Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
*******MORE NEGATIVE*******......................................................................................................................105
CP Russian international depository.......................................................................................................................106
DA Politics links - International repositories are unpopular................................................................................110
DA Yucca bad – links................................................................................................................................................112
DA Terrorism – Impacts...........................................................................................................................................113
SDI 2008 p. 3 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
And, New technology makes nuclear power more effective and safer.
James M. Taylor 12/1/06 “MIT Scientists Find a Nuclear Fuel Design that Is Safer and More Efficient”
Published in The Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20260&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
A new fuel design created by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) promises to
increase nuclear power output by 50 percent at existing plants, MIT announced on September 20.
After three years of research and testing of next-generation fuel technology, MIT scientists discovered that
forming uranium into the shape of hollow tubes rather" than solid cylinders allows for more efficient
energy exchange and safer operations. Currently, uranium is formed into solid, cylinder-shaped pellets of
less than an inch in diameter. In a nuclear reactor, fission releases a tremendous amount of energy in the form
of heat that turns water into steam. The steam is then captured and funneled to power turbines that generate
electricity. Lower Temperatures Possible The MIT scientists discovered that forming uranium into
hollow tubes prior to fission allows more efficient energy exchange by allowing water to interact with a
greater uranium surface area. The new design also increases safety because it requires an operating
temperature of only 700 degrees Celsius, as compared to 1,800 to 2,800 degrees Celsius under the
current design. Currently, a single pickup-truck load of uranium fuel is sufficient to run an entire city
for a year. Under the new design, the same amount of uranium fuel will power that city for an extra six
months. Promising Nuclear Future According to Pavel Hejzlar and Mujid Kazimi, the MIT scientists who
made the discovery, the new fuel design should be available commercially within 10 years. The discovery is
expected to form an important bridge to new technologies, such as pebble bed reactors, which are
roughly 20 years away from commercial use in the United States. "Nuclear power already was one of the
most promising energy sources of the future," observed Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for The
Heartland Institute. "This breakthrough adds still more momentum to our most affordable clean-
burning fuel source. "Pebble bed reactors are the exciting future of nuclear power," Lehr added, "but
increasing energy output by 50 percent in existing reactors certainly bridges nuclear power's present to
its future. Nuclear power makes more and more economic and environmental sense with each passing
day."
SDI 2008 p. 6 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Nuclear power expansion is supported by other countries, which undermines U.S. nuclear
power leadership.
Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf
Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.
At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist these
consumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.
Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to
supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power
as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking
plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently
stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. Does
China? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by
the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans
to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear
option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our
judgment that the market alone won't do it).
SDI 2008 p. 8 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
the control over enormous oil revenues gives exporting countries the flexibility to adopt policies that oppose
First,
U.S. interests and values. Iran proceeds with a program that appears to be headed toward acquiring a nuclear
weapons capability. Russia is able to ignore Western attitudes as it has moved to authoritarian policies in part
because huge revenues from oil and gas exports are available to finance that style of government. Venezuela has the resources
from its oil exports to invite realignment in Latin American political relationships and to fund changes such as Argentina’s exit from its International Monetary Fund (IMF) standby agreement
and Bolivia’s recent decision to nationalize its oil and gas resources. Because of their oil wealth, these and other producer countries are free to ignore U.S. policies and to pursue interests
oil dependence causes political realignments that constrain the ability of the United States
inimical to our national security. Second,
to form partnerships to achieve common objectives. Perhaps the most pervasive effect arises as countries
dependent on imports subtly modify their policies to be more congenial to suppliers. For example, China is
aligning its relationships in the Middle East (e.g., Iran and Saudi Arabia) and Africa (e.g., Nigeria and Sudan) because of its
desire to secure oil supplies. France and Germany, and with them much of the European Union, are more reluctant to confront difficult issues with Russia and Iran because
of their dependence on imported oil and gas as well as the desire to pursue business opportunities in those countries. These new realignments have further
diminished U.S. leverage, particularly in the Middle East and Central Asia. For example, Chinese interest in
securing oil and gas supplies challenges U.S. influence in central Asia, notably in Kazakhstan. And Russia’s
influence is likely to grow as it exports oil and (within perhaps a decade) large amounts of natural gas to Japan and China.
SDI 2008 p. 14 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
And, Nuclear Power is the only option to solve our oil dependency
Daniel Martin and David Derbyshire, 1-11-08, Daily Mail, Dash to go nuclear will add 250 to energy bills,
lexis, bc
A NEW generation of nuclear power stations will be in place within a decade, the Government promised
yesterday. MPs were told that the technology was 'tried and tested, safe and secure'. John Hutton said
nuclear power would also mean Britain would not have to rely on oil and gas supplies from unstable
regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Business Secretary said he had invited energy firms to
build new reactors and the first could be in place 'well before' 2020. Critics said the move would see
household electricity bills rise by up to £250 a year, partly because of the cost of dealing with waste. They
said plants would be built only with taxpayer subsidies. However, EDF, a French nuclear power giant, said
yesterday it would submit plans to build four reactors by 2017. Westinghouse, a British nuclear firm, also
expressed an interest. Mr Hutton said: 'Giving the go-ahead that nuclear power should play a role in
providing the UK with clean, secure and affordable energy is in our country's vital long-term interest. 'Set
against the challenges of climate change and security of supply, the evidence in support of new nuclear
power stations is compelling. We should positively embrace the opportunity of delivering this
important part of our energy policy. 'I therefore invite energy companies to bring forward plans to build
and operate new nuclear power stations. 'With a third of our generating capacity coming offline within
the next 20 years and increasing reliance on imported energy it is clear we need investment in a range
of new energy infrastructure.'
SDI 2008 p. 15 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
ADV Poverty
Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain
mired in poverty.
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized
the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear
power, or poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from
poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be
made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind
power and other forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to
resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of
renewables in EU energy demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time,
nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”
Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much
difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should
sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that
the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide.
New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between global warming,
nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the courage to make.”
Poverty should be the impact you evaluate first – it’s a systemic impact based on the
human choices concerning how wealth is distributed.
Mumia Abu-Jamal, 9-19-1998, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” www1.minn.net/~meis/quietdv.htm
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging
"structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former
Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean
the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as
contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large
proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of
society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society.
These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-
natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals,
such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." --
(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This
form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is
invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really?
Gilligan notes: "[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty
as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three
times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews
over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,
thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the
world." [Gilligan, p. 196]
SDI 2008 p. 17 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
3. The U.S. is the number one emitter and countries like China and India won’t start to
reduce their emissions until the U.S. does. We can wait a few decades for them to act if we
start now.
Jay Apt (is executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business and the
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, where he is a Distinguished Service Professor) David W. Keith (is Professor and Canada
Research Chair in Energy and the Environment in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and the Department of Economics at
the University of Calgary) and M. Granger Morgan (is University and Lord Professor and department head of the Department of
Spring 2007 "Promoting
Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Electricity Industry Center)
Low-Carbon Electricity Production”, Issues in Science and Technology, v. 23,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200704/ai_n19198506
When past emissions are factored in, the United States is responsible for just over a quarter of all
anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels currently in the atmosphere. Europe, China, and India are
responsible for 19%, 9%, and 3% respectively. The EU has agreed to reduce emissions to 8% below 1990
levels by 2012; the United States has not. EU emissions are the same as in 1990; U.S. emissions have
increased by 20%. And because CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for over a century, the largest
single share of CO2 will continue to belong to the United States for many decades, despite China's growth.
Since the United States has put the largest single share of CO2 into the air, it must begin to take the lead in
reducing it. In a few decades, China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries also will have to
undertake serious controls. But they will not do so until we take the lead and show how it can be done
in an efficient and affordable way.
4. Turn - US Nuclear leadership can move the developing world toward nuclear power.
Robert E. Ebel the Director, Energy and National Security Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, D. C. 6/8/2000. AP. http://www.csis.org/media/csis/congress/ts000608ebel.pdf
Clearly, all will benefit if developing countries have access to adequate, clean, and secure sources of energy.
At the same time, they will not place environmental policy ahead of economic growth. To assist these
consumers, it is essential that clean coal technology is a viable option, given their high coal consumption.
Equally important, nuclear power must be promoted as a viable option in the developing world, to
supply electricity in rural areas and to promote general industrialization, while keeping nuclear power
as a viable option in the developed world. Let me ask, does the United States have a forward-looking
plan for nuclear power? No, it does not. Does Russian? Yes, the Minister of Atomic Energy recently
stated that there are plans to quadruple the generation of nuclear electric power by the year 2030. Does
China? China today has 10 nuclear reactors under construction and will build 20 nuclear power stations by
the year 2020. Does Japan’s, despite a recent shift in public opinion? Yes, the government currently plans
to add 20 new reactors by the year 2010. I can visualize our leadership slipping away. The nuclear
option faces a difficult choice: Exercise the nuclear option, through government support (it is our judgment
that the market alone won't do it).
SDI 2008 p. 20 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
2. Taylor 02 – this will end in extinction – even the risk of one more state going nuclear can
trigger the extinction of civilization – prolif good can never o/w
3. Don’t Evaluate Waltz – Waltz is only talking about how a few states having nuclear
weapons is good – he doesn’t assume wildfire nuclear proliferation and is outdated
Drake Bennett, March 20, 2005, JaretLK,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/03/20/give_nukes_a_chance/
KENNETH N. WALTZ, adjunct professor of political science at Columbia University, doesn't like the
phrase ''nuclear proliferation.'' ''The term proliferation' is a great misnomer,'' he said in a recent interview.
''It refers to things that spread like wildfire. But we've had nuclear military capabilities extant in the world
for 50 years and now, even counting North Korea, we only have nine nuclear countries.'' Strictly speaking,
then, Waltz is as against the proliferation of nuclear weapons as the next sane human being. After all, he
argues, ''most countries don't need them.'' But the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by those
few countries that see fit to pursue them, that he's for. As he sees it, nuclear weapons prevent wars. ''The
only thing a country can do with nuclear weapons is use them for a deterrent,'' Waltz told me. ''And that
makes for internal stability, that makes for peace, and that makes for cautious behavior.'' Especially in a
unipolar world, argues Waltz, the possession of nuclear deterrents by smaller nations can check the disruptive
ambitions of a reckless superpower. As a result, in words Waltz wrote 10 years ago and has been reiterating
ever since, ''The gradual spread of nuclear weapons is more to be welcomed than feared.'' Waltz is not a
crank. He is not a member of an apocalyptic death cult. He is perhaps the leading living theorist of the
foreign policy realists, a school that sees world politics as an unending, amoral contest between states driven
by the will to power. His 1959 book, ''Man, the State, and War,'' remains one of the most influential 20th-
century works on international relations. In recent weeks, however, the spread of nuclear weapons has
taken on what might appear to be a wildfire-like quality. North Korea has just declared itself a nuclear
power. Iran is in negotiations with the United States and Europe over what is widely suspected to be a
secret weapons program of its own. Each could kick off a regional arms race. And North Korea in the
past has sold nuclear technology to Libya and Pakistan, while Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas. As
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the backbone of nonproliferation efforts for the past 35 years, comes up
for review this May, there's an increasing sense that it is failing. In such a context, Waltz's argument may
seem a Panglossian rationalization of the inevitable.
Nuclear proliferation is spreading rapidly – letting weapons continue to spread makes self-
destruction inevitable
Tim Reid, February 13, 2004, “Blueprints 'prove Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons'”, JaretLK,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1018735.ece
The discovery, made by inspectors with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), were disclosed as
the agency’s head issued an urgent warning that the world faces destruction because of the rapid spread
of atomic weapons technology. Mohamed ElBaradei, following a call on Wednesday by President Bush for
tougher curbs on nuclear proliferation, delivered the direst official assessment of how far nuclear technology
has spread to rogue nations and terror groups in recent years. Dr ElBaradei said that the possession of
nuclear weapons technology by terrorists was inevitable. “Nuclear proliferation is on the rise,” Dr
ElBaradei wrote in The New York Times. “If we sit idly by, this trend will continue. Countries that
perceive themselves vulnerable . . . will pursue clandestine weapons programmes. “The supply
network will grow, making it easier to acquire nuclear weapon expertise and materials. Eventually,
inevitably, terrorists will gain technology, if not actual weapons. If the world does not change course,
we risk self-destruction.” The blueprints discovered in Iran are based on the “G2” centrifuge, a far more
sophisticated design than the “G1” enrichment centrifuge, a version of which Iran has already been mass
producing.
SDI 2008 p. 22 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
3. They say that cooling is worse than heating but Extend our Podesta, Stern, and Batten ’07 card that states that
Global warming will lead to widespread disease, regional conflicts, and environmental damage.
4. They say an Ice age will lead to global extinction but the probability of one is highly unlikely. The last time there
was an Ice Age humans lived through it so it is highly improbable that their impact will lead to human extinction
SDI 2008 p. 23 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
No Timeframe: Backstopping won’t occur for a couple years. OPEC will do everything
possible to continue selling oil at the high price that it is.
No Link: OPEC has lost control over prices- they’re on a downward spiral
Brown 2008 (May, OPEC's Days Are Numbered, http://www.rightsideadvisors.com/public/commentary.go/rsa/commentary/comm-
energy/20080513_032411_msg.html/OPECs-Days-Are-Numbered.html)
There was an excellent article by Jim Kingsdale this weekend on the coming end of OPEC. You are probably
thinking why would OPEC disappear when their control over oil prices is so strong. Unfortunately that is no longer
true. OPEC has lost control over prices and that was the main reason the organization was formed in 1960.
SDI 2008 p. 25 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Nuclear Power will remain price competitive with oil. Thus, even if OPEC lowered prices
by a lot, the DA won’t occur.
Turn: Nuclear power solves dependency, it’s best for the environment and will save 100,000
lives per year from air pollution.
Bernard L. Cohen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Pittsburgh, 1990 “The Nuclear Energy Option”
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/BOOK.html
With minor exceptions, these new plants will have to be powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear
fuels. There are lots of good reasons for avoiding the use of oil and gas to generate electricity: They are
substantially more expensive than coal or nuclear fuels. World supplies are quite limited on a long-term
perspective. They are essentially our only option for providing transportation by land, sea, or air. They are
vitally needed as feedstock for manufacture of plastics, organic chemicals, and other products essential for
our technology. Paying for imported oil is a heavy strain on our national economy, and this problem is
rapidly getting worse. Our oil supplies are vulnerable to being cut off for political reasons. Oil prices
are susceptible to very large and rapid increases. Oil dependence can lead to war. For the most part,
therefore, our new electrical generating capacity must be powered by coal or nuclear fuels, although oil
and gas will still be used to some degree. Burning coal, oil, and gas leads to a wide variety of
environmental problems. They are major contributors to the greenhouse effect, which threatens to
cause highly disruptive climate changes: Agriculture will suffer severe blows like an end to growing
soybeans and corn in the South and corn and wheat in the Great Plains. Farmers will also have to deal
with increased livestock disease, and heavy damage from insect pests. Forests will undergo stress, as
some species of trees will die off and have to be replaced by others. Seacoast areas will be subject to
flooding. Waterfowl and various types of aquatic life will be seriously affected by reduction in wetlands
areas. Insect plagues, droughts, forest fires, tornadoes, and floods will increase. Burning coal is the
major contributor to acid rain which, in some areas, is heavily damaging forests and fish in lakes. This
acid rain is straining relations between Canada and the United States, and between several pairs of
European nations. But perhaps the most serious environmental problem with burning fossil fuels is air
pollution, which is estimated to be killing about 100,000 Americans every year. Attempts to solve this
problem are very expensive, and there is little reason to be confident that the limited objectives these
attempts target will solve it. Air pollution causes a variety of illnesses, and it has several other
unpleasant aspects, such as foul odors and the degrading of all sorts of objects from stone carvings to
clothing. Coal burning causes many other environmental problems, such as destruction of land
surfaces by strip-mining, acid mine drainage, which pollutes our rivers and streams, land subsidence,
which damages and destroys buildings, and waste banks from washing coal, which are ugly and lead to
air pollution. Coal mining is a harsh and unpleasant occupation. Miners are frequently killed in
accidents, and constant exposure to coal dust causes severe degradation in their health, often leading to
premature death from an assortment of lung diseases. Oil has its environmental problems too. It
contributes substantially to air pollution and to acid rain. Oil spills in our oceans have fouled beaches
and caused severe damage to aquatic life. Oil causes fires, odors, and water pollution. The use of
natural gas can lead to fires and explosions and can kill people through asphyxiation. All of the
adverse health and environmental effects resulting from burning coal, oil, or natural gas to produce
electricity can be avoided by the use of nuclear power.
