Champion Briefs

Champion Briefs
September/October 2016
Lincoln-Douglas Brief
Resolved: Countries ought

to prohibit the production
of nuclear power
Copyright 2016 by Champion Briefs, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
The Evidence Standard


The Evidence Standard

Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that
uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use
inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.
6. We will actively contribute to students understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the
goals and vision of this activity.

These seven statements, while seemingly simple, represent the complex notion of what it means
to advance students understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
The Evidence Standard ............................................................................. 3
Topic Analyses .......................................................................................... 28
Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian ................................................................................................. 29
Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur ............................................................................................... 36
Topic Analysis by Felix Tan ....................................................................................................... 45
Alternative Argumentation by Bailey Rung ......................................................................... 55

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller .................................................. 62
Evidence for the Affirmative ................................................................ 68
Anti-Proliferation AC ........................................................................................................................ 69
The elimination of nuclear power is crucial to prevent proliferation. ................... 70
The operation of nuclear power plants results in proliferation. .............................. 71
The waste created by the nuclear industry is a vector for proliferation and
terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons. ........................................................................ 72
Nuclear Industry is targeted by terrorists. ...................................................................... 73
Nuclear weapon proliferation is connected to nuclear reactor programs. ........... 74
The complete nuclear fuel cycle contained in nuclear reactors is the key step
towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons. .................................................................. 75
Nuclear energy spurs nuclear proliferation. ................................................................... 76
Nuclear energy causes proliferation. ................................................................................. 77
Nuclear energy increases proliferation- empirically proven. ................................... 78
Nuclear Reactors lead to proliferation- multiple countries prove and risks are
increased since the breakup of the Soviet Union. .......................................................... 79
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Nuclear critics have it backwards- countries do not
build nuclear weapons because they possess a reactor; they get a reactor to
develop weapons. ..................................................................................................................... 80
A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Nuclear power does not yield weapons and we ought to
focus on preventing their use, not acquisition. .............................................................. 81
A2 Anti-Prolif. AC: Nuclear power lessons the risk of proliferation by consuming
radioactive materials that could otherwise be utilized in a weapon. ..................... 82
A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Too much plutonium in spent fuel to be easily
converted into weapons. ........................................................................................................ 84
Critical Environmental Justice AC ............................................................................................. 85
The health issues that nuclear plants cause raise a host of justice issues ............ 87
Nuclear power is a threat to distributive justice--individuals living around
nuclear plants face disproportionate health risks. ....................................................... 88
Study proves--nuclear power harms distributive justice. .......................................... 89
Nuclear reactors create environmental and health risks--even during routine
operation. .................................................................................................................................... 90
African Americans are more likely to reside within emergency planning zones
for nuclear plants--they are disproportionately exposed to the risk for
catastrophic plant failure. ...................................................................................................... 91
Public participation and the right to know are essential to environmental
justice--the nuclear industrys activities remain secret and shut off from the
public. ........................................................................................................................................... 92
Environmental policymakers have failed to focus on the needs of vulnerable
populations. ................................................................................................................................ 93
Quantitative models alone fail to account for the social complexities of nuclear
power--certain disadvantaged populations will be most vulnerable in the event
of an accident. ............................................................................................................................ 94
Empirics prove nuclear power causes environmental injustices--previous
research was wrong. ................................................................................................................ 96
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

The aff defends an environmentalism of the poor, acknowledging the
socioeconomic dimensions of the struggle against nuclear power. ........................ 97
We need a materialist conception of environmentalism which acknowledges
disproportionate harms along class lines. The poor are often on the side of
nature against corporate profit. .......................................................................................... 98
There are numerous local movements rising up for environmental justice.
Environmental destruction is often unjustly distributed. .......................................... 99
AFF A2 Regulations CP: Regulations are insufficient at protecting vulnerable
populations from the effects of nuclear power. ............................................................ 100
AFF A2 Regulations CP: Simply creating more safety legislation doesnt solve the
problem. ..................................................................................................................................... 101
A2 Critical Environmental Justice AC: Regulations like right-to-know
legislation rectify environmental injustices while preserving the option for
nuclear power as a means for reducing warming. ...................................................... 102
Critical Neoliberalism AC ........................................................................................................... 103
20% of the worlds uranium is mined in Africa. ........................................................... 104
Africa is home to a multitude of uranium mines. ......................................................... 105
Uranium is full of toxins when it is initially mined. .................................................... 106
Uranium is toxic to consume. .............................................................................................. 107
Uranium mining has the ability to cause conflict. Multiple warrants. .................. 108
Uranium mining causes serious threats to individuals. ............................................ 109
Uranium mining specifically hurts countries that are currently experiencing
periods of instability. ............................................................................................................. 110
Uranium mining causes lung cancers. Meta-analyses prove. ................................... 111
Uranium mining has connections to lung cancer. ........................................................ 112
Uranium mining poses serious threats to health. ........................................................ 113
62% of uranium comes from three suppliers. .............................................................. 114
Demand for uranium is increasing. .................................................................................. 115
There are serious environmental harms from uranium mining. ........................... 116
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

Uranium mining disproportionately hurts minority groups such as Native
Americans. ................................................................................................................................. 117
There are health risks for mineworkers. IPPNW World Congress. .................... 118
Indigenous people are against uranium mining. ......................................................... 119
Indigenous people are filing suits against these companies for uranium mining.
....................................................................................................................................................... 120
Mining labor markets cause racial inequalities through colonialism. ................. 121
Increased need for natural resources causes an increase of use of indigenous
lands. ........................................................................................................................................... 122
A lot of natural resources are located on the lands of indigenous populations.123
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal mining risks are higher than nuclear power
risks. ............................................................................................................................................ 124
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal mining causes loss of environment and
biodiversity. Worse impacts than the AC. ....................................................................... 125
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal mining causes serious water damage. Worse
than the AC impacts for all individuals, especially those living near mines. ...... 127
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal and uranium mining have always hurt
indigenous populations because they do not receive any of the benefits. .......... 129
Critical Sustainability AC ........................................................................................................... 130
Nuclear Power is dependent on fossil fuels and produces substantial CO2
Emissions. .................................................................................................................................. 131
Nuclear Power is not sustainable and trades off with genuine renewables. ...... 132
Thermal pollution from nuclear power eviscerates ecosystems and the
atmosphere. .............................................................................................................................. 133
Fossil fuels are required to run nuclear plants and mine the uranium- results in
massive CO2 Emissions. ........................................................................................................ 134
Uranium mining produces CO2 emissions and becomes increasingly energy
intensive. .................................................................................................................................... 135
Nuclear power leads to water shortages and therefore droughts and
desertification. ......................................................................................................................... 136
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

Spent fuel stored at Yucca Mountain could become a nuclear volcano sending
radioactive waste miles into the sky. ............................................................................... 137
Yucca Mountain is located within an active volcanic field. ....................................... 138
Nuclear waste outweighs carbon emissions. ................................................................. 139
Catastrophe caused by nuclear waste becomes more certain as time goes on. . 140
Nuclear Waste lasts longer than effects of Climate Change. ..................................... 141
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to
carbon based energy. ............................................................................................................. 142
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Banning Nuclear Power derails any possible clean
energy revolution. .................................................................................................................. 143
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear energy is vital to combating climate
change and extinction. .......................................................................................................... 144
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Anti-Nuclear rhetoric is driven by Hollywood
inspired fear- Nuclear Power is necessary is to prevent climate change. ........... 146
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Only nuclear power can halt warming. ............... 147
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Climate Change outweighs. ..................................... 148
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear power cuts emissions. .............................. 149
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: No risk of groundwater leakage. ........................... 150
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: No risk of earthquakes and volcanoes. ............... 151
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear Energy is the only alternative the avoids
climate change. ........................................................................................................................ 152
A2 Critical Sustainability: Nuclear power is key to transitioning from coal. .. 153
Critical Techno-Management Bad AC .................................................................................... 156
The abstraction of capital that allows humans to separate themselves from
nature cannot be the focal point of human development. ........................................ 157
A radical shift in our human and Earth degrading economic system must begin
with a challenge to the human-centric world view. .................................................... 158
Nuclear disasters highlight the fallibility of human technological solutions. .... 159
Nuclear power must be examined through its influence on unequal human and
environmental power relations. ........................................................................................ 160
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

Nuclear disasters harm organic agricultural industries. .......................................... 161
The capitalist drive to control is based on the desire for mastery over nature.162
Policy shaped by economic interests always quantifies risk improperly. .......... 163
Corporations use a scientific monopoly on objectivity to technicize discourse in
an attempt to maintain power. ........................................................................................... 164
Nuclear power is gaining traction at the expense of human health. ..................... 165
There is no net decrease in carbon emissions as a result of nuclear power. ..... 166
There is disagreement on the direction of influence between civilization and
technology. ................................................................................................................................ 167
Technological trends are super predictable. ................................................................ 168
The military has powerful selection pressures that allow it to influence
sociotechnical life. .................................................................................................................. 169
Mining for uranium is environmentally disastrous. ................................................... 170
The radiological effects of uranium mining can cause economic, ecological, and
health damage to communities and surrounding areas. ........................................... 171
Mining increases GHG emissions. ...................................................................................... 172
Spent fuel storage creates long term ethical and environmental concerns. ...... 173
Reprocessing fails to eliminate waste or prevent terror attacks with dirty
bombs. ......................................................................................................................................... 174
Technology is complicit in humanities problems. ....................................................... 175
There are social and political tensions between the general population and the
government due to divergent interests. .......................................................................... 176
The energy debate encompasses the whole process of energy production and
consumption. ............................................................................................................................ 177
There are four warrants for why energy is of primary governmental concern.178
Failing infrastructure makes nuclear failure inevitable. .......................................... 179
Nuclear power can have multiple relevant interpretations of sustainability
applied to its processes. ....................................................................................................... 180
Humans will face deferred consequences for GHG emissions. ................................ 181
Values determine our interactions with technology. ................................................. 182
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

Humans always position themselves at the forefront of impact calculus. Scholars
wishing to breakdown anthropocentric approaches should isolate holistic
impacts. ...................................................................................................................................... 183
The process of nuclear energy production is fraught with safety concerns. ...... 184
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Nuclear power is necessary. ............ 185
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Renewable energy cant replace
nuclear power. ......................................................................................................................... 186
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Nuclear plants are safe. ..................... 187
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Only nuclear power can meet human
needs. .......................................................................................................................................... 188
Indigenous Persons Harmed AC .................................................................................................. 189
Uranium extraction harms indigenous people--the nuclear industry has violated
natives rights. .......................................................................................................................... 191
Australia proves--uranium companies are not respecting aboriginal rights. .... 192
Nuclear waste dumping harms indigenous communities--they are subjected to
radioactive ransom. ............................................................................................................... 193
Radioactive racism against indigenous people persists in the uranium mining
industry. ..................................................................................................................................... 194
Indigenous people have lost their land rights because of the exploitative
practices of the uranium mining industry. This is essentially a nuclear war
against the Aboriginal people of Australia. .................................................................... 195
Indigenous people in Australia have rejected the idea that uranium mining is
even necessary. ........................................................................................................................ 196
Uranium mining harms indigenous people, workers in the industry, and the
environment. ............................................................................................................................ 197
Not all indigenous groups reject uranium mining--the Martu in Australia are
open to it. Indigenous groups are also usually paid royalties. ................................ 198
The US federal government and nuclear power industry target Native American
reservations for waste dumps. ........................................................................................... 199
Champion Briefs
10
Table of Contents

Indigenous people in the US have suffered immensely from uranium mining and
nuclear waste dumping. This is a clear instance of environmental racism. ....... 200
Yucca Mountain is sacred to the Western Shoshone tribe--dumping nuclear
waste there harms indigenous people. ............................................................................ 201
Tribal members health is seriously harmed by the toxins produced by nuclear
waste. .......................................................................................................................................... 202
Dumping toxic nuclear waste on indigenous lands has undermined the ability of
tribes to live in an environmentally sustainable fashion This undermines
environmental justice. .......................................................................................................... 203
The US NRC ignores how nuclear waste dumps disproportionately harm poor,
minority populations. Nuclear waste forces natives to leave their reservations,
forcing them to turn away from their sacred and traditional connection to their
land. ............................................................................................................................................. 204
AFF A2 Natives receive compensation: The nuclear industry pays off tribes to
continue their destructive activities--nuclear waste dumping harms indigenous
traditions. .................................................................................................................................. 206
AFF A2 Natives receive compensation: Impoverished natives are bribed by the
nuclear power industry to live with it. This is how nuclear power companies
set tribal members against each other, destroying their communities. .............. 207
AFF A2 Tribal Sovereignty: The nuclear power industry poses a serious threat to
tribal sovereignty--while some tribes might accept nuclear power, theyre
selling away their independence and their heritage to an unjust corporate
machine. ..................................................................................................................................... 208
AFF A2 Social Impact Assessment CP: Social impact assessment has a number of
deficiencies that hinder effective relations with indigenous communities. ....... 209
A2 Indigenous Persons Harmed AC: Not all indigenous tribes view nuclear
energy negatively--the nuclear industry knows that respecting indigenous
people is good business practice--Australia proves. .................................................. 210
A2 Indigenous Persons Harmed AC: (Social Risk CP) The nuclear industry should
engage in social risk assessment; this corrects for the failures of current social
Champion Briefs
11
Table of Contents

impact assessment and is key to a new stakeholder engagement process that
respects indigenous people. ................................................................................................ 211
A2 Indigenous Persons Harmed AC: Indigenous opposition is a business risk for
the nuclear industry--thats a sufficient incentive for the nuclear industry to get
its act together. ........................................................................................................................ 212
Nuclear Energy Bad AC .................................................................................................................. 213
Nuclear energy causes mass waste that causes radiation and creates an
unsustainable future. ............................................................................................................ 215
Nuclear energy causes toxic environmental and health damage via uranium
mining. ........................................................................................................................................ 216
Nuclear proliferation incentivizes unstable countries to proliferate nuclear
weapons. .................................................................................................................................... 217
Nuclear power incentivizes proliferation that leads to loose nukes and
terrorism. .................................................................................................................................. 218
Power plants are prime targets for terrorism leads to major meltdowns. ...... 219
Power plants are uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attacks 9/11 pales in
comparison. .............................................................................................................................. 220
Power plants are super susceptible to major accidents human error can lead to
mass devastation and damage. ........................................................................................... 221
Major accidents lead to irrevocable damage history proves. ............................... 222
An accident is inevitable more power plants increase the probability of
catastrophic meltdowns. ...................................................................................................... 223
Earthquakes in the United States threaten nuclear melt downs and
environmental disasters. ..................................................................................................... 224
Even a tiny mistake have enormous consequences trivial oversights can
produce full-scale nuclear detonations. .......................................................................... 226
Living near nuclear power plants causes cancer and devastates local
communities. ............................................................................................................................ 227
Building power plants produce massive amounts of CO2 that offsets benefits. 228
Nuclear energy isnt feasible not enough sites. ......................................................... 229
Champion Briefs
12
Table of Contents

Nuclear energy isnt feasible Uranium is limited. ..................................................... 230
Nuclear energy isnt feasible too expensive. .............................................................. 231
Nuclear energy costs and incredible amount and isnt economically viable. ..... 232
Nuclear energy deters investment and is subject to huge amounts of liability. 233
No one will invest in nuclear energy the private sector wont back it. .............. 234
Even if we lose all of our other defense the number of plants isnt possible to
build in the short time frame we have. ............................................................................ 235
Nuclear power doesnt lead to energy independence uranium still causes
interdependence. .................................................................................................................... 236
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Suggestions that power plants can explode like
nuclear bombs are based on fiction. ................................................................................. 237
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Fukushima/Three Mile Island have been overhyped
and the damage was caused by other factors altogether. ......................................... 238
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Nuclear Plants cause little to no waste and actually
prevent environmental damage. ....................................................................................... 239
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Nuclear energy is safer than all its alternatives
laundry list of reasons. .......................................................................................................... 240
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Nuclear energy is the same if not cheaper in the long
run than conventional forms of energy. .......................................................................... 241
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Tech innovation solves for nuclear waste. ............... 242
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Studies prove that the impact of radioactivity is
hyped and based on doomsday folklore. ........................................................................ 243
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Concerns of mass radioactive damage is based on
inaccurate propaganda. ........................................................................................................ 245
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: There are safe doses of radiation Greenpeace based
arguments that say its always bad are based on scare tactics. ............................... 247
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Hiroshima/Chernobyls damage wasnt because of
radiation multiple studies prove. ................................................................................... 249
Champion Briefs
13
Table of Contents

North Korea Plan ............................................................................................................................. 252
Sanctions are useless, result in nothing, and only contribute to the rise in
tensions. ..................................................................................................................................... 253
North Korea uses the excuse of energy development to advance their military
programs international efforts to curb this have consistently failed domestic
action is key. ............................................................................................................................. 254
International pressure doesnt work North Korea lies about concessions and
tightening sanctions just makes their operations more covert. ............................. 259
North Korea has the nuclear material and is on the verge of developing the
capability to deliver it via missile now is key U.S. intelligence proves. ......... 260
North Korea is developing their weapons programs for military use recent
trends prove our understanding of the countrys motivations are wrong. ......... 261
Theyve filled in major tech gaps they want the ability to strike the U.S. ......... 262
North Korea military stance is aggressive now leaders perceive a war coming
and will lash out at our allies in response to any perceived aggression. ............. 263
North Koreas nuclear program will drive a wedge between U.S.South Korea
relations. .................................................................................................................................... 264
North Koreas nuclear program leads to North Korea-South Korea reunification
under North Koreas terms. ................................................................................................. 265
Increasing U.S. presence in the region leads to Chinese and Russian backlash -
any agent CP or NATO CP still triggers our impacts. ................................................... 266
Missile defense systems exacerbates existing tensions in the region and causes
mass weapon development. ................................................................................................ 267
Missile defense programs cause proliferation and accelerates North Koreas
nuclear weapons research. .................................................................................................. 269
Missile defense programs cause economic backlash against South Korea. ........ 271
North Korea is irrational and will arbitrarily lash out now against the U.S. your
impact D doesnt apply. ......................................................................................................... 272
Champion Briefs
14
Table of Contents

North Korea only has a couple weapons now but initial development is the
hardest production will escalate quickly which has the potential to cause mass
damage globally. ...................................................................................................................... 273
Conflict leads to rapid escalation, especially with nuclear weapons leads to
massive retaliation. ................................................................................................................ 274
North Korea has historically sold weapons systems to terrorists no reason
nukes would be excluded. .................................................................................................... 275
North Korea should denuclearize based on the Tehran model. ............................. 276
Coordinated multilateral action is a key middle ground that allows for regime
survival while prompting debate that creates internal reform. ............................. 277
Obama placing pressure in conjunction with soft threats creates the motivation
to start reform. ......................................................................................................................... 278
Commissioning the World Bank to create incentives develops clarity around the
benefits of denuclearization. .............................................................................................. 279
The U.S. should place pressure to increase Chinese sanctions that creates
massive pressure by taking advantage of one of the few North Korea allies. .... 280
The U.S. should resume five party talks to pursue transformation in the North
Korean regime it creates a clear path for denuclearization. ................................ 281
The U.S. should increase deterrence capabilities in the region to counter North
Koreas missile capabilities. ................................................................................................ 282
The U.S. and U.N. should bilaterally increase sanctions creates pressure points
that drain North Korea of resources. ............................................................................... 283
The U.N. should intervene for human rights abuses those are key to their
nuclear weapons program. .................................................................................................. 284
China should cut off business from China pressures North Korea to agree to
new negotiations. .................................................................................................................... 285
We should cut off all interaction to drain the regime and cause regime change.
....................................................................................................................................................... 286
A2 North Korea Plan: No enforcement North Korea will just circumvent the
plan theyve invested far too many resources to give up now. ............................. 287
Champion Briefs
15
Table of Contents

A2 North Korea Plan: No chance they give up nuclear power they see it as key
to their survival. ...................................................................................................................... 288
A2 North Korea Plan: Status quo solves laundry list of reasons. ......................... 289
Terrorism AC ..................................................................................................................................... 290
Terrorism is increasing in the status quo....................................................................... 291
Nuclear materials have been stolen in the past. ........................................................... 292
Terrorists have the ability to launch a nuclear-type weapon. ................................. 293
ISIS poses a large nuclear security threat. ...................................................................... 294
The status quo allows for a risk of nuclear proliferation. ......................................... 295
India has significant potential security issues for terrorism in nuclear facilities.
....................................................................................................................................................... 296
There is public opposition to nuclear energy because of terrorist threats. ....... 297
Nuclear power plants pose threats for terrorist attacks. .......................................... 298
Nuclear power poses a threat for terrorist actions in the Middle East. ............... 299
Nuclear terrorism is really difficult. ................................................................................. 300
Rational terrorist organizations will steal/purchase nuclear materials. ........... 301
Nuclear power plants pose threats for terrorist attacks. .......................................... 302
Security can prevent nuclear theft. ................................................................................... 303
Nuclear materials were recently stolen from Iraq. ..................................................... 304
There are worries about a dirty bomb being developed from stolen nuclear
material. ..................................................................................................................................... 305
There are also pollution risks through theft of nuclear materials. ....................... 306
Mexico has had theft of nuclear materials this year. .................................................. 307
A2 Terrorists Steal Waste: There are security measures in the US to prevent
theft of nuclear waste. ........................................................................................................... 308
Environmental Oppression AC ..................................................................................................... 309
Inherency Nuclear power is on the rebound; market predictions are good. .. 310
Inherency: Alternatives Fail. Only a full-out ban on alleviates social and
environmental stress. ............................................................................................................ 312
Champion Briefs
16
Table of Contents

ADV1: Banning reactors is key to avoiding meltdowns radiation is disastrous.
....................................................................................................................................................... 313
ADV1: Radiation is Lethal; single meltdown exposes millions. ............................... 315
ADV1: The impact is extinction. ......................................................................................... 316
ADV2: Bans are key to stopping reactor waste contamination in Native American
lands - its unsustainable and dangerous. ...................................................................... 317
ADV2: Uranium Leeching is pervasive multiple routes to radiological illnesses
to indigenous people. ............................................................................................................ 319
ADV2: Nuclear contamination of Indigenous Land and People is global - massive
health problems make banning the only option. ......................................................... 320
FW - The role of the ballot is minimizing social harm - utilitarianism needs sideconstraints and presumption should fall to nuclear power bad. ........................... 322
Human life and dignity is a-priori - only way to experience moral agency and util
creates serial policy failure. ................................................................................................ 324
1AR Inherency - Try or Die Overview. ............................................................................. 325
1AR Inherency - Environment Impact. ............................................................................ 326
1AR Inherency - Health Impact. ......................................................................................... 327
ADV1 Meltdowns - Brink/Extinction Overview. ........................................................... 328
1AR ADV1 Meltdowns - Cultural Genocide Overview A. ............................................ 329
1AR ADV1 Meltdowns - Cultural Genocide Overview B. ............................................ 330
1AR FW - Plan Meet RoB Overview. .................................................................................. 331
1NC Frontlining DA - Link. ................................................................................................... 332
1NC Frontlining DA - Proliferation Impact. .................................................................... 333
1NC Frontlining DA - Warming Impact. ........................................................................... 334
A2 Environmental Harm. ...................................................................................................... 335
1NR Scare Tactics Indict. ...................................................................................................... 337

Champion Briefs
17
Table of Contents
Evidence for the Negative ................................................................... 338

