonstrating and
deploying new technologies to recycle nuclear fuel, minimize waste, and improve our ability to keep nuclear technologies
and materials out of the hands of terrorists. "GNEP brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies
around the globe, in an environmentally friendly manner while reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation. If we can make
GNEP a reality, we can make the world a better, cleaner, safer place to live." Secretary Sam Bodman said. As the United States'
economy and economies around the world continue to grow, the need for abundant energy resources will also grow. Nuclear
energy is safe, environmentally clean, reliable, and affordable. Through GNEP, the United States will work with other
nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in order to
produce more energy, reduce waste and minimize proliferation concerns. Additionally, these partner nations will develop
a fuel services program to provide nuclear fuel to developing nations allowing them to enjoy the benefits of abundant
sources of clean, safe nuclear energy in a cost effective manner in exchange for their commitment to forgo enrichment and
reprocessing activities, also lleviating proliferation concerns. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has four main goals.
First, reduce America's dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels and encourage economic growth. Second, recycle nuclear
fuel using new proliferation-resistant technologies to recover more energy and reduce waste. Third, encourage prosperity growth
and clean development around the world. And fourth, utilize the latest technologies to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation
worldwide.
35
1AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION DESTROYS INTERNATIONAL STABILITY AND CAUSES

ESCALATORY NUCLEAR WARS
OUESTER AND UTGOFF The Washington Quarterly 1994
If Americans ask themselves the elementary question of why they should be opposed to the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, an obvious first answer might now be that such a spread of weapons of mass destruction
could lead to U.S. cities being destroyed and/or U.S. military units or other U.S. assets abroad suffering
nuclear attacks. Further, Americans als,o_care.about nuclear proliferation because foreign cities may get
destroyed in future outbreaks of war. Following such proliferation, nuclear attacks on U.S. targets could
take place more "rationally" in the wake of normal military and political conflicts. Crises sometimes lead to
"a war nobody wanted." or to escalations that neither side can control. The risks that such deterrence
failures would involve nuclear use are increased as more countries get nuclear weapons. Such nuclear
attacks on U.S. targets could also take place less "rationally" — if someone like Idi Amin or Mu'ammar
Qadhafi were to take charge of a country that possesses nuclear weapons. The kinds of political forces that
bombed the World Trade Center in New York, or attacked the entrance to Centra! Intelligence Agency
(CIA) headquarters in Virginia, might then use nuclear weapons. Continues.... Americans, and most other
people, will want to avoid a situation in which any state can defy the will of the rest of the world, just by
being able to threaten the destruction of any of the world's cities. Whatever hopes are now entertained fora
disciplined world order and a reliable system of collective security thus depend on the halting of nuclear
proliferation. Finally, the United States will not find it easy to sit on the sidelines in a regional war
involving nuclear-armed states. In desperate circumstances such states will try to threaten the interests of
bystandersTrnoraer to force an international intervention. And other states within and outside such a region
will apply great pressures for U.S. and/or UN involvement.
36
1 AC - PLAN
The United States Federal Government should substantially increase loan guarantees for
the expansion of domestic nuclear power facilities.
We'll clarify.
37
1AC - SOLVENCY
SOLVENCY - EXPANDED INCENTIVES AND LOAN GUARANTEES KEY TO BRINGING

PLANTS ONLINE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
VAN NAMEN 2008 - SENIOR VP URANIAM ENRICHMENT USE, CC INC
NUCLEAR POWER, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY, 4-23
The Role of the U.S. Government in Expanding the Use of Nuclear Power I would like to close by
discussing the role that the U.S. government can and should play in expanding the use of nuclear power
domestically, specifically in assisting the expansion of our domestic fuel supply. First, a few of the
positives that have gotten us to this point are worth mentioning. Congress has enacted legislation, such as
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, that has spurred utilities to consider building the First new plants in 30
years. In addition, the regulatory uncertainty of the NRC licensing process has been simplified and tested.
For instance, USEC and Urenco's subsidiary LES have both successfully applied for and received
construction and operating licenses for new enrichment facilities. These are the first new nuclear facility
licenses issued by NRC in several decades. NRC has also worked vigorously to increase its staff in order to
handle the tens of applications for new nuclear plants, fuel cycle facilities and uranium mines that is has
received and expects to receive during the next decade. Those are some of the positives, but the need for
government action remains. Despite legislation passed by Congress to encourage the expansion of nuclear
power, the implementation of legislative directives at the agency level has often been out of step with real-
world timeframes. The delay in implementing the Loan Guarantee program, for instance, may prevent
new nuclear facilities from coming online as soon as possible because companies may have to delay or
cancel their projects. The NRC also faces a funding shortfall from its budget request that may force it to
defer or delay the review of applications for new projects. Specifically in nuclear fuel, domestic
producers need legislative support to backup the Russian Suspension Agreement Amendment to ensure that
the U.S. government can enforce recently agreed terms that allow measured Russian access to the U.S.
market while permitting our domestic industry time to secure contracts needed to secure financing for new
mines and production facilities. Additionally, near- and medium-term support for the Paducah plant with a
contract to enrich DOE's high-assay tails would ensure that it remains available to meet the needs of
domestic utilities past 2012. a period when the new centrifuge facilities will be starting up operations. As
mentioned before, DOE needs to complete its plan for managing and selling its uranium inventories to
provide the market, and specifically miners and enrichers, clarity on how DOE's inventory will affect
supply and demand during the next decade. Finally, any assistance with education, job development, and
infrastructure improvements in the next few years will go a long way to assisting us with creating a stable,
long-term nuclear fuel industry in the United States. Our mutual goal in all of these activities should be
to see the renewed expansion of nuclear power. America's primary source of clean, reliable emissions-free
electricity. The domestic fuel industry has spent the past several years working to ensure that the fuel for
new reactors will be available when they come online so that our nuclear plants can continue to provide us
energy security and diversity. At USEC, we firmly believe that increasing our use of nuclear power will
help our nation tackle the severe challenges we face from international energy security to the adverse
effects of electricity generated by burning fossil fuels.
38
1AC- SOLVENCY
NEW DUPIC TECHNOLOGIES SOLVE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND ENERGY

REQUIREMENTS - CAN WORK IN THE UNITED STATES
THE TORONTO STAR (Newspaper), February 12, 2007, Lexis-Nexis "The Candu edge; Canada's
heavy-water reactors can run on spent fuel from most light-water reactors, eliminating 2 headaches:
skyrocketing uranium prices and waste disposal concerns" The international potential of Candu nuclear reactors may
not be obvious to some, but rising uranium prices and heightened concern over nuclear-waste disposal could soon shine a light on this
made-in-Canada technology. Nobody sees this more than Myung Seung Yang of South Korea's atomic energy
institute. Yang and his fellow nuclear scientists have spent the past 15 years exploring ways of using Candu
reactors to recycle highly radioactive waste, or "spent fuel." from a majority of the world's nuclear
reactors. The approach, Yang wrote in an email message to the Star, "would have many benefits when
practically implemented." South Korea is determined to try. It's little known - at least outside the nuclear
power industry - that the heavy-water reactor technology that lies at the heart of Candu's design can, with
some technical tinkering, directly use waste fuel from most rival light-water reactors. Candu developer
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. calls this the DUPIC process - s t a n d i n g for the Direct Use of
Spent Pressurized Water Reactor Fuel in Candus. In 1991, the Canadian government
established a joint research program with the Korean Atomic Energy Research
Institute to investigate the approach, and both sides have demonstrated that it
technically works. The long-term implications, if DUPIC processing can be done safely and
economically, are potentially enormous. There are hundreds of pressurized light-water reactors (PWRs)
around the world being used to generate electricity and propel submarines and aircraft carriers. In the
United States alone, two-thirds of the 104 reactors in operation are based on PWR designs, according to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration. This has led over the years to the accumulation of 36,000 metric
tonnes of spent fuel, which is kept in temporary storage at dozens of locations until a safe permanent-
storage site can be found. With DUPIC processing, that waste can be turned into a reusable fuel. This can
significantly reduce a country's dependence on uranium, which many analysts predict will rise above SI00
(U.S.) per pound by the end of next year - a tenfold price increase since January 2001. Perhaps most
important, the spent light-water fuel that eventually comes out of a Candu reactor will contain less toxic
material than the fuel that goes in, shrinking the amount of radioactive waste that must ultimately go into
long-term storage. "The DUPIC fuel cycle could reduce a country's need for used PWR fuel disposal by 70
per cent while reducing fresh uranium requirements by 30 per cent," according to the World Nuclear
Association. It's for this reason South Korea is keen on the DUPIC process. It currently has 20 operating reactors - 16 PWRs
and four Candus. Another eight PWRs are on order or being built. It sees the reuse of spent fuel h Candus as a key strategy for
managing radioactive waste. "The accumulation of spent fuel is an urgent issue that should be resolved," Yang and his colleagues
wrote in a briefing document that was presented at the 15th Pacific Nuclear Conference in Australia last October. They called the
eventual commercial development of the DUPIC process "an extremely important turning point in the history of nuclear power
39
1AC - SOLVENCY
development." David Torgerson, chief technology officer and senior vice-president of Atomic Energy of Canada, says the way
uranium resources are used by power generators is driven by cost and supply. During the 1990s, for example, uranium prices were so
low that it made more economic sense to just use it once and then stick the spent fuels in wet or dry storage. But some countries dont
have their own uranium resources, leaving them dependent on imports from other, potentially hostile jurisdictions. As uranium prices
rise, the economics ofthe once-through fuel cycle also become bss appealing when measured against the costs of waste management
and disposal. "As the nuclear renaissance takes off and more reactors are built, it's likely the price of uranium will increase (even
more), and people will be looking at ways of getting more value outof that uranium," says Torgerson. "Any time you can convert a
waste into an asset, then you're going in the right direction." He's quick to point out that the DUPIC process is
also "proliferation resistant." meaning there is no chemical separation ofthe spent uranium's more
dangerous components, primarily plutonium. which could be used by extremists or rogue nations to
produce nuclear weapons. Only mechanical processing is required to change the shape ofthe spent fuel
rods into shorter Candu rods. Mechanical reprocessing, while it has some safety and transportation issues,
could be cheaper than conventional chemical reprocessing. "Because this is so much simpler, you have to
expect the economics are going to be so much better." says Torgerson, pointing out that the South Koreans
studied the economics ofthe DUPIC fuel cycle in the 1990s and found it could compete against other fuel
options. "This is one ofthe characteristics we're certainly pushing." For countries such as China, which
already have Candu reactors in their fleet, it's an approach that could prove attractive. AECL estimates that
waste fuel from three light-water reactors would be enough to fuel one Candu. Daune Bratt, a political
science instructor and expert on Canadian nuclear policy at Calgary's Mount Royal College, says he can
envision two revenue streams going to Candu operators that choose to embrace the DUPIC process. One
stream would be the revenue that comes in through the generation and sale of electricity; the other would
come from a tipping fee that operators of light-water reactors would pay to unload their spent fuel. "These
(Candu) operators wouldn't be buying the spent fuel, they'd be paid to use the spent fuel for environmental
reasons," says Bratt. "If you can minimize the waste, you bring tremendous value."
40
1AC - SOLVENCY
NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO ADDRESS ENERGY AND
POLLUTION CONCERNS
FORATOM 2006 - EUROPEAN ATTOMIC FORUM
NUCLEAR ENERGY THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE, 2-1,
http://www.foratom.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=219&Itemid=938
Each country needs an appropriate energy strategy, reflecting its natural resources and its energy needs.
Nuclear energy enables countries to:
* reduce their reliance on imported fossil fuels and electricity imports
* increase their energy independence
* strengthen security of energy supply.
With greater reliance on nuclear energy, countries are less likely to be seriously affected by fossil fuel
shortages and sudden rises in fossil fuel prices. The uranium used in nuclear fuel is available from various
countries with a long history of political stability, including Australia and Canada. This has a stabilising
effect on uranium prices and supply. Any rise in uranium prices would have only a minor impact on the
cost of a nuclear kilowatt-hour, as fuel makes up a comparatively small part of the total cost of producing
nuclear electricity. Power plants that burn fossil fuels are more fuel-intensive: producers and consumers
therefore face a much greater risk of increased costs due to higher fuel prices.
Many existing nuclear power plants have already been paid for. Their operating costs are therefore low, and
the electricity produced is among the cheapest in comparison with other sources. Cost projections show
that new power reactors will also be competitive, even assuming low gas prices and heavy subsidies
for wind power.
Many studies have recently been conducted to compare the costs of generating electricity by different
energy sources, including nuclear, which concluded that nuclear is the most cost-effective power source.
The OECD/NEA report. "Projected Costs of Generating Electricity", underlines the cost advantages,
especially at discount rates of 5% and 10%, that nuclear energy has when it comes to generating electricity.
These advantages are all the more significant when one considers that demand for energy is set to continue
growing steadily across the world. A recent report conducted by the World Nuclear Association (WNA),
'The New Economics of Nuclear Power", draws the conclusion that in most industrialized countries new
nuclear power plants offer the most economical way to generate electricity. Moreover according to a
study commissioned by the German Federation, postponing plans to shut down nuclear power plants would
reduce Germany's electricity generating costs and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
41
1 AC - SOLVENCY
FEDERAL INCREASES IN DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION ARE VITAL FOR