SDI 2008 p. 26 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT CP Loan guarantees
Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan.
Lots of investors are interested in building nuclear power plants but want to ensure there
will be multiple projects not just one – that can’t happen without waste disposal options.
WNN – World Nuclear News, 18 June 2008, “Global investors circle new nuclear markets” (ds)
http://www.world-nuclear
news.org/C_Global_investors_circle_new_nuclear_markets_1806081.html?jmid=2647&j=132755411&utm_sou
rce=JangoMail&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=WNN+Weekly+18+%2D+25+June+2008+%281327554
11%29&utm_content=comments%40usnuclearenergy%2Eorg
Investors see the USA as the best place in the world to engage in nuclear build projects. Next come the
UK and China, followed by South Africa. Banks and utilities, however, are yet to make serious moves. The
list of countries comes from Ernst & Young research commissioned by the UK government, a summary of
which was presented in London today by Adam Dawson of the country's department of business and
enterprise as part of SMI's inaugural Financing Nuclear Power conference. Delegates heard that there is
widespread confidence in the new nuclear power markets among investors. Pieter Stor of RBS presented
ABN Amro research which had nuclear power as the cheapest generation source of all when carbon
costs were taken into account. He said his figures were based on conservative values of $60 per barrel of
oil and €30 ($46) per tonne of carbon dioxide and concluded: "Why invest in nuclear new build? Because
it's deemed to be profitable." However, very large uncertainties remain in the market for new reactors,
which is yet to see many significant orders outside of China. Items at the top of financiers' list of concerns
according to both Stor and the Ernst & Young research concern political and regulatory stability as well as
volatility in prices for energy and carbon dioxide emissions. Stor said each investor had to make up its mind
what energy prices would do in the long term. These concerns are compounded by the capital required to
build nuclear power plants - the cost of financing construction amounts to around 55% of the final cost of
electricity. Stor said that banks are not keen to finance individual projects, which they think have too
much uncertainty during application and build, but would prefer to be involved in fleets of new
reactors and are becoming more comfortable with that idea. Ernst & Young's research consisted of
interviews with 18 investors from Europe and North America. Dawson said the results indicated that the USA
is "almost in a league of its own" because of its sheer scale, the ease of doing business and the relative
regulatory certainty. In addition, the US government has announced certain amounts of funding and
loan guarantees for the first companies to test the licensing process and begin building respectively.
The 32 new reactors at various stages of planning are testimony to this. Dawson said he was pleased
the UK came in as the second best place to do nuclear business, with China at a similar level. Next he said
South Africa was moving up rapidly, and was ahead of European countries which had the possibility of
multiple new reactors. He added that the United Arab Emirates and other Gulf states were not yet on the list,
but they probably would be soon. The US government's financial support for nuclear has helped to
overcome nervousness among companies of being the first to try new regimes, said Malcolm Keay, a
fellow at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Referring to the USA and the UK, he said that once firm
orders are made for new nuclear plants there could be a "stampede" from companies that don't wish
to be left behind. Similarly, the current position of many companies expressing interest in nuclear is in some
part due to strategic reasons. The real state of the market, he said, would only be known once companies
begin to take hard decisions in a few years' time.
SDI 2008 p. 27 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Without a fix in Russian-Iranian weapons cooperation, the US won’t make a nuclear waste
trade treaty to use a Russian permanent repository.
Glenn Schweitzer and Kelly Robbins, Editors, Committee on Issues in Consolidating Spent Nuclear Fuel at
International Storage Sites, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, National Research Council, 2008,
National Academy of Sciences, “Setting the Stage for International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities:
International Workshop Proceedings”, rks, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12191.html.
Finally, while the concept of spent fuel storage in Russia has promise, it will not be possible for the
United States to support practical steps in this direction until the problem of Russian cooperation with
Iran is resolved. The United States does not authorize retransfer of nuclear material to countries to
which it could not transfer nuclear material directly. Therefore, the United States and Russia must
have an agreement for cooperation in force before any spent fuel with U.S.-origin nuclear material
may be shipped to Russia. No such agreement is in force. The transmittal report to Congress for a proposed
agreement for cooperation must include an assessment of the proliferation record of the other party. The
United States would only be in a position to negotiate such an agreement once Russia addressed U.S.
concerns regarding Russian-Iranian nuclear, missile, chemical, biological, and advanced conventional
weapons cooperation. The Bush administration has firmly linked the storage of spent fuel containing
U.S.-origin nuclear material in Russia to resolution of this concern.
SDI 2008 p. 28 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Delay would be devastating for nuclear power – that’s our 1AC that investors are ready to go but
they need a strong signal from the federal government that they are committed to nuclear waste
disposal they don’t have any evidence that space disposal would accomplish that.
Sub-seabed disposal puts the ocean at risk and would violate international agreements.
U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)
Scientists considered burying nuclear waste under the ocean floor. This option could be viable because deep
within the ocean floor, the radiation from the waste would not harm people or the environment. One of the
problems associated with this option includes the difficulty of recovering the waste, if necessary, once it
is emplaced deep in the ocean. Also, establishing an effective international structure to develop,
regulate, and monitor a sub-seabed repository would be extremely difficult. Beyond technical and
political considerations, the United States signed the London Convention in October 1993. This
international agreement, which remains in force until 2018, places prohibitions on disposing of
radioactive materials at sea. After that time, the sub-seabed disposal option can be revisited at 25-year
intervals.
SDI 2008 p. 29 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Delay would be devastating for nuclear power – that’s our 1AC that investors are ready to go but
they need a strong signal from the federal government that they are committed to nuclear waste
disposal they don’t have any evidence that space disposal would accomplish that.
Delay would be devastating for nuclear power – that’s our 1AC that investors are ready to go but
they need a strong signal from the federal government that they are committed to nuclear waste
disposal they don’t have any evidence that space disposal would accomplish that.
Ice Sheet Disposal is expensive, violates international law and radioactive waste could be
released into the ocean.
U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)
Scientists have considered disposing of nuclear wastes in the ice at Antarctica or Greenland. This would
involve placing waste containers on the surface or in a shallow hole where the heat from the waste would
cause them to slowly melt to the bottom of the ice sheet. Cables could be used to anchor the waste containers
to limit the descent depth and to allow retrieval. Advantages to this option include the lack of population in
polar regions and the stability and thickness of polar ice. As with sub-seabed or remote island disposal,
transportation of the waste would be a challenge. Another drawback to this option is the potential
effect of future climate changes on the stability and size of polar ice masses. Radioactive wastes could
be released into the environment if global climate changes increased polar ice melting. This option also
would be extremely expensive due to the remote locations and adverse weather. Finally, the Antarctic
Treaty of 1959 prohibits disposing of radioactive waste on the Antarctic continent.
SDI 2008 p. 33 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Delay would be devastating for nuclear power – that’s our 1AC that investors are ready to go but
they need a strong signal from the federal government that they are committed to nuclear waste
disposal they don’t have any evidence that space disposal would accomplish that.
Remote Island Disposal expensive, risks the ocean, they can’t find any suitable islands
and is opposed internationally.
U.S Department of Energy 4/08 (U.S Department of energy, 4/08, JD,
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/about_project/waste_explained/do.shtml)
Scientists looked at burying radioactive waste beneath unpopulated remote islands. Islands that were
considered potential candidates lacked valuable resources and were far from large continental landmasses.
One drawback to remote island disposal concerned the risks associated with ocean transport. The
potential for opposition from other countries was an additional consideration.
SDI 2008 p. 35 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
2. Status-Quo solves the CP. Extend our Hipple ’08 evidence from the 1A.C this assumes
Status Quo action indicating that all current, “Incentives,” to do Nuclear Power are failing.
The Plan is, uniquely, key to re-invigorate the Nuclear Industry; this is the internal link to
all of our Advs.
Extend our Bellatoni ’03 evidence from the 1A.C this evidence indicates the re-invigoration
of the Nuclear Industry, via Waste Repositories, is key to prevent proliferation. The Impact
is our Taylor ’02 evidence.
Dry Cast Storage Is the Safest Interim option for Waste Management
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
In the meantime, spent fuel can be safely stored at the reactor sites in dry casks. And even after it is
placed in a geologic repository, it would remain retrievable for at least a century. So in the unlikely
event that technology or economic circumstances change drastically enough that the benefits of
reprocessing exceed the costs and risks, that option would still be available. But it makes no sense now
to rush into an expensive and potentially catastrophic undertaking on the basis of uncertain hopes that
it might reduce the long-term environmental burden from the nuclear power industry.
5. There is a significant TF to the CP. In the Sqou, Reprocessing is a greater RISK than a
Benefit to the Nuclear Industry. Even if the Negative can access a smaller TF than we can,
the probability of reprocessing to be a viable option is, incredibly, low.
SDI 2008 p. 37 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT CP States
Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan.
The counterplan can’t offer cradle-to-grave fuel cycle services which undermines anti-
proliferation efforts - the impact to that is extinction.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, May 2007 LC
www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org
During the last several decades, the U.S. has been struggling to implement a national policy for
management of commercial spent nuclear fuel, independently of whether it will result in direct disposal of
the spent fuel or reprocessing and recycle. In fact, the U.S. Government is presently in protracted litigation
with most U.S. utilities for monetary damages associated with DOE's inability to accept their spent fuel
and dispose of it as called for in contracts that it has with each of these customers. One adverse
implication that this may have on U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy is that it seriously undermines the
ability of the U.S. to offer fuel leasing or cradle-to- grave fuel cycle services to foreign countries. The
ability to make such offers could be a valuable tool for discouraging the spread of sensitive nuclear
technologies.
Yucca will still be used for military waste which makes all their storage DA’s non-unique.
Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer, 6-4-08, LA Times, U.S. seeks the go-ahead for Nevada nuclear dump;
State officials say they remain committed to blocking the long-planned waste site at Yucca Mountain, lexis, bc
The nation has been trying to resolve the issue since the late 1970s. In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act. In his first term, President Bush, with congressional approval, selected Yucca Mountain
as the designated site for what is mostly spent fuel from commercial reactors but also military nuclear
waste. Since then, Nevada has waged an effective legal, political and technical fight against it, drawing on
the state's growing fiscal and political clout.
CP wouldn’t be able to use Yucca Mountain – it’s on federal land. This is a massive
solvency since it would take a long time to get another site approved.
Isaac J. Winograd and Eugene H. Roseboom Jr, Emeritus, U.S. Geological Survey, AAAS Science
Magazine, 13 June 2008, NUCLEAR WASTE: Yucca Mountain Revisited, nna
The physical setting of the proposed YM repository (i.e., in consolidated rocks ~300 meters above the
water table) lends itself to such an approach by permitting ready access to and monitoring of the wastes (the
major assets of surface storage), while isolating them at depth at a single location (the chief asset of geologic
disposal) on remote federal land.
No solvency – the federal government has complete jurisdiction over nuclear waste disposal and
so the courts would strike down any attempt by the states to do waste storage. The NRC has
allowed some states to control low level radioactive waste but even that required congressional
approval which proves the cp links to politics.
Kraft, Director Nuclear Energy Information Service, ’98 (David,
http://www.neis.org/literature/Reports&Testimonies/icctest-984.htm, April 24, twm)
Recognizing their unique nature, Congress has enacted separate laws for the perpetual storage
("disposal") of these wastes. Jurisdiction over HLRW matters resides with the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Department of Energy (DOE). NRC has, with Congress' approval,
bestowed jurisdiction over LLRW matters to "agreement states" which have demonstrated that
methods used in the storage, treatment, transportation and disposal of LLRW are not in contradiction
with federal standards. Illinois is an "agreement state."
Consolidation of nuclear wastes decreases the risk of terrorism – the cp would result in
states all over having waste dumps.
Struglinski ’02 (Suzanne, Enviornment and Energy Daily, Feb. 18, Vol. 10, #9, twmh , p. l/n)
"I want to praise President Bush for keeping the federal government's commitment to electric utility customers
who have invested over $16 billion for the future development of a safe, secure and centralized facility,"
Hastert said. "In these times, Americans deserve the peace of mind that spent nuclear fuel will be consolidated
into one secure location rather than scattered across the country in over 130 various sites."
or
no state will take it - nimby
No other subject of regulatory licensing triggers the NIMBY syndrome more than nukes' spent fuel.
Michael Skelly , the Democratic candidate for the gerrymandered 7th Congressional District in Houston, told
Natural Gas Week "we've got to open Yucca Mountain" before any progress can be made in the next
wave of nuclear generation.
Zero solvency - If they don’t have an advocate you should assign their counterplan ZERO
solvency.
SDI 2008 p. 42 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
The California economy is on the brink because of budget deficits – the plan would force
shortfalls or raising taxes, ensuring there’s no change a budget gets passed
Evan Halper, LA Times, 7-1-2008, “State will pay,” ln
Legislators are making little progress closing a $15.2-billion shortfall. Democrats demand new taxes.
Republicans say that is out of the question. Meanwhile, their inability to strike a deal threatens millions
of Californians who rely on the government for healthcare and other services. Budget delays are not
unusual. But the consequences will be particularly harsh this year. Many of the healthcare clinics and
other service providers that have used private loans to get by during past budget stalemates are unlikely to
have easy access to such cash this year, as a result of the ongoing credit crunch brought on by the
mortgage crisis. Independent service providers aren't the only ones that could soon be scraping to find
money. Short-term bonds that finance officials rely upon to replenish state coffers cannot be sold without a
budget in place, and getting them to market takes at least a month. The state may have to turn to a
syndicate of investment banks for short-term financing, on terms that could prove costly, said H.D. Palmer,
deputy director of the state Department of Finance. The financing could cost $140 million more than bond
borrowing would have, he said. "In this budget environment," he said," I can think of a lot better uses
for that money." Despite the grim state of affairs at the Capitol, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and
lawmakers Monday played down their failure to get a budget together and the dim prospects of reaching a
deal soon. "I don't know at what stage they are in at this time," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference. "I
know one thing, they are all working. . . . Everyone knows we are short on time. I think everyone knows it
is a complicated, difficult budget." Schwarzenegger, who has been playing only a minor role in budget
deliberations of late, turned the microphone over to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass. "We have been
working," she said. "We spent four hours yesterday working." Democrats in both houses have released budget plans that call for as
much as $11 billion in new taxes. But so far they have not identified which taxes they would like to raise. Bass demurred again Monday.
"We will see what happens as the process moves forward this week," she said. The governor later joked about his optimism that the state
will not run out of cash by pulling out a personal money clip full of bills. "I still have some left," he said. Not all Republicans were in
such good spirits. "Until we get to a spot where Democrats realize that taxes are not going to work, it will
be tough to move the budget forward," said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis. Credit
agencies will be watching closely: California has the second-lowest credit rating among states in the
country, and some economists say a downgrade could be coming. The last time the state's creditworthiness was
downgraded was during the budget crisis of 2003, when its bond ratings fell to nearly junk status. The shortfall lawmakers faced then
was roughly the size it is now.
California is key to the US economy and they are cutting budgets to save their economy.
Nutting, 11-9-2007, MarketWatch, “Could California be in recession?” lexis, tk
The state of California isn't taking any chances. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered state agencies
to plan for a 10% cutback in their budgets for next year, figuring that tax receipts could fall significantly
along with home prices. California matters to the national economy, but trends in California do not
necessarily presage what will happen nationally. About one in every eight Americans live in California. Its
state gross product was $1.6 trillion in 2005, representing about 13% of the nation's economic output,
slightly more than its 12% share of the population. In 2006, the median household income in California
was $54,385, compared with $48,023 nationally. Between 1997 and 2005, California household incomes
grew 4.4% annually, the fourth fastest growing state. Some of that growth came from the technology boom of
the late 1990s, and some came from the housing boom, which, in just five years, doubled average home
prices in the state to about $500,000. Now, of course, home prices are falling nationally, but especially in
California. California's economy has a lot going for it. It's incredibly diverse, from the highest of high
tech and Hollywood to the basic old-economy industries of agriculture, retail and manufacturing.