Deontology NC ................................................................................................................................... 339
Nuclear power is a necessary alternative to fossil fuels. ........................................... 340
Terrorist attacks of facilities are unlikely in the future. ........................................... 341
Deontology has been weaponized against nuclear power. ....................................... 342
Ignoring nuclear power as an option is a deontological violation. ........................ 343
Without a viable alternative nuclear is the only ethical choice. ............................. 344
Status quo deontological ethecists have succeeded in framing public debates
against nuclear power. .......................................................................................................... 345
There is a scarcity of resources for global poverty alleviation. .............................. 346
Perm: We need deontological and utilitarian approaches to nuclear power. ... 347
Nuclear meltdown is an ethical concern. ........................................................................ 348
An outright ban on nuclear power is morally bankrupt under any system. ....... 349
Low level radiation leeks need to be weighed against GHG emission reductions
to calculate the net environmental effect of nuclear power. ................................... 350
Current waste management strategies fail to incorporate social uncertainties.
....................................................................................................................................................... 351
The Uranium supply is highly concentrated. ................................................................. 352
Restrictive trade measures that are used to ensure compliance with nuclear
safety standards are ethically costly. ............................................................................... 353
Individual actions influence the natural environment, the consequences of
which shape our perception of nuclear safety policy making. ................................ 354
Ethical questions are useful in policy making because they catalyze public
empathy towards complex environments. ..................................................................... 355
Nuclear power is vulnerable to weaponization. ........................................................... 356
Deontologists have traditionally argued against nuclear deterrence. ................. 357
It is deontologically valid for a democratic citizenry to support and insist on a
policy of deterrence. .............................................................................................................. 358
Ethics can only be determined based on likely events. .............................................. 359
Deterrence is hard to justify deontologically. ............................................................... 360
Champion Briefs
18
Table of Contents

In popular discourse sustainability is synonymous with socially and politically
desirable. ................................................................................................................................... 361
Sustainability is founded on principals of social justice. ........................................... 362
The production of nuclear power creates a problem of intergenerational justice.
....................................................................................................................................................... 363
Intergenerational justice has informed multilateral action. ................................... 364
Civilian energy production is easily weaponized. ....................................................... 365
In a moral discussion on what we ought to do for future generations, it is
important to first be aware of what we can do. ............................................................ 366
Policies regarding nuclear power should undergo extensive moral analysis. .. 367
Libertarianism NC ........................................................................................................................... 368
There are conflicting obligations with nuclear power. .............................................. 369
Three major examples of issues within the power sector and individual
autonomy. .................................................................................................................................. 370
Libertarians face different decisions. .............................................................................. 372
Libertarianism faces conflicts with the concept of nuclear power. ....................... 373
Respecting the right to property is necessary. ............................................................. 374
Recognizing and respecting property rights is necessary for morality to exist
because it defines the moral space that makes us unique agents. ......................... 375
Different concepts of libertarianism have different views of rights to natural
resources. .................................................................................................................................. 376
Right libertarianism says that agents have a right to natural resources. ............ 377
Self-ownership is a necessary part of libertarianism. ................................................ 378
Libertarianism requires a minimalist state and would thus not regulate nuclear
power. ......................................................................................................................................... 379
Regulations Counter Plan ............................................................................................................. 380
The nuclear energy industry has an impressive safety record, but regulations
should be reformed to maximize safety. ......................................................................... 381
The nuclear industry is committed to safety, but NRC requirements could be
improved in order to maximize safety benefits. .......................................................... 382
Champion Briefs
19
Table of Contents

NRC regulations are currently going astray. .................................................................. 383
A new approach to regulation, based on accurate cost-benefit analysis, improves
the safety of nuclear plants. ................................................................................................ 384
The NRC should coordinate its regulations to avoid overlap and contradictions.
....................................................................................................................................................... 385
There should be a binding agreement requiring international oversight of all
nuclear reactors--thats key to solving proliferation and nuclear terrorism. ... 386
There needs to be a binding agreement requiring international oversight of all
nuclear reactors that mitigates the risk of proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
....................................................................................................................................................... 387
The IAEA isnt currently equipped to regulate nuclear safety or provide
protection against nuclear terrorism--the IAEAs role should be expanded
accordingly. ............................................................................................................................... 388
A universal regulatory regime is key - it should be paid for through a user-pay
system. ........................................................................................................................................ 389
Expanding IAEA regulation is feasible and desirable--itll hedge against
proliferation and spur long-term transition toward non-nuclear energy. ......... 390
The counterplan represents an adaptation approach to nuclear power--that
addresses safety risks with the requisite political will. ............................................ 391
Reprocessing Counter Plan ........................................................................................................... 392
Possible Counterplan planks. ............................................................................................. 393
Reprocessing works France has been reprocessing for decades. ....................... 394
Reprocessing solves CO2 emissions and energy dependence, and Yucca. .......... 395
Reprocessing technologies exist now and better ones are on the horizon. ........ 396
Reprocessing current spent fuel could power every US household for 12 years,
and adoption would result in a nearly endless supply of energy. .......................... 397
Opening Yucca Mountain and recycling the spent fuel boosts the economy and
solves emissions. ..................................................................................................................... 398
Nuclear Reprocessing solves future energy shortages. ............................................. 399
Champion Briefs
20
Table of Contents

Recycling of nuclear waste is the safest form of disposal. France and Britain
prove. .......................................................................................................................................... 400
Reprocessing fuel reduces the amount of weapons grade material available
thereby reducing the amount of nuclear material available for weapons. ......... 401
Reprocessing stops a nuclear holocaust by providing energy security. .............. 402
Reprocessing solves nuclear waste issues. .................................................................... 403
A2 Terrorist Attacks: Reprocessing produces lower volumes of nuclear waste
which could have be repurposed for an attack. ............................................................ 404
A2 Reprocessing CP: Reprocessing leads to widespread proliferation. ............... 405
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing generates massive amounts of
weapons usable material. .................................................................................................... 407
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Preventing Proliferation is impossible with
nuclear reprocessing. ............................................................................................................ 408
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing leads to proliferation. .................. 409
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing would cause far more proliferation
and nuclear terrorism than it could reduce- it will spread reprocessing tech
globally, and its safeguards will utterly fail. .................................................................. 411
A2 Reprocessing CP: New nuclear reprocessing undermines the NPT. ................ 413
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Meltdowns cause extinction. ................................. 414
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing would increase the need for
storage and disposal of nuclear materialstechnology is centuries away from
efficient reprocessing and the volume of waste is increased by a factor of at least
20. ................................................................................................................................................. 417
A2 Reprocessing CP: Reprocessing creates weapons-grade uranium. ................. 418
Restrictions Counter Plan ............................................................................................................. 419
Demand for nuclear energy makes development inevitable which means your
impacts will either happen now or the near future no matter what creating
strict international standards for production prior to nuclear expansion is key
to solving your impacts. ........................................................................................................ 420
Champion Briefs
21
Table of Contents

Forcing executive liability is the best way to solve for accidents compliance
with standards is key to getting companies to adopting voluntary security
standards. .................................................................................................................................. 423
International actors should prevent the enrichment process to weaponize the
nuclear material allows them to access energy benefits while avoiding
proliferation ............................................................................................................................. 424
Altering the isotope can prevent countries from enriching it so it doesnt pose an
immediate threat. ................................................................................................................... 425
Fulfilling the pledges from the group of eight helps provide sufficient resources
to accelerate the program to prevent terrorism. ......................................................... 426
Phasing out HEU use in research reactors prevents weaponizing nuclear
material making the program a higher priority incentivizes the use of lowenriched uranium. .................................................................................................................. 427
Implementing protocols to improve physical security of weaponizable material
puts in safeguards that prevents theft and acquisition by terrorists. .................. 428
Implementing additional protocols of the IAEA allows for international
regulation by member states to prevent prolif. ........................................................... 429
Minimizing weapons-usable material via buying a new fuel cycle creates a
secure energy source that increases security while the research is unclear the
status quo is not an option. .................................................................................................. 430
Creating international sites for nuclear material allows for the necessary
monitoring that would solve for 99% of concerns. ..................................................... 432
Placing enrichment facilities develops transparency that creates the necessary
cooperation to check proliferation and independent countries from acting by
themselves. ............................................................................................................................... 433
The vague nature of the NPT allows for countries to get away with violations and
develop their nuclear capabilities improving the definition of what constitutes
a violation solves terrorism and proliferation. ............................................................ 435
Extending and clarifying security assurances and the basis for extending them
solves the current lack of regulation that allowed for the aff harms. ................... 436
Champion Briefs
22
Table of Contents

Developing U.S. leadership in nuclear deterrence capabilities helps solve the
challenge of new threats to the future prevention is good but having the
necessary offensive capabilities to address these threats is also key. ................. 437
Encoring analysis of non-nuclear alternatives incentivizes greater investment
that prevents the need for nuclear energy. .................................................................... 438
Dis-incentivizing government finance of nuclear projects puts it on the private
sector which lowers security risks. .................................................................................. 440
The U.S. government should end federal funding of certain nuclear projects
outlined by Sokolski this alters the dynamic in the private sector placing the
burden of funding and investment on them drastically increaseing security. .. 441
Countries circumvent official facilities will agree to regulations but will set up
equipment to nuclearize elsewhere. ................................................................................ 443
Eco-Feminism Movements Disadvantage ................................................................................ 444
The relationship between gender and nuclear politics is dynamic and heavily
influenced by contemporary hegemonic social structures. ..................................... 445
Environmental values are not heterogeneous and are extremely variant across
spatial and temporal levels. ................................................................................................ 446
A change in consciousness is already taking place challenging the dominant logic
of the Anthropocene . ............................................................................................................ 447
The growth model is being challenged in the Status Quo. ........................................ 448
Uranium mining uniquely impacts children and mothers. ...................................... 449
There is a global challenge to nuclear power now. ..................................................... 450
Alternative: Engage in abolitionist politics which is the productive refusal to
reproduce the rule of capital in all instances. This solves best for targeting and
breaking down intersecting webs of oppression. ........................................................ 451
Generic Link: Targeted attempts to challenge the logic of capital through policies
just gives the illusion of solvency. ..................................................................................... 452
Alternative: Nuclear power should be analyzed through the lens of political
ecology to better understand the uneven distribution of its benefits and harms.
....................................................................................................................................................... 453
Champion Briefs
23
Table of Contents

Alt Solvency: Political ecology illuminates the power relationships involved in
shifting nuclear discourses and practices. ..................................................................... 454
Political ecology is the most neutral analytic tool for placing nuclear accidents in
the context of larger social structures. ............................................................................ 455
Alt: Engage in a feminist analysis of nuclear power. This approach offers a rich
understanding of the politics of nuclear energy. ......................................................... 456
Gendered communication techniques are weaponized by governments to
maintain growth. ..................................................................................................................... 458
A gendered analysis of nuclear power problematizes masculine discourses
which promote patriotism and environmental degradation. .................................. 459
Uranium mining effects temporal and spacial equity. ............................................... 460
Energy is the central challenge facing humanity. ........................................................ 461
A2 Dumping. ............................................................................................................................. 462
Electricity DA ..................................................................................................................................... 463
Nuclear power is necessary to meet rising electricity demand--that provides
lasting economic benefits. .................................................................................................... 464
Electricity sales from nuclear plants generate hundreds of millions in economic
output. ......................................................................................................................................... 465
Studies prove--every dollar spent by a nuclear plant creates a positive return for
the US economy--the industry also contributes millions in tax dollars, benefitting
schools and infrastructure. ................................................................................................. 466
Study proves that nuclear power generates larger economic benefits than other
electric-generating technologies. ...................................................................................... 467
Electricity sales from nuclear reactors generate billions in value every year. .. 468
US manufacturers provide a variety of products and services for nuclear
facilities--the aff undermines manufacturing growth. ............................................... 469
Maintaining nuclear plants provides substantial economic benefits for US
manufacturers. ........................................................................................................................ 470
Construction of new nuclear plants requires billions for investment--that
generates huge demand for skilled labor. ...................................................................... 471
Champion Briefs
24
Table of Contents

Nuclear plants have generated tens of thousands of jobs in engineering and
manufacturing. ........................................................................................................................ 472
Constructing new nuclear plants gives a substantial boost to concrete and steel
suppliers. ................................................................................................................................... 473
The US has a unique opportunity to revive its nuclear sector. ................................ 474
Nuclear power is a reliable source of cheap and carbon-neutral electricity. ..... 475
Nuclear power is preferable to alternative sources for electricity generation. 476
A2 Electricity DA: Nuclear power is economically inefficient--alternatives are far
better. .......................................................................................................................................... 477
A2 Electricity DA: The nuclear industry is in dire straits--costs have increased
five-fold. ..................................................................................................................................... 478
A2 Electricity DA: Small modular reactors will not attract customers. ................ 479
A2 Electricity DA: Committing to nuclear power crowds out alternatives,
preventing a transition to a 21st century industrial structure. .............................. 480
A2 Electricity DA: Other forms of renewable energy are far more viable-prioritizing nuclear power would be a serious policy mistake. ............................. 481
The US is too dependent on natural gas for electricity--that risks major price
volatility--nuclear power is a more reliable source of electricity. ......................... 482
Electricity demand is increasing, but so is natural gas consumption--that risks
huge price spikes--nuclear power is more reliable. ................................................... 483
Nuclear plants provide reliable, carbon-free energy--theyre also key to tech
diversity which is essential to a resilient electricity sector. .................................... 484
Energy diversity is essential to meet rising electricity demand--nuclear power is
an essential part of that. ....................................................................................................... 485
Natural gas is not a clean energy solution. ..................................................................... 486
A2 Electricity DA: Nuclear power faces multiple economic challenges. ............... 487
Electricity must be reliable all day, every day--wind and solar fail because they
are not reliable. ....................................................................................................................... 488

Champion Briefs
25
Table of Contents

Global Warming DA ......................................................................................................................... 490
Nuclear power can stop global warming. ....................................................................... 491
Global warming is true. ......................................................................................................... 492
Historically, global warming has impacted economies. ............................................ 493
Temperature changes impact migration patterns. ..................................................... 494
Migration has negative impacts. ........................................................................................ 496
Global warming hurts crop production. .......................................................................... 497
Global warming hurts crop production. .......................................................................... 498
Global warming hurts the agriculture industry. .......................................................... 499
Nuclear power prevents deaths that mining would have caused. .......................... 501
Carbon emissions are lowered through the use of nuclear power. ....................... 502
Using nuclear power will prevent thousands of future deaths. .............................. 503
Uranium is abundant but people dont understand it, so they dont use it. ........ 504
Nuclear power is not the new and safe future technology to stop global warming.
....................................................................................................................................................... 505
More nuclear power plants need to be built to stop greenhouse gas emissions.
....................................................................................................................................................... 506
Many more nuclear reactors need to be built to prevent global warming. ......... 507
Nuclear power would prevent deaths and prevent GHG emissions. ..................... 508
Nuclear power resolves most issues by stopping the environmental damages of
coal. .............................................................................................................................................. 509
Climate change is increasing and nuclear energy lowers GHG emissions. .......... 510
Coal contributes to emissions for climate change. ...................................................... 511
Coal emits large amounts of carbon dioxide. ................................................................ 512
Nuclear energy is necessary to prevent global warming. ......................................... 513
We need to reduce emissions through the increase of the use of nuclear power.
....................................................................................................................................................... 514
1NR Thorium Inherency .................................................................................................... 515

Champion Briefs
26
Table of Contents

Environmental Catastrophe K ..................................................................................................... 516
The specter of environmental catastrophe justifies state surveillance and the
extension of biopolitics. ........................................................................................................ 517
The environmental justice regime results in a reduction of life into capital. .... 520
The biocentric ethic desensitizes us to human agony and results in statesanctioned systematic killing. ............................................................................................ 521
Bioethics culminates in a antihumanist outlook and places social conflict under
erasure. ...................................................................................................................................... 523
Apocalyptic Rhetoric desensitizes us to Environmental Collapse. ........................ 525
Environmental rhetoric has lost its position of objectivity. ..................................... 526
FW: the material benefits supersede the nonmaterial ones, means that their
environmental rhetoric will be hijacked for commercial interests. ..................... 527
As the outlook for the environment seems worse, complacency becomes more
normalized. ............................................................................................................................... 528
Visions of apocalypse end in annihilation and genocide. .......................................... 529
The presentation of environmental catastrophe with disparate impacts bridges
the gap between the rhetoric of environmental crises and the rhetoric of
national security, justifying military intervention. ..................................................... 531
A2 Environmental Disaster- Apocalyptic rhetoric galvanizes and interests
populations in environmental problems. ....................................................................... 532
A2 Environmental Disaster K: Apocalyptic representations lead to action by
spurring regulation. ............................................................................................................... 533
A2 Environmental Disaster K: Appeals to human survival are key to galvanize
people to protect nature. ...................................................................................................... 534
A2 Contamination Spread. ................................................................................................... 536
Champion Briefs
27
Champion Briefs
Topic Analyses
Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power
Introduction
First, I would like to welcome everyone back to the beginning of the season and say that I
am pretty excited about the nuclear power topic being picked. For those of you who plan on
competing on the national circuit, you will definitely want to prepare by a tournament to
tournament basis because what works at Greenhill may not necessarily work as well at Yale. With
that said, I think you should pick your case positions based on that expectation.
For example, for those of you who are going to Grapevine, Greenhill, and St. Marks it will
be useful to prepare for a lot of policy oriented arguments. This is because a lot of the schools who
compete near these tournaments generally run policy style arguments (e.g. Ks, CPs, DA and Plans)
come to these tournaments and often bring judges and coaches who favor these arguments.
Performative arguments are also definitely worth considering at these tournaments because A) the
utilitarian ground is amazing for the negative so it might be a smart way to avoid negatives who
are well prepped on that issue and B) these arguments have done well in the past at all three of
these tournaments. Conversely, tournaments like Yale, Cypress Bay and Bronx generally lend
themselves to a lot of debates under a truth-testing paradigm will make no mention
implementation. At these tournaments, it would be smart to brush up on your framework
arguments and theory files because you should expect a lot of dense and tricked out philosophical
positions on this topic.
Champion Briefs
29
If you expect to have a lot lay debates on this topic, do not worry. I will also dedicate
sections of my topic analysis to talking about the most strategic positions to run in front of the
average lay person. Now lets start covering interpretational issues.
Countries
Perhaps the most controversial phrase for those of you who intend to run plans on this topic
because it is difficult to find a solvency advocate that advocates for a combination of countries to
advocate for the entire resolution. One trend that I have immediately noticed that LARPers have
generally refused to defend several countries all at once, and have opted for just dealing with Tcountries means multiple countries. If you are one of those debaters that is fine, but you need to
prepare against the litany of grammar and semantics arguments that you are going to hear most
rounds.
You could also defend all countries and derive advantages from specific scenarios to
specific countries and avoid a lot of theoretical objections to the affirmative. In that case, you will
also have to deal with a lot of disadvantages and plan inclusive counter plans that will make
affirming difficult for you. Alternatively, you could defend a particular combination of countries
or organization representing a collection of countries enacting the resolution instead (like the EU,
which is currently talking about banning nuclear power). If you find an author who advocates that
a particular organization or international organization ban nuclear power, it would definitely be
advantageous to defend such a position. This interpretation of the resolutions allows you to make
simple I-meets to the usual countries t-shells because they are multiple countries, while also
allowing you to de-link out of common negative disadvantages. All that being said, people just
Champion Briefs
30
like reading theory and T and will probably find some other theoretical objection to the affirmative
anyway, but at least you will be able to avoid a lot of common objections.
Prohibit
I think the most common interpretation of common will be something like formally forbid
(something) by law, rule, or other authority given the substantial number of plans on this topic.
That being said I think it is more important to note that the way the affirmative prohibits nuclear
energy is likely going to be a subject of many theory debates, because the way affirmative bans
nuclear energy will likely affect what kind of disadvantages the negative can read. For example, a
phasing out of nuclear energy might be able to sever out of econ disadvantages or arguments about
the transition to worse sources of energy while waiting for renewables to become viable.
Affirmative Cases
Comparative Worlds Affs
As I have said in many topic analyses before, I think it is more useful to classify potential
positions by the debate paradigm they fall under. Though I could list off a bunch of countries that
might all make great affirmatives, I think it is better to focus on some features that your plan should
have on this topic. To handle the massive amount of prep that negatives will have on this topic (in
the way of generic disadvantages and counter plans), I think it is advisable to specify to a particular
country or coalition of countries in order to enforce the affirmative. This will ensure that you hit
the topicality sweet spot that allows you to avoid common negative disadvantages while also
avoiding obvious theoretical objections.
Champion Briefs
31
Another option you should consider is whether to go big (as in large or many countries) or
small (one country or small number of nuclear reactors), if you decide to specify. If you are just
shutting down a small number of reactors, you can avoid a lot of common negative disadvantages
which often rely on the argument that the affirmative is a major shift from the status quo. For
example, a common disadvantage on this topic is that nuclear power is necessary to fight global
warming. However, if you are only defending the resolution in a relatively small country like
Nigeria then affirming will not make much of a difference on that issue while still being able to
get some alternative link to extinction. However, one drawback to defending hyper-specific
positions like this is that it might be difficult to claim that affirming will solve for larger impact
scenarios.
Conversely, affirmatives that defend shutting down a large number nuclear reactors in huge
countries can probably claim larger impact scenarios but also risk equally large disadvantages for
the exact same reason. Another strategic feature I have seen on most of the consequentialist
affirmatives on this topic talk about the lack of needed resources for nuclear facilities. While not
a strong objection to nuclear power on its own, most negative counter-plans traditionally assume
that the nuclear facilities will have enough resources to run well when that often is not the case.
You should also be careful about how you select your advantage areas and make sure that your
criticism of nuclear power is an inherent part of nuclear power production otherwise counter plans
will easily resolve a lot of affirmative arguments. For example, a lot of affirmatives talk about the
harms of dumping uranium into the environment when there are lots of options the negative could
propose to dispose of waste or reprocess it to solve for the affirmative. One advantage that I have
judged that satisfied this standard related to nuclear accidents (such as the effect an accident would
have on the environment) because despite all of the safety regulations the negative can advocate
Champion Briefs
32
for there will still always be a risk of catastrophe. Given that there are so many countries and
combinations of countries that could enact the resolution I think the next best step for those doing
plan research is to check out this website to see recent development in nuclear facilities, so you
can argue that those facilities ought to be shut down.1
Truth-Testing Affs
Many who have already started researching this topic may have noticed that there is a ton
of consequentialist arguments in favor of the negative that may make it difficult to prep out every
possible negative disadvantage. A Kantian affirmative might be able to resolve this by simply
defending the resolution as a general principle though offense that is explicitly about nuclear power
will be difficult to find. That being said, you do not have to fret because you do not need your aff
to specifically discuss nuclear power; it must simply discus the principle behind the processes.
One approach might be criticizing the notion that humans can rightfully own resources (like
uranium) from the earth, which means that it is wrong to produce nuclear power because it is based
on wrongful acquisition. Though you do not have to defend implementation, there are tons of
debaters that are fully prepared to defend the existence of property rights which can make for some
difficult debate. If you are not looking to defend analytic philosophy, another approach could be
running a moral authority affirmative that argues that we should listen to people we regard as moral
experts instead. Because of the unequal and detrimental effects nuclear power production many
public figures (such as Pope Frances) who are regarded as moral authorities (or at least it could be
argued as such) have criticized the production nuclear power and have called for its abolishment.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-theworld-today.aspx.
Champion Briefs
33
Negative Cases
Comparative Worlds Negative Cases
The utilitarian ground on this topic is pretty large on this topic because global society
currently relies on nuclear energy. One argument that will be fairly popular on this topic is the coal
disadvantage. It argues that renewable resources are not ready to replace nuclear energy, so
countries will end up switching to coal which is far worse. One advantage to this disadvantage is
that most affirmatives do not compare the harms of nuclear power to other forms of energy like
coal. Usually these arguments are paired with evidence claiming that nuclear energy is needed to
fight global warming, because the affirmative cannot advocate for any alternatives to nuclear
energy. The negative has a huge variety of counter-plans that can resolve most if not all of the
affirmatives criticisms, because many affirmatives will make the mistake of getting advantages
off of harms that are not inherent to nuclear power production. For example, reprocessing the
uranium or using special storage casks might solve for the problems caused by the dumping of
nuclear waste.
Truth-Testing Negatives
Negative cases that intend to win by proving the truth or falsity of the resolution will also find
difficulty find topic specific arguments why nuclear power is good as a general principle. Instead,
the better strategy is saying that is something actively wrong about the ban the affirmative imposes.
One obvious way you could prove this is by running a property rights case, or some other
libertarian position that argues that people should be allowed to use uranium. Another viable route
could be to defend an international law NC which gives you the opportunity to up-layer the
affirmative and not read utilitarianism every round. Moreover, the Non-Proliferation Treaty clearly
Champion Briefs
34
says that states have the right to pursue nuclear power. Another negative case you could write
would criticize how it might not be reciprocal for developing countries who need nuclear power
to develop. Not only are there some strong framework arguments justifying why reciprocity
matters but you can also run this argument in conjunction with consequential impacts such as
development in those respective countries.
Concluding Thoughts
Overall, this topic definitely lends itself to a lot of generic issues (such as property rights) that
come up on a lot of topics. In which case, debaters will do themselves a world of good focusing
on specific objections to either side of the resolution, and making sure to narrow the debate down
to issues that are unique to nuclear power. Otherwise, you will get punished by the debater with
the more nuanced argument that makes your blocks irrelevant. I think this topic definitely has a
lot of potential and I hope all of you enjoy debating this season.
Good Luck!
Fred Ditzian
About Fred Ditzian
Fred Ditzian debated 3 years at Fort Lauderdale High School and had great success on
both the national and local circuit making it to elimination rounds at: Harvard, Blue Key,
Crestian, and Alta. Fred has been coaching LD since 2009 and is currently coaching Lake
Highland Preparatory School. He has recently graduated from the University of Central Florida
and is completing his Masters Degree in Public Policy Analysis at Claremont Graduate
University.
Champion Briefs
35
Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Introduction
The September-October topic is an excellent opportunity for debaters to start out the season
strong. Regardless of whether you are a novice or a high school senior veteran, there are many
tournaments on this topic to compete in. For those of you that went to camp, this topic is your time
to shine it is an opportunity for you to apply everything you learned at camp to tournaments. The
major bid tournaments on this topic are Grapevine, Greenhill, Yale, St. Marks, Bronx, Valley, and
Cypress Bay. Greenhill, Grapevine, and St. Marks have traditionally be more policy-oriented,
while Yale, Bronx, Valley, and Cypress Bay tend to be tournaments with more philosophical
positions, tricks, and theory. Nonetheless, the above tournaments will have elements of all styles
of debate. Regardless of whether you compete at large national tournaments or local tournaments,
this brief is intended to improve your chances of competitive success. I encourage you all to start
off strong!
Background
After doing some background research, I think this topic has great ground for both the
affirmative and negative. It is a more policy-oriented topic, and I envision many plans,
counterplans, kritiks, and disadvantages being read on the topic. Nuclear power has come to the
forefront of many policy discussions given the rise of nuclear weapons and need for sustainable
energy production. Thus, the core clash of this debate seems to be the fear of nuclear catastrophes
(accidents, proliferation, terrorism etc.) on the aff versus the merits of nuclear power (reduces
Champion Briefs
36
climate change, reduces oil dependence etc.) on the neg. On a philosophical level, the clash seems
to be about whether or not a prohibition of nuclear weapons can be justified to achieve a particular
outcome, or if it violates state sovereignty and state rights.
Before getting into particular arguments on both sides, lets start off with some
definitions and contextualization of the topic:
Countries there have been resolutions in the past with terms such as countries and just
governments. Since countries is plural, it seems reasonable that the affirmative must defend a
prohibition of nuclear power on balance applying to multiple countries, the principle of nuclear
prohibition, or a specific plan specifying more than one country. However, there is a debate
regarding whether or not the affirmative can specify particular countries in a plan. I think that if
affirmatives want to specify particular countries, they need to be prepared to answer the topicality
argument about bare plurals.
Ought as is true for most resolutions, the word ought often brings up many topicality
debates. The two interpretations of ought include one that interprets the resolution to be
implemented, and one that does not. It is up to you which interpretation you wish to defend. But
be prepared on the T-ought debate.
Prohibit most definitions define prohibit as prevent, or forbid.2 Although, there are other
definitions that define prohibit more specifically entailing forbidding by law.3 Based on these
definitions, I think that affirmatives that want to implement the resolution should defend a ban of
nuclear power or restrictions that would prevent the expansion of nuclear power.
2
3
Dictionary.com, Prohibit
Blacks Law Dictionary, What is Prohibit?
Champion Briefs
37
Production of Nuclear Power Nuclear power is a term of art used to describe, a form of
energy produced by an atomic reaction, capable of producing an alternative source of electrical
power.4 Nuclear power is produced through a process called nuclear fission. Nuclear fission
describes the splitting of atoms of Uranium pellets to generate heat, which spins turbines to
generate electricity.5 This is different than nuclear fusion, which combines atoms. The resolution
uses the phase prohibit the production of nuclear power, which implies that affirmatives can
defend prohibiting any action the generates electricity through nuclear fission. I think that
affirmatives that are implementation-based can only defend prohibiting the current generation of
energy, not dismantling existent nuclear weapons, since dismantling existing nuclear weapons
does not stop the actual production of energy because the energy was used to make the weapon. I
think T-production will be a popular T argument read against affirmatives that aim to destroy
nuclear weapons.
Overall, I think there are plenty of definitions and regardless of what you want to defend,
you should have some definitions handy to back it up.
Affirmative
Aff Strategy
There are many advantage areas for the affirmative. I recommend going through this
introductory list and continue researching on your own. These advantage areas can work with
philosophical frameworks, critical framing, or as a stacked policy affirmative.
4
5
The Legal Dictionary, Nuclear Power