AMERICA'S SUCCESSFUL LEADERSHIP ROLE IN SAFE GLOBAL NUCLEAR ENERGY
PRODUCTION
ALBRIGHT 2008 - UNDER SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 3-5, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Worldwide, 31 countries operate 439 reactors totaling 372 GWe of electricity capacity.
Thirty-four new nuclear power plants are under construction worldwide, and when completed
will add an estimated 28 GWe of new electricity. This new construction is taking place or being
considered in every major region in the world including Africa, Asia and the Indian
subcontinent, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and North America. Nuclear power's
ongoing expansion around the world that requires us to address the used fuel and proliferation
challenges that confront the global use of nuclear energy. To ensure that the United States plays
a significant role in global nuclear energy policy we must foster domestic actions that support a
significant role for nuclear power in our energy future, a robust nuclear research and
development program, and a cutting-edge nuclear technology infrastructure and international
actions that support reliable nuclear fuel services to countries that forego the development and
deployment of enrichment and reprocessing technologies. To meet these challenges, the
President initiated the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). The domestic component of
GNEP promotes the accelerated development and deployment of advanced fuel cycle
technologies, while the international component encourages cooperation among nations that
share the common vision of the necessity of the expansion of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes worldwide in a safe and secure manner.
We have made progress in every one of our program areas, but much remains to be done.
Our FY 2009 budget request moves us in the right direction, allowing the Department and the
Office of Nuclear Energy to take the lead in spurring the nuclear renaissance in the United
States. I would now like to take the time to highlight our program areas and their corresponding
budget requests.
42
1AC - SOLVENCY
SAFETY CONCERNS ARE OVER-HYPED - NUCLEAR POWER IS A STABLE ENERGY

SOURCE
MARSH AND STANFORD 2003 - REACTOR PHYSICISTS AND NATIONAL CENTER FOR
POLICY RESEARCH
NUCLEAR POWER CLEAN SAFE, AUGUST, #480
The waste from nuclear plants must be isolated for a fairly long time (but not as long as many think - only a
few hundred years, if the used fuel is properly recycled). It can be handled with essentially no impact on
the general public or the environment. Not so the millions of tons of waste each year from a coal-
powered plant.
What about radiation from nuclear plants? Not a problem. It has been known for a long time that coal
plants put more radioactivity into the atmosphere (from trace impurities in the coal) than nuclear plants do.
even when more than 95 percent of the fly ash is precipitated, and vastly more when it is not. This is not,
however, a reason to object to coal - its radiation is trivial compared with what we get from natural sources.
Other energy sources have their special applications, but in the future, nuclear power will be the main
workhorse. There's just no other way for humanitv to get enough of the clean and safe power it will
need over the next few thousand vears.
43
1AC - SOLVENCY
OTHER ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FAILS - NUCLEAR POWER IS THE ONLY HOPE - BOTH
SIDES OF THE ISSUE AGREE
DISCOVER 2008 - SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE
IS NUCLEAR ENERGY OUR BEST HOPE, 4-25, http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-
energy-our-best-hope
Four years ago this month, James Lovelock upset a lot of his fans. Lovelock was revered in the green
movement for developing the Gaia hypothesis, which links everything on earth to a dynamic, organic
whole. Writing in the British newspaper The Independent, Lovelock stated in an op-ed: "We have no time
to experiment with visionary energy sources: civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use
nuclear—the one safe, available energy source—now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our
outraged planet." Lovelock explained that his decision to endorse nuclear power was motivated by his
fear of the consequences of global warming and by reports of increasing fossil-fuel emissions that drive the
warming. Jesse Ausubel, head of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University,
recently echoed Lovelock's sentiment. "As a green, I care intensely about land-sparing, about leaving land
for nature," he wrote. "To reach the scale at which they would contribute importantly to meeting global
energy demand, renewable sources of energy such as wind, water, and biomass cause serious
environmental harm. Measuring renewables in watts per square meter, nuclear has astronomical advantages
over its competitors." All of this has led several other prominent environmentalists to publicly favor new
nuclear plants. I had a similar change of heart. For years I opposed nuclear power, but while I was
researching my book Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, my views completely
turned around. According to the Department of Energy, just to maintain nuclear's 20 percent share of the
energy supply, the United States would need to add three or four new nuclear power plants a year starting
in 2015. (There are 104 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States.) But no new
nuclear power plants have been built here in 30 years, partly because of the public's aversion to nuclear
power after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. Now NRG Energy, based in Princeton, New
Jersey, is sticking its neck out with plans to build two new nuclear reactors at the South Texas Project facility near Bay City. The new-
reactors w i l l be able to steadily generate a total of 2,700 megawatts—enough to light up 2 million households, advertisement | article
continues below The United States alone pumped the equivalent of nearly 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in
2005. More than 2 billion tons of that came from electricity generation—not surprising, considering that we burn fossil fuels for 70
percent of our electricity. About half of all our electricity comes from more than 500 coal-fired plants. Besides contributing to global
warming, their pollution has a serious health impact. Burning coal releases fine particulates that kill 24,000 Americans annually and
cause hundreds of thousands of cases of lung and heart problems. America's electricity demand is expected to
increase by almost 50 percent by 2030. according to the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, renewable
energy sources, such as the wind and sun, are highly unlikely to meet that need. Wind and solar
installations today supply less than 1 percent of electricity in the United States, do so intermittently, and
are decades away from providing more than a small boost to the electric grid. "To meet the 2005 U.S.
electricity demand of about 4 million megawatt-hours with around-the-clock wind would have required
wind farms covering over 780,000 square kilometers," Ausubel notes. For context, 780,000 square
kilometers (301,000 square miles) is greater than the area of Texas. Solar power fares badly too, in
Ausubel's analysis: "The amount of energy generated in [one quart] of the core of a nuclear reactor requires
[2.5 acres] of solar cells." Geothermal power also is decades awav from making a significant
contribution to America's electricity budget.
44
1AC - SOLVENCY
STATE IMPLEMENTATION UNEVEN AND INCENTIVES DON'T JUMPSTART THE

INDUSTRY QUICKLY
CBO 2008 - CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
NUCLEAR POWER'S ROLE IN GENERATING ELECTRICITY, MAY, PUB NO. 2986
Incentives and Impediments at the State and Local Levels Because some states and localities regulate the
rates that consumers pay for electricity or offer incentives for specific technologies, the levelized cost of
nuclear technology in certain areas of the country could be lower than the estimates in this analysis. Other
states have policies that deter investment in new nuclear or coal capacity altogether, which renders
the levelized cost of the prohibited technology moot. States and localities encourage investment in new
nuclear capacity through a variety of policies. Over half of the currently proposed new nuclear plants are
sited in southeastern states, where most electricity-generation capacity is owned by utilities that charge
regulated rates. To the extent that rate regulation guarantees that customers will reimburse utilities for the
cost of building a new plant, financial risk is transferred from investors to customers, which leads to larger
reductions in the cost of capitalintense technologies such as nuclear. In several of those states, additional
incentives that could further reduce the cost of nuclear power are under consideration. Those provisions
include allowing higher rates of return for nuclear power than for other technologies, allowing utilities to
recover some construction costs before plants begin operations, and tax incentives. State incentives for new
nuclear power plants are not limited to states with traditional regulation in place. For instance, Texas, a
state that allows markets a large role in setting electricity prices, has expanded a tax incentive initially
designed to encourage investment in renewable energy technologies to apply to new nuclear capacity. Last,
California and a number of eastern states are considering legislation that would limit carbon dioxide
emissions, which could increase the competitiveness of nuclear and innovative fossil-fuel technologies. As
of 2007, however, the only states in that group that had proposed sites for new nuclear power plants were
Maryland. Pennsylvania, and New York. At least 11 states have prohibitions against the construction of
new nuclear facilities until certain provisions governing the long-term disposal of spent nuclear fuel
are put in place.6 Minnesota completely bans the construction of new nuclear power plants.
45
INHERENCY - CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL
Nuclear energy is currently stagnating because of prohibitive costs.