California is by far the biggest farming state, with its annual output nearly three times its nearest
competitor, Texas. California's agricultural output - nearly 20% of the nation's total -- matches the output of
all the Farm Belt states combined. California accounts for about 11% of U.S. manufacturing output by
value and 13% of construction. California accounts for 19% of the country's information services -
including media and software. And it contributes 12% of the national output of financial services, trailing
only New York in the financial sector.
SDI 2008 p. 43 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Failure to create a federal repository means the federal government has to pay $300 million
per year for dry casks – the states counterplan doesn’t solve this because it’s a legal
obligation the federal government has to energy companies.
Frank N. von Hippel, a nuclear physicist, professor of public and international affairs in Princeton University's
Program on Science and Global Security, prior assistant director for national security in the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, co-chair of the International Panel on Fissile Materials, April/May 2008, “Nuclear
Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It's Worth”, http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=rethinking-nuclear-fuel-
recycling&page=5, VP
Most nuclear utilities are therefore beginning to store older spent fuel on dry ground in huge casks,
each typically containing 10 tons of waste. Every year a 1,000-megawatt reactor discharges enough fuel
to fill two of these casks, each costing about $1 million. But that is not all the industry is doing. U.S.
nuclear utilities are suing the federal government, because they would not have incurred such expenses
had the U.S. Department of Energy opened the Yucca Mountain repository in 1998 as originally
planned. As a result, the government is paying for the casks and associated infrastructure and
operations—a bill that is running about $300 million a year.
SDI 2008 p. 44 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
3. It will take 1200 years for other alternative energies to catch nuclear power
CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, November 6, 2007
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14718/nuclear_power_in_response_to_climate_change.html KP
It’s a shame this is an online discussion, because surely Michael Mariotte couldn’t have written his remarks with a
straight face. You do the math: Nuclear energy annually has provided 20 percent of U.S. electricity supplies
since the early 1990s, and even with a marked increase in overall electricity demand, it constitutes more than
70 percent of the electricity that comes from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases or controlled
pollutants into the atmosphere. Renewable energy technologies over that same time period—even with
subsidies like production tax credits in place—have increased their share of U.S. electricity production to 3.1
percent from 2.9 percent. At that rate of growth, it will take renewable technologies another twelve hundred
years just to equal the share of electricity production that nuclear energy has provided since 1992.
4. Nuclear power is comparatively the superior alternative – all the others cant solve our advantages
Daniel Koffler, Staff Writer, July 8, 2008, The Guardian, The Case For Nuclear Power, nna
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/08/nuclearpower.energy
Nuclear power is green in multiple senses. The most important criteria by which to judge any viable
alternative to petroleum is the magnitude of its contribution to global warming. Well, uranium or petroleum
fission produces no carbon emissions whatsoever, since there is no carbon involved. The cooling process does
produce water vapour, but water vapour and carbon dioxide are both greenhouse gases in the same sense that Roger
Federer and I are both tennis players (and water vapour emissions, moreover, can be controlled). The
environmental downsides of nuclear power are therefore not any more severe than other alternative energy
sources, such as wind or solar power, and are arguably less severe than biofuels like the ethanol that Obama
heartily supports. These energy sources all entail waste heat, produce solid waste and have other drawbacks -
but the environmental drawbacks of all of them, nukes included, are quite modest. From a fiscal perspective,
nuclear power enjoys enormous advantages over other environmentally friendly energies. At their present state
of technological development, nuclear reactors can already power large industrial societies. Wind and solar
power are not there yet, and biofuels (particularly ethanol) are something of an embarrassing racket, being
extraordinarily inefficient and requiring huge government subsidies to be propped up.
AT DA Coal
2. No Link: Our plan won’t cause an immediate decrease in the coal industry. It will not affect the
market for a year or two.
3. No specific link - They do not read a specific link to nuclear energy. They only state that an
increase in alternative energy will lead to a coal industry tradeoff. Any increase in alternative
energy would lead to the negative’s impacts.
4. No Impact: Extend our Oxford Economics from 2007 that says nuclear energy is key to the
sustaining the growth of the United States economy.
Impact Turn: The current global coal boom will lead to global warming – advancing the
industry is suicide
Jeff Goodell, January 25, 2007, “Big Coal’s Dirty Move”, JaretLK,
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13159559/national_affairs_big_coals_dirty_move
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, a suicidal act is one that is "dangerous to
oneself or to one's interests; self-destructive or ruinous." By this standard, the coal boom
that is currently sweeping America is the atmospheric equivalent of a swan dive off a
very tall building. At precisely the moment that scientists have reached a consensus that
we need to drastically cut climate-warming pollution, the electric-power industry is
racing to build more than 150 new coal plants across the United States. Coal is by far the
dirtiest fossil fuel: If the new plants are built, they will dump hundreds of millions of tons
of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year for decades to come — virtually
guaranteeing that the U.S. will join China in leading civilization's plunge into a
superheated future.
SDI 2008 p. 49 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
There is plenty of room for criticism in the handling of the wars, and undoubtedly, it will be discussed in great detail for
Bush's greatest failure will be his energy policy, or more
many years to come. But I feel that
precisely, the lack of a cohesive energy policy. In his final months as a lame-duck president, Bush
still has one deadly weapon: the veto. Our president makes no bones about being an oilman, and it's no great secret that
oil money has played a role throughout his presidency. Bush is blatantly pandering to big oil by threatening to veto any
the development of
action by Congress to remove oil-industry tax breaks and use those funds to further
alternative fuels. This would undoubtedly be the crowning touch to an ignoble
administration. We have an energy crisis. There is no doubt that we are a great nation that is full of rich resources
and a tremendous wealth of brainpower. We have demonstrated time and again our "can-do" attitude. So why do we insist
on an energy policy that depends on foreign oil and the utilization of food crops to augment our fuel supply? We are
subsidizing every gallon of ethanol produced in this country and placing a tariff on every gallon imported to protect this
boondoggle. Some California utilities are showing leadership, such as Southern California Edison's commitment to a
large-scale solar energy installation, which will exceed 250 megawatts. Additionally, Edison will be involved in one of the
. This is the kind of leadership that must
largest wind turbine parks with the Tehachapi wind project
come from our president and Congress. We must have a viable national energy policy with clearly
defined goals. We need to develop our vast coal reserves; and yes, we have the technology to make coal energy cleaner.
But, as always, it is expensive to make a clean-burning fuel. Nuclear generation looks interesting, but only if we can
resolve the problem with the disposal of spent fuel. Unfortunately, the free ride with cheap energy is over, but as I see it,
solar energy is the Holy Grail, the panacea for our future. It's not cheap (yet), but the price is dropping and new
technologies are coming forth. The amount of money going to an exceedingly wealthy industry (big oil) could be better
. Bush can still shape his presidential legacy in
spent on developing more efficient alternative fuels
a positive way by just doing the right thing to establish a viable energy policy that
lessens our dependence on oil.
SDI 2008 p. 53 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Turn - Public opinion changing is changing. Support for alternate energy and emission
limits are declining.
Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08
The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick
WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about
global warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but
telling shift in public opinion.
Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy
and environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate
change.
None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused media
and government studies for considerable time.
However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, two
news outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning
basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way.
Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on
the newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site.
In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over Global
Warming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation
and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful.
"Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing
chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach
yields, it will be too little and come too late," the Times said.
McCain’s hardline stance is limited to sanctions – he does not want a military strike
Rosen 7-9-08. (James, Washington Correspondent, “America’s Election Headquarters for July 9, 2008”, Fox
News Network, lexis)
ROSEN: To that, John McCain, the likely Republican nominee said, "Channels of communication have been
opened and will remain open." I would continue to quote McCain, "but the time has now come for effective
sanctions on Iran which will then," McCain said, "or can have a modifying effect on their very aggressive
behavior." To be clear about this, E.D., neither Democrat Barack Obama nor Republican John McCain
presently advocates a military strike on Iran, which is also why they are suspected of developing a nuclear
weapons capability - - E.D.
6. Iraq empirically denies their impacts – all of their impacts say what other countries
would do if we attacked a country in the middle east which we have already done.
SDI 2008 p. 55 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Help for McCain will come from former Clinton supporters that will come to his side during the November
Election. According to a recent article on CBS News, "Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support
McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in
2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general
election". The same article goes on to point out that McCain leads Obama by 8 votes among registered
Independent voters. Two other important factors to consider in November are the Latino vote and the vote
from the so-called "Red States". Despite claims that Obama is making in-roads in the Red States, the
numbers seem to prove otherwise. Obama has won 14 red states and over half of them have not voted for a
Democrat to be president in the general election in over 40 years, according to an article on the Washington Post.
The article states, "Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 campaign was the last Democrat who won Alaska, Idaho, Kansas,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah and Virginia. Meanwhile, five states have backed a Democratic presidential candidate
sometime in the past 20 years: Colorado (1992), Georgia (1992), Missouri (1996), Louisiana (1996) and Iowa
(2000)." Obama will certainly have a tough time getting a majority of the Latino vote as well, as the Florida
primary exemplifies (Despite the fact that it was not counted). Ultimately, it is my opinion for the reasons stated
above, that McCain will win the 2008 election.
Turn - Public opinion changing is changing. Support for alternate energy and emission
limits are declining.
Chemical News and Intelligence, 4/10/08
The tide may be changing on US climate change issues By Joe Kamalick
WASHINGTON (ICIS news)--Recent US news reports have challenged popular and congressional wisdom about
global warming but the reports were significant more for their venue than content - and they suggest a small but
telling shift in public opinion.
Citing various scholars and scientists, the news reports said that biofuels might not be the panacea for US energy
and environmental problems and that emissions caps might damage the US economy without any effect on climate
change.
None of this is very new stuff, really, and has been reported here and elsewhere on ICIS news, other focused media
and government studies for considerable time.
However, these new challenging reports appeared in recent issues of Time magazine and The New York Times, two
news outlets that are hip-deep in the US mainstream. The fact that those grand dames of US media are questioning
basic tenets of climate change philosophy indicates that a sea change in opinion may be under way.
Perhaps most surprising and damning was the Time magazine story of 27 March titled "The Clean Energy Myth" on
the newsstand magazine's cover and [1]"The Clean Energy Scam" on its Web site.
In its 6 April edition, The New York Times said in a story headlined "[2]A Shift in the Debate Over Global
Warming" that the popular policy goal of imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions to force energy conservation
and spur non-polluting technologies is now doubtful.
"Now, with recent data showing an unexpected rise in global emissions and a decline in energy efficiency, a growing
chorus of economists, scientists and students of energy policy are saying that whatever benefits the cap approach
yields, it will be too little and come too late," the Times said.
Case turns the DA prolif causes war which would be way more devastating to the
environment.
Internationally, women won’t choose abortion – they prefer large numbers of children for
subsistence and health care
Margaret in 6
Non-Profit teacher and Social Worker, September 17, Living Economies, google
Shiva also explains that overpopulation is the direct result of the scarcity of resources. This is another common
misconception that I hear, that if people could only get affordable access to birth control, overpopulation would be
solved. Access to family planning services is a human right, I agree. However, in many cases, impoverished "Third
World" families are actually engaging in family planning, just with different goals and results. In some cases, in
order for a family to survive they must "plan" for a certain number of children to contribute labor. In addition, with
the absence of adequate health care and social security, "an Indian woman has to produce six children to ensure at
least one son will survive to take care of her and her husband when she is 60." This is not unique to India.
SDI 2008 p. 58 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AFF turns the DA - Global warming causes species loss that’s our 1ac evidence from Henderson ’05 – it says global
warming will cause “the extinction of almost every existing species.”
Gag rule is toothless – pro-abortion groups can still receive funding via huge loopholes
Freddoso 03. (David, political reporter for Evans and Novak Inside Report and Capital Hill commentator,
“Abortion Groups Can Circumvent Mexico City Policy”, Human Events Online, April 17, lexis)
International family planning groups have discovered a huge loophole in the policy that is supposed to
prevent them from getting U.S. tax dollars. The "Mexico City" policy-a Reagan directive revived by President
Bush to keep foreign aid out of the hands of abortion providers and promoters-has developed such enormous
loopholes it is now practically meaningless, say congressional pro-lifers. Last October, ten conservative
congressmen, including Reps. Chris Smith (R.-N.J.) and Roscoe Bartlett (R.-Md.), decried the ineffectual policy.
The congressmen signed a letter to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) citing a grant
of $65 million to a program run by the Population Council, the group that holds the patent on the abortion drug RU-
486. A spokesman for USAID-the government's main foreign aid arm-agreed that abortion groups, while following
the strict letter of the Mexico City rule, can continue to collect government money without substantially
changing their activities. The Mexico City policy forbids U.S. foreign aid designated for "family planning" from
going to groups that provide or promote abortions. However, the policy does not prevent abortion groups from
collecting other kinds of federal grants. Population Action International (PAI) has published a 16-page booklet
instructing groups on how to circumvent the Mexico City policy (it is available on that PAI's website). PAI, which
says it does not receive government funding, seeks to promote international family-planning NGOs-helping them to
help themselves to federal money. Their booklet, "What You Need to Know about the Global Gag Rule Restrictions:
the Unofficial Guide," explains that simply by altering its stated mission from "family planning" to other terms that
cover the same activities a group can get U.S. tax dollars. For example, if a group says it does "birth spacing"
instead of "family planning," or if it refers to condom distribution as "HIV prevention," it ceases to be a
"family planning" operation and falls outside the Mexico City policy. Reagan's Original Intent The booklet also
notes that while groups that receive family planning funds cannot lobby foreign governments for certain abortion
laws, "eligibility for USAID support is not jeopardized merely by participating in research that others may use in
advancing abortion law reform." Thus abortion groups can continue to receive federal funds while advocating,
referring and performing abortions overseas. "I think that you're saying is very true. It's all about how you
package it," PAI spokeswoman Kimberly Cline told HUMAN EVENTS when asked about her group's booklet.
USAID spokesman Alfonso Aguilar agreed with PAI's analysis, telling HUMAN EVENTS that these groups can
continue to collect tax dollars by repackaging their family planning activities as "AIDS prevention" or "child health"
activities. "Yes, I would say that's right," he said. "The Mexico City policy applies only to family planning funding."
Last week, conservatives called on the Bush administration to correct the situation by strengthening the Mexico City
rules. They are especially worried that funds from the President's planned $15 billion program to alleviate AIDS in
Africa might go to abortion groups.
SDI 2008 p. 61 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Empirically proven there is no impact to species loss – they are redundant and won’t
collapse the ecosystem
Davidson 00 [Carlos, Conservation biologist with background in economics Economic Growth and the
Environment: Alternatives to the Limits Paradigm 5-1]
Biodiversity limits. The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and
biodiversity loss as a limit to human population and the economy. A wave of species extinctions is
occurring that is unprecedented in human history (Wilson 1988, 1992, Reid and Miller 1989). The
decline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to future generations of humans. Is
biodiversity loss a case of limits, as suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation with
local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of species by itself
that is the proposed limit but rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the species
loss. But it is unclear that biodiversity loss will lead to ecosystem collapse. Research in this area is still
in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies are mixed. Some studies show a positive
relationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosy stem function, such as the rate of nitrogen cycling
(Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others support the redundant species concept (Lawton and Brown
1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional species are redundant
in terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton 1994),
in which loss of some species reduces some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may
increase that aspect of ecosystem function. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is
undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless, I believe that the tapestry metaphor
provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is like a thread
pulled from the tapestry. With each thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes threadbare. The loss of some
species may lead to local tears. Although everything is linked to everything else, ecosystems are not
delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse. For example, I
study California frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances
signal some as yet unknown threat to humans (the miner's canary argument), the loss of the frogs
themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The situation is the same for most rare
organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black
toad (Bufoexsul) were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study
would be unlikely to reveal ecosystem changes. To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that
biodiversity losses do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it is the losses themselves
that count, not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.