Nuclear Energy Institute, How Nuclear Reactors Work, Knowledge Center, Nuclear Energy Institute
Champion Briefs
38
Advantage areas
1] Nuclear Weapons: There is substantial literature on the link between nuclear power and
nuclear weapons. 6 I envision many affirmativess arguing that we ought to prohibit the production
of nuclear power in order to prevent nuclear proliferation, which impacts to nuclear war. This
advantage functions best under a utilitarian calculus. The key to winning on this affirmative will
be to have very recent evidence with strong inherency, and mapped out impact scenarios. I can see
many affirmatives reading plans that specify prohibiting nuclear power in particular countries to
prevent them from getting the bomb, or affirmatives that plan to denuclearize to solve the nuclear
war impacts.
2] Nuclear Accidents: A big problem with nuclear weapons is the large risk associated with
them. There is a history of major nuclear accidents that have had enormous health risks and created
lots of environmental harm. Indeed, The Windscale accident, Three Mile Island accident,
Chernobyl accident, and Fukushima accident are a few examples that illustrate the harms of
accidents involving nuclear power plants, which can occur due to human error and natural
disasters.7 I think this type of affirmative can be strategic, especially if the affirmative contains
some sort of environmental impact. That allows the aff to weigh the case against environmental
disadvantages run by the negative.
3] Nuclear Terrorism: Graham Allison argues that nuclear terrorism, or the attack on
nuclear power plants or use of nuclear weaponry by terrorist organizations is inevitable.8 Given
Karl Grossman, "Nuclear Power/Nuclear Weapons - and a Precarious Future," Huffington Post, May 11,
2013
7
T. N. Srinivasan, and T.S. Gopi Rethinaraj, "Fukushima and Thereafter: Reassessment of Risks of
Nuclear Power," Elsevier, Energy Policy Volume 52, Pages 726-736, 2013
8
Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Macmillan Publishing,
August 9, 2004
Champion Briefs
39
the rise of ISIS and terrorism throughout the world, the risks of nuclear terrorism are very real.
Similar to the nuclear accidents affirmative, you can read this affirmative to impact to
environmental catastrophes of attacks on nuclear facilities, as well as impacts to terrorism as a
whole relevant under a utilitarianism framework.
4] Securitization: I think an interesting critical affirmative could discuss how nuclear power
has been securitized.9 The reason we fear proliferation and risks of nuclear terrorism is based on
an us-versus-them dichotomy that has justified illegitimate foreign policy agendas. There are many
empirical examples of interventions and actions we have taken in attempt to prevent a nuclear
country. Prohibiting nuclear power removes something that has been securitized, thus solving for
the multiple impacts of securitization.
5] Environmental Justice: Another very interesting aff deals with environmental justice.10
The growth of many nuclear facilities has displaced many already disadvantaged groups.
Additionally, most of the nuclear waste is dumped in poor communities, harming the least well
off. In the United States specifically, nuclear power plants adversely affect Native American
communities since many environmental regulations dont apply to their land.11 Outside of the
United States, many aborigines and poor workers at nuclear power plants are harmed by the
production of nuclear power. An environmental justice affirmative could work very well with a
critical framework or even a traditional equality framework. These affirmatives can also delve into
specific forms of oppression: orientalism, imperialism, racism etc.
Peter John Stoett, Toward Renewed Legitimacy? Nuclear Power, Global Warming, and Security,
Global Environmental Politics, Volume 3, Number 1, February 2003
10
Mary Alldred and Kristen Shrader-Frechette, Environmental Injustice in Siting Nuclear Plants,
Environmental Justice, Volume 2, Number 2, 2009
11
Public Citizen, Energy Campaign, Radioactive Racism: The History of Targeting Native American
Communities with High Level Atomic Waste Dumps, Nuclear Information and Resource Services
Champion Briefs
40
Negative
Negative Strategy
Since there are a variety of affirmatives on this topic, I think it is most strategic if negatives
have some general positions that are applicable to all affirmatives, as well as specific strategies
tailored towards specific affirmatives.
Negative Cases
1] Sovereignty NC: A pretty intuitive but extreme negative case that is pretty applicable to
most affirmatives is a sovereignty NC. The thesis behind this case is that a prohibition on nuclear
power violates the sovereignty and self-determination of states. States are responsible for accidents
and harms, but ultimately have the right to maintain the production of nuclear power.12 This
argument pairs very well with a means-based framework discussing the importance of state
autonomy.
2] Environmental Protection NC: These negatives would just center on the environmental
benefits of nuclear power. A few environmental protection scenarios are listed in the disadvantage
section. These negatives would basically be disadvantages converted to a more traditional-friendly
case format.
Counterplans
I think there is a lot of ground for counterplans aiming to directly solve some advantages
of affirmatives. There are probably many counterplans that aim to regulate dumping, counterplans
12
Anguel Anastassov, Sovereignty of States, Peaceful Nuclear Energy and Principles of International
Environmental Law, International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy, and Ecology, Volume 4,
Issue 2, 2014
Champion Briefs
41
that aim to rectify some of the harms to disadvantaged communities, and counterplans that propose
an increase in research to other forms of sustainable energy. If affirmatives specify particular
countries to defend, negatives could easily read a plan inclusive counterplan that does the
affirmative in one country, but not another.
Disadvantages
1] Warming DA: The most common disadvantage on this topic is probably a warming
disadvantage. The thesis is that nuclear power does not involve burning fossil fuels and is better
for reducing CO2 emissions. Thus, a prohibition will increase the use of fossil fuels to supply the
same demand of energy, increasing global warming. In fact, many authors, including Rashad and
Hammad, have concluded that nuclear power displaces the burning of 15.5 billion barrels of oil
worldwide.13 There is substantial evidence on the environmental benefits of maintaining the
production of nuclear power.
2] Econ DA: There is also substantial evidence on the economic benefits of nuclear power.
Nuclear power creates lots of jobs and is much cheaper to maintain than non-nuclear power
plants.14 The disad would argue that the transition towards a world without nuclear energy would
be substantial enough to trigger global economic collapse.
3] Cooperation DA: I think another interesting disadvantage area would deal with cooperation. Many nations cooperation hinges on arrangements dealing with nuclear power. With
proper evidence, I think a disadvantage that argued that prohibition of the production of nuclear
13
S.M. Rashad and F. H. Hammad, "Nuclear Power and the Environment: Comparative Assessment of
Environmental and Health Impacts of Electricity-Generating Systems," Applied Energy Volume 65,
pages 211-229, 2000
14
Nuclear Energy Institute, "Nuclear Energy's Economic Benefits - Current and Future," April 2014
Champion Briefs
42
power would hinder cooperation between two countries (since relations are based in energy) could
be strategic. These sorts of disadvantages would work best against affirmatives that specified
particular countries, and function well with PICs out of particular countries.
Kritiks
1] Security K: If the affirmative specifies a particular scenario leading to nuclear war, the
negative could read a critique of the threat construction of certain countries going to nuclear war.
This topic uniquely offers a big opportunity for negatives to find specific link evidence linking in
proliferation scenarios of particular countries described by the affirmative into the K.
2] Anthro K: I predict that some negatives will read Ks of the affirmatives ignorance of
environmental concerns, which are key to fighting anthropocentrism. Since nuclear power is a
good alternative away from fossil fuels, it is much better for the environment and attacks the
human-centric thinking that disregards the environment.
Concluding Thoughts
Again, I think this topic offers lots of ground on both sides. Regardless of your style of
debate, there are many arguments that can be made. Hopefully this brief provided a good
introduction on a variety of types of arguments that can be run, but this should not be your
ending point. I encourage you to use it as a starting point to begin your own research and find
positions you feel comfortable running.
Good Luck!
Mitali Mathur
Champion Briefs
43
About Mitali Mathur

Mitali competed in LD for 4 years at Greenhill School with success on the local, state,
and national level. She qualified to the Texas Forensics Association debate tournament three
times, placing third her junior and senior year. Over her debate career, she cleared at national
tournaments including St. Marks, Grapevine, Meadows, Glenbrooks, Isidore Newman, and
Emory. She also qualified to the TOC her junior and senior year. Mitali was honored to be a
member of the USA Debate Team, through which she placed second in the Harvard Westlake
Tournament and Holy Cross Tournament, won the Blake Tournament, and the team placed 10th
in the world at the World Schools Debating Championship held in Singapore. She currently
attends the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
Champion Briefs
44
Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.
Introduction
For many debaters, September/October tournaments are the ones that set the tone for the rest
of the season. There are a huge number of tournaments on this topic both national and local. This
is also the topic most debaters have a chance to research during summer, which means one can
(hopefully) expect higher quality evidence and deeper analysis of the topic in the competition. For
those of you preparing for early tournaments, diving into the stock issue of climate change is a
great way to begin since there are a good number of decent arguments on both sides. For the more
ambitious, do not worry: there is plenty of diversity in the literature.
Topic Background
As climate change worsens, the search for clean energy becomes increasingly a priority.
At the North American Leaders Summit in June, the three North American countries declared it
their goal for 50% of North American energy to be clean energy.15 And just a few months earlier,
in December 2015, 195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement.16 However, while commitments
are being made, the question of how still looms. Some have argued that traditional options such
as wind or solar are insufficient, and countries must make a serious investment in nuclear energy
15
Somanader, Tanya. "President Obama Goes to Canada for the North America Leaders' Summit." The
White House. The White House, 29 June 2016. Web. 08 Aug. 2016.
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/06/29/president-obama-goes-canada-north-america-leaderssummit>.
16
Paris Agreement." European Commission, 22 July 2016. Web. 08 Aug. 2016.
<http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm>.
Champion Briefs
45
to tackle climate change.17 Others argue that the risks and drawbacks of nuclear power make it a
poor solution.18 Of course, this topic definitely extends past the topic of global warming; a cursory
search will reveal the topics relation to from topics of terrorism all the way to nuclear hegemony.
Get ready to dive into it; good luck!
Interpretational Questions
Before diving into a topic, it is important to first consider what the resolution entails.
Forming strong and defensible positions on these interpretational questions can also allow you to
focus your initial prep within those limits. That makes the topic more manageable.
Countries
This is a common interpretational issue that rises in LD: does countries (plural) allow the
aff to defend specific countries? I think there are merits to both answers to this question. On one
hand, the topic does seem to be a bare plural not referring to any particular set of countries but
rather countries as a generic entity (i.e. more principled approach to the topic). To allow specific
countries would create for seemingly innumerable number of affirmatives. On the other hand, the
idea behind a plan or parametrics might justify specification. Indeed, there seems to be good
reason to prefer this approach. Whether a country should pursue or end nuclear power can be
highly contextual: Does the country have adequate infrastructure? Can the country secure nuclear
17
Mooney, Chris. "Clean Energy Is at a Critical Turning Point, and Wind and Solar May Not Be
Enough." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 7 July 2016. Web. 08 Aug. 2016.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/07/wind-and-solar-energy-aredoing-great-do-we-still-need-nuclear-power/?utm_term=.a6af3dd6cf28>.
18
Robock, Alan. "Nuclear Energy Is Not a Solution for Global Warming." The Huffington Post, 12 May
2014. Web. 08 Aug. 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/nuclear-energy-is-not-asolution_b_5305594.html>.
Champion Briefs
46
facilities effectively? Does the country have a history of using nuclear energy programs as cover
for nuclear arms programs?
Nuclear Power
The definition of nuclear power will play a big role in determining what kinds of offense
affirmatives construct. Oxford Dictionaries defines nuclear power as electric or motive power
generated by a nuclear reactor.19 This definition creates a distinction between nuclear power and
nuclear weapons. A quick search will verify that a distinction exists within the topic literature.
However, do not assume all affirmatives will agree with this distinction; be prepared to defend
against both the other interpretation and the affirmatives that fall under it.
Production
I foresee denuclearization affirmatives that include dismantling currently existing nuclear
weapons. Since production seems to imply the active making of nuclear energy, it would seem at
most the resolution would prohibit future proliferation of nuclear weapons, and does not require
dismantling preexisting weapons.
However, debaters who want to pursue a denuclearization affirmative may be able to find
a topic specific definition of production that includes denuclearization. There might also be
production related requirements to maintaining nuclear weapons that could allow the affirmative
to in effect dismantle current nukes. Furthermore, some affirmatives could even justify an extratopical action, accord, agreement, etc. that includes both the resolution and denuclearization.
19
"Nuclear Power." Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. N.d. Web.
Champion Briefs
47
Affirmative
1. Environmental Justice
A large complaint with nuclear energy is that the negative effects of nuclear energy
disproportionally affect the disadvantaged. These positions are often termed environmental
injustice. For example, Cousins et al. finds that disadvantaged populations are more likely to
experience harms of nuclear power and argues the utilitarian approach taken in nuclear policy
neglects those most disadvantaged.20 The crux of this argument is simple, however, in-depth
research that will help you develop the nuance you need to explain why counterplans that attempt
to deal with this environmental injustice fail.
An affirmative that takes this approach could have either more critical framing arguments,
such as a role of the ballot or an oppression-centered value-criterion. Alternatively, debaters can
also choose to take a more traditional route. The works of John Rawls on justice could potentially
make for a good framework for this affirmative. Using the idea of the veil of ignorance and the
difference principle, this framework could potentially argue that society ought to be structured by
principles that would benefit the least well off, which would go nicely with contention level
analysis of nuclear powers disproportionate environmental harms.
20
Cousins, Elicia, Claire Karbran, Fay Li, and Marianna Zapanta. Nuclear Power and Environmental
Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Risk, Vulnerability, and the Victim Experience. Carleton College,
2013. Web. 08 Aug. 2016.
<https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins_Karban_Li_Zapanta.pdf>.
Champion Briefs
48
2. Nuclear Proliferation
While the topic does not seem to relate directly to nuclear arms, literature documenting the
connection between nuclear power and nuclear arms proliferation exists. For example, Jim Green
argues that nuclear power has a strong link to nuclear proliferation. He provides a number of
historical examples of potential use of nuclear reactors for military purposes and refutes the
common defenses of nuclear power against this accusation.21 Some also argue that the production
of nuclear power serves as a proxy
This position can be developed in even further depth by focusing on specific countries. For
example, some worry that the recent Iran deal conceded too much to Irans nuclear energy
program, such that it could easily be converted into developing nuclear weapons.22 There are many
overlaps between producing nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, and the differences can be easily
circumvented. 23
A few things are important to note on affirmatives that specify a country. First, as mentioned
before, it may run into interpretational questions with the word countries. Second, some of these
positions might appear borderline abusive. For example, an aff could potentially have North Korea
end its nuclear program, which seems incredibly absurd and utopian especially when considering
that nuclear weapons might not even be a topical option for the affirmative. However, I think it is
21
Green, Jim. "The Myth of the Peaceful Atom - Debunking the Misinformation Peddled by the Nuclear
Industry and Its Supporters." Friends of the Earth Australia. N.p., 28 May 2015. Web. 8 Aug. 2016.
<http://www.foe.org.au/myth>.
22
Abrams, Elliot. "Iran Got a Far Better Deal Than It Had Any Right to Expect." National Review.
National Review, 15 July 2015. Web. 08 Aug. 2016.
<http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421223/iran-nuclear-agreement-john-kerry-mohammad-javadzarif>.
23
Barzashka, Ivanka. "Converting a Civilian Enrichment Plant into a Nuclear Weapons Material
Facility." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 08 Aug.
2016. <http://thebulletin.org/converting-civilian-enrichment-plant-nuclear-weapons-material-facility>.
Champion Briefs
49
perceived this way because we usually only deal with topics where the United States is the actor;
this resolution asks for all countries. Of course from the position of a U.S. policymaker, fiating the
end to Iranian nuclear programs is utopian fiat. But from the position of the Iranian policy maker,
there is no reason why the Iran plan would be anymore abusive than a plan to ban all guns in the
United States (similarly implausible).
3. Nuclear Terrorism
A case centered on the problem of nuclear terrorism can have a lot of strategic interactions
with the most common argument on the negative: climate change. There is a large amount of
literature depicting the risk of nuclear facilities being attacked.24 There is also literature fearful of
terrorists stealing materials from insecure facilities. Furthermore, given the current state of the
Islamic States prominence and international terrorism, affirmatives should not have much trouble
piecing together a solid terrorism advantage.
You should keep in mind a few things when constructing this argument. First, the negative is
the status quo, so a common question will be why havent we seen an attack yet. To help deal
with this concern you will need to win a claim that explains why the present or the near future
(without the affirmative plan) will be different from the status quo. You might argue that recent
developments in international terror make nuclear facilities more vulnerable. You can also argue
that nuclear energy is becoming increasingly more important so it is significantly more important
as a target. Finally, if the negative reads a counterplan, you can argue that the counterplan makes
24
Kuperman, Alan J. "How U.S. Nuclear Reactors Are Vulnerable to Terrorists." Global Public Square
RSS. CNN, 26 Aug. 2013. Web. 08 Aug. 2016.
<http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/26/how-u-s-nuclear-reactors-are-vulnerable-toterrorists/>.
Champion Briefs
50
nuclear energy prominent and widespread which will substantially increase the probability of
nuclear terrorism.
Negative
1. Climate Change
The core negative argument on this topic deals with climate change. There are a number of
different claims that both sides will want to win that make this debate complex, but in its essence
the argument is simple: nuclear power is necessary to help fight against climate change. The
strategic value of this argument is that it offers debaters the ability to leverage try or die. Climate
change is a serious problem that we face which could very likely spell disaster in the next few
decades. It should be easy to win a near 100% probability of the warming impact, which means
even if the affirmative can isolate a negative disadvantage to nuclear power; those impacts are
largely inevitable in a world that has not resolved climate change.
The easiest way to structure this argument is in the form of a disadvantage. The disadvantage
would have to (ideally) win 4 claims: an impact uniqueness claim that climate change is worsening,
an impact to climate change, nuclear power can reverse climate change, a uniqueness claim about
nuclear power. Elaborate the last one: this means the negative debater needs to win that nuclear
power will be used. Even if nuclear power is a great way to fight climate change and countries do
not prohibit it, if countries do not use it then it is useless.
You can win this uniqueness claim in two ways. The negative can find evidence that says
nuclear energy is becoming more and more popular. The better this evidence is at answering the
question of will the world see a shift to nuclear energy enough to deal with the issue of climate
change the better. Alternatively, the negative can read a counterplan to generate uniqueness; these
Champion Briefs
51
counterplans would try to establish and develop nuclear energy so that it is enough to deal with
the issue of climate change. I will elaborate on some examples in the counterplan section below.
2. Transition Costs
Many countries already rely on nuclear power for a good portion of their energy. Were
production to be suddenly stop, this could lead a number of economic consequences for these
countries. For example, Gail Tverberg argues that the world would see more rolling blackouts,
unemployment, and reduced tax revenue.25
Debaters might also be able to construct more specific scenarios by reading into the
specifics of countries of where nuclear power is significant. For example, India is aiming to supply
25% of its electricity needs with nuclear power by 2050. Over the past few years, their government
has been pushing its development and has accordingly become increasingly dependent on nuclear
energy.26 To suddenly prohibit something they have invested so much into would definitely carry
both economic and political consequences.
3. Counterplans
Counterplans will be incredibly important to successful negative strategies on this next
topic. Remember counterplans will rarely be sufficient by themselves; their main function is to
serve as defense or to help you win a different piece of offense. However, there are a number of
counterplans I would strongly suggest looking into.
25
Tverberg, Gail E. "What The End Of Nuclear Power Would Actually Mean For The World." Business
Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 16 Mar. 2011. Web. 08 Aug. 2016. <http://www.businessinsider.com/whatwould-be-the-impact-if-we-discontinued-nuclear-energy-2011-3>.
26
"Nuclear Power in India." World Nuclear. World Nuclear Association, 25 July 2016. Web. 08 Aug.
2016. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx>.
Champion Briefs
52
a. The Warming Uniqueness Counterplan