Friedman, New York Times Author, 4-15-07
I recently visited the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear plant with Christopher Crane.
president of Exelon Nuclear, which owns the facility. He said that if Exelon wanted to
start a nuclear plant today, the licensing, design, planning and building requirements are
so extensive it would not open until 2015 at the earliest. But even if Exelon got all the
approvals, it could not start building "because the cost of capital for a nuclear plant
today is prohibitive." That's because the interest rate that any commercial bank
would charge on a loan for a nuclear facility would be so high — because of all the
risks of lawsuits or cost overruns — that it would be impossible for Exelon to proceed.
A standard nuclear plant today costs about $3 billion per unit. The only way to stimulate
more nuclear power innovation, Crane said, would be federal loan guarantees that would
lower the cost of capital for anyone willing to build a new nuclear plant.
47
INHERENCY - CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL
A difficulty of financing is the main obstacle to new construction.

Charles F. Carroll and John E. Matthews, 2005
In its report dated January 10, 2005, the NETF identified the unavailability of
financing as a significant obstacle to new nuclear power plant construction. The
NETF recommended that the US government offer a range of financial incentives for the
construction of the first few reactors, such as: secured loans, loan guarantees, accelerated
depreciation, investment tax credits, production tax credits and government power
purchase agreements.
48
INHERENCY - NUCLEAR POWER DYING
Currently, the world is led to believe that nuclear power is "evil" and does nothing but
harm society.
By Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK
Apr 21,2008 Issue
Interviewing Patrick Moore, one of the cofounders of Greenpeace
ZAKARIA: At Greenpeace, you fought against nuclear energy. What changed?

MOORE: My belief, in retrospect, is that because we were so focused on the destructive
aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear
energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. And indeed today,
Greenpeace still uses the word "evil" to describe nuclear energy. I think that's as big a
mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons. Nuclear medicine
uses radioactive isotopes to successfully treat millions of people every year, and those
isotopes are all produced in nuclear reactors. That's why I left Greenpeace: I could see
that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal
with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal
training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop
environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal
with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level
49
INHERENCY - NUCLEAR POWER DYING

Democrats are limiting incentives for nuclear power.
The Washington Post November 19, 2006
After six years of the Bush administration pushing for more oil production and new
nuclear power. Democrats want to provide new incentives for energy efficiency and
renewable energy while limiting those for nuclear power.
The United States if failing to invest and fund nuclear energy technology.
W. J. Nuttall, Judge Institute of Management and Cambridge University Engineering
Department, 2005, "Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of
Nuclear Power"
This book does not argue for a return of the days of the welfare state for nuclear
power. What is observed, however, is that the liberalized markets of North America and
western Europe have, thus far, failed to capture properly all aspects of energy policy and
that these shortcomings have disproportionately harmed new investment in nuclear
generation capacity.
50
WARMING ADV U - CONSENSUS

Uniqueness- The consensus is dominant - even mainstream skeptics only
question the magnitude of the impacts
Le Page in '2007_(Michael, New Scientist, May 16, 2007,
http://environrnent.newscientist.corn/charinel/earth/climate-change/dnl 1654_"Climate
myths: Many leading scientists question climate change", CNDI-TP )
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that manv leading scientists question
climate chanae. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For
instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new
prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol. This appears
to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet manv, if not most, of the 60
signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not
scientists at all and at least 15 are retired. Compare that with the dozens of
statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the
world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position
represented bv the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition
condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science. The fact is that
there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global
warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is
getting smaller rather than growing. Even the position of perhaps the most
respected sceptic. Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he
does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as
great as most predict. Of course, just because most scientists think something is
true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way
they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004
looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global
climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus
position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong - but later quietly withdrew
the claim.
51
WARMING ADV U - HUMANS

Uniqueness- Warming is real — overwhelming data shows significant
temperature increases — humans are the cause
Science in '2007(Richard A. Kerr, "CLIMATE CHANGE: Scientists Tell Policymakers We're All
Wanning the World", Vol. 3 15, No. 5813, February 9, p. 754-757, CNDI-TP)
They've said it before, but this time climate scientists are saying it with feeling: I 116 WOTld JS WariTllnCK it's not all natural, it's us; 300 jf
. it Will get a WhOle lOt The last time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
assessed the state of the climate, in early 2001 , it got a polite enough hearing The world was warming, it said, and human activity was "likely" to be driving most of
the warming Back then, the committee specified a better-than-60% chance-not exactly a ringing endorsement. And how bad might thhgs get? That depended on
a 20-year-old guess about how sensitive the climate system might be to rising greenhouse gases. Given the uncertainties, the IPCC report's reception was on the
tepid side Six years of research later, the heightened confidence is obvious The Warming JS "uneqUJVOCal." HUfTianS 3T6
"very likelv" (higher than 90% likelihood) behind the warming. And the climate
system is "very unlikely" to be so insensitive as to render future warming
inconsequential. This is the way n was supposed to work according to qlacioloqist Richard Alley of
Pennsylvania State University in State College, 3 l63d 3UthOr OH thJS IPCC repOlt. "The governments of the world said
to scientists, 'Here's a few billion dollars-get this right,' " Alley says. 'They took the money, and 17 years after the first IPCC report, they got it right. It's still
science, not revealed truth, but the science has gotten better and better and better. We're putting C02 in the air, and that's changing the climate " With such self-
assurance, this IPCC report may really go somewhere, especially in the newly receptive United States {see sidebar, p 756), where a small band of scientists has
long contested IPCC reports Coordinating lead author Gabriele Hegerl of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, certainly hopes their report hits home this
time "I want societies to understand that this is a real problem, and it affects the life of my kids " Down to work Created by the World Meteorological
Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, the IPCC had the process down for its fourth assessment report. I OrTV
governments nominated the 150 lead authors and 450 contributing authors Of a.mate
change 2007 The Physical science Basis There was no clique of senior insiders: 75% of nominated
lead authors were new to that role, and one-third of authors got their final degree
in the aSt 1U . Authors had their draft chapters reviewed by all comers More than 600 volunteered, submitting 30,000 comments
Authors responded to every comment, and reviewers certified each response. With their final draft of the science in hand, authors gathered in Paris, France, with
300 representatives of 113 nations for 4 days to hash out the wording of a scientist-written Summary for Policymakers. I 1)6 f3Ct Of Warming
was perhaps the most straightforward item of business. For starters, the air is 0.74°C warmer
than in 1906 up from a century's warming of 0.6'C in the last report EleV6n Of the l3St tWBlVB VBBTS T3nk
among the 12 warmest years in the M50-vear-lonq1 instrumental record,- notes the
summary(ipcc-wgi.ucar.edu). Warming ocean waters, shrinking mountain glaciers, and
retreating snow cover strengthened the evidence. So the IPCC authors weren't
impressed by the contrarian argument that the warming is just an "urban heat
IS13 D U eTTeCT driven by increasing amounts of heat-absorbing concrete and asphalt. That effect is real, the report says, but it has "a negligible
influence" on the global number. Likewise, new analyses have largely settled the hullabaloo over why thermometers at Earth's surface measured more wanning
than remote-sensing satellites had detected higher in the atmosphere (Science, 12 May 2006, p. 825). otUQIBS DV SGVBfal QTOUPS
haVe increased the Satellite-determined Warming, largely reconciling the difference This confidently observed
warming of the globe can't be anything but mostly human-induced, the IPCC finds. True. rnOQ0MDC| StUQ|0S__naV0 SDOWn IDai
natural forces in the climate system-such as calmer volcanoes and me SUns brightening-have in fact led to
WarmiflQ in the PaSt, as skeptics point out. And the natural ups and downs of dimate have at times warmed the globe. But all of these natural
variations in combination have not warmed the world enough, fast enough, and for long enough in the right geographic patterns to produce the observed warming,
the report finds. In model studies, nothing warms the world as observed except the addition of greenhouse gases in the actual amounts emitted. From studies of
long-past climate, including the famous hockey-stick curve of the past millennium's temperature (Science, A August 2006, p. 603), the IPCC concludes that the
recent warming ,s quite out of the ordinary -Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half
of the 20th centurv were very likelv higher than during anv other 50-vear period in
the last 500 years." the report concludes, "and likelv the highest in at least the
PaSt 1 \5UU VearS." Contrarians have conceded that greenhouse gases may be warming the planet, but not by much, they say. The dimate
system is not sensitive enough to greenhouse gases to overheat the globe, they say. For the first time, the iPCC report directly counters that argument.
Several different lines of evidence point to a moderately strong climate sensitivity

(Science, 21 April 2006, p. 351). The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 thickened the stratospheric haze layer and cooled climate, providing a gauge of short-
term climate sensitivity. Paleoclimatologists have determined how hard the dimate system was driven during long-past events such as the last ice age and how
much climate changed then And models have converged on a narrower range of climate sensitivity. The IPCC concludes that both models and past climate
52
changes point to a fairly sensitive climate system The Waiming for 3 dOUblinQ Of CO2 "JS V6rV UnlJkelV tO
be less than 1.5°C," saV5 me rep0rt, not the less than 0.5°C favored by some contrarians.
A beSt estimate IS aDOUt O (->. with a likely range of 2°C to 4.5°C. What next? Looking ahead, the report projects a warming of
about 0.4°C for the next 2 decades. That is about as rapid as the warming of the past 15 years, but 50% faster than the warming of the past 50 years PV
the end of this centurv, global temperatures might rise anvwhere between a
substantial 1.7°C and a whopping 4.0°C,
53
WARMING ADV - LINK - NUCLEAR POWER

Only nuclear power can halt global warming. Leading environmentalist urges
radical rethink on climate change .
McCarthy in 2004,(Michael, Environmental Editor, 5/24/04,
http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/nuclear_energy.html. "Leading environmentalist urges radical
rethink on climate change" CNDI-TP)
'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'