SDI 2008 p. 62 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Even if you win a risk of ecosystem collapse, the time frame is incredibly long
The San Francisco Chronicle 01 [7-26 lexis]
The collapse of ecosystems often occur over a long period. In one example, when Aleut hunters killed
the Alaskan sea otter about 2,500 years ago, the population of their natural prey, the sea urchin, grew
larger than its normal size. In turn, the urchins grazed down the kelp forests, important habitat for a whole
host of ocean life. Then, when fur traders in the 1800s hunted the otters and sea cows almost to
extinction, the kelp forests disappeared and didn't start to regenerate until the federal government
protected the sea otters in the 20th century. In California, the diversity of spiny lobsters, sheephead fish
and abalone kept down the urchin numbers. At present in Alaska, the kelp beds are declining again in
areas where killer whales are preying on sea otters. Biologists think the killer whales switched to otters
for food because there are fewer seals and sea lions to eat.
SDI 2008 p. 63 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Only a small number of species are needed – your concerns of extinction are exaggerated.
Kimbrell 02 [Andrew, Executive Director of the International Center for Technology Assessment and the Center
for Food Safety , The Fatal Harvest Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture, p. 83-4]
There is a second practical problem with assigning value to biological diversity. In a chapter called “The
Conservation Dileema” in my book The Arrogance of Humanism, I discuss the problem of what I call
nonresources. The sad fact that few conservationists care to face is that many species, perhaps most,
probably do not have any conventional value at all, even hidden conventional value. True, we cannot be
sure which particular species fall into this category, but it is hard to deny that a great many of them do. And
unfortunately, the species whose members are the fewest in number, the rarest, the most narrowly
distributed – in short, the ones most likely to become extinct – are obviously the ones least likely to be
missed by the biosphere. Many of these species were never common or ecologically influential; by no
stretch of the imagination can we make them out to be vital cogs in the ecological machine. If the
California condor disappears forever from the California hills, it will be a tragedy. But don’t expect the
chaparral to die, the redwoods to wither, the San Andreas Fault to open up, or even the California tourist
industry to suffer – they won’t.
So it is with plants. We do not know how many species are needed to keep the planet green and healthy,
but it seems very unlikely to be anywhere near the more than quarter of a million we have now.
SDI 2008 p. 65 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT DA Russian oil
Non-unique – Russia’s oil production has peaked in the SQ – can’t sell significantly more to
contribute to their economy
Alexander Kolyandr, Dow Jones Newswires, 7/1 2008 OIL CONGRESS: Russia's Oil Output Has Reached
Plateau -Dep Min
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080701%5cACQDJON200807010803DOWJONES
DJONLINE000223.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=OIL%20CONGRESS:%20Russia's%20Oil%20Output%2
0Has%20Reached%20Plateau%20-Dep%20Min
MADRID -(Dow Jones)- Russia's oil production will grow only marginally this year and in the near
term, Russia's deputy minister for energy said Tuesday, and has in effect hit a plateau for now. "No one
should expect that Russia's oil production growth will match the one we've witnessed in the past eight
years," Anatoly Yanovsky said on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress. Over that period, Russia's
annual oil production grew from 360 million metric tons to just above 490 million tons. "Nothing like that
will happen", the official said, adding, that Russia's oil production has hit a plateau which will remain
unchanged until new large fields in Eastern Siberia and offshore come upstream. After several years of stable
growth, production of oil and gas condensate in Russia dropped 0.3% in the first four months of this
year compared with the same period a year previously, to 161 million tons, or 1.18 billion barrels,
according to the government.
No Link – Oil price drop would have no effect on the Russian economy. Prices could get as low
as $55 a barrel and the effect would still be insignificant
Russia & CIS Banking & Finance Weekly 6/20, 2008 headline: russia does not fear drop in oil prices -
kudrin
Russia should be prepared for both further growth as well as a rapid drop in oil prices, he said. It is better for Russia when oil
prices are high, he said, but these prices must be utilized soundly and oil windfalls should not be wasted. "If oil prices are higher and is
spent immediately, the ruble's exchange rate will strengthen," he said, stressing that the appreciation of the ruble would have a negative
effect on Russian industry. A decline in the price of oil will not have a significant impact on the Russian
budget, Kudrin said. "Russia is not afraid of a price drop," Kudrin said in an interview with Vesti 24 TV while in Osaka
following the meeting of the G8 finance chiefs. "Our budget would not have a deficit at a price of $55 per barrel.
The tax system for our oil companies is set up so that as the price of oil declines, taxation declines. So no substantial changes
will take place. It will have some effect on our GDP growth, but an insignificant one compared with
the earlier period. I repeat, the effect will be insignificant," he said.
Case Solves – even if Russia’s economy collapses – US-Russian relations fostered by the
plan would solve for the impact
Oil Dependency Adv O/W – Extend Furguson – Heg fostered off kicking our oil
dependency would solve every major impact globally – this takes out the DA impact
SDI 2008 p. 68 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
No Impact – Uranium sales to fuel US nuclear power industry will check back Russian oil
revenue losses
Charles Digges, 04/02-2008, “Russian nuke industry predicts boom in US uranium sales”, JaretLK,
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2008/rusus_uraniumdeal
The agreement is predicted to provide US utilities with a supply of nuclear fuel by allowing Russia to
boost exports to the United States while striving to minimizing any disruption to the United States'
domestic enrichment industry. "The agreement will encourage bilateral trade in Russian uranium
products for peaceful purposes," US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in remarks to reporters
over the weekend. "It will also help to ensure that U.S. utilities have an adequate source of enriched
uranium for US utility consumers. Gutierrez and Sergei Kiriyenko, director of Russia’s atomic energy
agency Rosatom Federal signed the deal allowing for sales of Russian enriched uranium directly to US
utilities. Before the agreement, such direct transactions were not permitted by anti-dumping legislation dating
back to 1991. During the last 17 years, the US government has restricted Russian uranium shipments,
fearing Russia would dump uranium in the US market and financially hurt the major American uranium
supplier, USEC Inc. End of Megatons to Megawatts opens floodgates USEC, for its part, has long had a
monopoly on selling Russian produced uranium in the United States as a part of its “Megatons to Megawatts”
programme, a non-proliferation initiative under which USEC buys down blended highly enriched uranium
for use in commercial reactors in the United States. Uranium sold to the US under this programme was not
subject to the anti-dumping barrier tax. The programme was designed to curb the proliferation of bomb
grade uranium in Russia by taking highly enriched uranium from nuclear warheads and blending it down to
low enriched uranium. Some 44 percent of US reactors are powered by down blended uranium sold to the
United States under the Megatons to Megawatts programme, the Russian business daily Kommersant
reported. Kiriyenko anxious to buck fixed prices and reap gold rush But Rosatom under Kiriyenko is leery
of the low fixed price that USEC pays for this uranium, which is well below the world market value of $185
per kilogram. With the Megatons to Megawatts programme set to end in 2013, Kiriyenko smells a bonanza.
Where Russia has netted between $400m and $500m annually since 1994 through the Megatons to
Megawatts programme, Kiriyenko projects that the lifting of the 118 percent US barrier tax against Russian
uranium will net Russia between $1.1 billion and $2 billion a year based on soaring 2007 uranium prices.
According to the USEC website, Russia has made a total of $4.6 billion since 1994 on uranium sold to the
US by the Megatons to Megawatts programme. The entire contract is for a sale of $7.6 billion. The new deal
Under the newly signed uranium fuel import deal, Russian uranium exports to the United States would
increase slowly over a 10-year period, beginning in 2011, when shipments would be allowed to reach 16,559
tons, a spokeswoman for Tekhsnabexport (Tenex), the Russian nuclear fuel giant which has overseen the
Megatons to Megawatts programme said. Exports would then increase about 50 percent annually over the
next two years and increase more than tenfold from 41,398 tons in 2013 to 485,279 tons the next year, said
the spokeswoman.
SDI 2008 p. 69 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
No Impact – Low oil prices will not affect Russia - they have shielded themselves from price
decline and diversified their economy.
Belfast Telegraph, Mary Dejevsky, "Russia will not cut oil and gas production, Putin says" September
17, 2007 lexis
Mr Putin was answering questions from foreign Russia-watchers at his summer residence near the southern resort city of Sochi. What
had prompted a response that should reassure Russia's Western customers, at least in the short term, was a comment by a senior official
two days before to the effect that Russia's oil and gas bonanza was almost as much trouble as it was worth. He had said that, while
Russia had benefited hugely from the high energy prices of recent years, these had also created problems. Because the Russian
economy simply could not absorb so much money productively in such a short time, the government
had to spend much specialist time and energy on how best to use it. A proportion goes to the
"stabilisation fund", now standing at $130bn, seen as an insurance against energy prices falling.
Another share goes into an "investment fund" for infrastructure projects, higher pensions and public
service salaries. What is left over is invested abroad, much of it in foreign bonds, to be as safe as
possible. Russia's foreign investment policy was, the official said, deliberately"conservative". The official also
said that Russia was looking to invest more in foreign companies, and would already have done so but for what it saw as unwarranted
suspicion of Russia's intentions and closet protectionism on the part of foreign governments. It was in this context that a participant in
the discussion with Mr Putin asked this question: Why, if Russia found administering its new oil and gas wealth so burdensome, did it
not consider cutting production? Keeping the stuff in the ground, he suggested, would have several beneficial effects for Russia. It would
raise the world price, so yielding more money for less effort. It would, assuming no dramatic fall in prices in the near future, guarantee
Russia a good income for many more years. And it would save ministers the time and effort involved in figuring out how to invest its
windfall. The question clearly appealed to Mr Putin. He smiled and described the proposition as interesting, as he seemed to turn it over
in his mind. But his response was categorical. "We will extend and increase production of both oil and gas, and we
will do that because global demand is growing." He said that Russia had no intention of banking on
further rises in energy prices. "We remember that there was a time when coal was the main source of
energy, and then all at once the price fell sharply. What good would come of speculating?" Russia, he
said, "wants to behave responsibly" not for its own sake, but because "harmonious relations" with the
rest of the world was as much in the national interest as high energy prices. Apparently alluding to Western
charges that Russia used its position as an energy supplier as a weapon, Mr Putin said that Russia had never " blackmailed" the world
market. He went on: "We are not a member of Opec though we keep a close eye on what it does and one reason is that we don't have the
level of state monopoly over energy production that most Opec countries have."
AT DA: Silver
1. Alt causes to silver demand.
Mike Caggeso, Associate Editor, 7/8/08. Straight Stocks. “Silver Prices Ready to Rocket; Four Reasons Why and
Two Ways to Buy,” http://www.straightstocks.com/current-market-news/silver-prices-ready-to-rocket-four-reasons-
why-and-two-ways-to-buy/ MH
Silver prices have vaulted an extraordinary 106% in the past two and a half years. More impressive, silver
prices have gained 33% since mid December. Now, compare that to how U.S. stocks have fared since then:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average has plunged 13.6%; The Nasdaq Composite Index tumbled 10.5%; The
S&P 500 Index has fallen 11.1%. Like gold, silver is a safe haven from inflation and a weak dollar. The
prices of the two metals often move parallel to one another. However, silver is poised to rocket - handing
investors not only gains in our bear-market economy, but steeper gains than gold. James Turk, founder of
GoldMoney, said in his annual forecast that the U.S. economy “will get much worse in 2008, making gold
the premier asset of choice, but not the best performing precious metal. That honor will go to silver, which I
expect will clear $30 in 2008.” From silver’s current price of $18.33 an ounce, $30 an ounce would be a
63.7% gain. And here are four reasons why that’s more than probable: * Supply and Demand: Silver,
quite simply, has better supply and demand characteristics than gold. For 18 straight years now, we’ve
consumed more silver above ground than we’ve been able to extract from below ground (compared to
only four to five years for gold). That’s because only a portion of silver demand comes from investors.
Commercial demand for silver is growing, whether for jewelry, electrical conductors, photographic
film or disinfectants. And the rate at which iyndustry finds new, unique uses for the white metal is
staggering compared to gold. * Above Ground Supply: Unlike gold, which has been hoarded by central
banks for decades, there’s no appreciable aboveground supply of silver. Therefore, whatever is needed must
be mined. And there’s very little threat of central banks selling large tranches of silver into the market, which
is always an overhanging concern with gold. * Emerging Markets: Despite fears to the contrary, robust
industrial demand for silver will continue even if United States slips into recession. That’s because the true
driver toward higher commodity prices, in general, is emerging markets like China, India, Russia and Eastern
Europe. China’s expansion alone can be compared to the industrial explosions that took place in Japan in the
1960s and the United States at the turn of the last millennium. * Market Capitalization: The silver market
is much less capitalized than the gold market. Fewer dollars trade daily on the silver exchange than on the
gold exchange. As a result, every dollar spent on silver will have a greater impact on the silver market than
dollars spent on gold will have on the gold market. To visualize this concept, consider the relative impact of a
rock tossed into a pond versus the same rock being tossed into a puddle.
3. No Link – Your evidence does not talk about nuclear power using silver.
SDI 2008 p. 72 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
5. No Internal Link - The US ran out of silver in 2002 and nothing happened.
Jason Hommel, Editorial writer for Gold-Eagle, 2005, Gold-Eagle, “Silver Users Fear Silver Shortage”, NM,
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/hommel102505.html
But what about the existing above ground supply of silver? Precious metals are held privately, and are not
able to be tracked or traced, so nobody truly knows what the above ground supply of silver of might be.
However, experts maintain that about 40 billion ounces of silver has been mined throughout all of human
history, and that about 90% of that has been irretrevably consumed by industry, jewelry, and photography.
Most of the approximately 3-5 billion ounces of silver left is in the form of jewelry, mostly held in India.
Silver that is in the form of above-ground, refined, deliverable, identifiable silver is about 150 million
ounces, mostly held at COMEX. The U.S. government once held up to 6 billion ounces of silver, but
around 2002, the U.S. ran out, and had to buy silver on the open market for its Silver Eagle coin
program. The COMEX once had up to 1.5 billion ounces of silver about 10-15 years ago, but today has
less than 1/10th of that: 117 million ounces.
SDI 2008 p. 73 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT K Framework
Our interpretation of fiat is that the aff should defend the political implementation of the plan and the
negative has to defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. This is a voter for the following
reasons. And, even if you don’t reject the team, reject the argument.
refers to as the Cultural Left, which left is juxtaposed to the Political Left that Rorty prefers and prefers for
good reason. Another attribute of the Cultural Left is that its members fancy themselves pure culture
critics who view the successes of America and the West, rather than some of the barbarous methods for
achieving those successes, as mostly evil, and who view anything like national pride as equally evil even
when that pride is tempered with the knowledge and admission of the nation's shortcomings. In other words,
the Cultural Left, in this country, too often dismiss American society as beyond reform and redemption.
And Rorty correctly argues that this is a disastrous conclusion, i.e. disastrous for the Cultural Left. I think it
may also be disastrous for our social hopes, as I will explain. Leftist American culture critics might put
their considerable talents to better use if they bury some of their cynicism about America's social and
political prospects and help forge public and political possibilities in a spirit of determination to,
indeed, achieve our country - the country of Jefferson and King; the country of John Dewey and Malcom X;
the country of Franklin Roosevelt and Bayard Rustin, and of the later George Wallace and the later Barry
Goldwater. To invoke the words of King, and with reference to the American society, the time is always ripe
to seize the opportunity to help create the "beloved community," one woven with the thread of agape
into a conceptually single yet diverse tapestry that shoots for nothing less than a true intra-American
cosmopolitan ethos, one wherein both same sex unions and faith-based initiatives will be able to be part
of the same social reality, one wherein business interests and the university are not seen as belonging to two
separate galaxies but as part of the same answer to the threat of social and ethical nihilism. We who fancy
ourselves philosophers would do well to create from within ourselves and from within our ranks a new kind
of public intellectual who has both a hungry theoretical mind and who is yet capable of seeing the need to
move past high theory to other important questions that are less bedazzling and "interesting" but more
important to the prospect of our flourishing - questions such as "How is it possible to develop a citizenry that
cherishes a certain hexis, one which prizes the character of the Samaritan on the road to Jericho almost more
than any other?" or "How can we square the political dogma that undergirds the fantasy of a missile defense
system with the need to treat America as but one member in a community of nations under a "law of
peoples?" The new public philosopher might seek to understand labor law and military and trade theory
and doctrine as much as theories of surplus value; the logic of international markets and trade agreements
as much as critiques of commodification, and the politics of complexity as much as the politics of
power (all of which can still be done from our arm chairs.) This means going down deep into the guts of
our quotidian social institutions, into the grimy pragmatic details where intellectuals are loathe to
dwell but where the officers and bureaucrats of those institutions take difficult and often unpleasant,
imperfect decisions that affect other peoples' lives, and it means making honest attempts to truly
understand how those institutions actually function in the actual world before howling for their
overthrow commences. This might help keep us from being slapped down in debates by true policy
pros who actually know what they are talking about but who lack awareness of the dogmatic
assumptions from which they proceed, and who have not yet found a good reason to listen to jargon-
riddled lectures from philosophers and culture critics with their snobish disrespect for the so-called
"managerial class."