In order to deal with the affirmatives non-unique response to the warming disadvantage (that
nuclear energy isnt used enough to make a difference), negatives could read a counterplan that
boosts development/investment into nuclear power. One example of this is the use of subsidies for
nuclear power. Ken Silverstein, for example, argues that nuclear power is hurt by the lack of
subsidies it receives in comparison to other energy sources.27 No doubt, there are other
counterplans which would accomplish similar goals. These would allow the negative to win a
convincing try or die claim; only the negative takes a drastic action (that is mutually exclusive to
the affirmative) to revitalize our fight against climate change. In fact, affirmatives would not even
be able to leverage other forms of renewable energy against these counterplans, unless they show
that affirming would lead to more development of those other forms.
b. Environmental Justice Counterplans
These counterplans would help negatives deal with environmental justice affirmatives. The
argument would be that instead of removing nuclear power all together, countries should carefully
plan their nuclear power programs such that it does not have a disproportionate affect on
minorities. For example, the Blue Ribbon Commission Report recommended a number of steps
for the U.S. to take in order to ameliorate nuclear powers effect on minorities.28 Combining these
counterplans with the warming disadvantage and an impact that warming has on minorities could
make for a very effective negative strategy against environmental justice affirmatives.
27
Silverstein, Ken. "Environmental Leader." Environmental Leader RSS. Environmental Leader, 18 May
2016. Web. 08 Aug. 2016. <http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/05/18/if-nuclear-could-getsubsidies-like-wind-and-solar-it-would-keep-providing-clean-power-say-supporters/>.
28
High, Kristal. Nuclear Report: Impact on Minority Communities. Politic 335, 27 January 2012. Web.
08 Aug. 2016. <http://politic365.com/2012/01/27/nuclear-report-impact-on-minority-communities/>.
Champion Briefs
53
Overall Thoughts
This topic is relatively narrow (unless affirmatives specify specific countries) which means
that debates will be similar to the January/February 2016 topic and boil down to strategy, who has
the best evidence, and argument interaction. Spend a lot of time diving into the topic, but do not
forget to also take a step back and evaluate your effective strategies with the tools youve collected.
Good Luck!
Felix Tan
Champion Briefs
54
Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung
Alternative Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Meltdown: Policy and Critical approaches to the September-October HS LD Resolution
Foreword
This paper seeks to briefly analyze the 2016 September-October LD resolution from a
policymaker or critical scholars perspective and then outline avenues of argumentation. Both
research perspectives give insight into answering the moral questions surrounding nuclear power,
and into basis for offensive arguments29,30. In accordance, this paper will seek to develop nuanced
and technical positions while accounting for how issues of ecology, disasters, environmental
oppression, and market ideologies influence moral decision making and truth seeking. The specific
ACs, case strategies, and off case positions advocated for in this paper should be constructed with
a foundation discussing issues of normative ethics. Some of the best arguments regarding nuclear
power policy specifically account for moral inquiry31. This paper should frame your research into
specific policy trade-offs, social impacts, and ideological representations surround nuclear energy.
Generating a more specific list off each topic are mentioned will go a long way towards a diverse
and smart prep approach.
Strategic Implications of the Resolution
This resolution is worded in such a way to provide a deep policy debate and offer social justice
perspectives. Specifically the phrase ban production informs research by posing a negative state
29
Nuclear Power Hazard Control Policy, John C. Chicken, 2016

Critical Perspectives on Environmental Protection, Krista West, 2006
31
http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/ethical-considerations-for-the-use-of-nuclear-energy
30
Champion Briefs
55
action regarding industrial regulation. Ban specifically indicates a policy or other enforceable
action from a state perspective (Countries)32. From here we can draw two main conclusions: AThe resolution calls for global, legal action to regulate an energy market and B- The resolution
begs the question of the social implications of a policy meant to alleviate intimately human harms.
Law & Industry
As mentioned, the resolution forces research to adopt the question of policy action across
the globe to address concerns with a market. Research for both sides along these lines should
remember that the sequence of events for nuclear regulation follows as: 1- Damage to
people/environment by industry, 2- social and communal response to industry, and 3- concurring
policy response this is important as it frames the real influence of policy change and discourse
on social conditions and vise-versa33. Disadvantages and advantages should thus shy away from
tenuous and long internal link chains and instead generate and weigh impacts along
egalitarian/deontological lines. This can transpire in the form of offense regarding indigenous
peoples, the impoverished, and environmental degradation. It also means that policy-style plan and
kritik debates do not have to operate from hard utilitarian vs. extreme radical politics but can and
should be instead be approached from a contemporary leftist framing34,35. Finally, considering the
policy- and regulation-specific framing, it is important that advocacies are explicit in the
implementation and enforcement of a specific plan36.
32
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/ban
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/legal-issues-and-their-impact-nuclear-energy-development
34
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberalsdont-like-nuclear-energy/
35
http://atomicinsights.com/the-left-needs-to-reconsider-its-automatic-position-against-nuclear-energy/
36
Hendrik Wagenaar, Meaning in Action: Interpretation and Dialogue in Policy Analysis, 2011
33
Champion Briefs
56
Social Justice
The resolution also asks the question of social influences and consequences on the
morality of banning nuclear power. Understanding that the resolutions advocacy comes from a
social activist effort and idea helps begin to frame research as it intimately ties affected people to
policy action37. Accounting for this social justice perspective is crucial, as it not only allows the
clearest framework analysis, but it also impacts out to broader policies and geopolitical
events38,39. Specific implications include frameworks and their executions being less forced and
more contextual to the topic, a debate over ideologies and their influence on policy, and how to
best address concerns with human suffering. This type of pathos-heavy and people-centric
research approach is well suited to discussions of nuclear power40. This type of analysis has
strategic benefits as well. Well-constructed social justice arguments can be used to exclude
traditional policy arguments and analysis, larger policy and institutional impacts can be internallink turned from the social level, and performance and representations debates have solid
foundations in both the academic and artistic level.
Division of Ground and Burdens
When laying out the specific roles of each in this debate, it is again important to account
for the basic wording of the resolution. As usual, the phrase ought implies a moral obligation.
As mentioned, countries and ban both entail policy action. Ban also entails a negative state
action, which is important considering the social dimension of Nuclear Power. As such, the
37
http://www.nardep.info/uploads/Brief16_SocioEconomicNuclearPower.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512007628
39
Gary L. Anderson & Kathryn G. Herr, Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice, 2007
40
A. Javier Trevino, Investigating Social Problems, 2014
38
Champion Briefs
57
affirmatives role should be proving that policymaking regarding nuclear power is the logical and
beneficial extension of social justice advocacy and the negatives role should be proving that legal
regulation is bad because it either A- Harms or disrupts broader social justice interests or Bbecause it outweighs those social justice interests.
The affirmative is advantaged in the sense that they coopt most of the individualized
elements of debate literature and performance while still answering the key ethical question of the
debate. The affirmative however must be careful to justify their policy as appropriate considering
status quo social justice movements and more moral than the utilitarian considerations of nuclear
power.
The negative has the luxury of choosing to Out-Left the affirmative as well as outweigh
the affirmative with big-stick impacts based on policy trade-offs that the negative will justify as
important. The negative should be mindful to sound persuasive and ethical when taking the latter
approach, and to avoid sounding outmoded on the former approach.
Affirmative Arguments
Critical Affirmatives
Environmental Racism: A good amount of literature discusses the effects of nuclear power
and dumping on indigenous people and other people of color41,42. There is ample ground to defend
a policy advocacy that claims the race and even class based violence impacts and weighs them as
most important.
41
https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins_Karban_Li_Zapanta.pdf
http://thegrio.com/2012/01/25/nuclear-plants-and-cancer-epidemics-in-a-poor-black-georgia-townenvironmental-racism-in-the-21st-ce/
42
Champion Briefs
58
Deep Ecology: A few notable environmental and social policy experts and their work
would agree to closing nuclear power plants given a harsh stance on sustainability and transition
rhetoric43,44. These positions can range from prioritizing the health of the environment to
collapsing industrial society to reconnect to it.
Performance: There is substantial room for a pre-fiat aff the claims performative benefits.
Specific literature exists that advocates for poetry performance on environmental issues, and both
subjects are discussed in the context of nuclear power45,46. This affirmative should prioritize
arguments about how performances interact with our relationship with the environment and our
ideas about the natural world.
Negative Arguments
Kritiks
Ecopessimism: Ecopess refer to the argument that the environmental is already upon us an
is unavoidable, and that policy solutions are palliatives to social consciousness. In a sense, banning
nuclear power is bad because it shifts and exacerbates methods of degradation which is
inevitable, but we are being directed away from that. While Chen47 concludes against
ecopessimism, he offers a fair and thorough rundown of the argument and its answers.
Movements: A criticism focused on social activism and its interaction with policy provides a smart
avenue into critical arguments about nuclear power48. It is fairly easy to find link literature that
43
Ralf Fcks, Green Growth, Smart Growth: A New Approach to Economics, Innovation and the
Environment, 2015
44
Timothy Luke, Screens of Power: Ideology, Domination, and Resistance in Informational Society, 1989
45
http://grist.org/article/hass/
46
Jennifer Ashton, The Cambridge Companion to American Poetry Since 1945,
47
Jim Chen, The Jurisdynamics of Environmental Protection, 2003
48
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-nuclear-movement
Champion Briefs
59
would argue a policy action to ban nuclear power is a palliative and saps capital out of broader
environmental movements.
Disadvantages
Oil/Coal Shock: A fairly intuitive disadvantage approach is to argue banning nuclear power
forces countries to the next easiest sources oil and coal. The impacts can stem from ChinaHegemony to Middle East power wars with global warming along the way.
Hegemony: The negative has friends in IR theorists writing about the topic. Literature discussing
how nuclear power is key to arsenals, science diplomacy, and anti-proliferation is extant can be
implicated out to nuclear conflict and power wars and state collapse.
Good Luck!
Bailey Rung
About Bailey Rung
Bailey is a 2014 graduate of Blaine HS in Minneapolis, MN. Bailey spent his 4-year
career competing in a variety of events, but his true passion lies in Congressional Debate because
of its dynamic nature and challenging format. Some of his highlights include competing in and
presiding semis at ToC and NSDA, as well as finals at Minneapple, Dowling, Blake, and
Harvard. Additionally, Bailey has earned multiple leadership bowl awards and round robin
placements. As a coach, Bailey has helped bring students to MSHSL States, ToC, and Nationals,
and his lab students in Congressional Debate at CBI have made it to outrounds at Glenbrooks,
Blake, Apple Valley, Harvard, Cal, and Nationals & ToC. Bailey is an assistant debate coach at
Ridge High School, and is looking forward to a great year ahead. Bailey is currently a
sophomore at Western Kentucky University, and competes actively in NFA-LD Debate and IEs.
At the 2015 PKD Nationals, Bailey took 3rd in LD Debate, and was an Octofinalist at 2015 NFA
Nationals. Bailey is excited to return to CBI this summer, and hopes to use his own competitive
experiences to make an impact on the lives of attending students. He is currently an assistant
coach for Ridge High School (NJ).
Champion Briefs
60
Champion Briefs
Framework
Analysis
Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.
Affirmative Frameworks:
1. Consequentialism
The value is morality. The purpose of the government is to create policies that have the best
consequences for their citizens. It is the obligation of a government to look to the greatest good
that would benefit its citizens as well as reducing harmful ones. It is also the main purpose of the
government to protect lives. The standard is protecting rights.
A. Strategy
What a perfect topic to discuss the importance of the value of life. This topic has such a strong link
to consequentialist based frameworks. This is strategic because banning nuclear power would rid
the environment of dangerous waste caused by dumping that affects nature and people. It would
also prevent disasters and irreversible accidents such as the nuclear accident Chernobyl, for
example. This framework would be useful if you want to a real world approach to the topic with
tons of facts and evidence.
B. Ideas to answer
First of all, it is impossible to predict the ends of an action. It is definitely not the governments
sole purpose to look to the ends. The government has side constraints it must adhere to, such as
the Bill of Rights (in the United States), which gives people certain freedoms. Also, there are also
so many positive advantages to using nuclear energy; these create a lot of opportunities for link
turns on the negative side.
Champion Briefs
62
2. Structural Violence
The value is justice. Find cards saying that the worst form of oppression is from a government
because governments were created to protect their own citizens, not harm them. You can also write
about how structural violence is the worst form of oppression. Find some evidence discussing the
importance of protecting minority groups that are normally overshadowed in society, and why it
is the governments job to remedy such harms. You can also use authors such as John Rawls, who
discuss the principles of protecting the least well-off people in society. The standard is reducing
structural violence.
A. Strategy
A case like this can be run in the direction of a critical oppression based case, or a principle/ethical
case. Run contention level arguments that point out how nuclear energy waste is mostly dumped
in native, minority, and poor communities. These types of actions are not only unjust, but also
cause dire health effects to innocent people. It is the governments job to prohibit something this
harmful and oppressive.
B. Ideas to Answer
First of all, when you are writing your negative case, try to structure your framework in a way to
have some preemptive arguments embedded to a common framework like this one. All of those
warrants will add layers to the framework debate that your opponent could miss when you read
your case. Also, if you are running a utilitarian framework, try to collapse their framework into
yours. Have many turns prepared explaining why using nuclear energy would benefit minorities
since it is cost effective, and so forth.
Champion Briefs
63
3. Anti-consumerism
The value is morality. Find some evidence explaining that in todays modern society capitalistic
ideals is the dominant ideology and that it taints citizens true needs and replaces them with wants
that can never fully be satisfied. Discuss harmfulness of a consumerist mindset and how that traps
citizens in an endless cycle of consumption. Make the standard something along the lines of
minimizing consumerism.
A. Strategy
This case is unique. If you win your framework, you have a high chance of winning your
contentions. Consumption of energy feeds a consumerist mindset which is harmful. This is
strategic because arguments on the negative relating to possible benefits of nuclear energy cannot
link to your framework. Even if there can be benefits, the principle of the need to produce and
maintain nuclear powers is what is harmful.
B. Ideas to Answer
Why is consumerism so bad? Argue that it is not. As a second layer of attack, use your negative
framework as a means to preclude the affirmative by explaining why it is the means to stop
consumerism. Have a turn file with some basic benefits of nuclear power.
Champion Briefs
64
Negative Frameworks:
1.Utilitariansim
The value is justice. The purpose of the government is to create policies that have the best
consequences for their citizens. It is the obligation of a government to look to the greatest good for
the greatest number of people. The sole purpose of a government is to take actions that benefit the
country as a whole and in the long run. The standard is increasing benefits.
A. Strategy
Despite the reputation this may have as being a stock and simple case idea, it can be utilized in a
strategic way that will allow you may easy wins. This opens the door to unique contention level
arguments. For example, you can take an economic approach saying how nuclear power is cost
efficient. Or you can argue that nuclear power is key to stop the use of dangerous fossil fuels that
exacerbate global warming. There are many directions you can go with a broad framework such
as utilitarianism, so look for some fire contention level evidence.
B. Ideas to Answer
Similar to the consequentialist framework above, there are many different ways to approach
answering utility. A helpful tip is to layer utilitarianism blocks in a way that your opponent cannot
just group them all together. Make sure you have very distinct warrants for each. For example,
attack utilitarianism by explaining why it is bad for a government to use people, why looking to
ends only is bad, how ends cannot be measured, why utility is bad for this specific topic, and more.
Diversify your responses in order to have a high chance of your opponent missing at least one
answer. Also be prepared with carded link turns.
Champion Briefs
65
2. Libertarianism
The value is a just state. This is a framework that requires means-based justifications, such as ideas
of autonomy and personal freedom. Explain why it is wrong for the government to interfere on
peoples personal lives and choices. Find cards saying the only reason for government action is to
protect citizens lives, not regulate their everyday choices. The standard is upholding
libertarianism.
A. Strategy
The strategy of this framework is to take a different approach to the topic and focus more so on
the issue of a government prohibition rather than nuclear power. The contention can be reasons
why the government cannot prohibit nuclear power. This framework has the potential to be very
good because you can use it in a way to make it preclude your opponents framework if it is even
the slightest bit ends based.
B. Ideas to Answer
When answering a framework like this one, top and think logically and practically about the
foundations of government. It is possible to be able to throw out a ton of analytical arguments on
the fly against a case like this that are very intuitive. Think of reasons why the government is
needed to make prohibitions and basic laws.
Champion Briefs
66
3.Future generations
The value is morality. Find cards that say that citizens in the future have just as much worth as do
present humans. Then find evidence that outline citizens moral obligation to protect future
generations. The standard is fulfilling obligations to future generations.
A. Strategy
This is a strong case idea if well warranted because it can be difficult to respond to due to its unique
arguments. The contention can be about how people need to use nuclear power in order to save the
environment so that future generations can live. During the heat of a round, your opponent may
not understand your framework and think it merely to be an interesting version of utilitarianism.
But that is not so. Make sure you write this framework as its own type of ethic and have solid
evidence explaining the obligation.
B. Ideas to Answer
If you take the time to think about it, on what basis do we really have to protect ambiguous future
people? Write some blocks about how people cannot have an obligation to a situation that may not
happen or that they know nothing about. Extend your affirmative framework to try to define what
an obligation is, and also create a reason as to why your framework would be the mechanism to
achieving any obligations if there are any.
Champion Briefs
67
Champion Briefs
Evidence for the

Affirmative
AFF: Anti-Proliferation AC
Anti-Proliferation AC
The argument here is fairly simple: the operations of nuclear power plants results in the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. This is the case both because nuclear plants can be used a
cover for militaries to develop a nuclear weapons program and because plants can be targeted by
rogue groups for their equipment and possession of nuclear materials. In regard to the first
mechanism, India, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan are all empirical examples of state actors
using or attempting to use peaceful nuclear energy programs for the development of weapons
programs, as indicated by the Shreader-Frechette evidence. In regard to the second mechanism,
the Reed evidence indicates that since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the possibility of the
acquisition of nuclear materials has been substantially increased. As long as that acquisition is
possible and nuclear power plants exist, the capacity for a group to utilize those materials for
nuclear weapons remains. Moreover, even if a determined group was unable to produce a bona
fide nuclear weapon from nuclear materials, as long as nuclear power plants continue to produce
nuclear waste that remains radioactive the possibility of utilizing that waste in a dirty bomb
remains.
In terms of impacts, the principle consequence of nuclear proliferation is a large-scale
conflict involving nuclear weapons. Aside from that and the violent consequences of a terrorist
organization using nuclear weapons, these anti-proliferation arguments can be directed towards
the rather fragile current NPT agreement, and the implications that future proliferation could
have on the third section regarding the disarmament of original signees. From there, impacts
including international law could be advanced, which would allow you to access a litany of other
diverse impacts, such as human rights, sovereignty, genocide prevention, and environmental
sustainability. Finally, if you decide on the anti-terrorism route in your arguments, I would
suggest a retaliation component to the nuclear terror impact. While a single terrorist attack would
most likely result in a limited death toll, the retaliation of a major power against a terrorist group
could easily produce a protracted conflict with possibilities of escalation.
Champion Briefs
69
The elimination of nuclear power is crucial to prevent

proliferation.
Lovins, Amory. Forget Nuclear. Rocky Mountain Institute. 04-28-2008. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear>.
President Bush rightly identifies the spread of nuclear weapons as the gravest threat to America.
Yet that proliferation is largely driven and greatly facilitated by nuclear powers flow of
materials, equipment, skills, and knowledge, all hidden behind its innocent-looking civilian
disguise. (Reprocessing nuclear fuel, which the President hopes to revive, greatly complicates
waste management, increases cost, and boosts proliferation.) Yet acknowledging nuclear powers
market failure and moving on to secure, least-cost energy options for global development would
unmask and penalize proliferators by making bomb ingredients harder to get, more conspicuous
to try to get, and politically costlier to be caught trying to get. This would make proliferation far
more difficult, and easier to detect in time by focusing scarce intelligence resources on needles,
not haystacks. Nuclear power has other unique challenges too, such as long-lived radioactive
wastes, potential for catastrophic accidents, and vulnerability to terrorist attacks. But in a market
economy, the technology couldnt proceed even if it lacked those issues, so we neednt consider
them here.
Champion Briefs
70
The operation of nuclear power plants results in

proliferation.
Makhujani, Arhun. Atomic Myths, Radioactive Realities: Why Nuclear Power Is A Poor Way
To Meet Energy Needs. Journal of Land, Resources, & Environmental Law . January
01, 2003. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.ieer.org/pubs/atomicmyths.html>.
The proliferation implications of building so many plants and supplying them with fuel are
stupendous. Inspecting them, enriching the uranium, ensuring that materials are not diverted into
weapons programs would present challenges that would make todays proliferation concerns
look like the proverbial Sunday school picnic. We already have confrontations between the
United States and other countries over alleged nuclear weapons aspirations from far more modest
programs involving a handful of power plants. The risk of losing a city once in a while to nuclear
bombs should be an unacceptable part of an energy strategy. Similarly, it would be difficult to
inspect, regulate and maintain such a vast number of plants properly. Even the U.S. regulatory
system is currently under considerable strain. Nuclear power plant owners are operating their
plants at very high capacity factors, churning out profits, while the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission allows them to service some safety backup equipment while the power plants are
still running. The vulnerability of nuclear power plants, spent fuel storage, and plutonium storage
facilities to terrorist attack, were revealed by the violent tragedy of September 11, 2001, as never
before. Despite the vulnerabilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been lax and has not
required hardened storage of spent fuel on site. It is extending the licenses of power plants
without allowing consideration of terrorism risks.
Champion Briefs
71
The waste created by the nuclear industry is a vector for

proliferation and terrorist acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Fleming, David. Lean Guide To Nuclear Energy: A Life-Cycle In Trouble. The Lean Economy
Connection. January 11, 2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net/nuclear/Nuclear.pdf>.
And a by-product of this waste in the fourth sense is the plutonium itself which, when
isolated and purified in a reprocessing plant, can be brought up to weapons-grade, making it the
fuel needed for nuclear proliferation. This is one of three ways in which the industry is the
platform from which the proliferation of nuclear weapons can be developed; the second one is by
enriching the uranium-235 to around 90 percent, rather than the mere 3.5 percent required by a
reactor. The third consists of providing a source of radioactive materials which can be dispersed
using conventional explosive - a dirty bomb.
Champion Briefs
72
Nuclear Industry is targeted by terrorists.