The ice is melting much faster than we thought'
Guru who tuned into Gaia was one ofthe first to warn of climate threat
James Lovelock: Nuclear power is the only green solution
Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear
power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilization, the
scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says.
His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement, it has long considered the 84-
year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the mOSt important JSSUC facing
the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith.
Last night the leaders of bolli Greenpeace and Friends ofthe Earth rejected his call.
Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author ofthe Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps
itself fit for life by the actions Of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound the
alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect.
I le was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at
10 Downing Street in April 1989.
HC now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming ofthe atmosphere is
proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists ofthe UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
thought it would, in their last report in 2001.
On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as
wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution ofthe Green movement - to take the
place ofthe coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide
(CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm.
He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CQ2,
can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the
world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says
fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green
movement to drop its opposition.
In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular! the melting of the
Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of
extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as
unprecedented and a direct result of global warming.
These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are
still in ignorance of this, important among the reasons is "the denial of climate change is in the US, where
governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed".
54

Nuclear Power alone plays the most important role in preventing global warming.
USA Today in 2000 (Society for the Advancement of Education, August, 2000,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ml272/is_2663_129/ai_63986733 "A Nuclear Solution to Global
Warming" -CNDI-TP)
Nuclear power can play a significant role in preventing catastrophic global warming,
maintain William C. Sailor and Bob van der Zwaan, visiting science fellows at the Center
for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford (Calif.) University. They are
affiliated with Nuclear Power Issues and Choices for the 21st Century, a CISAC project
investigating whether nuclear energy has a legitimate role in preventing global
warming."Mankind is facing a tremendous challenge with global climate change. In the
coming two decades, we have to consider new energy sources, including nuclear,"
indicates Van der Zwaan, on leave from the Free University of the Netherlands, though
he admits that widespread public concern has led several countries to halt development of
llUClear energy. "Eighty-five percent of all Dutch people are opposed to it," he notes, and the numbers are similar in other European countries.
Most of the world's energy is derived from fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas. Only
about six percent comes from nuclear power plants However, burning fossil fuels emits
large amounts of carbon dioxide ([CO.sub.2]) and other gases that trap infrared radiation
from the sun. As a result say many climatologists, the atmosphere is heating up like the
inside of a greenhouse, and unless the rate of [CO.sub.2] gas emissions is reduced the
temperature of the Earth will increase by as much as 6 [degrees] F in the 21st century.
Such global wanning, according to worst-case scenarios, will cause disastrous floods,
droughts, and erratic changes in ocean currents, and even will spread tropical diseases
and parasites throughout the planet. Advocates say that nuclear power can help prevent
global warming because reactors produce virtually no greenhouse gases. They point to France, where
about 60 nuclear power plants provide three-fourths of the country's electricity. Critics argue that nuclear power is inherently dangerous and prohibitively
easier for plutonium fuel to gei into me minus 01 terrorists anu outers eager to DUUU smaii-scaie nucieai weapons, van uer ^waan anu janui pi.
recent studies showing that, to prevent dangerous climate change from occurring in the next 50 years, the [CO.sub.2]-gas emissions must rema
current levels--despite a projected 50% population increase by the year 2050 that could double or triple world demand for energy. "LaCKing 3.
crystal ball that tells us the future, we simply select one possible scenario that achieves
the emissions target." Their scenario envisions a world in which one-third of all energy
comes from fossil fuels; one-third from renewable resources, like solar and wind power
and one-third from nuclear power. To achieve that ambitious goal, all the nations of the
world would have to consume less oil, coal, and natural gas than they do today, while
increasing renewable and nuclear energy sources at least tenfold. TO accomplish that win require increasing
the number of nuclear reactors from about 430 to roughly 4,000, which means that more than one nuclear reactor would have to be built every week for
the next 50 years.. "That would require a massive industrial effort" Van der Z.waan
. concedes,, costing trillions of dollars,, but
developed nations like the U.S. can achieve this objective if there is strong popular
SUpPOrt. (According to the Department of Energy, the U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors in operation today. Twenty-eight have been shut down
permanently since 1953, and there are no plans to build new ones.) Sailor, who is on a one-year sabbatical from the Los Alamos (N.M.) National
Laboratory and holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering, argues that renewable forms of energy such as hydro, wind, and solar power are fraught with
technical or environmental problems that make them unlikely substitutes. "Once it's realized that W6 CamiOt make ends
meet without nuclear energy, there is a chance that public opinion will turn greatly so that
nuclear power will once again be acceptable."
55

Nuclear energy is the only alternative to prevent global warming.
Lawson in 2004 (Richard, Green Health Reporter, November 26, 2004,
http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/nuclear.htm, "The paradox : Gaian system and nuclear process" CNDI-TP)
in May 2004 James Lovelock, originator of the Gaian (earth systems) hypothesis, stirred media
interest when he reiterated his support for nuclear power <NP) as part of the solution to the
overwhelming threat that humanity (and the planet) is facing from global warming, since then the
nuclear industry has been lobbying hard to restart its failing programme by presenting it
as the answer to global warming.
James Lovelock knows better than any of us that the solution to global warming will
involve Complex changes involving everything from finance to forestry and gigawatts to goat management, interacting
together in a huge system change. Above all, it will involve a shift in our perception of the world.
Literally hundreds of new technologies will be rolled out, primarily in energy
conservation, energy efficiency, and many modes of renewable energy technology.
The key to all this, as James taught us, is that Gaia moves in cycles that interact in mutually complementary 1 ways, sometimes
facilitating each other and sometimes inhibiting each other. We must leave behind our old ways of thinking in isolated, linear, cause
and effect modules, and learn to think in the way that nature moves, in interrelated web-like systems.
The paradox is that nuclear power is an outstanding example of linear thinking. YOU dig out
your uranium, you bum it, and you bury it (or fire it off into the sun or something, whatever). From a Systems point 01
view, the main thing to bear in mind is that you must try to cause as few cancers as you
can reasonably get away with, which means isolating the nuclear cycle as best you can
from the rest 01 nature; (and of course, you have make sure that nobody with brown skin gets hold of nuclear power,
because they might develop nuclear weapons from it, and give them to Osama bin Laden.).
When I put this systems argument to James Lovelock, his only response was that nuclear fission reactions have occurred in nature.
This is true; but asteroid hits are also a part of nature, but this does not mean that we should contemplating attracting asteroid hits in an
effort to extract energy from them. His response is not a valid defence of his position, and the systems argument against nuclear power
still stands.
James recognises that nuclear power is a risky business, but says that we must use it,
because if we continue to use coal oil and gas, it is certain that global warming will cause
immense damage to planet and people.
We must address the question raised by an environmentalist of the stature of James Lovelock. Should we accept nuclear power,
despite its dangers and drawbacks, as a necessary instrument in the battle against global warming?
56
WARMING ADV - IL - NUKE POWER GOOD

Nuclear power good for environment. Without nuclear power, US is at risk of
dying from air pollution, not to mention the extensive effects from global
warming.
Jones in 1998 (Barclay G.. St. Louis Dispatch. December 21. 1998,
http://www.junkscience.com/dec98/spdnukes.html. "Nuclear Power good for Environment" - CNDI-TP)
While we devote unprecedented resources to environmental-improvement strategies that

have enhanced the quality of life in almost every American city and community, a serious
threat to the environment remains ignored.
Today's clean air depends upon non-polluting nuclear energy, but precisely because of
this dependency, pollution prevention may be approaching an about-face, just as it is
achieving enormous benefits.
Despite its environmental advantages, the future of nuclear energy is in doubt: the Energy
Information Administration, data-gathering branch of the federal Department of Energy.
warns that as many as 24 of the nation's 108 nuclear power plants might close
prematurely, reducing U.S. nuclear capacity significantly.
Shutting down nuclear plants would require more fossil fuels to be burned, causing far
greater quantities of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and fine particles of soot to be
spewed into the atmosphere - turning every part of the country into a non-attainment area
under the Clean Air Act.
This is not a comforting thought at a time when health authorities estimate that tens of
thousands of Americans a year are dying prematurely from air pollution.
Nuclear power is vital to energy-efficiency and solves potential environmental

hazards like global warming.
Jones in 1998 (Barclay G.. St. Louis Dispatch. December 21. 1998,
http://www.Junkscience.com/dec98/spdnukes.html. "Nuclear Power good for Environment" - CNDI-TP)
Understand this: For the past quarter century, nuclear energy has been the nation's most
important source of clean power for avoiding airborne emissions that result from burning
oil, natural gas and coal.
According to a new study by Washington-based Energy Resources International, nuclear
energy - by substituting for fossil-fuel power plants - has prevented 219 million tons of
sulfur dioxide and 98 million tons of nitrogen oxides from being discharged into the
atmosphere since 1973. Emission-free nuclear energy also has avoided the release of
more than 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas linked to global
warming.
57
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - RUNAWAY

Impact- Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Runaway Global Warming-
related causes by 2012.
Stokes in 2007 (John, has extensive research on global warming, The Canadian.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html. "Over 4.5 Billion people
could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012," CNDI-TP)
A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" ays that historical global warming cycles have been caised by a feedback
loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of
clathrates and bacterial growth.
In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate w i l l gradually mdt, and the released
methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year
would be catastrophic.
The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic
global Warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existenciai
turning point in your life.
By the way. the "hydrate hypothesis" is a weeks old scientific theory, and is only now being discussed by global warming scientists. I
suggest you Google the term.
Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing the Earth to warm, the central
debate has shifted to when we will pass the tipping point and be helpless to stop the
runaway Global Warming.
There are enormous quantities of methane trapped in permafrost and under the oceans in ice-like structures called clathrates. The methane in Arctic
permafrost ciathrates is estimated at 400 billion tons.
Methane is more than 20 times as strong a greenhouse gas as CO2, and the atmosphere currently contains about 3.5 billion tons of the gas.
The highest temperature increase from global warming is occurring in the arctic regions-an area rich in these unstable clathrates. Simulations from the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show that over half the permafrost will thaw by 2050, and as much as 90 percent by 2100.
Peat deposits may be a comparable methane source to melting permafrost. When peat that has been frozen for thousands of years thaws, it still contains
viable populations of bacteria that begin to convert the peat into methane and CO2.
Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. The west Siberian peat
bog could hold some 70 billion tonnes of methane Local almospheric levels of methane on the Siberian shelf are now 25 times higher than global
concentrations.
By the way, warmer temperatures and longer growing seasons have caused microbial
activity to increase dramatically in the soil around the world. This, in turn, means that
much of the carbon long stored in the soil is now being released into the atmosphere.
Releases of methane from melting oceanic clathrates have caused severe environmental impacts in the past. The methane in oceanic
clathrates has been estimated at 10,000 billion tons.
55 million years ago a global warmirg chain reaction (probably started by volcanic activity) melted oceanic clathrates. It was one of
the most rapid and extreme global w arming events in geologic history.
Humans appear to be capable of emitting CO2 in quantities comparable to the volcanic
activity that started these chain reactions. According to the U.S. Geological Survey,
burning fossil fuels releases more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by
volcanoes.
Methane in the atmosphere does not remain long, persisting for about 10 years before being oxidized to CO2 (a greenhouse gas thai lasts for hundreds of thousands of years).
Chronic methane releases oxidizing into CO2 contribute as much to warming as does the transient methane concentrations,
TO Summarize, human aCtivitV iS CaUSing the Earth tO Warm. Bacteria converts carbon in the soil into greenhouse
gasses, and enormous quantities are trapped in unstable clathrates. As the earth continues to warm, permafrost clathrates will thaw, peat and soil microbial activity will
dramatically increase, and, finally, vast oceanic clathrales will melt. This global warming chain reaction has happened in the past.
Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rose by a record amount over the past year. It is the
third successive year in which they have increased sharply. Scientists are at a loss to
explain why the rapid rise has taken place, but fear the trend could be the first sign of
runaway global warming.
Runaway Global Warming promises to literally burn-up agricultural areas into dust
worldwide by 2012, causing global famine, anarchy, diseases, and war on a global scale
as military powers including the U.S., Russia, and China, fight for control of the Earth's
remaining resources.
58
Over 4.5 billion people could die from Global Warming related causes by 2012, as planet
Earth accelarates into a greed-driven horrific catastrophe.
59
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - FOOD SHORTAGE