AT K Generic
Read Framework
Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative.
This perm proves there is no link because there is no reason why any type of society (even
an unknown one) can’t have nuclear waste storage.
Perm Double Bind: Either capitalism is so strong the alternative can never solve or the
perm captures enough solvency to remove any risk of their impacts and solves all their
ethical obligations.
Perm: Do the plan, keep nuclear power, and reject all other instances of capitalism.
The net benefit to this permutation is poverty. It makes no sense to have an ethical
obligation to keep people in poverty
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized
the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear
power, or poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from
poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be
made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind
power and other forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to
resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of
renewables in EU energy demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time,
nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”
Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much
difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should
sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that
the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide.
New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between global warming,
nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the courage to make.”
SDI 2008 p. 77 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
This impact is substantially bigger than their’s and proves that their ethical framework is flawed.
Mumia Abu-Jamal, 9-19-1998, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” www1.minn.net/~meis/quietdv.htm
We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging
"structural" violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former
Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; "By `structural violence' I mean
the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as
contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large
proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of
society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society.
These are not acts of God. I am contrasting `structural' with `behavioral violence' by which I mean the non-
natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals,
such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on." --
(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This
form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is
invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it -- really?
Gilligan notes: "[E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty
as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three
times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews
over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating,
thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the
world." [Gilligan, p. 196]
SDI 2008 p. 78 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
<Read Framework>
Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative. This solves
best because you get the 1AC advantages and reject capitalism
The permutation proves there is no link because there is no reason why any type of society
(even an unknown one) can’t have nuclear power repositories
By rejecting all capitalism except that needed to do the plan, we gain 99.9% of the K
impact. Thus, we o/w and remaining impact that they can claim
Perm Double Bind: A)Either capitalism is so strong to solve the SQUO and the plan, thus
the perm solves OR B)The alt doesn’t solve
Perm: Do the plan, keep nuclear power, and reject all other instances of capitalism.
The net benefit to this permutation is poverty. It makes no sense to have an ethical obligation to keep people in
poverty. Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain mired in
poverty.
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized the
current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear power, or
poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from poverty is
incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be made to keep
poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind power and other
forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to resolving this dilemma
in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energy
demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15
per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.” Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other
hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe
but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to
accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear
power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies.
For us the choice is between global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice
our leaders lack the courage to make.”
Since there are millions of instances of incentives, Double bind: either there is no residual link to the plan OR the
alternative doesn’t solve – 1 rejection. This also answers their aff choice arbitrary argument: without a specific link
to our nuclear affirmative, we win our interpretation of framework.
No link – the incentives we give is given to businesses. The companies can decide whether or not they want to
accept this aid or not, we aren’t deciding anything for them, couldn’t increase capitalism.
SDI 2008 p. 79 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Capitalism and free trade are good – it’s responsible for most of the good in the world. The root cause of structural
violence is a lack of free markets. Areas that have started to develop must transition to the next level of capitalism or they
will be locked in misery for a very long time. The plan is a swipe at institutions but instead you need to align yourself with
these institutions it is responsible for remarkable progress.
Goklany ’07 (Indur, Author of The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a
Cleaner Planet, Mar. 23, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html, twm, Indur Golanky is an independent scholar who has more
than 25 years of experience working and writing on global and national environmental issues. He has published several peer-reviewed
papers and book chapters on an array of issues including air pollution, climate change, biodiversity, the role of technology and economic
growth in creating, as well as solving, environmental problems, and the impact of international environmental regimes on people living
in less-developed countries.)
Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy,
materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of
globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’
population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of
chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such
as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century.
Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have
actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has
declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements haven’t been
restricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31
years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early
1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from
chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in
population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of
the planet's developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20
percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. Equally
important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, and
socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of
expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, and
property. Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across the
world to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours
and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental record
is more complex. The early stages of development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societies
pursue first-order problems affecting human well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of
education, basic public health services, safe water, sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because greater
wealth alleviates these problems while providing basic creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economic
development, often neglecting other aspects of environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental
deterioration reduces their quality of life. Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital into
developing and implementing cleaner technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of economic
development and technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to environmental problems instead of creating those
problems.All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many developing countries
have yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s developed countries used to be when they
were equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to "environmental conscious" continues to fall. For example, the
US introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per capita exceeded $16,000. India and China did the same before they
reached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament to the power of globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (that
lead is harmful, for example). It's also testament to the importance of trade in transferring technology from developed to developing
countries—in this case, the technology needed to remove lead from gasoline. This hints at the answer to the question of why some
parts of the world have been left behind while the rest of the world has thrived. Why have improvements in well-being stalled in
areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world? The proximate cause of improvements in well-being is a “cycle of progress”
composed of the mutually reinforcing forces of economic development and technological progress. But that cycle itself is propelled
by a web of essential institutions, particularly property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Other important institutions would include
science- and technology-based problem-solving founded on skepticism and experimentation; receptiveness to new technologies
and ideas; and freer trade in goods, services—most importantly in knowledge and ideas. In short, free and open societies prosper.
Isolation, intolerance, and hostility to the free exchange of knowledge, technology, people, and goods breed stagnation or
regression. Despite all of this progress and good news, then, there is still much unfinished business. Millions of people die from
hunger, malnutrition, and preventable disease such as malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Over a billion people still live in absolute
poverty, defined as less than a dollar per day. A third of the world’s eligible population is still not enrolled in secondary school.
Barriers to globalization, economic development, and technological change—such as the use of DDT to eradicate malaria, genetic
engineering, and biotechnology—are a big source of the problem. Moreover, the global population will grow 50 percent to 100
percent this century, and per capita consumption of energy and materials will likely increase with wealth. Merely preserving the
status quo is not enough. We need to protect the important sustaining institutions responsible for all of this progress in the
developed world, and we need to foster and nurture them in countries that are still developing. Man’s remarkable progress over the
last 100 years is unprecedented in human history. It’s also one of the more neglected big-picture stories. Ensuring that our
incredible progress continues will require not only recognizing and appreciating the progress itself, but also recognizing
and preserving the important ideas and institutions that caused it, and ensuring that they endure.
SDI 2008 p. 80 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Link Turn: The Aff is ethical – access to clean energy is a fundamental right – government
intrusion into the economy is justified in this instance
Tully Postdoctoral Fellow of the ESRC Centre for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation and of the Law Department
2006
Stephen Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights Spring page lexis
The human rights paradigm also pursues the accountability of governments and others through the application of the
rule of law. Persons or groups denied rights are entitled to access effective judicial and other remedies at national
and international levels. n131 Victims of human rights violations are entitled to adequate reparations including restitution,
compensation, satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition. National ombudsmen, human rights commissions, and similar institutions
may be entrusted with addressing violations. To a similar end the private sector can be made more responsive to the needs of low-
income urban households by increasing the latter's level of participation. n132 Although direct corporate accountability to their
customers can be enhanced, legislative or policy measures crafted by governments could equally be avoided. n133 Nevertheless, the private
sector, under the human rights paradigm, is expected to contribute to realizing human rights. However, trend s toward direct corporate legal
responsibility for violations, while discernable, remain underdeveloped. n134
Further, an individual right affirms the obligations incumbent upon government. Governments have undertaken to promote
universal respect for and observation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. n135 They accordingly become subject to positive or
negative obligations to protect, promote, and provide each human right and to abstain from violations. Providing
access to basic social services, including energy, is considered to be a fundamental responsibility of government.
n136 This responsibility arises even when governments delegate functional roles to third parties. Notwithstanding market-oriented electricity
sector reforms, "in all cases the State remains ultimately responsible for the delivery of electricity." n137 For example, the Electricity Corporation
of Guyana is obliged to provide public services which are safe, adequate, efficient, [*534] reasonable, and non-discriminatory. n138 The New
Zealand Electricity Commission is similarly expected to produce and deliver electricity to all consumers in an efficient, fair, reliable, and
environmentally sustainable manner. n139 A human rights obligation enforceable against governments would maintain their active participation
within deregulated electricity markets and, moreover, circumscribe permissible behavior.
Capitalism is inevitable---only the plan can spread capitalism at a local level---this eliminates the negative aspects of
it
SDI 2008 p. 81 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Impact Turn: Imperial wars pre-date capitalism by centuries, war is illogical under
capitalism because it destroys wealth
MacKenzie 3
D.W. MacKenzie graduate student in economics at George Mason University Does Capitalism Require War?
Monday, April 07, 2003 http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1201
Perhaps the oddest aspect of these various, but similar, claims is that their proponents appeal so often to historical
examples. They often claim that history shows how capitalism is imperialistic and warlike or at least benefits from
war. Capitalism supposedly needs a boost from some war spending from time to time, and history shows this. Robert
Higgs demonstrated that the wartime prosperity during the Second World War was illusory[i]. This should come to no surprise to those who lived through the deprivations of wartime rationing.
We do not need wars for prosperity, but does capitalism breed war and imperialism anyway? History is rife with examples of imperialism . The Romans, Alexander,
and many others of the ancient world waged imperialistic wars. The Incan Empire and the empire of Ancient China stand as examples of the universal character of imperialism. Who could
Imperialism precedes modern industrial capitalism by many
possibly claim that imperialism grew out of the prosperity of these ancient civilizations?
centuries. Uneven wealth distribution or underconsumption under capitalism obviously did not cause these instances
of imperialism. Of course, this fact does not prove that modern capitalism lacks its own imperialistic tendencies. The notion that income gets underspent or maldistributed lies at the
heart of most claims that capitalism either needs or produces imperialistic wars. As J.B. Say argued, supply creates its own demand through payments to factors of production. Demand Side
economists Hobson and Keynes argued that there would be too little consumption and too little investment for continuous full employment. We save too much to have peace and prosperity. The
difficulty we face is not in oversaving, but in underestimating the workings of markets and the desires of consumers. Doomsayers have been downplaying consumer demand for ages. As demand
side economist J.K. Galbraith claimed, we live in an affluent society, where most private demands have been met. Of course, Hobson made the same claim much earlier. Earlier and stranger still,
mercantilists claimed that 'wasteful acts' such as tea drinking, gathering at alehouses, taking snuff, and the wearing of ribbons were unnecessary luxuries that detracted from productive endeavors.
The prognostications of esteemed opponents of capitalism have consistently failed to predict consumer demand. Today, consumers consume at levels that few long ago could have imagined
possible. There is no reason to doubt that consumers will continue to press for ever higher levels of consumption. Though it is only a movie, Brewster's Millions illustrates how creative people
can be at spending money. People who do actually inherit, win, or earn large sums of money have little trouble spending it. Indeed, wealthy individuals usually have more trouble holding on to
their fortunes than in finding ways to spend them. We are never going to run out of ways to spend money. Many of the complaints about capitalism center on how people save too much. One
should remember that there really is no such thing as saving. Consumers defer consumption to the future only. As economist Eugen Böhm-Bawerk demonstrated, people save according to time
preference. Savings diverts resources into capital formation. This increases future production. Interest enhanced savings then can purchase these goods as some consumers cease to defer their
consumption. Keynes' claim that animal spirits drive investment has no rational basis. Consumer preferences are the basis for investment. Investors forecast future consumer demand. Interest
rates convey knowledge of these demands. The intertemporal coordination of production through capital markets and interest rates is not a simple matter. But Keynes' marginal propensities to
save and Hobson's concentration of wealth arguments fail to account for the real determinants of production through time. Say's Law of Markets holds precisely because people always want a
better life for themselves and those close to them. Falling interest rates deter saving and increase investment. Rising interest rates induce saving and deter investment. This simple logic of supply
and demand derives from a quite basic notion of self interest. Keynes denied that the world worked this way. Instead, he claimed that bond holders hoard money outside of the banking system,
investment periodically collapses from 'the dark forces of time and uncertainty, and consumers save income in a mechanical fashion according to marginal propensities to save. None of these
propositions hold up to scrutiny, either deductive or empirical. Speculators do not hoard cash outside of banks. To do this means a loss of interest on assets. People do move assets from one part
of the financial system to another. This does not cause deficient aggregate demand. Most money exists in the banking system, and is always available for lending. In fact, the advent of e-banking
makes such a practice even less sensible. Why hoard cash when you can move money around with your computer? It is common knowledge that people save for homes, education, and other
expensive items, not because they have some innate urge to squirrel some portion of their income away. This renders half of the market for credit rational. Investors do in fact calculate rates of
return on investment. This is not a simple matter. Investment entails some speculation. Long term investment projects entail some uncertainty, but investors who want to actually reap profits will
estimate the returns on investment using the best available data. Keynes feared that the dark forces of time and uncertainty could scare investors. This possibility, he thought, called for
government intervention. However, government intervention (especially warfare) generally serves to increase uncertainty. Private markets have enough uncertainties without throwing politics
into the fray. The vagaries of political intervention serve only to darken an already uncertain future. Capital markets are best left to capitalists. Nor is capital not extracted surplus value. It comes
not from exploitation. It is simply a matter of people valuing their future wellbeing. Capitalists will hire workers up to the point where the discounted marginal product of their labor equals the
wage rate. To do otherwise would mean a loss of potential profit. Since workers earn the marginal product of labor and capital derives from deferred consumption, Marxist arguments about
reserve armies of the unemployed and surplus extraction fail. It is quite odd to worry about capitalists oversaving when many complain about how the savings rate in the U.S. is too low. Why
does the U.S., as the world's 'greatest capitalist/imperialist power', attract so much foreign investment? Many Americans worry about America's international accounts. Fears about foreigners
buying up America are unfounded, but not because this does not happen. America does have a relatively low national savings rate. It does attract much foreign investment, precisely because it has
relatively secure property rights. Indeed, much of the third world suffers from too little investment. The claims of Marxists, and Hobson, directly contradict the historical record. Sound theory
tells us that it should. The Marxist claim that capitalists must find investments overseas fails miserably. Larry Kudlow has put his own spin on the false connection between capitalism and war.
We need the War as shock therapy to get the economy on its feet. Kudlow also endorses massive airline subsidies as a means of restoring economic prosperity. Kudlow and Krugman both
endorse the alleged destructive creation of warfare and terrorism. Kudlow has rechristened the Broken Window fallacy the Broken Window principle. Kudlow claims that may lose money and
wealth in one way, but we gain it back many time over when the rebuilding is done. Kudlow and Krugman have quite an affinity for deficits. Krugman sees debt as a sponge to absorb excess
saving. Kudlow see debt as a short term nuisance that we can dispel by maximizing growth. One would think that such famous economists would realize that competition does work to achieve
While these economists have expressed their belief in writing, they
the goal of optimum growth based on time preference, but this is not the case.
could do more. If the destruction of assets leads to increased prosperity, then they should teach this principle by
example. Kudlow and Krugman could, for instance, help build the economy by demolishing their own private
homes. This would have the immediate effect of stimulating demand for demolition experts, and the longer term
affect of stimulating the demand for construction workers. They can create additional wealth by financing the reconstruction of their homes through debt.