Greenpeace, . Nuclear Power Undermines Solutions To Climate Change. Greenpeace. January
11, 2005. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/7218.pdf>.
An expansion of the nuclear industry would further increase risks from terrorism and
proliferation of nuclear weapons. The nuclear industry is a potential terrorist target One of the
fundamental and insoluble problems of nuclear power is the hazard posed by the radioactive
materials it produces some of which can be used in nuclear weapons and all of which can be
used in so-called dirty bombs. This means that sites containing nuclear materials or nuclear
transports are very attractive targets for terrorists. After the 11 September terrorist attack on the
World Trade Centre in New York, the nuclear industry conceded that nuclear power plants,
nuclear waste and spent fuel transports, and waste facilities should be regarded as potential
targets.14 The impacts of a terrorist attack on a nuclear power reactor would of course be
dependent on how much radioactive material was released and the plants location (facilities near
large centres of population would mean more people would be at risk). A recent study in the US
put the health impacts of an attack on a reactor at 44,000 immediate fatalities with 500,000 longterm health impacts, including cancers.15 Nuclear facilities and transports also provide targets
for terrorists wanting to steal nuclear materials to use in a lowgrade nuclear bomb or a dirty
bomb. Worryingly, the global nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Authority
(IAEA) has had to appeal for money to update its computer system so it can more effectively
track nuclear materials, admitting that the current system is outdated and is not modern enough
for effective inspections.16
Champion Briefs
73
Nuclear weapon proliferation is connected to nuclear reactor

programs.
Gravitz, Alisa. Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. Green America. May 02, 2005. Web.
August 16, 2016.
<http://www.greenamerica.org/programs/climate/dirtyenergy/nuclear.cfm>.
2. Nuclear proliferation In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, During my
8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was
connected to a nuclear reactor program. Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every
day. We cant develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in
other countries. Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will
reduce the risk of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not there yet. If
we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in the rest of the world, we need to get serious
here at home, and not push the next generation of nuclear proliferation forward as an answer to
climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that nuclear materials will not fall into the
wrong hands
Champion Briefs
74
The complete nuclear fuel cycle contained in nuclear

reactors is the key step towards the acquisition of nuclear
weapons.
Driscoll, Michael. The Future Of Nuclear Power. Interdisciplinary MIT Study. 07-29-2003.
Web. August 16, 2016. <http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/>.
Proliferation. The possibility exists that nations wishing to acquire or enhance a nuclear weapons
capability will use commercial nuclear power as a source of technological know-how or nuclear
weapons usable material, notably plutonium. Although this has not proved to be the preferred
pathway to nuclear weapons capability, the possession of a complete nuclear fuel cycle,
including enrichment, fuel fabrication, reactor operation, and reprocessing, certainly moves any
nation closer to obtaining such a capability. The key step for achieving nuclear weapons
capability is acquisition of sufficient weapons-usable fissionable material, either high-enriched
uranium or plutonium.
Champion Briefs
75
Nuclear energy spurs nuclear proliferation.

White, Pamela. Is Nuclear Energy As Cheap Or Clean As They Say It Is? Boulder Weekly.
July 05, 2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.boulderweekly.com/archives/20080501/coverstorysite_id=619&page_id=20745&id_sub=20745.html>.
One of the byproducts of nuclear power is plutonium. Contained in spent fuel rods, it can be
removed from the other radioactive byproducts and, once removed, it can be used to create
nuclear weapons. Quite simply, nuclear power means continued nuclear proliferation, Moore
says. If this industry continues, its easier for nuclear materials to be in wide circulation
globally, and if were worried about their falling into the hands of terrorists or enemies of the
United States-and thats certainly a concern for many people-nuclear energy is not the way to
deal with our [global warming] problem, he says. Its not just the plutonium itself that presents
a danger, but the mere existence of radioactive nuclear waste.
Champion Briefs
76
Nuclear energy causes proliferation.

Totty, Michael. The For And Against Nuclear Power. The Wall Street Journal. 06-30-2008.
Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB121432182593500119>.
Finally, critics say that an expansion of nuclear power will increase the danger that potentially
hostile nations will use nuclear material from a power program to develop atomic weapons, or
that rogue states or terrorists will steal nuclear material to make bombs.
Champion Briefs
77
Nuclear energy increases proliferation- empirically proven.

Shreader-Frechette, Kristin. Five Myths About Nuclear Energy. America Magazine. 06-232008. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://americamagazine.org/issue/660/article/five-mythsabout-nuclear-energy>.
Nuclear energy actually increases the risks of weapons proliferation because the same
technology used for civilian atomic power can be used for weapons, as the cases of India, Iran,
Iraq, North Korea and Pakistan illustrate. As the Swedish Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alven put
it, The military atom and the civilian atom are Siamese twins. Yet if the world stopped
building nuclear-power plants, bomb ingredients would be harder to acquire, more conspicuous
and more costly politically, if nations were caught trying to obtain them. Their motives for
seeking nuclear materials would be unmasked as military, not civilian.
Champion Briefs
78
Nuclear Reactors lead to proliferation- multiple countries

prove and risks are increased since the breakup of the Soviet
Union.
Reed, David. Return of The Nuclear Salesman. Rocky Mountain Institute. 12-31-1999. Web.
August 16, 2016.
<https://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/RMI_SolutionsJournal_Spring00.pdf>.
Nuclear proliferation isnt a problem. Rhodes and Beller claim that its beyond the capability of
terrorists to process reactor-bred plutonium into explosives, and go on to state that, in any case,
proliferation would still be a risk even if nuclear power ceased to existas if the size of the risk
were immaterial. Yet the link between nuclear power and nuclear bombs has been well
established, by RMI and others (see A Treaty Whose Time Has Come, summer 1995). The risk
of terrorists or rogue governments turning stolen plutonium into bombs has increased since the
breakup of the Soviet Union, while many nations (Pakistan, India, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea
come to mind) have used their civilian nuclear power programs as covers for making weapons.
Champion Briefs
79
A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Nuclear critics have it

backwards- countries do not build nuclear weapons because
they possess a reactor; they get a reactor to develop
weapons.
Sweet, William. Better Planet: Nuke Power Is Earths Friend. Discover Magazine. January 08,
2007. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/better-planetnuclear-wind-power>.
Perhaps the most serious concern about increasing our reliance on nuclear power is whether it
might lead to an international proliferation of atomic bombs. Contrary to a stubborn myth,
however, countries do not decide to build nuclear weapons because they happen to get nuclear
reactors first; they acquire nuclear reactors because they want to build nuclear weapons. This
was true of France and China in the 1950s, of Israel and India in the 60s and 70s, and its true
of Korea and Iran today. Does anybody honestly think that whether Tehran or Pyongyang
produces atomic bombs depends on how many reactors the United States decides to build in the
next 10 to 20 years?
Champion Briefs
80
A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Nuclear power does not yield

weapons and we ought to focus on preventing their use, not
acquisition.
Cohen, Bernard. The Nuclear Power Advantage. Environmentalists for Nuclear. 08-29-2002.
Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/nuclear_advantage_Cohen.en.htm>.
Much has been made of the connection between nuclear power and nuclear bombs, although the
relationship is really very weak. There are much easier, faster, and cheaper ways for a nations to
develop nuclear weapons than through a nuclear power programme. All nuclear weapons states
have developed their bombs independently from their electricity generation facilities, and any
nation with a serious desire to obtain nuclear weapons could and would do the same. The
problem here is not so much to avoid the development of nuclear bombs that is essentially a lost
cause as to avoid their use. One of the most likely scenarios for their use is in fighting over oil as
world supplies dwindle to precarious levels during the twenty-first century. Oil resources are
limited and located largely in the politically unstable Middle East, so that competition for it can
become intense. The 1991 Persian Gulf War could easily be a forerunner of much more serious
confrontations. However, electricity can replace oil for space heating, and produce hydrogen as a
substitute for oil in transportation applications. Nuclear Power thus has the advantage of
mitigating the need for oil, thereby avoiding one of the prime potential reasons for using nuclear
bombs.
Champion Briefs
81
A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Nuclear power lessons the risk of

proliferation by consuming radioactive materials that could
otherwise be utilized in a weapon.
Dawson, Jim. Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force. American
Institute of Physics. January 05, 2005. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/58/5/10.1063/1.19957
37>.
Policymakers in both the administration and Congress must develop a clear commitment to a
national energy policy that gives nuclear power a strong role, the report says. We urge that the
president identify this as a critical priority for the nation and that Congress take the necessary
steps to meet this priority. The report doesnt mention the controversy surrounding the Yucca
Mountain radioactive waste storage project in Nevada (see the story on page 32), but it does say
the waste storage problem must be resolved. But the authors make clear that the absence of a
licensed repository is not a valid reason for postponing additional nuclear construction. Another
critical aspect of encouraging a new generation of power plants is the concern over nuclear
proliferation, especially in the wake of September 11th. The task forces bottom-line conclusion
is that the rest of the world is going to move forward with energy generation from nuclear power
regardless of what the US does, and the US would be better off participating than sitting on the
sidelines. An increase in the use of nuclear power in the US would actually serve our nonproliferation objectives, the report says, because one of the most efficient and certainly the
most thorough ways of disposing of that nuclear material is to burn it as fuel in commercial
nuclear reactors. Robinson said task force members had several discussions with the folks over
at the White House to understand what the traffic would bear in terms of government support
for the nuclear industry. Weve been getting the right words to do at least one such [reactor
construction and startup]. That would shore up the confidence that all of the work that was done
to speed up the regulatory process has worked, he said. The object is to show that nuclear
power is a good investment. And it is economics, not safety, that killed nuclear power
development in the US, Robinson said. Nuclear power was grossly overbuilt because of
Champion Briefs
82
A2 Anti-Proliferation- Nuclear power lessons the risk of proliferation by consuming radioactive

materials that could otherwise be utilized in a weapon. (Continued)
Dawson, Jim. Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force. American
Institute of Physics. January 05, 2005. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/58/5/10.1063/1.19957
37>.
predictions that energy growth was going to double every seven or eight years, he said. When
that didnt happen, it became uneconomical, especially with the uncertain licensing procedures,
to invest in nuclear power, he said. So its going to take a big infusion of courage for the next
person in the finance community to take the first step, he said. That courage will be easier to
find if it is bolstered by a federal cost-sharing program, the report concludes.
*Ellipsis from source
Champion Briefs
83
A2 Anti-Proliferation AC: Too much plutonium in spent fuel

to be easily converted into weapons.
Murray, Iain. Nuclear Power? Yes Please. The National Review. 06-16-2008. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.unz.org/Pub/NationalRev-2008jun16-00032>.
To be effective in a weapon, a given volume of plutonium must contain no more than 7 percent
Pu-240. Spent fuel from civilian nuclear plants is typically composed of about 26 percent Pu240. This makes it extremely difficult even for experts to use in the manufacture of nuclear
weapons -- and well nigh impossible for amateurs.
Champion Briefs
84
AFF: Critical Env. Justice AC
Critical Environmental Justice AC

Environmental justice is defined by the EPA as the fair treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies (https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice).
The affs central argument is that we should ban nuclear power because environmental
justice movements have raised valid concerns with the distributive injustices of nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants tend to be located in poor, minority communitiesso its no surprise that
poor people and minorities will bear the brunt of pollution (and potential, catastrophic accidents).
This aff gives you a variety of frameworks to work with. For one, you can make a
Rawlsian argument similar to the argument made in the natives aff. Some other routes are critical
race theory and Marxismargue that we should understand these distributive injustices in the
context of anti-blackness or capitalism. Then, proceed to impact these out, arguing that the fight
against anti-blackness/capitalism is our ultimate ethical priority.
When youre negative against this aff, you have a few options
(1) Go hard for nuclear power is amazing (for the economy, for reducing global warming,
etc.) and criticize the environmental justice movement as being utterly misguided. Contest
that nuclear power plants disproportionately harm poor people and minorities. Say extinction
outweighs, or that the DA turns the case in some way (less nuclear power might mean higher
energy prices, and poor, black communities bear the brunt of energy price hikes).
Champion Briefs
85
(2) Argue that the aff is right on a lot of stuff, but that the solution is not to prohibit nuclear
power. The solution is to more effectively regulate it. Propose a counterplan that details
specific regulations that your evidence argues would rectify a lot of these environmental
justice concerns. The net benefit to this counterplan should be any of the normal NCs or DAs
youd read.
(3) Read a kritik that goes farther left than they. Talk about how the environmental justice
movement is co-opted by capitalism/larger forces of anti-blackness. Go farther left.
The affs best bet against all of these strategies is to have stellar evidence that proves the
environmental justice movements concerns are validthat nuclear power is unjust, and that
regulations are insufficient. Against these kritiks, argue for the permutation and say that the
alternative isnt nearly as effective/practical as the aff.
Champion Briefs
86
The health issues that nuclear plants cause raise a whole

host of justice issues.
Kyne, Dean. Emerging Environmental Justice Issues In Nuclear Power And Radioactive
Contamination. Int J Environ Res Public Health. July 01, 2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962241/>.
This study has argued that nuclear power plants, uranium mining, and waste disposal raise a suite
of justice issues including distributive, procedural, recognition and intergenerational justice
issues. Moreover, these issues are transnational in scope and scale. In U.S., there are substantial
uncertainties regarding the health effects of NPPs on the more than 87 million people residing
within a 50-mile radius of a commercial reactor. These concerns are further complicated by the
history of secrecy and the suppression of public participation in any nuclear decision-making by
the NRC and DOE. Further, what participation is available is circumscribed by strict and selfserving procedural rules. Given the culture of the DOE and the NRC, and before it the AEC,
there would appear a strong tendency of the promoters of nuclear energy to deny any potential
health and environmental risks. Indeed, as discussed above, the lack of public discussion of
emergency preparedness at NPPs illustrates this culture of minimizing risk and not raising public
concerns or worries over the potential for accidents. The NRC has withheld nuclear power plant
emergency plan documents systematically due to security concerns and has ignored comments
by the public to improve plans. This same logic characterized the exposure of civilian
populations to nuclear testing fallout: people were not informed of risks so as to not worry them
[14]. Once radiation related diseases began in tribes and downwind communities after a twodecade latency, then a process of denial of responsibility by federal agencies ensued [9]. In a
recent development, hundreds of U.S. sailors taking part in rescue efforts after the Fukushimas
accident have developed rare cancers, blindness, birth defects, and two deaths, leading to law
suits against the Japanese nuclear power company [98].
Champion Briefs
87
Nuclear power is a threat to distributive justice--individuals

living around nuclear plants face disproportionate health
risks.
We begin by considering distributive justice issues in U.S. NPPs. In general, individuals living
around nuclear power plants face potential health risks posed by complex nuclear technologies.
There are two categories of risks: those stemming from day-to-day operations and those arising
from catastrophic failures. In case of acute failures, large areas around the nuclear plants face
potential exposure to highly toxic radioactive releases, soil and water contamination, radiation
from melted fuels, and large exclusion zones of uninhabitable land (as in both Chernobyl and
Fukushima). The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in 2011 is the most recent reminder that
nuclear power plants are subject to catastrophic failures with the potential to produce radiationrelated diseases, as well displace hundreds of thousands of people and render large areas
contaminated for centuries. And while these extreme events are relatively infrequent, when they
occur multiple generations will be burdened with the environmental and health costs of these
disasters, as Chernobyl has amply demonstrated (see [20]).
Champion Briefs
88
Study proves--nuclear power harms distributive justice.

Cousins, Elicia. Nuclear Power And Environmental Justice: A Mixed-Methods Study Of Risk,
Vulnerability, And The Victim Experience. Carleton College. 2013. Web. August 14,
2016. <https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/ents/assets/Cousins_Karban_Li_Zapanta.pdf>.
From a Rawlsian perspective, there are injustices in the distribution of harms posed by nuclear
reactor siting in the United States. We investigate this matter through both quantitative and
qualitative analyses. Our spatial analysis improved upon an earlier study by using a distancedbased GIS method and found that there are disproportionate numbers of non-white Hispanics,
women, children under the age of 10 and adults over the age of 65 located near nuclear power
facilities in the Eastern U.S. Additionally, the population surrounding the Vogtle reactors in
Georgia (where there are two new reactors in construction) is disproportionately African
American and low-income, even though Southern Nuclear Operating Company refuses to
acknowledge it as such. A subsequent qualitative analysis examined how the proximity to
nuclear reactors would translate into actual experience in the case of an accident, with a focus on
42 the social dimension of risk. In previous nuclear accidents, victims struggled with uncertainty,
displacement, cultural pressures, and social rejection. Those who are already more vulnerable
(e.g. women, poor people, and people of color) are likely to face more difficulties in dealing with
these hardships. Under a Rawlsian framework, this is unjust, and the government is responsible
for rectifying this injustice through policy that protects the most vulnerable populations from
further harm. However, in analyzing nuclear safeguarding policy, we found that nuclear
safeguarding policy lacks such focus largely because of its basis in utilitarianism. We argue that
a Rawlsian approach to justice would lead to better recognition of existing problems of injustice,
and guide policy to create appropriate solutions.
Champion Briefs
89
Nuclear reactors create environmental and health risks-even during routine operation.
Reactors pose environmental and health risks even during routine operation in the form of low
level radioactive emissions from a variety of sources [21]. Further, with the U.S. commercial
nuclear reactor aging, concerns exist that the likelihood of cooling system leaks, contamination
events, plant fires, and other normal accidents could increase in frequency with aging and
degrading plant infrastructure [7,22]. Individuals living near nuclear power plants are potentially
exposed to various sources of ionizing radiation. Every reactor releases radioactive gases that are
routinely vented through stacks in the reactor roof and from the steam generators; every hour
about 100 cubic feet of radioactive gases are released; purging of radioactive materials in pipes is
conducted frequently (22 purges per year are allowed per reactor); discharging radioactive water
into surrounding areas when it is too hazardous for plant workers to handle; using 20,000 gallons
of water for cooling the reactor core every minute, with the cooling water becoming
contaminated by radioactive tritium (tritiated water). Of this, 5000 gallons of tritiated water per
minute are released into adjacent lakes, rivers, or the ocean, and an additional 15,000 gallons are
vented into the atmosphere as steam [20]. (The potential health effects of exposure to
radionuclides include (1) tritium or tritiated water becoming a part of bodily fluids within one or
two hours of exposure; (2) plutonium-23 causing blood cancers such as lymphoma or leukemia;
(3) iodine-131 which is quickly absorbed by the thyroid causing thyroid cancer; (4) strontium-90
which the body treats like calcium staying in the breast causing breast cancer; (5) Cesium-137
which is absorbed by muscle cells causing cancer; and (6) radioactive noble gases causing
mutations in eggs and sperm [23]).
Champion Briefs
90
African Americans are more likely to reside within

emergency planning zones for nuclear plants--they are
disproportionately exposed to the risk for catastrophic plant
failure.
In this section we compare populations living within a 50-mile radius of plant sites to the
population residing beyond that perimeter for all operating plants in the U.S. The 50-mile radius
conforms to the NRCs Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) Ingestion Pathway, the outer
geographic limit of NRC planning for nuclear contamination events. Kyne [49] conducted a
study of distributive justice based on 104 reactors at 65 sites. In this study, using the same
dataset (namely the U.S. Census 2010/American Community Survey, 5-year estimate) [50] and
adopting the same methodology (see [49]), we estimated distribute justice around the current 99
operational reactors at 61 sites in 31 states. Six reactors have been shuttered for various reasons
since Kynes previous study. The dataset that results from each respective survey include racial
and ethnic subgroups, white-alone, Hispanic-alone, American Indian- or Alaskan Native-alone,
Asian-alone, black or African American-alone, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander-alone
and Other-aloneas well as one additional category, Two or more races, that is included only
in the 2010 dataset. Based on the most recent census, there were approximately 87.5 million
people living within a 50-mile radius of plants (Table 1, Figure 1). Looking at each racial and
ethnic group, the total population was 71% white, while 36.32% were in the Color category.
Approximately four percent more whites reside outside EPZs than inside communities than
reside inside (75% vs. 71%). In contrast, a larger percentage of African Americans live within
the 50-mile zone than reside outside it (17% vs. 10%) as shown in Table 1. In contrast to African
Americans, fewer Hispanics are found in the host communities than outside (13.2% vs. 16%).
Similar findings are observed for other racial groups as shown in Table 1. While these
differences are relatively small compared to asymmetries noted in other hazardous sites, the
larger issue is potential exposure to a very large numbers of residents in the case of a
catastrophic failure.
Champion Briefs
91
Public participation and the right to know are essential to

environmental justice--the nuclear industrys activities
remain secret and shut off from the public.
Public participation: While public participation and the right to know has been a hallmark of
the environmental justice (EJ) and anti-toxics movements, much of the nuclear industry has been
shrouded in secrecy and public exclusion [13,63]. Based on the Atomic Energy Act, the NRC has
been authorized to issue licenses to NPPs to operate up to 40 years and allows plants to be
renewed for another 20 years [64]. On paper, the general public is encouraged to participate in
the NRC decision-making process through public meetings, and public comment periods on
rules, renewal guidance, and other documents [65]. Nevertheless, 97 out of 99 U.S. commercial
nuclear power reactors have had their licenses renewed for another 20 years [61], which suggests
that most renewals are pro forma given the substantially different ages of plants and their
operational histories [7]. According to Executive Order (E.O.) 12898, issued in 1994 [66],
federal agencies are mandated to identify and address adverse human health and environmental
impacts on minority and low-income populations. However, it is not mandatory for independent
federal agencies such as NRC. The NRC has stated that the agency has voluntarily committed to
undertake environmental justice assessments during the mandated supplemental environmental
impact assessments (SEIS) for license renewal [67]. In the SEIS, a number of factors are
evaluated including air quality, water use, ecosystem effects, and various health and
socioeconomic issues. For example, in the case of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Arizona (PVNGS) license renewal process, there were more than 90 separate issues considered.
It is at the NRCs discretion to decide how significant each of the issues are, and not surprisingly
76 percent were labeled as being of small significance. Notably, human health and
environmental justice were labeled as uncertain, meaning no action was taken on them in the
absence of adequate information.
Champion Briefs
92
Environmental policymakers have failed to focus on the

needs of vulnerable populations.
In general, policy makers in the environmental policy domain fail to focus on the needs of
vulnerable populations because many of these disadvantaged individuals are poorly organized.
Since policy makers are elected officials, they tend to act based on what is most favorable with
their constituents. For this reason, some policies are based more on public opinion than on the
necessary safety precautions. A 1987 study by the EPA compared the relative risk of 31
environmental problems in relation to four different kinds of risks: cancer, noncancer health
risks, ecological effects, and other effects on human welfare. They found that, rather than
employing the priorities determined by EPA managers, the agencys actual risk management
priorities were more consistent with public opinion (Vig and Kraft 2003). Clearly, current policy
creation needs to shift its focus from pleasing the people to protecting the people. Part of the
problem is that the American form of government is based on rationalist, egalitarian principles.
Specifically, it relies on the principle of consent, meaning that the people have the power to
decide how policy is shaped. Thus, a large challenge in implementing any change through
policymaking lies in the difference between politics and policy. Politics shapes policy. Interest
groups often lobby policy makers to favor their causes, and the information provided by interest
groups often enlightens public policy. However, all points of view are not necessarily
represented equally (Noll and Owen 1973). Lobbying is expensive. Both money and 40 expertise
are required, but vulnerable populations are often comprised of individuals with limited
resources in these categories. Other factors that affect successful representation include
selfinterest, group size, size of the stake, and uncertainty (Ibid.). Hence, smaller, well-funded
groups with minimized free-riders, composed of individuals with large stakes are the most likely
to be heard by policy makers, and are therefore the most successful. Moreover, if the effects of
the regulation, or the specific identity of the benefactors or the losers, can be identified
beforehand with reasonable accuracy, then the incentive to lobby significantly increases (Ibid.).
Wealth and expertise are two main barriers currently preventing people of color and low-income
populations from forming successful interest groups and thereby getting recognized in the
environmental policy realm. Thus, we argue that it is essential for both a fundamental shift in
policy to take place and for lobbying to become more accessible to vulnerable populations.
Champion Briefs
93
Quantitative models alone fail to account for the social