Experts say global warming will intensify world food shortages. The future of
food production is bleak without a response to CO2 emissions.
Greenpeace in 07 (International responders to climate control, GreenPeace, February 2007,
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0207.html, "EXPERTS SAY GLOBAL
WARMING MAY EXACERBATE WORLD FOOD SHORTAGES" CNDI-TP)
The IPCC Working Group III Subgroup on Agriculture, Forestry and Other Systems
(AFOS) report concludes: The anticipated rise in global average temperature of about 2
to 3 oC over the next century will most likely lead to severe impacts on agriculture and
forestry such as: a shift of the climatic zones by several hundred kilometres towards the
poles, enlarging the arid zones in the tropical and subtropical regions, and reducing the
land available for agriculture, a rise in sea level of about 0.3 metres, inundating valuable land in
coastal areas, especially in tropical and subtropical zones, a gradual breakdown of many ecosystems like
forests in temperate and boreal regions, leading to additional CO2 emissions and thus to further greenhouse
warming, potentially increased effects from pests and weeds.
Marine and land food species may also be affected by the increasing levels of ultraviolet
radiation reaching the earth as a result of unavoidable ongoing depletion of stratospheric
ozone. This could lead to a reduced production of biomass and photosynthesis, thus again
enhancing the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
The Group concludes that "it is likely to be enormously difficult task for mankind, not
only to limit climate change to a tolerable level, but also to simultaneously achieve
sufficient food production for a still rising world population..." <K. Heinioth (Physiiaiisches institut
des Universit t Bonn) & R.P. Karimanzira, "Outcomes and policy recommendations from the IPCC/AFOS working group on climate
change response strategies and emission reductions", Climatic Change, v.27(l). p. 139-146. May 1994).
Eminent US scientists. Henry Kendall and David Pimental, agree with the conclusions of
the IPCC workshop. In modelling food supply requirements for various population levels,
they conclude that global warming and ozone depletion may have catastrophic effects on
global food production. While most countries were food self-sufficient in the early 1960s, few remain
so. The increasing reliance on fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation, increasing spread of soil erosion, ground
and surface water pollution, salinisation, and rapid degradation of productive land has contributed to
significantly reduced food production. In Africa, per capita grain production has decreased by 22 percent
since 1967. Simultaneously, global population is projected to double in 40 years,
necessitating a tripling of current food production to maintain all peoples above the
poverty line. Water is considered the major limiting factor, but the problems associated
with irrigation suggest that this is not the answer. Their study finds that while global
warming may benefit some crops, it may also benefit pests, insects and weeds.
60
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - FOOD SHORTAGE

Impact- Food shortages will kill all of humanity due to starvation. We may be
a crop season away from the impact.
Adams in 2008 (Mike, Health Ranger for Natural News, Natural News.Com, April 23, 2008,
http://www.naturalnews.com/023091 .html, "The Biofuels Scam, Food Shortages and the Coming Collapse
of the Human Population" CNDI-TP)
So, to repeat, the food bubble is now starting to implode. What does it all mean? It
means that as these economic and climate realities unfold, our world is facing massive
starvation and food shortages. The First place this will be felt is in poor developing
nations. It is there that people live on the edge of economic livelihood, where even a 20%
rise in the price of basic food staples can put desperately-needed calories out of reach of
tens of millions of families. If something is not done to rescue these people from their
plight, they will starve to death.
Wealthy nations like America. Canada, the U.K.. and others will be able to absorb the price increases, so you won't see mass
starvation in North America any time soon (unless, of course, all the honeybees die, in which case prepare to start chewing your
shoelaces...), but it will lead to significant increases in the cost of living, annoying consumers and reducing the amount of money
available for other purchases (like vacations, cars, fuel, etc.). That, of course, will put downward pressure on the national economy.
But what we're seeing right now, folks, is just a small foreshadowing of events to come in
the next couple of decades. Think about it: If these minor climate changes and foolish
biofuels policies are already unleashing alarming rises in food prices, just imagine what
we'll see when Peak Oil kicks in and global oil supplies really start to dwindle. When
gasoline is $10 a gallon in the U.S., how expensive will food be around the world? The
answer, of course, is that it will be triple or quadruple the current price. And that means
many more people will starve.
Fossil fuels, of course, aren't the only limiting factor threatening future food supplies on
OUr planet: There's also/o^/7 water. That's water from underground aquifers that's being pumped up to the surface to water crops,
then it's lost to evaporation. Countries like India and China are depending heavily on fossil water to irrigate lieir crops, and not
surprisingly, the water levels in those aquifers is dropping steadily. In a few more years (as little as five years in
some cases), that water will simply run dry, and the crops that were once irrigated to feed
a nation will dry up and turn to dust. Mass starvation will only take a few months to kick
in/Think North Korea after a season of floods. Perhaps 95% of humanity is just one crop
season away from mass starvation.
61
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - ECOSYSTEMS

Ecosystems are endangered due to rising CO2 emissions. We are almost at
the tipping point of no return - immediate action is necessary.
Hinman in 2008 (Pip, New Reporter, February 9, 2008, http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38269
"New report warns of runaway climate change" - CNDI- TP)
Philip Sutton from Greenleap and David Spratt from Carbon Equity argue that "human
activity has already pushed the planet's climate past several critical 'tipping points',
including the initiation of major ice sheet loss".
They quote US climate scientist James Hansen who warned in 2007 that the loss of 8 million square kilometres of Arctic sea ice now
seems inevitable, and may occur as early as 2010 — a century ahead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections.
"There is already enough carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere to initiate ice sheet
disintegration in West Antarctica and Greenland and to ensure that sea levels will rise
metres in coming decades", the report's authors say.
"The projected speed of change, with temperature increases greater than 0.3°C per decade
and the consequent rapid shifting of climatic zones will, if maintained, likely result in
most ecosystems failing to adapt, causing the extinction of many animal and plant
species. The oceans will become more acidic, endangering much marine life.
"The Earth's passage into an era of dangerous climate change accelerates as each of these
tipping points is passed. If this acceleration becomes too great, humanity will no longer
have the power to reverse the processes we have set in motion."
The authors conclude mat we can avert this potential disaster, but warn that the science demands that "politics as usual" be rejected.
"The climate crisis will not respond to incremental modification of the business as usual model."
'The sustainability emergency is now not so much a radical idea as simply an
indispensable course of action if we are to return to a safe-climate planet", the authors
conclude.
Cam Walker, spokesperson from FoE, used the report's launch on February 4 to call on the government to urgently review the role of
the Garnaut Climate Change Review which is to make recommendations on carbon emission targets.
Walker criticised the terms of reference for Ross Garnaut, and the government's policy of a 60% cut in emissions by 2050, saying that
global warming of JC would lead to disaster.
"The government is potentially allowing Garnaut to engage in dangerous trade-offs with the lives of many species and many people
rather man setting a safe-climate target", he said.
Walker said the government is behind the times on climate science and urged it to bring James Hansen, head of the US NASA
Goddard Institute for Space Science, and that country's most eminent climate scientist, into the review process "so that the science
was put first rather man last in making climate policy".
Walker said that Hansen warned in December that climate tipping points have already
been passed for large ice sheet disintegration and species loss, and there is already
enough carbon in the Earth's atmosphere for massive ice sheets such as on Greenland to
eventually melt away.
"These impacts are starting to happen at less than one degree of warming, yet the government B effectively planning on allowing
warming to run to 3 degrees", said Walker.
62
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - BIODIVERSITY
Impact-Loss of biodiversity in the ecosystem leads to extinction.