By borrowing funds, they draw idle resources into use and stimulate financial activity. Of course, they would both initially lose wealth in one way. But if their thinking is sound, they will gain it
The truth is that their beliefs are fallacious. Bastiat demonstrated the absurdity of destructive
back many times over as they rebuild.
creation in his original explanation of the opportunity costs from repairing broken windows. Kudlow is quite clear about his
intentions. He wants to grow the economy to finance the war. As Kudlow told some students, "The trick here is to grow the economy and let the economic growth raise the revenue for the war
effort"[ii]. Kudlow also praises the Reagan Administration for growing the economy to fund national defense. Here Kudlow's attempts to give economic advice cease completely. His argument
here is not that capitalism needs a shot in the arm. It is that resources should be redirected towards ends that he sees fit. Kudlow is a war hawk who, obviously, cannot fund this or any war
personally. He instead favors using the state to tax others to fund what he wants, but cannot afford. He seems to think that his values matter more than any other's. Why should anyone else agree
with this? Kudlow tarnishes the image of laissez faire economics by parading his faulty reasoning and his claims that his wants should reign supreme as a pro-market stance. Unfortunately, it is
Capitalism neither requires
sometimes necessary to defend capitalism from alleged advocates of liberty, who employ false dogmas in pursuit of their own militaristic desires.
nor promotes imperialist expansion. Capitalism did not create imperialism or warfare. Warlike societies predate
societies with secure private property. The idea that inequity or underspending give rise to militarism lacks any
rational basis. Imperialistic tendencies exist due to ethnic and nationalistic bigotries, and the want for power. Prosperity depends upon our ability to prevent destructive acts. The dogma
of destructive creation fails as a silver lining to the cloud of warfare. Destructive acts entail real costs that diminish available opportunities. The idea that we need to find work for idle hands in
capitalism at best leads to a kind of Sisyphus economy where unproductive industries garner subsidies from productive people. At worst, it serves as a supporting argument for war. The more
recent versions of the false charges against capitalism do nothing to invalidate two simple facts. Capitalism generates prosperity by creating new products. War inflicts poverty by
destroying existing wealth. There is no sound reason to think otherwise.
SDI 2008 p. 82 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
It’s stupid to assume that the unknown alternative would be better than capitalism. Capitalism has shown to be better
than any current alternative.
What is the alternative? Socialism would be the only alternative option. However, there is absolutely no chance of
any socialist revolution in the United States. The best chance of finding any socialist crack heads is at the corner of
some shady alleyway along Grand River Plaza.
SDI 2008 p. 83 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT K Capitalism – Version
<Read Framework>
Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative. This solves
best because you get the 1AC advantages and reject capitalism
The permutation proves there is no link because there is no reason why any type of society
(even an unknown one) can’t have nuclear power repositories
By rejecting all capitalism except that needed to do the plan, we gain 99.9% of the K
impact. Thus, we o/w and remaining impact that they can claim
Perm Double Bind: A)Either capitalism is so strong to solve the SQUO and the plan, thus
the perm solves OR B)The alt doesn’t solve
Perm: Do the plan, keep nuclear power, and reject all other instances of capitalism.
The net benefit to this permutation is poverty. It makes no sense to have an ethical obligation to keep people in
poverty. Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain mired in
poverty.
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized the
current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear power, or
poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from poverty is
incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be made to keep
poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind power and other
forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to resolving this dilemma
in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energy
demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15
per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.” Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other
hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe
but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to
accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear
power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies.
For us the choice is between global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice
our leaders lack the courage to make.”
Since there are millions of instances of incentives, Double bind: either there is no residual link to the plan OR the
alternative doesn’t solve – 1 rejection. This also answers their aff choice arbitrary argument: without a specific link
to our nuclear affirmative, we win our interpretation of framework.
No link – the incentives we give is given to businesses. The companies can decide whether or not they want to
accept this aid or not, we aren’t deciding anything for them, couldn’t increase capitalism.
SDI 2008 p. 84 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Capitalism and free trade are good – it’s responsible for most of the good in the world. The root cause of structural
violence is a lack of free markets. Areas that have started to develop must transition to the next level of capitalism or they
will be locked in misery for a very long time. The plan is a swipe at institutions but instead you need to align yourself with
these institutions it is responsible for remarkable progress.
Goklany ’07 (Indur, Author of The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a
Cleaner Planet, Mar. 23, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html, twm, Indur Golanky is an independent scholar who has more
than 25 years of experience working and writing on global and national environmental issues. He has published several peer-reviewed
papers and book chapters on an array of issues including air pollution, climate change, biodiversity, the role of technology and economic
growth in creating, as well as solving, environmental problems, and the impact of international environmental regimes on people living
in less-developed countries.)
Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy,
materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of
globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’
population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of
chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such
as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century.
Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have
actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has
declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements haven’t been
restricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31
years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early
1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from
chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in
population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of
the planet's developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20
percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. Equally
important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, and
socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of
expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, and
property. Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across the
world to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours
and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental record
is more complex. The early stages of development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societies
pursue first-order problems affecting human well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of
education, basic public health services, safe water, sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because greater
wealth alleviates these problems while providing basic creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economic
development, often neglecting other aspects of environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental
deterioration reduces their quality of life. Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital into
developing and implementing cleaner technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of economic
development and technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to environmental problems instead of creating those
problems.All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many developing countries
have yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s developed countries used to be when they
were equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to "environmental conscious" continues to fall. For example, the
US introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per capita exceeded $16,000. India and China did the same before they
reached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament to the power of globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (that
lead is harmful, for example). It's also testament to the importance of trade in transferring technology from developed to developing
countries—in this case, the technology needed to remove lead from gasoline. This hints at the answer to the question of why some
parts of the world have been left behind while the rest of the world has thrived. Why have improvements in well-being stalled in
areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world? The proximate cause of improvements in well-being is a “cycle of progress”
composed of the mutually reinforcing forces of economic development and technological progress. But that cycle itself is propelled
by a web of essential institutions, particularly property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Other important institutions would include
science- and technology-based problem-solving founded on skepticism and experimentation; receptiveness to new technologies
and ideas; and freer trade in goods, services—most importantly in knowledge and ideas. In short, free and open societies prosper.
Isolation, intolerance, and hostility to the free exchange of knowledge, technology, people, and goods breed stagnation or
regression. Despite all of this progress and good news, then, there is still much unfinished business. Millions of people die from
hunger, malnutrition, and preventable disease such as malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Over a billion people still live in absolute
poverty, defined as less than a dollar per day. A third of the world’s eligible population is still not enrolled in secondary school.
Barriers to globalization, economic development, and technological change—such as the use of DDT to eradicate malaria, genetic
engineering, and biotechnology—are a big source of the problem. Moreover, the global population will grow 50 percent to 100
percent this century, and per capita consumption of energy and materials will likely increase with wealth. Merely preserving the
status quo is not enough. We need to protect the important sustaining institutions responsible for all of this progress in the
developed world, and we need to foster and nurture them in countries that are still developing. Man’s remarkable progress over the
last 100 years is unprecedented in human history. It’s also one of the more neglected big-picture stories. Ensuring that our
incredible progress continues will require not only recognizing and appreciating the progress itself, but also recognizing
and preserving the important ideas and institutions that caused it, and ensuring that they endure.
SDI 2008 p. 85 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
<Read Framework>
Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative. This solves
best because you get the 1AC advantages and reject capitalism
The permutation proves there is no link because there is no reason why any type of society
(even an unknown one) can’t have nuclear power repositories
By rejecting all capitalism except that needed to do the plan, we gain 99.9% of the K
impact. Thus, we o/w and remaining impact that they can claim
Perm Double Bind: A)Either capitalism is so strong to solve the SQUO and the plan, thus
the perm solves OR B)The alt doesn’t solve
Perm: Do the plan, keep nuclear power, and reject all other instances of capitalism.
The net benefit to this permutation is poverty. It makes no sense to have an ethical obligation to keep people in
poverty. Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should remain mired in
poverty.
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized the
current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear power, or
poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from poverty is
incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be made to keep
poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind power and other
forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to resolving this dilemma
in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of renewables in EU energy
demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time, nuclear power will shrink from 15
per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.” Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other
hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe
but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to
accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear
power stations, which do not emit carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies.
For us the choice is between global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice
our leaders lack the courage to make.”
Since there are millions of instances of incentives, Double bind: either there is no residual link to the plan OR the
alternative doesn’t solve – 1 rejection. This also answers their aff choice arbitrary argument: without a specific link
to our nuclear affirmative, we win our interpretation of framework.
No link – the incentives we give is given to businesses. The companies can decide whether or not they want to
accept this aid or not, we aren’t deciding anything for them, couldn’t increase capitalism.
SDI 2008 p. 86 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Capitalism and free trade are good – it’s responsible for most of the good in the world. The root cause of structural
violence is a lack of free markets. Areas that have started to develop must transition to the next level of capitalism or they
will be locked in misery for a very long time. The plan is a swipe at institutions but instead you need to align yourself with
these institutions it is responsible for remarkable progress.
Goklany ’07 (Indur, Author of The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a
Cleaner Planet, Mar. 23, http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html, twm, Indur Golanky is an independent scholar who has more
than 25 years of experience working and writing on global and national environmental issues. He has published several peer-reviewed
papers and book chapters on an array of issues including air pollution, climate change, biodiversity, the role of technology and economic
growth in creating, as well as solving, environmental problems, and the impact of international environmental regimes on people living
in less-developed countries.)
Environmentalists and globalization foes are united in their fear that greater population and consumption of energy,
materials, and chemicals accompanying economic growth, technological change and free trade—the mainstays of
globalization—degrade human and environmental well-being. Indeed, the 20th century saw the United States’
population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of
chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such
as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century.
Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have
actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has
declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today. These improvements haven’t been
restricted to the United States. It’s a global phenomenon. Worldwide, life expectancy has more than doubled, from 31
years in 1900 to 67 years today. India’s and China’s infant mortalities exceeded 190 per 1,000 births in the early
1950s; today they are 62 and 26, respectively. In the developing world, the proportion of the population suffering from
chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between 1970 and 2001 despite a 83 percent increase in
population. Globally average annual incomes in real dollars have tripled since 1950. Consequently, the proportion of
the planet's developing-world population living in absolute poverty has halved since 1981, from 40 percent to 20
percent. Child labor in low income countries declined from 30 percent to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. Equally
important, the world is more literate and better educated than ever. People are freer politically, economically, and
socially to pursue their well-being as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of
expression. They are more likely to live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb, and
property. Social and professional mobility have also never been greater. It’s easier than ever for people across the
world to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth. People today work fewer hours
and have more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time than their ancestors. Man’s environmental record
is more complex. The early stages of development can indeed cause some environmental deterioration as societies
pursue first-order problems affecting human well-being. These include hunger, malnutrition, illiteracy, and lack of
education, basic public health services, safe water, sanitation, mobility, and ready sources of energy. Because greater
wealth alleviates these problems while providing basic creature comforts, individuals and societies initially focus on economic
development, often neglecting other aspects of environmental quality. In time, however, they recognize that environmental
deterioration reduces their quality of life. Accordingly, they put more of their recently acquired wealth and human capital into
developing and implementing cleaner technologies. This brings about an environmental transition via the twin forces of economic
development and technological progress, which begin to provide solutions to environmental problems instead of creating those
problems.All of which is why we today find that the richest countries are also the cleanest. And while many developing countries
have yet to get past the “green ceiling,” they are nevertheless ahead of where today’s developed countries used to be when they
were equally wealthy. The point of transition from "industrial period" to "environmental conscious" continues to fall. For example, the
US introduced unleaded gasoline only after its GDP per capita exceeded $16,000. India and China did the same before they
reached $3,000 per capita. This progress is a testament to the power of globalization and the transfer of ideas and knowledge (that
lead is harmful, for example). It's also testament to the importance of trade in transferring technology from developed to developing
countries—in this case, the technology needed to remove lead from gasoline. This hints at the answer to the question of why some
parts of the world have been left behind while the rest of the world has thrived. Why have improvements in well-being stalled in
areas such as Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world? The proximate cause of improvements in well-being is a “cycle of progress”
composed of the mutually reinforcing forces of economic development and technological progress. But that cycle itself is propelled
by a web of essential institutions, particularly property rights, free markets, and rule of law. Other important institutions would include
science- and technology-based problem-solving founded on skepticism and experimentation; receptiveness to new technologies
and ideas; and freer trade in goods, services—most importantly in knowledge and ideas. In short, free and open societies prosper.
Isolation, intolerance, and hostility to the free exchange of knowledge, technology, people, and goods breed stagnation or
regression. Despite all of this progress and good news, then, there is still much unfinished business. Millions of people die from
hunger, malnutrition, and preventable disease such as malaria, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Over a billion people still live in absolute
poverty, defined as less than a dollar per day. A third of the world’s eligible population is still not enrolled in secondary school.
Barriers to globalization, economic development, and technological change—such as the use of DDT to eradicate malaria, genetic
engineering, and biotechnology—are a big source of the problem. Moreover, the global population will grow 50 percent to 100
percent this century, and per capita consumption of energy and materials will likely increase with wealth. Merely preserving the
status quo is not enough. We need to protect the important sustaining institutions responsible for all of this progress in the
developed world, and we need to foster and nurture them in countries that are still developing. Man’s remarkable progress over the
last 100 years is unprecedented in human history. It’s also one of the more neglected big-picture stories. Ensuring that our
incredible progress continues will require not only recognizing and appreciating the progress itself, but also recognizing
and preserving the important ideas and institutions that caused it, and ensuring that they endure.
SDI 2008 p. 87 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
2. Alt doesn’t solve - Taking responsibility on a national level is key, there is no way to
assure each individual will assume that responsibility for themselves if given the task.
3. The U.S. is responsible for the most emissions, which justifies the need for the US as a
whole to reduce their emissions.
Jay Apt (is executive director of the Electricity Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business and the
Department of Engineering and Public Policy, where he is a Distinguished Service Professor) David W. Keith (is Professor and Canada
Research Chair in Energy and the Environment in the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and the Department of Economics at
the University of Calgary)and M. Granger Morgan (is University and Lord Professor and department head of the Department of
Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and co-director of the Electricity Industry Center) Spring 2007 "Promoting
Low-Carbon Electricity Production”, Issues in Science and Technology, v. 23,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3622/is_200704/ai_n19198506
When past emissions are factored in, the United States is responsible for just over a quarter of all
anthropogenic CO2 from fossil fuels currently in the atmosphere. Europe, China, and India are
responsible for 19%, 9%, and 3% respectively. The EU has agreed to reduce emissions to 8% below 1990
levels by 2012; the United States has not. EU emissions are the same as in 1990; U.S. emissions have
increased by 20%. And because CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for over a century, the largest
single share of CO2 will continue to belong to the United States for many decades, despite China's growth.
Since the United States has put the largest single share of CO2 into the air, it must begin to take the lead in
reducing it. In a few decades, China, India, Brazil, and other developing countries also will have to
undertake serious controls. But they will not do so until we take the lead and show how it can be done
in an efficient and affordable way.
4. Perm – do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive aspects of the alternative.
5. Alt not competitive – the plan does not discourage individuals from taking responsibility,
it only assumes that the US should – there is no reason why the perm doesn’t get double
solvency
SDI 2008 p. 88 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Perm – do the plan and all non mutually exclusive components of the counterplan.
SDI 2008 p. 89 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT K Native Americans
1. Perm: Do Plan and all non-competitive parts of the alternative
And, This solves – doing the plan would allow for US to take time to solve the social implications of the plan
PAUL SLOVIC, JAMES H. FLYNN, and MARK LAYMAN, Decision Research professor of psychology at
the University of Oregon, AAAS Science Magazine, 13 December 1991, Perceived Risk, Trust, and the Politics of
Nuclear Waste, nna
The Department of Energy's program for disposing of high-level radioactive wastes has been
impeded by overwhelming political opposition fueled by public perceptions of risk. Analysis of these
perceptions shows them to be deeply rooted in images of fear and dread that have been present since the
discovery of radioactivity. The development and use of nuclear weapons linked these images to reality and
the mishandling of radioactive wastes from the nation's military weapons facilities has contributed toward
creating a profound state of distrust that cannot be erased quickly or easily. Postponing the permanent
repository and employing dry-cask storage of wastes on site would provide the time necessary for
difficult social and political issues to be resolved.