complexities of nuclear power--certain disadvantaged
populations will be most vulnerable in the event of an
accident.
Introduction Section III showed that certain disadvantaged populations in the United States do in
fact bear a disproportionate burden of the risks of nuclear power by way of their proximity to
nuclear power plants. The purpose of Section IV is to explore the ways in which risk might
translate into actual experience in the case of a nuclear accident. To this end, we elaborate on the
social dimension of risk associated with nuclear accidents. We further suggest that certain
disadvantaged populations in the United States would likely be most vulnerable to such social
harms in the case of an accident. While environmental justice and vulnerability literature seeks to
elucidate the complexities of social vulnerability in its characterization of risk, policy makers
rarely consider such qualitative aspects. Rather, risk analyses are based largely on quantitative
models of physical, biological, or economic factors (Short 1984), describing the impact of
accident events in terms of direct harms such as death, injury, disease, and environmental
damage (Kasperson et al. 1988). Much of the literature on the atomic bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki (Schull 1995), the Chernobyl disaster of 1986 (Yablokov 2009), and Three Mile
Island (Wing et al. 1995), as well as studies of populations living near normally operating
nuclear power plants (Schrader- 20 Frechette 2002; Spix 2008; Mangano 2008), focus on cancer
rates and other physical health impacts. While substantive and powerful, such studies face
limitations in proving a causal relationship between radiation and adverse health effects,
particularly when it comes to low-dose radiation (Schull 1995; Brenner et al. 2003). This leaves
the literature vulnerable to criticism and disregard, even by groups like the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which continue to assert
Champion Briefs
94
Quantitative models alone fail to account for the social complexities of nuclear power--certain
disadvantaged populations will be most vulnerable in the event of an accident. (Continued)
that the health risks of low-dose radiation exposure are minimal (Yablokov 2009)11. While the
biophysical health impacts of radiation exposure are important to consider, such a narrow focus
ignores other components of the disaster experience that warrant attention. The present section
aims to look beyond biophysical impacts and paint a more holistic picture of the victim
experience by considering the types of sources of the stress described by victims of the three
major nuclear power plant accidents at Fukushima Daiichi, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl.
While stress is commonly regarded as an emotional condition without significant biological
consequences, recent medical research demonstrates that stress in and of itself has a deleterious
effect on health, weakening the functioning of the immune system and exacerbating a wide range
of other pathologies (Sered and Fernandopulle 2006). It can also affect everyday behavior and
psychological health (Havenaar and van den Brink 1997), as shown through research conducted
after Chernobyl (Bromet et al. 2011), Three Mile Island (Bromet and Schulberg 1986), and
Fukushima Daiichi (Brumfiel 2013). As sociologist Kai Erikson aptly puts it, technological
disasters entail everything that can go wrong when systems fail, humans err, designs prove
faulty, [and] engines misfire (1994:141). In the following discussion, we use a framework
adapted from Bertazzi (1989; see Table 3) to show that certain elements of the stress experience
following technological disasters, particularly uncertainty and cultural pressure, recur with
haunting frequency in the experiences of victims of all three of the largest nuclear power plant
accidents in history
Champion Briefs
95
Empirics prove nuclear power causes environmental

injustices--previous research was wrong.
Contrary to previous research that found no significant environmental injustice in nuclear power
plant siting, our analysis did find significant results, suggesting environmental injustice issues.
The results are significant (p<0.001) for all populations tested, and the cases of potential
environmental injustices are indicated (Table 1). The potential for injustice is particularly great
for non-white Hispanics, children under 10, people over 65, and women. Non-white Hispanics
are 5.53% of the population living within buffers (compared to a 4.775% regional average).
Children under 10 comprised 12.557% of the buffer population (compared to 12.418%
regionally), while adults over 65 were 14.078% of the population in the buffers (compared to
13.919% regionally) and women made up 51.471% of the population in buffers (compared to
51.248% regionally).
Champion Briefs
96
The aff defends an environmentalism of the poor,

acknowledging the socioeconomic dimensions of the struggle
against nuclear power.
Martinez-Alier, Joan. Is There A Global Environmental Justice Movement? . International
Institute of Social Studies. April 02, 2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<https://www.tni.org/files/publication-downloads/16-icas_cp_martinez_alier_et_al.pdf>.
Reflecting the specific environmental challenges and distributional inequities of the global
South, some EJOs adopted the term environmentalism of the poor which as explained in the
Introdution, is very close to the notion of EJ born in the US but applies less to urban than to rural
peoples in the global South, similar to the Navajo in New Mexico who suffered from uranium
mining. Although academics started to use this term in 198889 (drawing on research on India
and Latin America), similar words had been used by Anil Agarwal, the founder of the Centre for
Science and Environment (CSE) in Delhi, and editor of the first citizens reports on the state of
Indias environment. His successor, Sunita Narain, often uses the term environmentalism of the
poor to refer to the struggles in India against dams, deforestation, mining projects, and nuclear
power stations (Narain 2008). Also in India, Shrivastava and Kothari (2012) have compiled
many socio-environmental struggles and successes while putting forward a proposal for a radical
ecology democracy.
Champion Briefs
97
We need a materialist conception of environmentalism

which acknowledges disproportionate harms along class
lines. The poor are often on the side of nature against
corporate profit.
The environmentalism of the poor (and of the indigenous) is a concept opposed to the
influential post-materialist interpretation of environmentalism (and other new social
movements) by Ronald Inglehart (1995). It does not envision environmental preservation as a
luxury good, contrary to what Inglehart did. And in contrast to Ulrich Becks view of
environmental risks as being impartial to social class (as might have been the case for a nuclear
accident such as Chernobyl but which is not true in generalfor example, for hurricane Katrina
in New Orleans) (Beck 1992), the environmental movements of the poor and indigenous are
place-based struggles for their own material livelihoods (Nixon 2011). In many ecological
distribution conflicts, the poor are often on the side of preservation of nature against business
firms and the state. This behavior is consistent with their interests and their values. Those
affected may be motivated to act, in relation to other factors, such as degree of democracy, or if
they are suffocated or not by fear, or violently repressed, as is often the case. In the EJatlas,
currently about 12% of conflicts report deaths of environmental defenders.
Champion Briefs
98
There are numerous local movements rising up for

environmental justice. Environmental destruction is often
unjustly distributed.
The gains and losses of the use of the environment are often unjustly distributed not only as
regards other species or future generations of humans but also among humans living today.
There are many local movements expressing their grievances over such environmental injustices,
although environmental injustice does not always lead to open complaints. Several groups have
been producing inventories of ecological distribution conflicts (by country or by theme), such as
OCMAL in Latin America on mining conflicts, or in Brazil Fiocruz and the EJ movement (Porto
2012). Our own contribution has been to build up the EJatlas at ICTA-UAB with many outside
collaborators. Although its coverage is still geographically and thematically uneven, on reaching
1600 cases by October 2015 we start to see some first trends and recurring dynamics in such
conflicts, which need to be pursued further. For instance, indigenous populations appear to be
involved in ecological distribution conflicts much more often than one would expect by their
share in the population as a whole, perhaps because accelerated search for resources is
increasingly expanding the commodity frontiers to their territories, or because of increasing
organization and recognition of indigenous territorial rights and correspondingly stronger
movements.
Champion Briefs
99
AFF A2 Regulations CP: Regulations are insufficient at

protecting vulnerable populations from the effects of nuclear
power.
Failure in Regulation Implementation Regulatory implementation failures demonstrate that
successful protection of vulnerable populations will require more than just a framework shift.
Because firms are not directly harming social welfare when not complying with safety
regulations, safety violations are morally 38 ambiguous. Because of this, regulators often avoid
punishment (Brown and Rankin 1990). In addition, regulators value good relations with
regulated firms. This is not just because conflicts are stressful to all parties involved, but also
because good relations facilitate education and persuasion (Ibid.). One of the NRCs largest
challenges is to maximize its regulatory ability on a limited budget. According to the NRC, all
licensed plants are subject to routine inspections to ensure that regulation is followed and that
safety is upheld. However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) found that only 5% of
activities at nuclear power plants are actually audited each year (UCS 2011). While this review
process is meant to provide a snapshot of the condition of all plants, even when the NRC finds
problematic patterns revealed in the review process, they are not extrapolated to other
unevaluated plants, and thus the oversight process risks overlooking significant safety violations
industry-wide (Ibid.).
Champion Briefs
100
AFF A2 Regulations CP: Simply creating more safety

legislation doesnt solve the problem.
While greater safety standards are necessary, simply creating more safety legislation does not
solve the problem. Greater safety regulations are neither all good nor all bad. Through their
creation, resources must be diverted from the production of goods and services, in turn hindering
economic productivity (Brown and Rankin 1990). For this reason, safety standards can both be
difficult to construct and to implement. Moreover, there is no clear-cut answer as to what
precautions should be legally required or as to how stringently these legal requirements should
be enforced (Ibid.). What is clear, however, is that the current policy framework fails to
successfully protect those who need it most. Going forward, a shift in the theoretical framework
of nuclear safety regulation may contribute to solving this problem.
Champion Briefs
101
A2 Critical Environmental Justice AC: Regulations like

right-to-know legislation rectify environmental injustices
while preserving the option for nuclear power as a means for
reducing warming.
Our research is not necessarily advocating for reducing the amount of nuclear generated in the
U.S. In the context of climate change, nuclear power is an important low-carbon energy source.
However, because there are injustices within the current system, we advocate for policy solutions
that address these issues. Such solutions do not necessarily have to increase costs to government
or decrease the societal benefits of nuclear power. For example, more comprehensive
information dissemination and better public access to this information could serve to reduce
anxiety caused by uncertainty. This is already highlighted by right-to-know legislation25 and the
1994 Executive Order (Foreman 1998), so a large part of fulfilling this goal would simply
require more effective implementation of existing guidelines. Stakeholder participation in
discussions regarding nuclear energy risk assessment and management could further shed light
on the types of harms often ignored by policy makers, such as the social harms described in this
study. While this type of paradigm shift was mandated by a landmark report by the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences (1996), Understanding Risk, risk analysis remains dominated by the
technocratic views of scientific experts (Shrader-Frechette 2010). If the public and victims of
environmental injustice were given an equal voice in risk assessment and decision-making, this
could help to reduce harms to the most vulnerable. While our study is based on a Rawlsian
approach to justice and points out several large justice problems, we are not advocating for an
immediate, overall fix. As Amartya Sen argues, justice exists along a continuum, it is not simply
either achieved or not achieved (2009). With this in mind, we hope that future research and
policy will take steps to acknowledge, recognize, and reduce the injustices highlighted in this
study.
Champion Briefs
102
AFF: Critical Neoliberalism AC
Critical Neoliberalism AC
In writing this affirmative case, you will need to have a framework that justifies why
structural violence against minority groups is bad. This can either be in the form of an ethical
framework and/or with a Role of the Ballot. These framework cards will help you to exclude
common negative arguments such as the extinction impacts regarding global warming.
The framework level should have a few main arguments:
1. The judge has an obligation to vote for the debater that has the advocacy that best
protects minority communities. This should typically be carded and use warrants such as
the debate space typically not being supportive of minority communities, so we now
have an obligation to bring their voices into the round. Additionally, you can make the
argument that the United States federal government often ignores the voices of minority
groups, so these policies should work to include them more.
2. Look to authors like Winter and Leighton and Curry for more assistance in writing this
style of frameworks.
The contention level can have a few different arguments:
1. Minority groups are disproportionately harmed through a concept called environmental
racism. People of color are more likely to be living near power plants than their white
counterparts. This is because of racial housing laws that make it harder for people of
color to live in safe environments.
2. Additionally, large countries tend to go to smaller countries, specifically undeveloped
nations, to use forced labor and take their natural resources. This is a unique issue with
uranium mining because uranium is only found in certain areas around the globe, so
developed countries often exploit smaller countries for their resources.
Champion Briefs
103
20% of the worlds uranium is mined in Africa.

Sheele, Fleur. Uranium From Africa Mitigation Of Uranium Mining Impacts On Society And
Environment By Industry And Governments . WISE. 06-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/IMG/pdf/somo-wise-2011-uranium_from_africamitigation_of_uranium_mining_impacts_on_society_and_environment_by_industry_and
_governments.pdf>.
Uranium, a natural resource which is used for nuclear energy production, is extracted from the
earth in uranium mines located in various countries worldwide. Nearly twenty per cent of the
worlds mined uranium is produced in Africa, and this percentage is expected to increase in the
future. As uranium mining is associated with various negative externalities such as
environmental pollution and deterioration of health, intensified uranium production in Africa can
lead to a wide variety of hazards. Preventing and managing the multiple hazards is a complicated
task which requires specific knowledge, efforts, and financial means available in all responsible
stakeholders. It can be questioned if all of these factors are available in the African states which
are allowing uranium mining operations on their land.
Champion Briefs
104
Africa is home to a multitude of uranium mines.

Scheele, Fleur. Uranium From Africa Mitigation Of Uranium Mining Impacts On Society And
_governments.pdf>.
As there are probably hundreds of international uranium exploration and/or exploitation
companies active in Africa, working in at least ten African countries, it was impossible to assess
them all. Niger, a major uranium producing country where French company AREVA is mining,
would have been a country of preference to work on. However, major safety problems and large
infrastructural problems led us to decide to rather focus on other countries. Gabon, where there is
no current active uranium mining, but AREVAs unmanaged, uncontrolled, and abandoned
tailings which have polluted a region, would have been an interesting case for us, too. Yet the
fact that there is no current uranium exploitation made the country less interesting for this
project. Many countries, even more sites, and an even larger number of companies are not
mentioned in this report. By choosing a few countries where uranium mining operations are a
major influencing factor in national economies and societies, it was possible to get a profound
insight into how mining practices in Africa can function. Namibia is a major uranium producer
which is receiving much attention from the mining industry. Mining licences have been issued in
large numbers during the Uranium Rush after 2005. South Africa produces uranium and has a
large mining industry and a long mining history, which makes it interesting to see how the
country is managing its wealth and negative mining impacts. The Central African Republic will
soon see its first uranium mine. In this economically underdeveloped country, the commissioning
phase of a French-owned uranium mine is particularly interesting to observe.
Champion Briefs
105
Uranium is full of toxins when it is initially mined.

_governments.pdf>.
Uranium, a radioactive chemical element and a heavy metal, is a naturally occurring element. It
can be found worldwide in uranium ores16, in soils, and even in seawater. Unlike minerals such
as gold or diamonds, natural uranium17 is never easy to extract from the earth and the element
needs to be transformed before it can be sold to purchasers. At a mine, the uranium is treated
chemically (milling process) before the end product is created. U3O8, 18 triuranium octoxide, is
the chemical form of uranium after extraction from its ore. Uranium ore concentrate, produced in
a variety of different kinds, is always the final marketable product of a uranium mine and mill. It
is sometimes sold in the form of yellow cake, a uranium concentrate which contains a mixture of
uranium oxides. Yellow cake, which looks like a yellow ocre coloured powder, contains at
least 90% U3O8.
Champion Briefs
106
Uranium is toxic to consume.

_governments.pdf>.
In underground mines, miners are directly exposed to uranium and its other daughter products,
and especially radon becomes a major source of contamination, as radon concentrations
accumulate in the mine shafts. As is described above, at heap leaching operations all daughter
products can move freely into the environment and into miners bodies if these are not
thoroughly protected. Radiation doses, the total exposure of a human body to ionising radiation,
are measured in Sieverts (Sv). International standards are formulated by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), a UN body based in Vienna that has the conflicting tasks of monitoring
the nuclear industry and safeguarding environment and people from ionising radiation, and,
simultaneously, promoting the use of nuclear energy. The IAEA has formulated its dose limits
based on the International Commission for Radiological Protections recommendations. These
recommendations are based on a prudent approach which assumes there is no threshold dose
below which there would be no negative health effect.57 Upon entering a human body, radiation
can damage living tissue.59 If radiation travels through a body (like X rays do), this is called
external radiation: it comes from outside and penetrates skin, tissue, bones, organs. If radiation
enters a body through ingestion or inhalation of radioactive elements, this is called internal
contamination. The radiation that is relevant in uranium mining operations exists in three
different forms: (alpha) radiation, (beta) radiation, and (gamma) radiation. The three kinds
have different properties. Gamma radiation cannot be halted easily; it can enter human bodies
without being stopped by skin or clothing and is therefore causing external contamination.
Gamma radiation can be stopped by lead. Beta radiation is less strong and can be stopped by
aluminium; whereas alpha radiation can be halted by a piece of paper. Alpha radiation may seem
less threatening to human health as it cannot even damage a piece of paper, but it is a major
source of internal radiological contamination. Body damage starts when alpha-emitting
substances are ingested (because one is eating contaminated foods or drinking contaminated
water) or inhaled in the form of radon gas.60
Champion Briefs
107
Uranium mining has the ability to cause conflict. Multiple

warrants.
Koos, Carlo. Does Uranium Mining Increase Civil Conflict Risk? Evidence From A
Spatiotemporal Analysis Of Africa From 1960 To 2008. 2013. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13698249.2013.842744>.
Why could uranium be a conflict factor? First, much like oil, uranium is a highly strategic source
of energy. Second, uranium is the core ingredient of nuclear weapons and thus enjoys the
attention of both superpowers and rogue states. These two aspects make uranium a particularly
delicate resource. Third, in African countries revenues from uranium production can be
particularly attractive prey for both the political elite and their opponents. Fourth, uranium
production often leads to considerable hazards for humans (workers, residents) and causes major
ecological damage. A lack of knowledge about how to regulate and control uranium extraction
and a lack of experience regarding how to negotiate with mining firms may leave particularly
disadvantaged local communities as the losers in uranium ventures. Given these risky features,
we generally infer that uranium operations increase the risk of violent conflict. Also,
acknowledging existing group conflicts, we infer that whenever uranium mining is taking place
in the homelands of (marginalized) ethnic groups who are excluded from the benefits (revenues)
but have to bear the burden (ecological degradation, land disputes), conflict is more likely.
Champion Briefs
108
Uranium mining causes serious threats to individuals.

In 2009, Africa accounted for 18 per cent of global uranium production.7 While only Niger,
Namibia, Malawi and South Africa can be considered relevant producers of uranium at the
moment of writing, on-going exploration projects and dormant mines in 25 African countries
from Algeria to Zimbabwe8 highlight the upcoming importance of uranium mining in Africa.
Exploration projects can prompt both enormous expectations of future uranium wealth and active
opposition supported by human rights organizations.9 As a downside, uranium operations exhibit
several features that can initiate the conflict-inducing mechanisms outlined above. Motives to
struggle against mining firms and/or the central government, which issues the licenses, might
include grievances regarding the negative effects on the environment and human well-being. For
instance, radiation is set free during mining, milling and the depositing of the tailings. The use of
acids during the leaching process can contaminate groundwater. The health risks for workers,
inhabitants of nearby areas and livestock are tremendous. In addition, uranium milling requires
immense quantities of water, which is already scarce in dry areas such as Niger and Namibia.
Also, during the development of uranium mines, marginalized groups lacking political advocates
may face eviction or have to bear the brunt of ecological degradation and radiation hazards.
Uranium mining may furthermore trigger disputes over the distribution of revenues, particularly
when the mines are situated in the settlement areas of marginalized groups that feel excluded
from the benefits but nevertheless have to carry the burden. Opportunities: uranium is usually
mined industrially and requires large infrastructure investments to extract and process the ore
economically. Therefore, uranium is hardly a lootable resource in the sense that artisanal mining
might be a possible option for rebels to raise revenues. Still, uranium does provide financial and
military opportunities for insurgents, who can potentially attack facilities, control transport
routes or kidnap foreign workers. In some contexts, particularly in on-going violent conflicts,
uranium firms may sponsor insurgents indirectly in order to acquire future options for extraction
rights. The indirect mechanisms of uranium mining may theoretically be similar to those of other
resource rents, such as oil and diamonds. For instance, when a government is highly dependent
on uranium exports for revenue, price shocks may severely affect economic development. If
uranium is the main source of wealth in a country, it may ensue a rent-seeking mentality that
harms the quality of institutions. Negative development in both areas may result in indirect, but
higher conflict risks.
Champion Briefs
109
Uranium mining specifically hurts countries that are

currently experiencing periods of instability.
These cases, the DRC, Namibia, Niger and South Africa, have been tested for causal
mechanisms connecting uranium, ethnic discrimination and armed conflict. For this test we used
an analytical framework that traced for possible uranium-related motive and opportunity
mechanisms, as well as ethnicity-related and other risks. Of these four cases, only Niger exhibits
a strong causal relationship between uranium and armed conflict; there is evidence that uranium
played a minor role in the secession attempt of Katanga in the DRC. In general, we conclude that
uranium has not been an independent conflict risk in Africa as suggested by H1. Apparently,
uranium's non-lootable mode of production and its strategic value prompting governments to
exert control over areas commonly reduce the feasibility for rebellion. Unlike rebels in
Nigeria's Niger Delta in Nigeria, who regularly tap pipelines, rebels in Niger could not access
uranium but just interfered with transport and engaged in kidnapping; uranium's strategic value
may attract interest but at the same time motivates states and companies to protect extraction
facilities.101 Uranium becomes a conflict factor only under specific circumstances. The
quantitative part of our analysis yields some support for H2 that the interaction with ethnic
discrimination turns uranium into a conflict risk. Process tracing in the case studies confirms this
idea and reveals that a number of further specific circumstances have to be additionally present
for uranium to contribute to conflict. When protest against the distribution of revenues from
uranium can be mobilized in ethnic terms, a weak state is unable to control the resource area, and
terrain is otherwise favourable for rebellion, uranium is likely to be a cause of conflict but not
otherwise. Regarding uranium, the resource curse is contingent on specific circumstances.
Champion Briefs
110
Uranium mining causes lung cancers. Meta-analyses prove.

Sogl, M. Quantitative Relationship Between Silica Exposure And Lunch Cancer Mortality In
German Uranium Miners 1946-2003. British Journal of Cancer. 2012. Web. August 14,
2016. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22929885>.
The meta-analysis of Lacasse et al (2009) included four cohort studies and six casecontrol
studies having quantitative measurements of crystalline silica exposure and adjustment for
smoking. An increase in risk of lung cancer was observed with increasing cumulative silica
exposure. Differences in the quality of silica exposure assessment of the original studies and
significant heterogeneity across the studies limit its interpretation. In conclusion, results indicate
an elevated lung cancer risk at higher cumulative silica exposures. No increase in risk in the
range
Champion Briefs
111
Uranium mining has connections to lung cancer.

Gilbert, E.S. Lung Cancer Risks From Plutonium: An Updated Analysis Of Data From The
Mayak Worker Cohort. 2013. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23391147>.
The meta-analysis of Lacasse et al (2009) included four cohort studies and six casecontrol
studies having quantitative measurements of crystalline silica exposure and adjustment for
smoking. An increase in risk of lung cancer was observed with increasing cumulative silica
exposure. Differences in the quality of silica exposure assessment of the original studies and
significant heterogeneity across the studies limit its interpretation. In conclusion, results indicate
an elevated lung cancer risk at higher cumulative silica exposures. No increase in risk in the
range
Champion Briefs
112
Uranium mining poses serious threats to health.

Fettus, Geoffrey. Nuclear Fuels Dirty Beginnings. NRDC. 03-2012. Web. August 15, 2016.
<https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/uranium-mining-report.pdf>.
Uranium mining anywhere poses significant environmental, economic, and social risks. In the
high plains, Rocky Mountains, and intermountain West, however, where water resources are
already scarce, it is inevitable that water-intensive uranium extraction poses significant risks to
the regions environmental and public health. Nonetheless, domestic and international mining
companies are showing renewed interest in recovering uranium that lies beneath the iconic
landscapes and fragile ecosystems of the American West. Projections of a U.S. and global
nuclear renaissance have sparked forecasts of a uranium supply shortfall and rising uranium
prices, spurred by the prospect of significant public subsidies for new nuclear power generation,
and ultimately prompting a flood of uranium mining claims and applications for exploration
permits in water-limited states such as Colorado and Utah. The vast majority of proposed
uranium mines are in-situ leach (ISL) solution mines, which typically use large wellfields of
hundreds of wells, diesel-powered pumps, and huge volumes of groundwater to dissolve the
uranium from the ore bearing rock and bring it to the surface.
Champion Briefs
113
62% of uranium comes from three suppliers.