Miguel Santos. Environmental Crisis, 1999 p. 35-36
In, addition, natural forests provide recreation and unique scientific beauty while at the same time serving as
the basis for natural communities that provide life support to organisms (including people). As mentioned,
one vital by-product of plane photosynthetic activity is oxygen, which is essential to human existence. In
addition, forests remove pollutants and odors from the atmosphere. The wilderness is highly effective in
metabolizing many toxic substances. The atmospheric concentration of pollutants over the forest, such as
particulates and sulfur dioxide, are measurably below that of adjacent areas (sec Figure 2.3).
In view of their ecological role in ecosystems, the impact of species extinction may be devastating. The rich
diversity of species and the ecosystems that support them are intimately connected to the long-term sun'ivai
of humankind. As the historic conservationist Aide Leopold stated in 1949, "The outstanding scientific
discovery of the twentieth century is not television or radio, but the complexity of the land organisms... To
keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering,"
An endangered species may have a significant role in its community. Such an organism may control die
structure and functioning of the community through its activities. The sea otter, for example, in relation to
its size, is perhaps the most voracious of all marine mammals. The otter feeds on sea rnollusks, sea urchins,
crabs, and fish. It needs to eat more than 20 percent of its weight every day to provide the necessary energy
to maintain its body tempiraturc in a cold marine habitat. The_exlii)_£liQrL0f such keystone or controller
species from the ecosystem would cause great damage,Jla. extinction could have cascading effects on many
species, even cj^in£j^ondiiQ?j;xiirMiM»
Traditionally, species have always evolved along with their changing environment. As disease organisms
evolve, other organisms may evolve chemical defense mechanisms that confer disease resistance. As the
weather becomes drier, for example, plants may develop smaller, thicker leaves, which lose water slowly.
The environment, however ,Js now developing and changing rapidly, but evolution is stow, requiring
hundreds of thousands of years. ILsQg&£U!£Jll£!££<^^
on Eajth will be greatly reduced; therefore, the potential for_natural adaptation and change also will be
reduced, thus endangering the .diversity of JklureJiurnaaJife-support systems.
63
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - CQ2

Impact- Increasing Levels of Carbon Dioxide results in deadly diseases
among humankind.
SEC in 2007 (Society for Environmental Communications. January 15, 2007,
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20070115&filename=news&sec_id=12&sid=25.
"Runaway carbon dioxide bad news for humans" CNDI-TP)
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ipcc) estimates that the range of stabilised atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by 2050 will be between 450 parts per
million (ppm) and 550 ppm A paper published in thejourna! Curn'til Sc/uuw (Vol 90, No 12) argues that these concentration levels have not been correlated to health impacts
According to the paper, 426 ppm is the permissible exposure over a lifetime. The author says that increasing leVClS 01 CarDOn QlQXlQe,
apart from affecting climate, will have serious toxic effects on humans and other
mammals. Higher carbon dioxide concentration affects health by reducing blood ph
causing difficulty in breathing, rapid pulse rate, headache, hearing loss, sweating and
fatigue. Some studies have also shown possibilities of embryonic or foetal abnormalities
due to increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
A study on health effects of high indoor carbon dioxide concentrations has established
that at 600 ppm, occupants felt stuffy, and above this level, symptoms of poisoning
started to show. At 1,000 ppm. nearly all the occupants were affected.
All these effects were observed with only a transient exposure and not over a lifetime On an average, carbon dioxide levels in offices reach 800-1,200 ppm and up to 2.000 ppm in
overcrowded conference rooms At present, carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is about 380
ppm. When it reaches 600 ppm, the Earth will have a permanent outdoor atmosphere
exactly like that of a stuffy room, which life may not adapt to.
64
WARMING ADV - IMPACT - CQ2

Impact-Carbon Pollution kills on a large-scale. California proves as
testimony.
Zabarenko in 2008 (Deborah, Reporter for Reuters News Service, January 7, 2008,
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfrn/newsid/46266/story.htrn, ''Carbon Dioxide Pollution Kills
Hundreds a Year- Study", CND1-TP)
The deaths were due to lung and heart ailments linked to ozone and polluting particles in
the air, which are spurred by carbon dioxide that comes from human activities, according
to the study's author. Mark Jacobson of Stanford University.
As the planet warms due to carbon dioxide emissions, the annual death rate is forecast to
climb, with premature deaths in the United States from human-generated carbon dioxide
expected to hit 1,000 a year when the global temperature has risen by 1.8 degrees F (1
degree C).
When the planet gets that hot, which could happen this century, the world annual death rate is
estimated tO rise tO 21.600. Jacobson said on Friday in a telephone interview.
Earth has warmed about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 degrees C) in the last 150 years, with most of that gain in the last three decades.
Jacobson said about 700 to 800 US annual deaths in the most recent years can be
attributed to human-caused carbon emissions.
Greenhouse gas pollution has spurred the global warming that is result in a damaging rise in the sea level, droughts and possibly more
severe storms this century. This is the first time a scientist has specifically linked one human-
generated greenhouse gas to human mortality.
Carbon dioxide is one of several greenhouse gases blamed for climate change, but it is the one
humans have the most ability to control through regulation of activities that burn fossil
fuels like COal and Oil. It is also emitted by natural processes.
Using a complex computer model and data on carbon emissions from the US
Environmental Protection Agency, Jacobson found the impact was worse in places that
are populous and polluted.
"Of the additional... deaths per year due to ozone and particles ... about 30 percent of
those occurred in California, which has 12 percent of the (US) population," he said,
noting that California has six of the 10 most polluted US cities.
"So it was pretty clear... that climate change was affecting Californians' health disproportionately to its population." Jacobson said.
What happens in California is important, since this populous state has long been a testing
ground for US pollution regulation.
65
ECONOMY ADV - U - OIL

3. Price shock
A) There is an overreliance on oil and natural gas, causing price shock.
Immediate Action to change the current main source of energy is crucial to avoid
the a collapse of the economy due to the inevitable oil peak is essential.
Landry 2007
(March 30 2007, Cathy, of the American Petroleum Institute, "GAO warns of peak oil threat to
global economies", pg LEXIS)
World oil production will peak sometime between now and 2040. the us Government Accountability
Office said March 29, cautioning that if the phenomenon occurs "soon" and "without warning." it could
cause oil prices to surge to unprecedented levels and result in "severe" economic damage. "The
prospect of a peak in oil production presents problems of global proportions whose consequences
will depend Critically O11 our preparedness." GAO, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said in a report.
"While these consequences would be felt globally, the United Skates, as the largest consumer of oil
and one of the nations most heavily dependent on oil for transportation, may be especially
vulnerable among the industrialized nations of the world." Despite the threat of peak oil, the US government
currently has no "coordinated or well-defined strategy" to address the uncertainties about the
timing of peak oil or to mitigate its potential effects. For that reason. GAO recommended that
the federal government take immediate action, and suggested that the US energy secretary take
the lead in coordinating a government strategy.
66
ECONOMY ADV - U - ECONOMY

Oil dependence is costing the US billions.
Klare May 10, 2008
(May 10 2008, Michael T., Five Colleges professor of Peace and World Security Studies, "An oil-
addicted ex-superpower", pg online @
http://www.atimes.coni/atini es/Global_Economy/JE 10Dj05.html)
According to the latest data from the US Department of Energy, the United plates is importing 12-14 million barrels
of oil per day. At a current price of about $115 per barrel, that's $1.5 billion per day, or $548
billion per year. This represents the single largest contribution to America's balance-of-pavments
deficit, and is a leading cause for the dollar's ongoing drop in value. If oil prices rise any higher -
in response, perhaps, to a new crisis in the Middle East (as might be occasioned by US air strikes on Iran) - Our annual
import bill could quickly approach three-quarters of a trillion dollars or more per year.
Prices will continue to increase

The Ball State Daily News May 18, 2008
(May 18 2008, "ENVIRONMENTAL KNOW-HOW: Oil dependency can end with taking action", pg
online @
http://media.www.bsudailynews.com/media/storage/paper849/news/2008/05/19/Forum/Environmenta
I.KnowHow.Oil.Dependency.Can.End.With.Taking.Action-3373054.shtmI)
Even though there are still a trillion barrels of oil in the Earth's crust, the overall production of it
is dwindling even more. In the past, in order to reduce the cost of gasoline, oil companies would
literally open the valves of refineries so more gasoline would be available, and the price could go
down. This is no longer possible because extraction and oil refinement is not as easy.For this
reason, gas prices will continue to increase. Although short time prices of gasoline will fluctuate depending on the
season or economic stability, prices w i l l continue to increase. There JS IIP denying that the United States is heavily
addicted to and dependent 011 oil. The level of this addiction will be signified by how much the consumer will be willing to
pay. At what price will consumers say enough is enough? Will it be as high as $6 or $7 per gallon? The United States'
addiction will eventually come to an end because it is not a matter of IF gasoline will cease to
exist or be too expensive to afford: it is a matter of WHEN. Consumers are already beginning to
feel the effects of this inevitability.
67
ECONOMY ADV - U - ECONOMIC INSTABILITY

1. Economic instability
A) The Global Economy is Unstable
Specifically, the US economy is unstable.

The Wall Street Journal 2008
(June 9 2008, "Gasoline Hits Average of $4 a Gallon; Price Shock, Among the Worst in a Generation, Will
Worsen the Risk of Recession", pg online @
http://proquest.umi. com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1491734591 &SrchMode=l&sid=7&Fmt=3&Vlnst=PROD
&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1214673685&clientId=1566')
The average price of gasoline in the U.S. hit S4 a gallon for the first time Sunday, the latest milestone in a run-up in fuel prices
that is sapping consumer confidence and threatening to nudee the nation into recession.The record nationwide average for
regular-gasoline prices, announced by auto club AAA. follows Friday's near-Si 1 surge in oil prices to a record $138.54 a barrel.
Both are part of what, by some measures, is the worst energy-price shock Americans have faced for a generation, in terms of its
toll on their pocketbooks.In recent days, soaring fuel prices and disappointing employment data have reignited fears that the
nation's economy -- which has taken a pounding over the past year from a housing downturn, credit crunch and weakening job
market -- will slip into recession, or pull back further if a recession is already under way. Rising fuel prices are straining
household budgets, damping the spending that drives more than two-thirds of the nation's economic activity."What we're seeing
here is a lot of additional pressure on a consumer sector that was soft to begin with," said Alliance Bernstein economist Joseph
Carson. "Is it a tipping point by itself? It's close."Gasoline prices, which have risen 29% over the past year, have been high for
months, and in some markets, such as Alaska and California, consumers have been paying more than $4 a gallon at the pump for
weeks. But the latest increase at the nationwide level from a previous average of nearly $3.99 a gallon seems likely to deliver at
least a psychological blow to many Americans.The current drain on consumers' income from rising fuel prices is-greater than it
was during most of the worst energy-price run-ups of the past. Spending on fuel as a share of wage income has shot above 6%.
That exceeds the percentage seen during the 1974-75 and 1990-91 oil-price shocks and approaches the 7% to 8% seen during the
1980-81 price surge, according to Mr. Carson.Comparing the rise in fuel spending to income growth, which has been especially
weak in recent years, the current shock is far worse than anv of the three prior ones, he said."It's just gotten out of hand." said 53-
year-old Yvonne Brune of Des Moincs. Iowa, referring to the rising cost of gasoline. Because of higher gasoline prices. Ms.
Brune. who works for a printing company doing marketing on weekdays and separately as a bridal consultant on nights and
weekends, no longer makes the drive home at lunchtime - a 30-mile round trip - to spend time with her dogs. Because of rising
airfares, she has canceled plans for a trip to Texas to visit relatives. "I think the airlines are going to see their industry implode
because people are going to stop flying," she said.Some economists hold out hope the current oil-price surge won't be as
devastating as some in the past. For one thing, consumers and businesses are far more fuel-efficient today than they were during
the oil shock of the mid-1970s, requiring half as much energy to produce a unit of economic output.Interest rates also are far
lower than they were then, and the Federal Reserve is expected to hold its interest-rate target steady at 2% for much of this year.
The dollar's weakness, meanwhile, is raising overseas demand for American products, and growth in exports is a key reason why
the U.S. economy has continued to expand -- albeit slowly ~ over the past six months.Most important, consumers have shown
surprising resilience over the past five years, despite continued surges in their fuel costs. "While it certainly makes it tougher for
the economy for the next few quarters, I still believe consumers can adapt," said Peter Kretzmer, a Bank of America
economist.Still, as gasoline prices climb, they eat up money that consumers might otherwise spend on appliances or movie tickets
or vacations. That could force businesses, hit bv weaker consumer demand and an increase in their own costs, to pare operations
and cut more jobs in an already weak labor market. The government reported Friday that the unemployment rate jumped to 5.5%
in Mav from 5% in April as employers shed 49.000 jobs last month — a fifth-straight monthly decline.
68
ECONOMY ADV - U - ENERGY CRISIS
B) There's a growing demand for energy across the globe.
The demand for energy will increase.