2. Non-Unique – there is already dumping on Native Americans now – there harms are non-unique
3. Rejecting Nuclear Power cant solve – alternative cant get rid of existing waste
3. Even if there is nuclear power and waste by Native Americans – there is no impact to its radiation – it might even
help humans
Jack Dini and Jay Lehr, Ph.D 3/1/08 “Over Time, Nuclear Power Skeptic Becomes Advocate” Published in The
Environment & Climate News by The Heartland Institute o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22788&CFID=5911648&CFTOKEN=55847241
The annual public radiation exposure permitted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for nuclear facilities
is 15 millirem. The average person in the United States is exposed to 200 millirem of radiation per year. If you spent
all your time in Grand Central Station, you would get an annual radiation dose of nearly 600 millirem. At Three
Mile Island, the total calculated dose Pennsylvanians received after the accident was far less than the
measured dose New Mexicans receive from nature every day. Interestingly, in New Mexico the cancer rate is
much lower than the national average although natural background radiation is much higher than the
national average. The same is true for Denver. Residents of Finland receive an annual dose of radiation three
times higher than a person would receive living in the zone surrounding Chernobyl now excluded from habitation.
As of 2006, nuclear-powered submarines and ships had safely traveled a total of 134 million miles and
registered 5,700 naval reactor years of safe operation with a total of 254 reactors. Hormesis What may
explain these facts is the biological theory of hormesis: Organisms are made more resilient by low-level exposure
to a substance that is toxic in larger doses. Cravens covers this topic, but in attempting to present both sides of
the issue she does not cover the wide literature base of studies on animals and humans that confirm the
beneficial effects of low-level radiation. Edward Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst has
published extensively in this field and is a good source for additional information. In spite of this science,
governments continue to use the linear no-threshold model, which says any radiation dose, no matter how
small, is harmful. Misuse of this model has produced spending in excess of $1 trillion in the United States
alone for negligible health benefits just for government environmental cleanup programs, while truly
significant measures that would protect the public health remain unfunded.
SDI 2008 p. 90 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
B. Permanent Waste Depository – By creating a new waste depository – we would end up solving the waste problem
– meaning no more dumping in world of the plan
C. Recycling – Nuclear waste can be recycled – plan actually gets rid of current nuclear waste
Gilbert J. Brown, professor of nuclear engineering and the coordinator of the Nuclear Engineering Program at
UMass-Lowell, 8-2-07, The Boston Globe, Energy and the Simpsons, lexis, bc
As some of the world's greatest consumers of energy, we are looking for cleaner and more efficient sources to meet
the growing demand for electricity - expected to rise 40 percent in the United States by 2030. Today, more and
more Americans understand that real nuclear by-products are not uncontrolled green ooze but rather used
nuclear fuel that is managed safely and securely on-site. And, as nuclear technology advances, over 90 percent
of used fuel could be recycled to fuel nuclear power plants again and again.
D. Turn – Nuclear Power generates less hazardous waste than other power sources and they monitor it to ensure
safety.
James M. Taylor 7/1/06, “WWF Australia Joins Pro-Nuclear Camp” o.z.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19337&CFID=5925006&CFTOKEN=69480619
Others Switching Sides Bourne joins a substantial number of environmental activists who have indicated support
for nuclear power as a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;
James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Earth theory; and Hugh Montefiore, former chairman and trustee for Friends of
the Earth, are just a few of the high-profile environmental activists who have recently switched sides on the nuclear
issue. "Nuclear power plants do not produce greenhouse gases or nitrogen oxide or sulfur dioxide," explained
Adrian Heymer, senior director for new plant deployment at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "This, of course,
gives nuclear a tremendous environmental advantage over other economically competitive power sources.
"Compared with a lot of other industries," Heymer added, "we don't generate as much hazardous waste.
Plus, we monitor it--we know where it is, and we make sure that people and the environment are adequately
protected from it."
5. Their alt cant solve waste – they reject plan which is key to solve it – we get risk of our impact versus the alt
SDI 2008 p. 91 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
2.Rejecting nuclear power is the same as saying people in developing countries should
remain mired in poverty.
Myron Ebell 11/23/04 “Cooler Heads” o.z. http://cei.org/gencon/014,04391.cfm
Poverty and Global Warming Graham Sarjeant, financial editor of London’s Times adroitly summarized
the current policy dilemma in a piece for his paper entitled, “Do you want global warming, nuclear
power, or poverty” (Oct. 29). In it he wrote, “On present policies, the rise of China and India from
poverty is incompatible with any attempt to slow, let alone halt, global warming. A choice has to be
made to keep poor people poor or to take our chances on the environment. “Europe’s drive for wind
power and other forms of renewable energy, sensible though they seem, will make no contribution to
resolving this dilemma in the foreseeable future. On IEA’s well-founded projections, the share of
renewables in EU energy demand will double to 12 per cent from 2002 to 2030. At the same time,
nuclear power will shrink from 15 per cent to 7 per cent, so the EU will rely more on fossil fuels.”
Sarjeant finished his piece by saying, “Other hard decisions would have to be made if we are to make much
difference before 2030. One accepted in Europe but not where it counts—in America—is that petrol
should sell at not less than the equivalent of $1 per litre to accelerate the drive for fuel economy. The
other is that the West should make a wholesale switch to nuclear power stations, which do not emit
carbon dioxide. New generations may be able to use new technologies. For us the choice is between
global warming, nuclear power, and trying to keep poor people poor, a choice our leaders lack the
courage to make.”
4.Reviving the nuclear industry key to the U.S. economy – it could create a million jobs.
American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness. No Date cited. USFG program formed
in 2005 http://www.nuclearcompetitiveness.org/ VF accessed July 10, 2008
Nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy resource which can provide energy security for generations to come.
Thus far much of the support for new nuclear build has centered on the substantial environmental benefits
offered by nuclear energy. This is important, but it’s not the whole story. What has been missing from the
discussion is a recognition of potential economic and national security benefits that can accrue if the U.S.
recaptures a large share of the nuclear manufacturing business. The United States greatly benefited from an
initial wave of commercial nuclear power plant construction from the 1970s to the early 1990s. At that time,
U.S. firms dominated the global market. The renewed interest in the global use of nuclear energy represents
a perishable opportunity for U.S. industry to reclaim its nuclear energy leadership. In the ever-expanding
global markets, it is essential that a reinvigorated U.S. industry be able to compete and supply nuclear
energy systems at home and abroad from a dominant, preferred supplier position. A nuclear energy revival
is long overdue. In order for the United States to prosper we can not become complacent and view the
growth of the nuclear industry as “business-as-usual.” The Unites States invented nuclear energy, and
unless the domestic outlook for nuclear energy design, manufacturing, service and supply improves,
our country will have to buy the bulk of its nuclear technology from overseas and forgo multibillion-
dollar opportunities. Therefore, the Council is working to promote a revived domestic nuclear design,
manufacturing, service and supply industry that will result in:
o the creation or retention of American jobs and factories;
o improved American economic competitiveness and shareholder returns; and
o greater leverage for the U.S. in dealing with global proliferation concerns.
Nuclear energy represents not just business opportunities but employment opportunity — more than
one million jobs could be created in the United States if American firms capture a significant share of
the growing global nuclear energy market. The Council also encourages policymakers to pay close
attention to the ability of the U.S. educational system to meet the anticipated demand for reactor designers
and operators, as well as the trained construction, manufacturing, and maintenance workers who will be
needed to build, operate, and service new nuclear plants in the U.S. The Council encourages greater
education on these issues along with a restoration of American leadership in nuclear energy--urging
our nation’s political, industry, financial and labor leaders to adapt and support policies and programs
that will help ensure America’s nuclear leadership is restored.
5. Our advantage impacts exacerbate poverty even more if they are not solved: Global
warming will only increase it because of lack of resources and not solving for proliferation
will lead to wars which will also lead to a lack of resources especially for the poor.
SDI 2008 p. 94 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing
nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to
debate it.
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici
Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-
4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM
“It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change
must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on
policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as
other nations have done,” he continued.
SDI 2008 p. 95 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
The topic paper authors explicitly addressed nuclear power and made a distinction between
renewables and alternative energy.
McComas and Burgett, topic paper authors,’07 (Pam, Topeka High School, and Cindy, Washburn
Rural High School, twm, Summer,
http://www.nfhs.org/Core/ContentManager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/Energy.pdf)
How Can the Problem Be Solved? Despite what appears to be a fairly grim outlook where energy availability,
sustainability, and security (as well as environmental issues connected to energy) are concerned, there are a
number of ideas that have been proposed to move the United States away from its addiction to fossil
fuels. These fall generally into two broad categories: increasing the use of renewable and alternative
energy sources, and conservation measures. 5 There are a vast number of renewable and alternative
energy sources that are or may be more environmentally friendly and more sustainable, and there is a great
deal of research that has already been done on the viability of these proposals. Biofuels – specifically the use
of ethanol from corn and other crops – are currently generating a great deal of interest, especially in states
that have large agricultural interests. While these sources are sustainable and (usually) cleaner than fossil
fuels, there is some debate about whether or not these sources actually take more energy to produce than they
themselves provide in the end. Increasing the use of ethanol would boost the economies of agricultural states,
but it could ultimately create food shortages for livestock and humans as well. Solar energy has been a
popular idea for nearly four decades. The technology needed to use solar panels on homes and other
buildings to generate electricity and heat has improved greatly, although the costs to build such systems are
still high. Solar energy is quite reliable in some geographical regions, and less so in others. One of the
drawbacks of solar energy plans is that the technology is not yet available to produce vehicles that run on
solar energy, thus failing to decrease the need for crude oil and other petroleum products for the
transportation sector. Wind, water, and geothermal energy systems have improved over the years and there
are a number of possible affirmatives that might adopt these systems. There is excellent evidence on both
the affirmative and negative for any of these options, including both positive and negative environmental
impacts generated by their use. Clean coal technologies are of interest in the status quo and while these are
not “renewable” sources of energy, coal is readily available and plentiful in the United States. The coal
industry is pursuing new methods of burning coal that do not pollute the environment. Nuclear energy is an
option that has been largely undeveloped in the United States in the last two decades. While it is “clean”
in many ways, it does produce radioactive waste, the disposal of which the US has yet to fully address.
A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for
America's energy game plan.
SDI 2008 p. 97 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
It’s not a voting issue – this topic is about solving global warming and only increasing
nuclear power can do that. Our aff is at the core of the topic they should be prepared to
debate it.
United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 11-28-2007, “Domenici
Applauds Latest Nuclear Plant Application”,
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_Id=2232a384-f629-
4ad6-ad95-35b0b158b4aa, CM
“It has been obvious to me for quite some time that any serious effort to address global climate change
must have nuclear energy as its centerpiece. Nuclear power is clean, safe, and efficient. As we work on
policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must continue to support nuclear energy just as
other nations have done,” he continued.
SDI 2008 p. 99 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
The topic paper authors explicitly addressed nuclear power and made a distinction between
renewables and alternative energy.
McComas and Burgett, topic paper authors,’07 (Pam, Topeka High School, and Cindy, Washburn
Rural High School, twm, Summer,
http://www.nfhs.org/Core/ContentManager/uploads/PDFs/SDTA/Energy.pdf)
How Can the Problem Be Solved? Despite what appears to be a fairly grim outlook where energy availability,
sustainability, and security (as well as environmental issues connected to energy) are concerned, there are a
number of ideas that have been proposed to move the United States away from its addiction to fossil
fuels. These fall generally into two broad categories: increasing the use of renewable and alternative
energy sources, and conservation measures. 5 There are a vast number of renewable and alternative
energy sources that are or may be more environmentally friendly and more sustainable, and there is a great
deal of research that has already been done on the viability of these proposals. Biofuels – specifically the use
of ethanol from corn and other crops – are currently generating a great deal of interest, especially in states
that have large agricultural interests. While these sources are sustainable and (usually) cleaner than fossil
fuels, there is some debate about whether or not these sources actually take more energy to produce than they
themselves provide in the end. Increasing the use of ethanol would boost the economies of agricultural states,
but it could ultimately create food shortages for livestock and humans as well. Solar energy has been a
popular idea for nearly four decades. The technology needed to use solar panels on homes and other
buildings to generate electricity and heat has improved greatly, although the costs to build such systems are
still high. Solar energy is quite reliable in some geographical regions, and less so in others. One of the
drawbacks of solar energy plans is that the technology is not yet available to produce vehicles that run on
solar energy, thus failing to decrease the need for crude oil and other petroleum products for the
transportation sector. Wind, water, and geothermal energy systems have improved over the years and there
are a number of possible affirmatives that might adopt these systems. There is excellent evidence on both
the affirmative and negative for any of these options, including both positive and negative environmental
impacts generated by their use. Clean coal technologies are of interest in the status quo and while these are
not “renewable” sources of energy, coal is readily available and plentiful in the United States. The coal
industry is pursuing new methods of burning coal that do not pollute the environment. Nuclear energy is an
option that has been largely undeveloped in the United States in the last two decades. While it is “clean”
in many ways, it does produce radioactive waste, the disposal of which the US has yet to fully address.
A solid, viable alternative energy source such as nuclear would be a badly needed shot in the arm for
America's energy game plan.
SDI 2008 p. 101 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT T – Substantially
1. We Meet: Hippel and Furguson say that there already are incentives towards NP now –
but they are not enough, only the plan would be substantial
4. We Meet Counter Interpretation – Burns says that industry officials say this would be a key incentive increase
6. Topicality is not a voter – Competing interpretations is a race to the bottom and Reasonability is a better
method to evaluate T – they get their ground. Potential abuse is not a voter, only vote on in round abuse.
7. we meet any reasonable interpretation of substantial – our 1ac evidence says that the repository would be a
financially substantial incentive and it would cause a massive expansion of nuclear power so we are substantial
in multiple ways.
SDI 2008 p. 103 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
GNEP
Passing GNEP will strengthen ties with Russia
State Department Press Release ‘8, 6/13, “Speeches: Agreement Between the United States and Russia for
Cooperation in the Field of Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy”, Lexis, tk
Growing energy needs and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions have increased international demand for
nuclear power, which in an increasingly globalized nuclear industry places a premium on working with
foreign partners. In addition, nuclear nonproliferation and the need to prevent nuclear terrorism are at the top
of the U.S. national security agenda, including with Russia, generating strong interest in the development of
more proliferation-resistant nuclear technologies and approaches to the fuel cycle that can be advanced
through cooperation between the U.S. and Russia. Upon entry into force, this agreement would establish a
legal basis for what we expect to be mutually beneficial peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United
States and Russia. Some U.S.-Russia cooperation is already ongoing on nuclear safety and security, and
Russian commercial nuclear fuel sales to the United States under the HEU Agreement. We believe that this
existing cooperation will be enhanced by having this agreement in place. At the same time, the agreement
looks to additional possibilities in the future, both commercial and government-to-government. It establishes
a framework of nonproliferation conditions and controls for transfers of civil nuclear commodities between
the two countries, but in itself it does not deal with specific projects. Implementation of this agreement would
take place on the basis of export licenses issued in conformity with the requirements of U.S. law and policy
at the time the license is applied for. For the United States, having the agreement in place will provide a
framework for potential commercial sales of civil nuclear commodities like reactor fuel and major reactor
components to Russia by U.S. industry. Under Russia's export system such commodities may be transferred
to the United States without such an Agreement (and in fact are taking place right now). Having the
Agreement in place will rectify an imbalance between the two countries in terms of the legal structure
available to accommodate commercial opportunities for the United States. The Agreement would facilitate
greater U.S.-Russia cooperation in developing technologies that are important to advancing our nuclear
nonproliferation objectives under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), where we are seeking to
cooperate with other nations to develop new technologies like advanced reactors that would consume
plutonium and new forms of recycling spent fuel that would reduce the risk of proliferation by not separating
plutonium that could be diverted for use by rogue states or terrorists for nuclear weapons. In areas like
advanced fast burner reactors and advanced nuclear fuel and fuel cycle facilities, Russia possesses experience
and facilities not widely available in the United States. For example, the Department of Energy would like to
send advanced fuel for testing in Russian fast neutron reactors, but can only do so with a 123 Agreement in
place. The Agreement also advances mutual nonproliferation goals by facilitating the transfer of nuclear
materials for forensic purposes in potential nuclear smuggling cases.