About 62 percent of the worlds annual mined uranium production in 2010 came from the three
largest suppliers Kazakhstan (33 percent), Canada (18 percent), and Australia (11 percent).
The world uranium production and recoverable reserve data are shown in Table 3. For the past
five years, U.S. nuclear power-reactor operators have purchased only about 15 percent of their
needed uranium from domestic sources.43 Worldwide identified uranium reserves, as reported
by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), show that in 2007
the United States had approximately 6 percent (342,000 tons) of the worlds uranium reserves.
None of these resources, however, falls into the lowest cost-of-recovery category for uranium
(less than $18 per pound), under which 642,000 tons of world reserves fall. These and other
factors make it difficult for American producers to compete in the world market.44
Champion Briefs
114
Demand for uranium is increasing.

It is NRDCs sense that there could be a measured increase in global demand for mined uranium
due to the termination of the Russian-U.S. Megatons to Megawatts program and the continued
growth of nuclear power in Asia. Whether there will be significant growth in demand in the
United States and Europe looks much less certain, especially after the events of the Fukushima
nuclear disaster in Japan. A key factor will be whether future supplies of mined uranium outside
the United States will be sufficient to keep the moving average of uranium prices consistently
below $35 to $45 per pound, which we understand to be roughly the price range required for
profitable operation of most ISL recovery projects.
Champion Briefs
115
There are serious environmental harms from uranium

mining.
The environmental hazards from uranium recovery operations are real and widespread. Overall,
open-pit and underground mining bring to the surface ore that bears significant concentrations of
naturally occurring radioactive elements and potentially toxic heavy metalsmaterials that
would otherwise have remained distributed and undisturbed within the earths crust. The wastes
from openpit mining are extensive and have proved complicated to control over time. The
primary environmental burden from open-pit mining has, of course, been management of the
huge amounts of radioactive waste residues, or tailings, that uranium mills generate.52 Only a
small fraction of the mined material contains the valuable uranium oxide; approximately one to
five pounds are extracted from each ton of ore. The tailings from the milling process are
normally dumped as sludge into special piles. In the past, these piles were abandoned and posed
(and in some instances continue to pose) serious threats to public health and safety. The
expediently engineered structures to contain the tailings have eroded over time and allowed
radioactive waste to leak into the surrounding ecosystem,53 fouling nearby groundwater and
surface water and exposing entire communities to dangerous levels of radioactivity. The largest
such piles in the United States and Canada contain up to 30 million tons of solid material.54
Figure 12 is an aerial photograph of a producing conventional uranium mine in Utah, and Figure
13 is a satellite image of the only currently operating uranium mill in the United States. The
hazards from just one mine or incident can be significant and long lasting.55
Champion Briefs
116
Uranium mining disproportionately hurts minority groups

such as Native Americans.
The hazards from just one mine or incident can be significant and long lasting.55 For instance, in
the 1979 collapse of a tailings dam in Church Rock, New Mexico, 93 million gallons of
radioactive and chemically contaminated liquid and 1,100 tons of solid radioactive tailings were
deposited into the Rio Puerco, contaminating the river more than 60 miles downstream.56 There
are thousands of uranium mines in the western United States in need of remediation. Cleanup of
conventional mines is, for the most part, happening under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, better known as Superfund.57 For decades the
Navajo Nation has been especially affected by boom-and-bust uranium mining. On Navajo land
alone, nearly four million tons of uranium ore were extracted from 1944 to 1986; left behind
were more than 500 abandoned uranium mines, four inactive uranium milling sites, a former
dump site, and the widespread contamination of land and water.58 Only recently has the
government attempted to assess and mitigate this contamination, but full reclamation of the land
is unlikely.59 An additional consequence of uranium mining has been skyrocketing lung cancer
rates among the estimated 3,000 to 5,000 Navajo who worked the mines, contributed to by the
inhalation of ore dust.60,61 Given the long history and the severity of uranium impacts on the
Navajo people, in 2005 the Navajo Nation banned uranium mining and processing on Navajo
lands until past harms have been fully remediated.62
Champion Briefs
117
There are health risks for mineworkers. IPPNW World

Congress.
IPPNWWorldCongress. Uranium Mining, Health, And Indigenous Peoples Preconference.
IPPNW. 08-26-2010. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/uraniumfactsheet3.pdf>.
The health of miners that work in conventional uranium mines is most at risk. Uranium ore is
relatively harmless, as long as it remains outside the body, because it only contains a little pure
uranium. But through the mechanical extraction of uranium ore from the rock around it, miners
are exposed not only to fine particulates of uranium but also to radon, a by-product of uranium in
the form of radioactive gas, which they breathe in. The inhalation of uranium particles and radon
can cause cancer particularly in the lung. It was already proved in the 1920s that contamination
with radon gas (Schneeberger disease) caused bronchial and lung cancer in mineworkers.
Uranium is highly toxic and attacks the inner organs, such as the kidneys. Studies show that
uranium causes birth defects in fetuses and infants, and that the risk of leukemia is increased.
Uranium mutates human DNA and chromosomes and deforms them. Health risks are not only
caused by uranium. Uranium is radioactive and therefore instable, t changes and decays into
other elements. Radon and polonium are just as toxic as their parent element. IN 2007, the
Strahlentelex information service named the following diseases that are scientifically proven
through studies to have been caused by an exposition to radon, uranium and decay elements of
uranium: bronchial- and lung chancer, leukemia and other blood diseases, cancer of the bone
marrow, stomach, liver, intestine, gall bladder, kidney and skin, psychological disorders and
birth defects.
Champion Briefs
118
Indigenous people are against uranium mining.

KARLSSON, BENGT. Nuclear Lives: Uranium Mining, Indigenous Peoples, And
Development In India. Economic and Political Weekly. 2009. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/25663470?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.
Still, the public distrust of the nuclear industry appears to be significantly higher than with other
industrial sectors. Most peo ple prefer not to have any nuclear installations in their back yard,
regardless of official assurances that these are perfectly safe.22 The type of distrust expressed by
people in Meghalaya regarding the alleged safety of uranium mining can be observed more or
less universally, and this also holds for related activities in the nuclear chain. The other main site
in India where ucil hopes to start mining uranium is in Andhra Pradesh, and these plans have also
unleashed massive protests in that state. Simi larly in the us, Canada and Australia, uranium
mining evokes fierce protests, not least among the indigenous peoples on whose lands most of
the deposits are located.23 The Navajo nation has called for a total ban on mining on its lands. In
2006, the Navajo hosted the Indigenous World Uranium Summit with indigenous delegates
participating from various parts of the world. In the declaration of the summit, the main demand
was a global ban on uranium mining and related activi ties on native lands. The summit also
recalled the declaration issued in Salzburg at the World Uranium Hearing in 1992, that uranium
and other nuclear materials must remain in their natu ral location. Leave it in the ground, that
is.24 The Green Party in Canada, for example, has lined up with indigenous and environ mental
organisations demanding a uranium mining ban on the basis that it is extremely hazardous to
the environment and health of mine workers and public.25 The anti-nuclear movement is
increasingly building up transnational alliances, turning the not-in-my-backyard politics into a
not-in-anyone's-backyard principle, as Harvey (1996:391) put it in a discussion on grass roots
environmental justice movements.
Champion Briefs
119
Indigenous people are filing suits against these companies

for uranium mining.
KARLSSON, BENGT. Nuclear Lives: Uranium Mining, Indigenous Peoples, And
Development In India. Economic and Political Weekly. 2009. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/25663470?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>.
Around the world there are also citizens' group pursuing litiga tion against states or private
companies for compensation for injuries inflicted by radiation exposure.26 The most disturbing
cases are those related to nuclear weapons tests, as on the islands of French Polynesia and
Micronesia or in desert areas of the us or in the former Soviet Union. Contamination from these
tests has shattered the lives of entire communities. However, victims often find it hard to make
their case.27 The psychological impact is rarely recognised, and health effects often appear
decades later and are hard to prove. As put by Valerie Kuletz (2001:251) in a study on nuclear
politics in the us: It is relatively easy for institutions responsible for the release of radio active
contaminants to hide it because it often takes time for the ef fects to reveal themselves. This time
gap has been used by the United States and other governments to deny causal links between
cancer (occurring ten or twenty years hence) or deformities (which occur in subsequent
generations) and radioactive contamination
Champion Briefs
120
Mining labor markets cause racial inequalities through

colonialism.
Clark, Brett. THE INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES. Organization & Environment. 12-2002. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://oae.sagepub.com/content/15/4/410.full.pdf>.
The role of the labor market in the construction of racial inequalities has been the primary focus
within internal colonialism. Barrera (1979) outlined five ways the colonial labor system created
inequalities. First, the subordinate groups means of survival (land) were stripped away from
them, so they had to either labor for the capitalist or receive subsidies from the state (pp. 40-48).
The dispossession of land has left Native Americans with less than 4% of their original land base
(Churchill & LaDuke, 1992, p. 243; LaDuke, 1999, pp. 2-3). Second, a dual labor system was
created (Barrera, 1979, pp. 40-48). For example, Din miners were hired to work in uranium
mines at about two-thirds the prevailing off-reservation pay scale for comparable work
(Churchill, 1997, p. 307). Third, occupational stratification was established, as people of color
were concentrated in low-wage, low-skill jobs (Barrera, 1979, pp. 40-48). Fourth, a reserve army
of labor was created. A significant portion of the population was excluded from the workforce
except to be used during strikes as scabs and/or during economic upturns. An unemployment rate
of more than 50% on many reservations creates a population in constant need of employment.
Fifth, racial minorities were used as a buffer during economic downturns, being the first laid off.
These systematic conditions restricted the employment experience that ethnic minorities received
while concentrating poverty within a population. When these inequalities are institutionalized,
they remain fairly stable, yet they are subject to change under economic and social pressures.
Champion Briefs
121
Increased need for natural resources causes an increase of

use of indigenous lands.
With the increased need for natural resources, the federal government developed programs to
depopulate the reservations by encouraging migration to urban areas using the lure of jobs and
economic support, all to make it easier to lease Native lands to mining companies for the
extraction of raw materials (Churchill, 1998, p. 38). As programs for relocation were
conscripted, another act was created to terminate recognition of reservations that did not have
known mineral resources.7 In the 1950s, the Indian Vocational Training Act was used to
urbanize portions of the Native population with the hope of dissolving the reservation system
(Cornell, 1988, p. 130).
Champion Briefs
122
A lot of natural resources are located on the lands of

indigenous populations.
Capitals interests in the raw materials located on the reservations reached a new level in the
1960s and 1970s due to political instabilities around the world. Third World nationalism and
revolts threatened to nationalize and expropriate capitals investments within these nations
(Gedicks, 1993, pp. 39-40; Girvan, 1976). Multinational mining and energy corporations shifted
their search for secure investments, meaning the extraction of raw materials at a very high rate of
profit with little interference from democratic pressures, to politically stable countries (Gedicks,
1998, p. 274). Gedicks (1998) noted, In 1975 the U.S. Bureau of Mines, under contract with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), began a systematic mineral resource evaluation of U.S. Indian
reservations (p. 274). By 1976, it was reported that vast amounts of copper, zinc, gold, coal,
uranium, and other minerals were heavily concentrated on Native lands. It was estimated in the
1970s that Native lands held 2/3 of the uranium, 1/4 of the low-sulfur coal, and 1/5 of the natural
gas and oil reserves for the United States (Churchill, 1997, p. 292).
Champion Briefs
123
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal mining risks are

higher than nuclear power risks.
Lashof, Daniel. Coal In A Changing Climate. NRDC. 2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/coalclimate.pdf>.
Recent high-profile accidents in Pennsylvania and West Virginia refocused the nations attention
on the hazards of coal mining, which remains one of the United States most dangerous
professions. The yearly fatality rate in the industry is 0.23 per thousand workers, making the
industry about five times as hazardous as the average private workplace. 20 The industry had 22
fatalities in 2005, an all-time low, but 2006 was much more deadly, with 47 fatalities. 21
Eighteen of these deaths occurred during a one-month period. These high fatality rates
nonetheless reflect significant reductions since the early part of last century. In 1925 there were
2,518 fatalities; since then, the coal industry workforce has shrunk due to automation, while
output has grown. 22 Coal miners also suffer many nonfatal injuries and are vulnerable to serious
diseases, most notably black lung disease (pneumoconiosis) caused by inhaling coal dust.
Although the 1969 Coal Mine Health and Safety Act seeks to eliminate black lung disease, the
United Mine Workers estimate that 1,500 former miners die of black lung each year
Champion Briefs
124
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal mining causes loss of

environment and biodiversity. Worse impacts than the AC.
Coal miningand particularly surface or strip miningposes one of the most significant threats
to terrestrial habitats in the United States. The Appalachian region, for example, which produces
more than 35 percent of our nations coal, is one of the most biologically diverse forested regions
in the country. 27, 28 But surface mining activity clearcuts trees and fragments habitat,
destroying natural areas that were home to hundreds of unique species of plants, invertebrates,
salamanders, mussels, and fish. Even where forests are left standing, fragmentation is of
significant concern because a decrease in patch size is correlated with a decrease in biodiversity
as the ratio of interior habitat to edge habitat decreases. This is of particular concern to certain
bird species that require large tracts of interior forest habitat, such as the black-and-white warbler
and the black-throated blue warbler. While underground mining generally results in less surface
disturbance, land subsidence, particularly from longwall mining, can also destroy habitat. After
mining is complete, these once-forested regions in the Southeast are typically reclaimed as
grasslands, although grasslands are not a naturally occurring habitat type in this region.
Reclamation practices limit the overall ecological health of sites, and it has been estimated that
the natural return of forests to reclaimed sites may take hundreds of years. 29 Grasslands that
replace the original ecosystems in areas that were surface mined are generally characterized by
less-developed soil structure and lower species diversity compared with natural forests in the
region. 30, 31 Reclaimed grasslands also show a high degree of soil compaction, which tends to
limit the ability of native tree and plant species to take root. According to the USEPA, the loss of
vegetation and alteration of topography associated with surface mining can lead to increased soil
erosion and may lead to an increased probability of flooding after rainstorms. 32 The destruction
of forested habitat not only degrades the quality of the natural environment but also destroys the
aesthetic values that make the Appalachian region such a popular tourist destination. About 1
million acres of West Virginia mountains have been permitted for strip mining and mountaintop
Champion Briefs
125
Coal mining causes loss of environment and biodiversity. Worse impacts than the AC.
(continued)
removal mining since 1977. 33 Many of these mines have yet to be reclaimed; where there were
once forested mountains, there now stand crippled mounds of sand and gravel. A tremendous
amount of strip mining for coal also occurs in the Western United States. 34 As of 2005, surface
mining had been permitted on 750,000 acres in just five western states: Wyoming, Colorado,
New Mexico, Montana, and North Dakota.35 Unlike the East, much of the Westincluding
much of the regions principal coal areasis arid and predominantly unforested. In the West, as
in the East, surface mining activities cause severe environmental damage as huge machines strip,
rip apart, and scrape aside vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat as they drasticallyand
permanently reshape existing land forms and the affected areas ecology to reach the
subsurface coal. Strip mining replaces precious open space with invasive industrialization that
displaces wildlife, increases soil erosion, takes away recreational opportunities, degrades the
wilderness, and destroys the regions scenic beauty. 36 Forty-six western national parks are
located within 10 miles of an identified coal basin, and these parks could be significantly
damaged by future surface mining in the region. 37 Land reclamation in the West after
destructive mining tears through an area can be problematic because of climate and soil quality
conditions. And as in the East, reclamation of surface mined areas Natural Resources Defense
Council I _ does not necessarily restore pre-mining wildlife habitat and may require that scarce
water resources be used for irrigationa significant threat in a part of the country plagued by
drought
Champion Briefs
126
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal mining causes serious

water damage. Worse than the AC impacts for all
individuals, especially those living near mines.
Coal miningand particularly surface or strip miningposes one of the most significant threats
to terrestrial habitats in the United States. The Appalachian region, for example, which produces
more than 35 percent of our nations coal, is one of the most biologically diverse forested regions
in the country. 27, 28 But surface mining activity clearcuts trees and fragments habitat,
destroying natural areas that were home to hundreds of unique species of plants, invertebrates,
salamanders, mussels, and fish. Even where forests are left standing, fragmentation is of
significant concern because a decrease in patch size is correlated with a decrease in biodiversity
as the ratio of interior habitat to edge habitat decreases. This is of particular concern to certain
bird species that require large tracts of interior forest habitat, such as the black-and-white warbler
and the black-throated blue warbler. While underground mining generally results in less surface
disturbance, land subsidence, particularly from longwall mining, can also destroy habitat. After
mining is complete, these once-forested regions in the Southeast are typically reclaimed as
grasslands, although grasslands are not a naturally occurring habitat type in this region.
Reclamation practices limit the overall ecological health of sites, and it has been estimated that
the natural return of forests to reclaimed sites may take hundreds of years. 29 Grasslands that
replace the original ecosystems in areas that were surface mined are generally characterized by
less-developed soil structure and lower species diversity compared with natural forests in the
region. 30, 31 Reclaimed grasslands also show a high degree of soil compaction, which tends to
limit the ability of native tree and plant species to take root. According to the USEPA, the loss of
vegetation and alteration of topography associated with surface mining can lead to increased soil
erosion and may lead to an increased probability of flooding after rainstorms. 32 The destruction
of forested habitat not only degrades the quality of the natural environment but also destroys the
Champion Briefs
127
Coal mining causes serious water damage. Worse than the AC impacts for all individuals,
especially those living near mines. (Continued)
aesthetic values that make the Appalachian region such a popular tourist destination. About 1
million acres of West Virginia mountains have been permitted for strip mining and mountaintop
removal mining since 1977. 33 Many of these mines have yet to be reclaimed; where there were
once forested mountains, there now stand crippled mounds of sand and gravel. A tremendous
amount of strip mining for coal also occurs in the Western United States. 34 As of 2005, surface
mining had been permitted on 750,000 acres in just five western states: Wyoming, Colorado,
New Mexico, Montana, and North Dakota.35 Unlike the East, much of the Westincluding
much of the regions principal coal areasis arid and predominantly unforested. In the West, as
in the East, surface mining activities cause severe environmental damage as huge machines strip,
rip apart, and scrape aside vegetation, soils, and wildlife habitat as they drasticallyand
permanently reshape existing land forms and the affected areas ecology to reach the
subsurface coal. Strip mining replaces precious open space with invasive industrialization that
displaces wildlife, increases soil erosion, takes away recreational opportunities, degrades the
wilderness, and destroys the regions scenic beauty. 36 Forty-six western national parks are
located within 10 miles of an identified coal basin, and these parks could be significantly
damaged by future surface mining in the region. 37 Land reclamation in the West after
destructive mining tears through an area can be problematic because of climate and soil quality
conditions. And as in the East, reclamation of surface mined areas Natural Resources Defense
Council I _ does not necessarily restore pre-mining wildlife habitat and may require that scarce
water resources be used for irrigationa significant threat in a part of the country plagued by
drought
Champion Briefs
128
A2 Critical Neoliberalism AC: Coal and uranium mining

have always hurt indigenous populations because they do
not receive any of the benefits.
With the Second World War and the development of nuclear weapons, the exploration for raw
materials on reservations increased (Churchill, 1997, p. 294). The extraction of coal and uranium
only furthered the underdevelopment of the reservations because they received little, if any, of
the profits obtained from these operaClark / U.S. INDIGENOUS ENVIRONMENTAL
MOVEMENT 417 Downloaded from oae.sagepub.com at UCLA on August 16, 2016 tions
(Cornell, 1988, p. 53; Talbot, 1981, p. 143). Few jobs were available at these mining operations,
especially those with advanced technology, and workers received lower wages than comparable
employment off of the reservations. Only outside capital was allowed to organize extractive
industries on reservations up until an amendment was added in 1982 that allowed for indigenous
businesses to extract resources from their own lands (Frantz, 1999, p. 195).
Champion Briefs
129
AFF: Critical Sustainability AC
Critical Sustainability AC
Within the literature, environmental groups have had a complicated relationship with
nuclear power. While on the one hand it has the possibility to lessen our dependence on carbon
based fuels, the process of producing power from nuclear reactions produces nuclear waste that
can remain hazardous for centuries. Therefore, these sustainability arguments can be effective in
preempting and turning a good deal of negative offense. For example, if the negative argues that
nuclear power is necessary to avoid climate change, youll have an immediate in-road to arguing
that nuclear power actually produces a ton of emissions in the mining of uranium, transportation
of materials, and construction of facilities. Those sorts of claims are present in the Rae, Olson,
and Caldicott pieces of evidence.
In addition to emissions, a core part of your argument will most likely be directed
towards nuclear waste. In the status quo, most nuclear waste is merely sequestered, which is the
technical equivalent of sweeping dust under the rug. Absent leaps in reprocessing technology,
that sequestered waste has the capacity to contaminate groundwater causing water shortages and
accelerating the rate of desertification. Moreover, the nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain lies
in an active volcano field, and could erupt spreading radioactive waste throughout the biosphere.
The pieces of evidence by Coplan also give comparative analysis of the impact of nuclear waste
in relation to emissions.
One argument that I think will give you traction in these debates is from the Rae card. It
indicates that even absent of the environmental effect producing nuclear energy has, its
generation diverts resources and attention away from genuinely renewable energy. This is
strategic because it gives you a link to sustainability completely distinct from the process of
nuclear energy, and will allow you to make strategic concessions about the operation of nuclear
power plants while still having access to environmental impacts.
Champion Briefs
130
Nuclear Power is dependent on fossil fuels and produces

substantial CO2 Emissions.
Olson, Mary. Confronting A False Myth Of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion Is Not A
Remedy For Climate Change. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. March 05,
2006. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf>.
In the service of this disinformation campaign U.S. Vice President Cheney has publicly stated5 a
falsehood: he asserted that nuclear power is carbon-free. Nuclear power is not free from carbon
emissions. A number of recent studies have found that when mining, processing, and extensive
transportation of uranium in order to make nuclear fuel is considered, the release of carbon
dioxide (CO2) as the result of making electricity from uranium is comparable to burning natural
gas to make electric power.6 Additional energy required for decommissioning and disposition of
the wastes generated increases this CO2 output substantially.7 Nuclear power is not only
dependent upon fossil fuels for the production of uranium fuel, decommissioning, and the
disposition of wastes generated: it is also dependent upon a grid that is powered by other sources
of energy, typically coal. This is due to the simple fact that nuclear reactors cannot black start8
in other words, they depend on electric power from the external power grid to be able to come
on-line. Transition away from the combustion of fossil fuels cannot be accomplished solely by
the expansion of nuclear power since it depends on the grid being powered up before reactors
can come on-line.9
Champion Briefs
131
Nuclear Power is not sustainable and trades off with genuine

renewables.
Rae, Leah. Debunking The Myth Indian Points Nuclear Power Fails The Green Test.
RiverKeeper. January 03, 2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/indianpoint_reenergize/the_facts/1313debunking-the-mythindian-point>.
Even if we ignore the many aspects of nuclear production that are neither clean nor green
including its intractable radioactive waste problem, nuclear energy is not a sustainable energy
source. The Greenpeace/ EREC report states, In the light of various scenarios for the worldwide
development of nuclear power, it is likely that uranium supplies will be exhausted sometime
between 2026 and 2070. Moreover, the danger in advancing nuclear energy as the solution to
global warming is that the nuclear industry will be over-subsidized while more promising
sources of renewable energy are under-funded, and underdeveloped.
Champion Briefs
132
Thermal pollution from nuclear power eviscerates