Fox News 2008
(June 25 2008, "Worldwide Energy Demand Will Rise 51 Percent by 2030, Energy
Department Report Says", pg online @
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,371286,00.html)
WASHINGTON — Despite persistently high oil prices, global energy demand will grow by 50
percent over the next two decades with continued heavy reliance on environmentally
troublesome fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, the government predicted Wednesday.
The report forecast the steepest increases in China and other emerging economies where energy demand is
expected to be 85 percent greater in 2030 than it is today.
"What jumps out is the very strong growth in the emerging economies." said Guy Caruso, head of the federal Energy Information
Administration, which conducted the long-term energy outlook.
The projections said that without mandatory actions to address global warming, the amount of
heat-trapping carbon dioxide flowing into the atmosphere each year from energy use will be 51
percent greater in 2030 than it was three years ago.
Energy demand will increase.

Tradingcharts.com 2008
(June 25 2008, "U.S.-REPORT: GLOBAL DEMAND FOR OIL IS SET TO SOAR IN
NEXT 20 YEARS", http://news.tradingcharts.eom/futures/l/8/110476981.html)
World energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions will grow by about 50 percent over the next two
decades, according to the U.S. government's predictions. The Energy Information Administration released its International
Energy Outlook 2008 report Wednesday, forecasting that "world marketed energy Consumption is projected to
increase by 57 percent from 2004 to 2030." despite the rise in oil prices, as developing countries outpace
rich ones in consumption. Referring to the wealthy nations' Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
it added that during the same period, "total energy demand in the non-OECD countries [will likely
increase] by 95 percent, compared with an increase of 24 percent in the OECD countries." The
report sees non-OECD countries' share of world energy consumption rising from 47.9 percent in
2005 to 58.8 percent in 2030.
Economy Unstable. There isn't enough oil to meet energy demands.

Dallas Morning News 2008
(June 20 2008, "Rod Dreher: Localizing a global oil problem", pg online @
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-
dreher_15edi.ART.State.Editionl.4d82a96.html)
There is simply not enough oil being extracted quickly or inexpensively enough to meet global
demand — nor, in all likelihood, will there be again. This is called peak oil. Last week, economic analysts
said Americans have never before spent a greater part of their income on energy costs. The
sooner we come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can begin taking serious steps to adapt.
69
ECONOMY ADV - U - ENERGY CRISIS

Oil and natural gas will not meet growing energy demands.
Wall Street Journal 2007
(July 16 2007, "Potential Energy Crunch May Bring Other Fuels to Fore", pg online @
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=20&did=1304933051&SrchMode=l&sid=l&F
mt=3& VInst=PROD& VType=PQD&RQT=3 09& VName=PQD&TS=1214601568&clien
tld=1566)
World oil and gas supplies from conventional sources are unlikely to keep up with rising global demand over the next
25 years, the U.S. petroleum industry savs in a_draft report of a study commissioned by the government. In the draft report.
oil-industry leaders acknowledge the world will need to develop all the supplemental sources of energy it can —
ranging from biofuels to nuclear power to oil extracted by unconventional means from the oil sands of Canada -- to meet
soaring demand. The surge in demand is expected to arise from rapid economic growth in such fast-developing countries as
China and India, as well as mounting consumption in the U.S., the world's biggest energy market.
The findings suggest that, far from being temporary, high energy prices are likely for decades to come.
"It is a hard truth that the global supply of oil and natural gas from the conventional sources relied upon historically is
unlikely to meet projected 50% to 60% growth in demand over the next 25 years." says the draft report, titled "Facing
the Hard Truths About Energy." "In geoeconomic terms, the biggest impact will come from increasing demand for oil and natural
gas from developing countries," said the draft report, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "This demand
may outpace timely development of new supply sources, thereby pressuring prices to rise." The study, which was requested by
U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in October 2005. was conducted by the National Petroleum Council, an industry
group that advises the secretary. The conclusions appear to be the first explicit concession by the petroleum industry
that it alone can't meet burgeoning global demand for oil, which may rise to as much as 120 million barrels a day by 2030
from about 84 million barrels a day currently, according to some projections. The draft report proposed that the U.S. work not
only to increase output of oil, gas and other fuels, but to cut energy use by improving car and truck mileage standards and
implementing stricter building and appliance requirements. "Whether we are effort-constrained or resource-constrained won't
become clear until it is too late." said Larry Goldstein, director of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry-funded,
nonprofit research organization based in Washington. Policy makers must assume supply constraints, Mr. Goldstein said,
declining to comment directly on the study. The National Petroleum Council has about 175 members, picked by the energy
secretary, with extensive participation by the energy industry and other industries and government officials and with help from
foreign countries and institutions. The NPC is slated to vote on adopting the draft, which runs more than 450 pages, including
annexes, at a meeting Wednesday in Washington to be led by Exxon Mobil Corp. former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Lee R. Raymond. Some people who participated in the report declined to comment on the findings until the results were
published. Besides Mr. Raymond, leaders of the study included David J. O'Reilly, chairman and chief executive of Chevron
Corp.; Andrew Gould, chairman and CEO of Schlumberger Ltd.; and Daniel H. Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research
Associates.
Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, said this is perhaps the first time the NPC, which was
founded at President Harry Truman's request in 1946. has taken a global overview. The conclusion seems to be "the situation is
serious, but not critical," Mr. Lynch said. Still, drastically increasing the supply of oil and gas could be difficult. 'The oil industry
was gutted between 1985 and 2000 because of low prices," said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, an industry
consulting concern in Washington. "It will be difficult now for it to meaningfully increase its production capacity."
70
ECONOMY ADV - U - OIL NOT ENOUGH
Global demand for energy is at an all time high. Oil can't handle it, and politicians need
to make people less dependant on oil.
(June 22 2008, "Energy crisis turns globalism to localism", pg online @
http://www2.lj world.com/news/2008/jun/22/energy_crisis_turns_globalism_localism/)
Cheap, abundant and accessible fossil fuels allowed us to create a world in which we are relatively unconstrained
by geography. That era is passing into history, and it is not likely this process can be reversed. There
is simply not enough oil being extracted quickly or inexpensively enough to meet global demand
- nor, in all likelihood, will there be again. This is called peak oil. Last week, economic analysts said
Americans have never before spent a greater portion of their income on energy costs. The sooner
we come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can begin taking serious steps to adapt. By this
fall, chances are John McCain and Barack Obama will be talking more about energy than any other issue. They'll have to. That
would be a real change from now. Peak oil is a far more urgent crisis than climate change, yet its economic and social effects are
not even on the candidates' agendas. Every petroleum-dependent aspect of Our economy, from the far-flung
distribution systems for consumer goods to the daily commute, will be difficult to SUStain. The Only question JS
how soon it will happen and how traumatic the transition will be. National, state and local politicians
would be smart to approach it with a series of policy proposals based on the concept of
rciocaiization. it's the idea that in a world of costly energy, most economic and social activity will of
necessity, be local. A comprehensive domestic energy policy should be geared toward helping
regions, cities and neighborhoods depend as little as possible on petroleum.
71
ECONOMY ADV - L - OIL NOT ENOUGH

Global demand for energy is at an all time high. Oil can't handle it
(June 22 2008, "Energy crisis turns globalism to localism", pg online @
http://w\vw2.1jvvorld.com/news/2008/jun/22/energy_crisis_turns_globalism_localisni/)
There is simply not enough oil being extracted quickly or inexpensively enough to meet global
demand — nor, in all likelihood, will there be again. This is called peak oil. Last week, economic analysts
said Americans have never before spent a greater part of their income on energy costs. The
sooner we come to terms with this reality, the sooner we can begin taking serious steps to adapt.
72
ECONOMY ADV - L - NUKE POWER IMPERATIVE

It is imperative to invest in Nuclear Power for future energy needs.
Fertel2004
(March 4 2004, Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy
Institute, "United States Senate Committee Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Energy", Testimony. pg online @
http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)
Broadly, the energy sector believes it is imperative to provide substantial stimulus for investment in
new transmission infrastructure for both electricity and natural gas, and in the new nuclear and clean coal
power plants to meet the 50 percent increase in electricity demand by 2025 forecast by the Energy
information Administration. Investment in key parts of the electric power sector has collapsed over the
last 10 years, and we must put in place new policy initiatives to address that challenge.
Nuclear power can avoid natural gas price shock

St. Petersburg Times 2008
(May 21 2008, "WE WILL NED POWER FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS", pg LEXIS)
The Florida Public Service Commission should approve the construction of the nuclear plant proposed by Progress Energy. The
case can be made that the situation is really different this time around and the PSC should
approve this additional capacity in the face of an economic downturn. It is hard to argue with
slower growth projections, but we should consider the following scenarios:
The first thing we need to seriously consider is the avoidance of new power generation capacity
using natural gas. Although natural gas is the energy resource of choice for new power
generation plants, we are now facing a downturn in domestic natural gas production capacity.
Energy companies are drilling more holes than ever but they have been unable to increase
domestic production of natural gas for a number of years. The addition of nuclear power plants
will mitigate our dependence on costly domestic natural gas and imported LNG to replace
domestic production.
Nuclear power is key to recover from price shock.