Passing GNEP will increase alternate energy innovation at the university level
Opar ‘8, Alisa, staff writer for Plenty magazine, Plenty magazine, 5/29, “In Depth: Can nuclear waste be
recycled?”, Lexis, tk
Through this Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), the Department of Energy is awarding tens of
millions of dollars to industry, federal labs, and universities for developing the technology needed to get the
first American recycling facilities and reactors up and running by 2025. In April, the agency announced up to
$7.3 million for advanced reactor research, and publicized an agreement with the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA), which operates six nuclear reactors, to explore fuel recycling. "We're just getting started, but the
project is going to yield technical information used to develop national implementation strategies to manage
nuclear fuel," says TVA spokesman Gil Francis.
SDI 2008 p. 104 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
*******MORE NEGATIVE*******
SDI 2008 p. 106 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
The United States Federal Government should coordinate with Russia to create an
international depository for nuclear waste in Russia.
The counterplan solves the case and avoids politics, terrorism and all of our Yucca bad
arguments.
Observation 3 Solvency
Russia has focused on reliable storage of spent nuclear fuel and has taken vital steps to
ensure success including matters of an international repository that can prevent
proliferation and reduce the risk of terrorism.
Glenn Schweitzer and Kelly Robbins, Editors, Committee on Issues in Consolidating Spent Nuclear Fuel at
International Storage Sites, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, National Research Council, 2008,
National Academy of Sciences, “Setting the Stage for International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities:
International Workshop Proceedings”, rks, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12191.html.
Recognizing the serious potential consequences of radiation terrorism, Russia’s leaders and public
have focused constant attention in recent years on the reliable long-term (50-100 years) storage of spent
fuel as one of the most important elements of the fuel cycle. Important steps have been taken with
regard to international efforts in the scientific-technical, socioeconomic, and legal sectors, including
matters related to the creation of a regional international spent fuel storage facility in Russia. In our
opinion, multinational agreements on the creation of a spent fuel storage facility in Russia could be
implemented under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Here we are counting on
the fact that creation of such a facility will entail application of the world’s best technologies for design
and implementation of the storage process to ensure the safety of the population and reliable physical
protection of the materials, transportation, high-quality containers, methods for analyzing the
condition of the fuel rods, licensing and guarantees, hiring and training of personnel, site selection,
provision of accounting and control of operating status, and possibilities for professional exchanges
with other similar facilities. We proceed based on the belief that the creation of international regional
spent fuel storage facilities will undoubtedly promote nonproliferation of nuclear materials and should
be categorized as an antiterrorism measure.
SDI 2008 p. 107 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Transporting nuclear waste internationally is safe. It’s subject to stringent IAEA and IMO
standards ensuring no terrorism or accidents.
Glenn Schweitzer and Kelly Robbins, Editors, Committee on Issues in Consolidating Spent Nuclear Fuel at
International Storage Sites, Office for Central Europe and Eurasia Development, National Research Council, 2008,
National Academy of Sciences, “Setting the Stage for International Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Facilities:
International Workshop Proceedings”, rks, http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12191.html.
Prior to providing consent for retransfer, the United States would further have to be assured that the
material would be handled safely in transit. Sea transport of radioactive materials is routinely carried
out with an exceptionally high degree of safety and security, in compliance with stringent IAEA and
International Maritime Organization standards. Nevertheless, such shipments are highly controversial,
and some coastal and small island states are increasingly vocal in calling for greater regulation or an outright
ban. Attempts to ship through international choke points, like the Panama Canal, the Straits of Malacca, or
the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, could risk attempts to pose unilateral restrictions or even attempts at
interception by protestors. Large-scale movement of nuclear material from a port to a repository, via
road or rail, might prove to be a challenge for many nations’ infrastructures and can be another focal
point for protests. However, the technology for the transport casks is well established, and any
foreseeable incidents are not likely to pose a safety risk.
Only a Russian waste repository can gain international acceptability from nations and
agencies; this will increase the trade of wastes and boost safety.
Neil Chapman and Charles McCombie, Arius Association, IBC Conference, June 2007, Arius Association
for International and Regional Underground Storage, Switzerland, “Is Now the Time for Regional Repositories?”,
rks, http://www.arius-world.org/pages/pdf_2006_7/01_Chapman_IBC_London_June_2007.pdf.
3. International acceptability is essential, in particular to the European Union and the United States.
Disposal outside the EU is not current EU policy and the USA has strict requirements for US-flagged
materials. Any country (or group of countries) would have to present the scheme’s credentials to their
own public and institutions with great commitment. Acceptability will depend upon the scheme being
openly executed to the highest technical standards being developed internationally, using appropriate
best available technology and being subject to international monitoring. At present, politicians and the
public tend to prefer national options, arguing that this enables closer control of possible environmental and
safety impacts. It will only be possible to gain support for export if Russia can demonstrate clearly that
there will be no relaxation of standards. 4. Economic advantages for user and supplier. Any scheme must
benefit both implementer and user economically. If the previous requirements are met, Russia stands to
benefit substantially by charging appropriate rates for a service not currently available anywhere else. The
approach to compensating host communities willing to accept an international responsibility needs to be set
out clearly, so that users are convinced of the equity of the scheme. Offering a service that enhances global
security and helps small countries to meet their waste management responsibilities can also bring significant
political advantages. Users should be prepared to pay for avoiding the problems and unpredictable costs of
running their own national disposal programmes, which can take decades and might never even reach a
successful conclusion. Disposal prices will thus be significant but, owing to the huge economies of scale in
repository implementation (e.g. as estimated in the SAPIERR-1 project), they may still be less than small
nuclear countries would have to pay for a national repository. 5. Long-term availability of facilities should be
guaranteed for user countries. The facilities offered by Russia may be unique. If so, they need to be
available over the period that wastes will be generated by user countries, so that all wastes for geological
disposal can be exported – otherwise their national problems are not solved. This point is very important for
some Central and Eastern European countries that began a nuclear power programme under the assumption
that spent fuel would be returned to the USSR – an option that was later withdrawn. 6. International support
and recognition. If the scheme proves internationally acceptable (point 3, above) then the major nuclear
nations and international agencies and associations (IAEA, OECD-NEA, WNA) should throw their weight
behind it, acknowledging that Russia would be providing a service that will enhance global security
and safety. These organisations can promote groups to help establish and guard the rights of the
various parties to any waste transfer agreements.
SDI 2008 p. 110 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
AT CP causes Iranian proliferation – turn trying to create a wedge between Russia and
Iran just undermines antiproliferation efforts.
Pavel Podvig, A physicist trained at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Podvig works as a research associate at Stanford
University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. His expertise is in the Russian nuclear arsenal, U.S.-Russian relations, and
nonproliferation. In 1995, he headed the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Research Project, editing the project’s eponymous book, which
provides an overview of the Soviet and Russian strategic forces and the technical capabilities of Russia's strategic weapon systems, 5-22-
2008, National Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Don't block U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation”, rks,
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/dont-block-us-russian-nuclear-cooperation.
But Congress will be disappointed if it thinks this will hinder Iran's nuclear program. Russia is helping
Tehran construct a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, which has nothing to do with uranium enrichment--the
most serious proliferation danger. Theoretically, Russia could use Bushehr as leverage to influence
Iran's position on enrichment, but there are limits to that type of pressure. And at this point, any attempt
to stop the Bushehr reactor could harm nonproliferation not help it: The international community is
trying to assure non-nuclear states that they will have reliable access to civilian nuclear power; to do
so, it must prove that these commitments are safe from U.S. political pressure.
SDI 2008 p. 111 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
Undermining the US-Russian nuclear agreement over Iran would spur nationalists in
Russia.
Pavel Podvig, A physicist trained at the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Podvig works as a research associate at Stanford
University's Center for International Security and Cooperation. His expertise is in the Russian nuclear arsenal, U.S.-Russian relations, and
nonproliferation. In 1995, he headed the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces Research Project, editing the project’s eponymous book, which
provides an overview of the Soviet and Russian strategic forces and the technical capabilities of Russia's strategic weapon systems, 5-22-
2008, National Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Don't block U.S.-Russian nuclear cooperation”, rks,
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/pavel-podvig/dont-block-us-russian-nuclear-cooperation.
Moreover, by blocking the U.S.-Russian agreement, Congress would undermine those in Russia who
are arguing that Moscow should position itself as a responsible supplier of nuclear services and help
the international community limit the scale of Iran's nuclear program. In addition, it would reinforce
an already popular view in Russia that Washington is an unreliable partner who is determined to limit
Moscow's access to Western markets. In other words, congressional disapproval would weaken pro-U.S.
forces in Russia and empower those who engage in confrontational anti-American rhetoric. This is hardly a
smart policy.
SDI 2008 p. 112 of 113
WHAM! AFF Nuclear Waste Disposal– Supplement 1.0
DA Terrorism – Impacts
An attack on a nuclear power plant would cause extinction and if it didn’t those who lived
would envy the people who died.
Wasserman, author of The Last Energy War, ’01 (Harvey, Oct. 10,
http://www.newhumanist.com/nuclear.html, twm)
No sane nation hands to a wartime enemy atomic weapons set to go off within its own homeland, and then lights the fuse. Yet as
the bombs and missiles drop on Afghanistan, the certainty of terror retaliation inside America has turned our 103 nuclear power
plants into weapons of apocalyptic destruction, just waiting to be used against us. One or both planes that crashed into the
World Trade Center on September 11, could have easily obliterated the two atomic reactors now operating at Indian Point,
about 40 miles up the Hudson. The catastrophic devastation would have been unfathomable. But those and a hundred other
American reactors are still running. Security has been heightened. But all are vulnerable to another sophisticated terror attack
aimed at perpetrating the unthinkable. Indian Point Unit One was shut long ago by public outcry. But Units 2 & 3 have operated
since the 1970s. Back then there was talk of requiring reactor containment domes to be strong enough to withstand a jetliner
crash. But the biggest jets were far smaller than the ones that fly today. Nor did those early calculations account for the jet fuel
whose hellish fire melted the critical steel supports that ultimately brought down the Trade Center. Had one or both those jets
hit one or both the operating reactors at Indian Point, the ensuing cloud of radiation would have dwarfed the ones at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The intense radioactive heat within today's operating reactors is the hottest
anywhere on the planet. So are the hellish levels of radioactivity. Because Indian Point has operated so long, its accumulated radioactive
burden far exceeds that of Chernobyl, which ran only four years before it exploded. Some believe the WTC jets could have collapsed or breached either of
the Indian Point containment domes. But at very least the massive impact and intense jet fuel fire would destroy the human ability to control the plants'
functions. Vital cooling systems, backup power generators and communications networks would crumble. Indeed, Indian Point Unit One was shut because
activists warned that its lack of an emergency core cooling system made it an unacceptable risk. The government ultimately agreed. But today terrorist
attacks could destroy those same critical cooling and control systems that are vital to not only the Unit Two and Three reactor cores, but to the spent fuel
pools that sit on site. The assault would not require a large jet. The safety systems are extremely complex and virtually indefensible.
One or more could be wiped out with a wide range of easily deployed small aircraft, ground-based weapons, truck bombs or
even chemical/biological assaults aimed at the operating work force. Dozens of US reactors have repeatedly failed even modest
security tests over the years. Even heightened wartime standards cannot guarantee protection of the vast, supremely sensitive
controls required for reactor safety. Without continous monitoring and guaranteed water flow, the thousands of tons of radioactive
rods in the cores and the thousands more stored in those fragile pools would rapidly melt into super-hot radioactive balls of lava
that would burn into the ground and the water table and, ultimately, the Hudson. Indeed, a jetcrash like the one on 9/11 or other forms of
terrorist assault at Indian Point could yield three infernal fireballs of molten radioactive lava burning through the earth and into the aquifer and the river.
Striking water they would blast gigantic billows of horribly radioactive steam into the atmosphere. Prevailing winds from the north and west might initially
drive these clouds of mass death downriver into New York City and east into Westchester and Long Island. But at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, winds
ultimately shifted around the compass to irradiate all surrounding areas with the devastating poisons released by the on-going fiery torrent. At Indian Point,
thousands of square miles would have been saturated with the most lethal clouds ever created or imagined, depositing relentless genetic poisons that would
kill forever. In nearby communities like Buchanan, Nyack, Monsey and scores more, infants and small children would quickly die en masse. Virtually all
pregnant women would spontaneously abort, or ultimately give birth to horribly deformed offspring. Ghastly sores, rashes, ulcerations and burns would
afflict the skin of millions. Emphysema, heart attacks, stroke, multiple organ failure, hair loss, nausea, inability to eat or drink or swallow, diarrhea and
incontinance, sterility and impotence, asthma, blindness, and more would kill thousands on the spot, and doom hundreds of thousands if not millions. A
terrible metallic taste would afflict virtually everyone downwind in New York, New Jersey and New England, a ghoulish curse similar to that endured by the
fliers who dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaskai, by those living downwind from nuclear bomb tests in the south seas and Nevada, and by
victims caught in the downdrafts from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Then comes the abominable wave of cancers, leukemias, lymphomas, tumors and
hellish diseases for which new names will have to be invented, and new dimensions of agony will beg description. Indeed, those who survived the
initial wave of radiation would envy those who did not. Evacuation would be impossible, but thousands would die trying. Bridges and highways
would become killing fields for those attempting to escape to destinations that would soon enough become equally deadly as the winds shifted. Attempts to
quench the fires would be futile. At Chernobyl, pilots flying helicopters that dropped boron on the fiery core died in droves. At Indian Point, such missions
would be a sure ticket to death. Their utility would be doubtful as the molten cores rage uncontrolled for days, weeks and years, spewing ever more
devastation into the eco-sphere. More than 800,000 Soviet draftees were forced through Chernobyl's seething remains in a futile attempt to clean it up. They
are dying in droves. Who would now volunteer for such an American task force? The radioactive cloud from Chernobyl blanketed the vast
Ukraine and Belarus landscape, then carried over Europe and into the jetstream, surging through the west coast of the United
States within ten days, carrying across our northern tier, circling the globe, then coming back again. The radioactive clouds
from Indian Point would enshroud New York, New Jersey, New England, and carry deep into the Atlantic and up into Canada
and across to Europe and around the globe again and again. The immediate damage would render thousands of the world's
most populous and expensive square miles permanently uninhabitable. All five boroughs of New York City would be an
apocalyptic wasteland. The World Trade Center would be rendered as unusable and even more lethal by a jet crash at Indian
Point than it was by the direct hits of 9/11. All real estate and economic value would be poisonously radioactive throughout the
entire region. Irreplaceable trillions in human capital would be forever lost. As at Three Mile Island, where thousands of farm
and wild animals died in heaps, and as at Chernobyl, where soil, water and plant life have been hopelessly irradiated, natural
eco-systems on which human and all other life depends would be permanently and irrevocably destroyed, Spiritually,
psychologically, financially, ecologically, our nation would never recover. This is what we missed by a mere forty miles near New
York City on September 11. Now that we are at war, this is what could be happening as you read this. There are 103 of these potential
Bombs of the Apocalypse now operating in the United States. They generate just 18% of America's electricity, just 8% of our total energy. As
with reactors elsewhere, the two at Indian Point have both been off-line for long periods of time with no appreciable impact on life in New York. Already an
extremely expensive source of electricity, the cost of attempting to defend these reactors will put nuclear energy even further off the competitive scale.
Since its deregulation crisis, California---already the nation's second-most efficient state---cut further into its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a
year the US could cheaply replace with increased efficiency all the reactors now so much more expensive to operate and protect. Yet, as the bombs fall and
the terror escalates, Congress is fast-tracking a form of legal immunity to protect the operators of reactors like Indian Point from liability in case of a
meltdown or terrorist attack. Why is our nation handing its proclaimed enemies the weapons of our own mass destruction, and then shielding from liability
the companies that insist on continuing to operate them? Do we take this war seriously? Are we committed to the survival of our nation? If so, the ticking
reactor bombs that could obliterate the very core of our life and of all future generations must be shut down.