St. Petersburg Times 2008
(May 21 2008, "WE WILL NED POWER FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS", pg LEXIS)
The long-term nature of nuclear power plant development will allow us time to recover from a
routine economic downturn and allow us to plan for new forms of transportation. I recommend that
we add this nuclear capacity to avoid further commitment to natural gas at higher prices and to
provide the added capacity for alternative energy platforms based on electricity. We should all think
long-term and take control of our future by supporting Progress Energy's project in Levy County.
73
ECONOMY ADV - L - NUKE ENERGY IS THE ONLY

SOLUTION
Nuclear Power is the ONLY type of energy that can provide economic and
environmental stablility.
Fertel 2004
(March 4 2004, Marvin S., Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy
Institute, "United States Senate Committee Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Energy", Testimony, pg online @
http://www.nei.org/nevvsandevents/speechesandtestimony/2004/energysubcmtefertelextended)
In summary, nuclear energy represents a unique value proposition: a nuclear power plant provides large volumes
of electricity—cleanly, reliably, safely and affordablv. It provides future price stability and
serves as a hedge against the kind of price and supply volatility we see with natural gas. And
nuclear plants have valuable environmental attributes: They do not emit controlled air pollutants or carbon
dioxide, and thus are not vulnerable to mandatory limits on carbon emissions. Other sources of electricity have some
of these attributes. But none of them—not coal, natural gas or renewables—can deliver all of
these benefits. Only nuclear power plants have all of these attributes, and that is why these plants
are uniquely valuable.
More Evidence
Discover 2008
(April 25 2008, "Is Nuclear Energy Our Best Hope?", pg online @
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/02-is-nuclear-energy-our-best-hope)
America's electricity demand is expected to increase by almost 50 percent bv 2030. according to
the Department of Energy. Unfortunately, renewable energy sources, such as the wind and sun,
are highly unlikely to meet that need. Wind and solar installations today supply less than 1
percent of electricity in the United States, do so intermittently, and are decades away from
providing more than a small boost to the electric grid. "To meet the 2005 U.S. electricity demand
of about 4 million megawatt-hours with around-the-clock wind would have required wind farms
Covering Over 780.000 Square kilometers." Ausubel notes. For context, 780,000 square kilometers (301,000 square
miles) is greater than the area of Texas. Solar power fares badly too, in Ausubel's analysis: "The amount
of energy generated in [one quart] of the core of a nuclear reactor requires [2.5 acres] of solar
cells." Geothermal power also is decades away from making a significant contribution to
America's electricity budget.
74
ECONOMY ADV - L - ELECTRICITY GRID KEY
Focus on energy: Nation's electric grid needs overhaul

Electricity is the Key fabric of the Economy
Author Unknown , Publication Aug. 9,2004 Small Times
-Chances are, the electric grid of the future will look a lot like the grid of today. But certainly it
won't behave the same as today's grid, whether it undergoes a massive overhaul,
incremental upgrades or is left unchanged.
Like the industries that comprise it, the grid is a dynamic and complex construct linking power
generators, substations and transmission lines across continents. It's antiquated, inefficient and
dumb, hampered by half-century-old technologies that can't communicate and a quagmire of regulatory and
free enterprise pressures. It's too valuable to ignore, and too expensive to replace.
"Electricity is the key fabric of the economy." said Dan Rastler, a technical leader with
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a nonprofit energy research consortium that promotes
science and technology. "There's a real need to get the industry as well as stakeholders on
track."
75
Focus on energy: Nation's electric grid needs overhaul

Electricity is the Key fabric of the Economy
Deliberate attacks on grid infrastructure can cripple nations' economies and undermine
their stability.
The grid became a frequent victim of war in Chechnya, where Chechen rebels and Russian troops have
fought off and on since the mid-1990s.
In Iraq, guerrillas continue to attack power lines and towers in an effort to impede recovery and foster
unrest. The grid is often cited as a vulnerable target for terrorism in the United States and in other
developed nations, particularly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and
Pennsylvania.
Garden-variety outages from storms and other causes sap $119 billion from the U.S.
economy every year, according to an analysis by the EPRI. The nation lost between $4
billion and $10 billion when a blackout shut down parts of the East and Midwest last
August.
Canada, which also went dark in the cascading outage, estimated that its gross domestic product declined
0.7 percent that month.
Most energy experts agree that making the grid less vulnerable to intentional and natural
assaults, and more resilient when such assaults do occur, is critical. They see wholesale
change as prohibitively expensive, risky and impractical.
Instead, they advocate improving the grid internally with technologies such as sensors
linked to networks. They advocate reducing its burden externally through smart
appliances and back-up energy sources.
"We're not going to rip out the entire infrastructure," said John Del Monaco, manager of emerging
technologies and transfer at Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G) in New Jersey.
PSE&G initiated a program to use MEMS-based acoustic sensors to monitor transformers, and is
developing similar technologies for cables and power lines. "You overlay on top of what you already have,"
said Del Monaco.
76

Funding for new grids will be provided with grants
New technologies aren't enough on their own; they need to complement and be
compatible with both the existing grid and the grid of the future, said T.J. Glauthier, president
and chief executive of the Electricity Innovation Institute (E2I).
An affiliate of EPRI. E2I is charged with orchestrating the coordinated integration of next
generation technologies. This year it offered $500.000 in grants to researchers developing
nanotechnologies for electric power systems.
"What we need to really have is functionality, but we need to apply it in an evolutionary way," Glauthier
said. "We need to find companies that will be able to replace and upgrade where there is the most
congestion and demand. We're looking for ways to help ease that burden."
Fixing the grid from within would likely require giving it nerves in the form of remote sensors that track its
health, a network for collecting and distributing the data and a brain for interpreting and perhaps even
acting on the information. But making such a "smart grid" would require engineers to design
around high temperatures, strong electromagnetic forces and other difficult conditions.
About four years ago, PSE&G technology consultant Harry Roman and colleagues at the
New Jersey Institute of Technology decided to tackle the first challenge: the nerves. They
proposed developing a MEMS acoustic sensor to monitor transformers, using sound
rather than electrical signals to inspect the innards of the transformer.
In theory, sensors would track the telltale sounds of sparks that are emitted when the insulating oil within
the transformer wears down or becomes contaminated. Early detection could allow utilities to avoid power
failures or costly fires.
Developing the sensor hardware proved to be the easier part of the equation, Roman said. Once the project
was underway, he discovered that the oil's temperature affected the sound of arcing. The team had to
develop software that accounted for that relationship before it could get an accurate read on the
transformer's inner workings.
The sensors have progressed from lab-based tests to a mockup placed on a pole-mounted
transformer, to this year's challenge: several months of trials in a small oil tank.
Roman said "realistic implementation" is about two to four years away. In the meantime, he is
developing similar sensors for gauging the motion of underground cables to detect mechanical stresses, and
temperature sensors to monitor transmission lines.
77

CNDI - Nuclear Power Aff PT 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CNDI - Nuclear Power Aff PT 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CNDI08 EF/ML/MB

NUCLEAR ENERGY AFF

NUCLEAR ENERGY AFFIRMATIVE

INHERENCY-NUCLEAR POWER DYING 49

ECONOMY ADV - IMPACT - PRICE SHOCK 108

SOLVENCY - SOLVES PROLIFERATION 160

1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE

WARMING IS HAPPENING, AND THE CONSENSUS IS DOMINANT - EVEN MAINSTREAM

1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE

WARMING IS REAL — OVERWHELMING DATA SHOWS SIGNIFICANT TEMPERATURE

WE ISOLATE FOUR SCENARIOS FOR THE IMPACT

7 - RUNA WA Y GLOBAL WARMING

WARMING IS ESCALATING OUT OF CONTROL - KILLING BILLIONS

1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE

1AC - WARMING ADVANTAGE

A - EXPERTS SAY GLOBAL WARMING WILL INTENSIFY WORLD FOOD SHORTAGES.

THREE - ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION

A - ECOSYSTEMS ARE ENDANGERED DUE TO RISING CO2 EMISSIONS. WE ARE

B - IMPACT - LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY IN THE ECOSYSTEM LEADS TO EXTINCTION.

INDEPENDENT OF WARMING, INCREASING LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE

ONLY NUCLEAR POWER CAN HALT GLOBAL WARMING. LEADING

NUCLEAR POWER ALONE PLAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE IN PREVENTING

NUCLEAR ENERGY IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO PREVENT GLOBAL WARMING.

ENERGY DEMAND SKYROCKETING

HIGH COST OF ENERGY MAKES ECONOMIC DECLINE INEVITABLE

WE ISOLATE THREE IMPACT SCENARIOS

POOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS MAKE ROLLING BLACKOUTS INEVITABLE-

1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE

1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE

1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE

ELECTRICITY IS THE KEY FABRIC OF THE ECONOMY

ECONOMIC DECLINE RISKS GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR

SECOND, OIL SHOCKS

1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE

ONLY NUCLEAR POWER RESOLVES THE SHOCKING PITFALLS OF ENERGY

OIL PEAK WILL CAUSE MASSIVE RESOURCE WARS RESULTING IN EXTINCTION

1AC - ECONOMY ADVANTAGE

THREE, NATURAL GAS

NATURAL GAS MARKETS TIGHTENING DUE TO SUMMER DEMAND - PRICES ARE

ONLY NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT EASES PRESSURE ON NATURAL GAS PRICES

NATURAL GAS IS KEY TO THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AND THE PRODUCTION OF A

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY SOLVES MULTIPLE SCENARIOS FOR EXTINCTION

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IS HAPPENING. IRAN, NORTH KOREA AND OTHERS HAVE

CONTINUED US DEVELOPMENT IS KEY TO PREVENT PROLIFERATION. IT'S A TOP

1AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE

THROUGH THE GNEP THE US PROMOTION OF CIVILIAN NUCLEAR ENERGY WILL

1AC - PROLIFERATION ADVANTAGE

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION DESTROYS INTERNATIONAL STABILITY AND CAUSES

SOLVENCY - EXPANDED INCENTIVES AND LOAN GUARANTEES KEY TO BRINGING

NEW DUPIC TECHNOLOGIES SOLVE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND ENERGY

FEDERAL INCREASES IN DOMESTIC NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION ARE VITAL FOR

SAFETY CONCERNS ARE OVER-HYPED - NUCLEAR POWER IS A STABLE ENERGY

STATE IMPLEMENTATION UNEVEN AND INCENTIVES DON'T JUMPSTART THE

INHERENCY - CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL

Nuclear energy is currently stagnating because of prohibitive costs.

INHERENCY - CURRENT INCENTIVES FAIL

A difficulty of financing is the main obstacle to new construction.

INHERENCY - NUCLEAR POWER DYING

ZAKARIA: At Greenpeace, you fought against nuclear energy. What changed?

INHERENCY - NUCLEAR POWER DYING

The Washington Post November 19, 2006

WARMING ADV U - CONSENSUS

WARMING ADV U - HUMANS