ecosystems and the atmosphere.
Olson, Mary. Confronting A False Myth Of Nuclear Power: Nuclear Power Expansion Is Not A
Remedy For Climate Change. Nuclear Information and Resource Service. March 05,
2006. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climateandnukestalkunmay32006.pdf>.
In addition to radiological pollution, nuclear power also contributes massive thermal pollution to
both our air and water.20 It has been estimated that every nuclear reactor daily releases thermal
energy heat-- that is in excess of the heat released by the detonation of a 15 kiloton nuclear
bomb blast.21 In addition to horrendous direct impact of this heat on aquatic ecosystems, nuclear
power contributes significantly to the thermal energy inside Earths atmosphere, making it
contraindicated at this time of rapid global warming.
Champion Briefs
133
Fossil fuels are required to run nuclear plants and mine the
uranium- results in massive CO2 Emissions.
Caldicott, Helen. Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer. The New Press. 09-30-2007. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://www.helencaldicott.com/books/nuclear-power-is-not-theanswer/>.
Nuclear power is not clean and green, as the industry claims, because large amounts of
traditional fossil fuels are required to mine and refine the uranium needed to run nuclear power
reactors, to construct the massive concrete reactor buildings, and to transport and store the toxic
radioactive waste created by the nuclear process. Burning of this fossil fuel emits significant
quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2)-the primary greenhouse gas-into the atmosphere. In
addition, large amounts of the now-banned chlorofluorocarbon gas (CFC) are emitted during
the enrichment of uranium. CFC gas is not only 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient as an
atmospheric heat trapper (greenhouse gas) than C02, but it is a classic pollutant and a
potent destroyer of the ozone layer. While currently the creation of nuclear electricity produces
only one-third the amount of CO2 emitted from a similar-sized, conventional gas generator, this
is a transitory statistic. Over several decades, as the concentration of available uranium ore
declines, more fossil fuels will be required to extract the ore from less-concentrated ore veins.
Within ten to twenty years, nuclear reactors will produce no net energy because of the massive
amounts of fossil fuel that will be necessary to mine and to enrich the remaining poor grades of
uranium. (The nuclear power industry contends that large quantities of uranium can be obtained
by reprocessing radioactive spent fuel. However, this process is extremely expensive, medically
dangerous for nuclear workers, and releases large amounts of radioactive material into the air
and water; it is there. fore not a pragmatic consideration.) By extension, the operation of nuclear
power plants will then produce exactly the same amounts of greenhouse gases and air pollution
as standard power plants.
Champion Briefs
134
Uranium mining produces CO2 emissions and becomes

increasingly energy intensive.
Caldicott, Helen. Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer. The New Press. 09-30-2007. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://www.helencaldicott.com/books/nuclear-power-is-not-theanswer/>.
The largest unavoidable energy cost associated with nuclear power relates to the processes of
mining and milling uranium fuel. Variable grades of uranium ore exist at different mines around
the world. A greater amount of energy is required to extract uranium from a mine containing a
low-grade uranium concentration of 0.1% than from another mine containing a uranium
concentration of 1%-ten times more. Therefore the specific energy expenditure required for
uranium extraction from the original ore body is largely de-pendent upon the ore grade. The
energy used to mine the uranium is fossil fuel-the kind of energy nuclear power is touted as
replacing-with the concurrent production of carbon dioxide. There is a point at which the
concentration of uranium becomes so low that the energy required to extract and to refine a
dilute uranium ore concentration from the ground is greater than the amount of electricity
generated by the nuclear reactor. For example, 162 tons of natural uranium must be extracted
from the earths crust each year to fuel one nuclear power plant. If the uranium is in granite ore,
with a low-grade uranium concentration of 4 grams per ton of rock (0.0004%), then 40 million
tons of granite will need to be mined. This rock will need to be ground into fine powder and
chemically treated with sulphuric acid and other chemicals to ex-tract the uranium from the rock
(milling). Assuming an extraction capacity of 50% (an unrealistically high estimate), 80 million
tons of granite will therefore need to be treated. The dimensions of this mass of rock are one
hundred meters high and three kilometers long. The extraction of uranium from this granite rock
would consume over thirty times the energy generated in the reactor from the extracted
uranium.
Champion Briefs
135
Nuclear power leads to water shortages and therefore

droughts and desertification.
Romm, Joseph. The Self-Limiting Future Of Nuclear Power. Center for American Progress.
February 06, 2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/green/reports/2008/06/02/4493/the-selflimiting-future-of-nuclear-power/>.
Finally, we have water consumption. As a 2008 Department of Energy report on wind power
noted, few realize that electricity generation accounts for nearly half of all water withdrawals in
the nation. At the same time, existing nuclear power stations used and consumed significantly
more water per megawatt hour than electricity generation powered by fossil fuels, as a 2002
report by the Electric Power Research Institute found. Yet as a comprehensive 2006 Department
of Energy report, Energy Demands on Water Resources noted, Some regions have seen
groundwater levels drop as much as 300 to 900 feet over the past 50 years because of the
pumping of water from aquifers faster than the natural rate of recharge. A 2003 General
Accounting Office study showed that most state water managers expect either local or regional
water shortages within the next 10 years under average climate conditions. Under drought
conditions, even more severe water shortages are expected.31 Climate change is expected to
drive drought, desertification, and water shortages (from the loss of the inland glaciers that feed
major rivers) throughout the nation and the world. A 2006 analysis by the UKs Hadley Center
for Climate Prediction and Research found that on our current emissions path, we may see
desertification of one-third of the planet and drought over half the planet by the end of the
century.32
Champion Briefs
136
Spent fuel stored at Yucca Mountain could become a nuclear

volcano sending radioactive waste miles into the sky.
Mason, Betsy. Yucca Mountain Could Become Nuclear Volcano. New Scientist. 08-24-2002.
Web. August 16, 2016. <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523571-300-yuccamountain-could-become-nuclear-volcano/>.
IF A volcano ever erupted beneath the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in
Nevada it could cause a devastating explosion that sent high-level nuclear waste spewing into the
atmosphere. Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an
active volcanic field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely unlikely, but it is possible.
There are six craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which
formed by eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000
chance of an eruption at the site during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the
waste stored there to dissipate. And a recent report suggests that a more active cluster of
volcanoes 100 kilometres to the north could be an even bigger threat . Now Andrew Woods of
the BP Institute at the University of Cambridge and his colleagues have found that if an eruption
occurred beneath the site, a rising sheet of magma could burst into the proposed storage tunnels
200 to 300 metres below the surface. The pressure in the hollow tunnels would be much lower
than in the surrounding rock, so once the magma broke through it would gush into the tunnels at
tens or hundreds of metres per second. The heat would be enough to deform and rupture the 7centimetre-thick walls of the waste canisters in just 20 minutes, the researchers say. Worse, if the
storage tunnels were open to the main access tunnel, this could act as an easy escape route for the
magma to reach the surface, sending nuclear waste several miles skyward in an explosive
eruption. According to Woodss model, even if the tunnels were blocked, the magma could still
build up enough pressure to break through to the surface.
Champion Briefs
137
Yucca Mountain is located within an active volcanic field.

Mason, Betsy. Yucca Mountain Could Become Nuclear Volcano. New Scientist. 08-24-2002.
Web. August 16, 2016. <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523571-300-yuccamountain-could-become-nuclear-volcano/>.
Yucca Mountain lies about 145 kilometres north-west of Las Vegas, within an active volcanic
field. An eruption at the site is considered extremely unlikely, but it is possible. There are six
craters within 20 kilometres of the site, including Lathrop Wells volcano, which formed by
eruptions just 80,000 years ago. A study in 2000 estimated that there was a 1 in 1000 chance of
an eruption at the site during the 10,000 years it will take for the radioactivity of the waste stored
there to dissipate.
Champion Briefs
138
Nuclear waste outweighs carbon emissions.

Coplan, Karl. The Intercivilizational Inequities Of Nuclear Power Weighed Against The
Intergenerational Inequities Of Carbon Based Energy. Fordham Environmental Law
Review. January 01, 2006. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1490&context=lawfaculty>
.
Although nuclear energy is currently being promoted as part of the solution to global climate
change, nuclear energy production causes environmental externalities on a scale equally horrific
as those caused by climate change from burning fossil fuels. Nuclear powers externalities are
largely intra-national, and would be imposed by the developed nations of the world mainly on
their own territory, but are of such long duration that they are fairly characterized as
intercivilizational. Fossil fuel climate impacts are more international and global in scope, are
intergenerational, and are imposed by the developed nations of the world on the developing
nations. Any carbon regulation scheme that provides subsidies, whether direct or indirect, to
nuclear energy generation may increase the ultimate scope of nuclear waste impact. Such
schemes would not necessarily achieve a sufficient reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to
counter global climate change. Throughout its history, the nuclear energy industry has deferred
resolution of the most pressing problem with its fuel cycle: disposal or reprocessing of its highlevel radioactive wastes. While new fuel reprocessing technologies may ultimately hold promise
for safer handling of nuclear fuel wastes, these technologies cannot be developed in the
timeframe necessary to allow [*254] nuclear energy to play a significant role in the urgent need
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Champion Briefs
139
Catastrophe caused by nuclear waste becomes more certain

as time goes on.
.
The grave danger posed by nuclear energy is a function of the extreme persistence of its wastes
and by-products. n124 Catastrophic [*249] events that may have a low probability in a given
year, decade, or century become near certainties when the time period is extended into hundreds
of thousands or millions of years. The chances of glaciation or coastal flooding at waste storage
sites (or both), or widespread political disruption and civil unrest may seem remote at present,
but are near certainties in the tens of thousands of years before the plutonium fraction of nuclear
wastes we generate today has decayed to the point that it is neither poisonous nor capable of
annihilating a city in the wrong hands. n125 These nuclear waste impacts seem as certain to
occur as the impacts anticipated from climate change. In order to assess the advisability of
increasing nuclear energy generation in an attempt to avoid global climate change, it is worth
comparing these impacts.
Champion Briefs
140
Nuclear Waste lasts longer than effects of Climate Change.

.
Scientific consensus holds that we are already feeling the effects of global warming. n126 The
more extreme effects of global climate change are anticipated to occur within the next century.
n127 Scientists also believe that the earth will take centuries to absorb the excess carbon dioxide
currently produced by human activity. n128 Of course, if climate change reaches a tipping
point through positive feedback mechanisms not yet fully understood, the impacts may last
much longer. n129 Climate change impacts are thus described as intergenerational [*250] that is, future generations of the people now generating the carbon dioxide will suffer the greatest
impacts. n130 By contrast, nuclear power generation waste impacts will last many thousands of
years, and even into the millions of years. n131 The greatest impacts may not be felt for tens of
thousands of years. n132 Given that no human civilization has lasted longer than 10,000 years, at
least some of the impacts of nuclear power will be imposed on future peoples and political
systems we cannot even contemplate. Indeed, given the long persistence of these wastes even in
comparison with the timeframe of human evolution, these impacts may even be suffered by other
species of humans yet to evolve. n133 The impacts of nuclear waste are thus
intercivilizational. Either set of impacts seems palpably unfair. However, future generations
may enjoy some of the vestigial advantages of the energy wealth enjoyed by the unsustainable
energy practices of the current generation. It seems unlikely that future civilizations would enjoy
any such advantage. These intercivilizational impacts seem more inequitable than the
intergenerational impacts of climate change.
Champion Briefs
141
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear energy is the only

viable alternative to carbon based energy.
Colvin, Joe. Nuclear Energys US Resurgence. The Electricity Journal. January 01, 2004.
Web. August 16, 2016. <https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jelect/v17y2004i1p81-87.html>.
NEI and the nuclear industry also have concentrated on making the environmental case for
nuclear energy. The environmental value of nuclear energy is now widely acknowledged among
U.S. policymakers and a growing portion of the public. The clean air value of nuclear energy is
starting to be explicitly recognized in environmental policy as well. In the spring of 2003, the
state of New Hampshire modified the rules of the states nitrogen oxides (NOx) allowance
allocation. Incremental nuclear energy now can qualify for NOx allowances from a set-aside
pool previously reserved solely for renewable and energy efficiency projects. After all, nuclear
power reduces air emissions the same way wind turbines doby avoiding emissions from fossilfired generators. In 2004, the U.S. government is changing its voluntary carbon emissions
reporting program. The changes may include instituting a market based, transferable credit
program. Nuclear energy is responsible for the largest share of carbon reduction in the current
Department of Energy greenhouse gas reduction registryaccounting for over 40 percent of the
emission reductions reportedand the industry is working to ensure that those reductions are
recognized in any emissions credit program that is developed., 6 A growing number of state
governments are considering a mandatory approach to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
reductions. There were even three bills introduced in Congress last year that included mandatory
cuts to emitted GHG. NEI and the industry are working with both the federal and state
governments to emphasize that avoided emissions are as good as emissions reduced, and that
nuclear energy should be recognized for its contribution to cleaner air. The value of nuclear
energy to our future environmental health is undeniable. A recent study by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and Harvard Universityco-chaired by two former under secretaries of
the U.S. Department of Energy, John Deutch and Ernest Monizconcluded that the nuclear
option should be retained, precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power that
can potentially make a significant contribution to future electricity supply., 7
Champion Briefs
142
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Banning Nuclear Power

derails any possible clean energy revolution.
Ritch, John. The Necessity Of Nuclear Power: A Global And Environmental Imperative.
World Nuclear Association. 02-27-2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.geocities.jp/hptestgravity/The_Necessity_of_Nuclear_Power.pdf>.
Less than ten years from now, greenhouse emissions from developing nations will equal the
emissions from the countries we now call developed. After that, emissions from the developing
world will be the major driver of global climate change. This single fact underscores the
magnitude, the urgency, and the nature of the challenge we face. It should make clear to all but
the most committed ideologue that, while energy conservation, windmills, and solar panels may
help, we cannot hope to rely on such measures alone to meet our worlds expanding appetite for
more energy. Accelerating the Nuclear Renaissance Our starting point for action must be
agreement on a basic premise that emerges from every authoritative analysis: Humankind cannot
conceivably achieve a global clean-energy revolution without a huge expansion of nuclear power
to generate electricity, to produce battery power and perhaps hydrogen for tomorrows
vehicles, and to desalinate seawater in response to the worlds rapidly emerging fresh-water
crisis. This reality is clearly evident in the analyses of the International Energy Agency in the
inter-governmental sector and the World Energy Council in the private sector. Most recently, this
same view has been articulated by the chairman of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel Change,
the IPCC, which just received the Nobel Prize for its work in analyzing our environmental crisis
and educating the public about it. I am gratified that the IPCC leadership, having demonstrated
conclusively the scope and urgency of the crisis, is now venturing to point to nuclear power as an
essential element of the solution. The widening recognition of this truth is now reflected in a
worldwide nuclear renaissance that is gathering speed and momentum. For the nuclear industry
from uranium miners to technology vendors to plant constructors this expansive outlook offers
a promising future. But for serious environmentalists, current projections can provide little
comfort not because nuclear energy is growing but because it is not yet growing fast enough to
play its needed role in the clean-energy revolution our world so desperately needs.
Champion Briefs
143
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear energy is vital to

combating climate change and extinction.
After assessing the human and environmental realities around them, national leaders are
recognizing that nuclear energy today represents nothing less than an indispensable asset if our
world is to meet what must be recognized as the greatest challenge in human history. The human
saga is replete with conflicts between people of different nationalities, ideologies, and religious
beliefs. But today we face a conflict even more daunting in its dangers and scale, a challenge
unlike any previously faced by humanity in any age. It is, in the truest sense of the phrase, an
existential conflict between humankinds current pattern of behaviour and the very planetary
environment that enabled civilization to evolve. All public policy must now be shaped by the
need to reconcile this conflict. As matters stand, we have hardly begun. Between now and 2050,
as world population swells from 6.6 billion toward 9 billion, humankind will consume more
energy than the combined total used in all previous history. Under prevailing patterns of energy
use, the results will prove calamitous. The resulting pollution will damage or ruin the health of
tens and likely hundreds of millions of citizens, mainly in the developing world. Far worse, the
intensifying concentration of greenhouse gases will take past a point of no return as we hurdle
toward climate catastrophe. Today the world economy is producing greenhouse emissions at the
rate of 29 billion tonnes per year some 900 tonnes per second a rate still rising despite
rhetoric and negotiation. The meager yet much maligned Kyoto Protocol, even if implemented,
would make barely a dent in the task we face. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists,
and an increasing cohort of world political leaders, agree that we must, by mid-century, cut
global greenhouse emissions by a full 60% even as world energy consumption triples. In the
sheer scope and urgency of this challenge, we face nothing less than a global emergency. For all
of us, even those most determined to face reality, this crisis is counter-intuitive for simple
reasons of human instinct. When we look upward, either in the daylight or under the stars, it is
Champion Briefs
144
Nuclear energy is vital to combating climate change and extinction. (Continued)

natural to think of the sky as an unlimited expanse. In fact, our atmosphere represents little more
than a thin coating on the Earths surface. In full, the atmosphere reaches 350 miles high. But
most of the atmosphere more than 99% of its molecules is concentrated far lower, in the
troposphere and stratosphere, no more than 30 miles high. The biosphere is even narrower, just
12 miles in bandwidth. Take an ordinary soccer ball and coat it with just a few layers of varnish,
and the thickness of that coating can represent the biosphere. Apply a few more coats, and the
thickness will represent most of the atmosphere above us, including the canopy of greenhouse
gases. This thin shell of atmosphere is a very small trash container indeed for the massive
volumes of fossil waste we continue to spew into it. The fact of this planetary crisis can no
longer be a matter of psychological or political denial. For our best Earth-system scientists now
warn, with ever increasing certainty, that greenhouse gas emissions, if continued at the present
massive scale, will yield consequences that are quite literally apocalyptic: increasingly
radical temperature changes, a worldwide upsurge in violent weather events, widespread
drought, flooding, wildfires, famine, species extinction, rising sea levels, mass migration and
epidemic disease that will leave no country untouched. The science of weather prediction is still
far from exact. But the science of Earth systems which enables us to understand the drivers of
climate change is well advanced indeed. If the predictions from this science hold true, the
combined effect of greenhouse gas emissions and the compounding reverberations from
positive feedback in our worlds oceans, land and air will be the deaths of not just millions but
of billions of people, and the destruction of much of civilization on all continents.
Champion Briefs
145
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Anti-Nuclear rhetoric is

driven by Hollywood inspired fear- Nuclear Power is
necessary is to prevent climate change.
Lovelock, James. Nuclear Power Is The Only Green Solution. The Independent. 05-23-2004.
Web. August 16, 2016. < http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/jameslovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html>.
Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the
Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy from its start in
1952 has proved to be the safest of all energy sources. We must stop fretting over the minute
statistical risks of cancer from chemicals or radiation. Nearly one third of us will die of cancer
anyway, mainly because we breathe air laden with that all pervasive carcinogen, oxygen. If we
fail to concentrate our minds on the real danger, which is global warming, we may die even
sooner, as did more than 20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer.
Champion Briefs
146
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Only nuclear power can

halt warming.
Herbst, Alan. Nuclear Energy Now. John Wiley & Sons. 06-15-2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=HcvF9JmaNgUC&lpg=PP1&pg=PP1#v=onepage&
q&f=false>.
There is increasing agreement within the climate change lobby that greater utilization of nuclear
power must be considered in order to reduce the threat of global warming. Unlike fossil fuels,
nuclear power generation does not emit carbon dioxide, the main catalyst of climate change. This
has created an unlikely alliance between the nuclear industry and many environmentalists, who
are looking for ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. A statement made by James Lovelock,
a founder of Greenpeace, that Only nuclear power can halt global warming offers an example
of this alliance.
Champion Briefs
147
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Climate Change outweighs.

Lovelock, James. Nuclear Power Is The Only Green Solution. The Independent. 05-23-2004.
Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/jameslovelock-nuclear-power-is-the-only-green-solution-564446.html>.
Sir David King, the Governments chief scientist, was far-sighted to say that global warming is a
more serious threat than terrorism. He may even have underestimated, because, since he spoke,
new evidence of climate change suggests it could be even more serious, and the greatest danger
that civilisation has faced so far.
Champion Briefs
148
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear power cuts

emissions.
Llanos, Miguel. Hot Idea Fighting Global Warming With Nuclear Power. MSNBC. July 07,
2005. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8120563/>.
But Bush, as well as British Prime Minister Tony Blair, host of the G8 summit, has been
stressing a positive quality of nuclear power: the fact that it doesnt burn fossil fuel and therefore
produces no carbon dioxide emissions, a key greenhouse gas that many scientists tie to global
warming. Its time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again, the president
said in a televised appearance in June at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear plant in Maryland. Nuclear
power still produces 20 percent of the total U.S. electricity, but the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission estimates that 100 new reactors would be needed over 20 years just to maintain that
share. Nuclear power is one of Americas safest sources of energy, Bush added, all without
producing a single pound of air pollution and greenhouse gases. The president has made similar
pitches in recent months, and the message appears to be getting some traction. The growing
pressure to confront global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions has breathed new life
into zero-emissions nuclear power like nothing else, says Dan Esty, director of the Yale Center
for Environmental Law and Policy, which commissions an annual survey on Americans energy
attitudes. Now, even some environmentalists are breaking the ranks that formed after the partial
meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. They say that the
warming threat is so serious and so widespread that nuclear power should be reconsidered.
Champion Briefs
149
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: No risk of groundwater

leakage.
Cohen, Bernard. The Nuclear Energy Option. Environmentalists for Nuclear. 08-29-2002.
Yucca mountain is one of the driest places in the United States, with only 6 inches of rainfall per
year, only 5% of which (0.3 inches per year) soaks into the ground. The water table is more than
2,500 feet deep, so that the 1,200-foot-deep repository will be 1,300 feet above it. Only a tiny
amount of moisture can therefore contact the buried waste. The rock below the repository is
especially rich in zeolites, materials with chemical properties that make them efficient at
absorbing dissolved radioactive materials out of water passing through. It is estimated that water
percolating down would take 2,000-8,000 years to travel this 1,200 feet from the repository to
the water table. If any radioactive waste should be dissolved out, and if it should somehow
escape adsorption in the zeolites and reach the water table, consequences would still be minimal.
Groundwater in the region moves especially slowly, only about 1 foot per year! The nearest
place it could reach the surface is 30 miles away 150,000 years at 1 foot per year in the
Amargosa desert, which is a closed drainage basin water flowing into it stays there until it
evaporates. Note that the 1 foot per year flow rate applies to the water; as explained previously,
materials dissolved in it move hundreds or thousands of times more slowly. For them to travel 30
miles would take many millions of years! In summary, there is virtually no moisture to dissolve
the waste, which is in any case in insoluble form and protected by casings and backfill material.
If any material is dissolved, the only escape path is downward 1,300 feet to the top of the water
table through rock that is highly efficient at adsorbing out the dissolved materials. If it should
reach the water table it would take many millions of years to reach the surface, and that would
leave it trapped in the middle of a virtually uninhabited desert with no way to get out. Note that
this is very much safer than the situation assumed in our risk analysis above for average
underground conditions in which the waste is submerged in groundwater (i.e., below the top of
the water table) that moves at a velocity of 1 foot per day, and flows into a river through a region
of U.S. average population.
Champion Briefs
150
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: No risk of earthquakes and

volcanoes.
Cohen, Bernard. The Nuclear Energy Option. Environmentalists for Nuclear. 08-29-2002.
There are other matters to consider, including the potential effects of climate change, volcanoes,
and earthquakes. All of these now seem to be of minimal concern. The closest major earthquake
was 90 miles to the west in 1872, and there has been no major faulting or folding of rocks for
over 10 million years. The climate has been arid for over 2 million years, and there have been no
volcanoes for several million years. But investigating these matters is an important part of the
research program.
Champion Briefs
151
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear Energy is the only

alternative the avoids climate change.
Lawson, Richard. Is Nuclear Power The Answer To Global Warming?. Green Health. 11-262004. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.greenhealth.org.uk/Nuclear.htm>.
In May 2004 James Lovelock, originator of the Gaian (earth systems) hypothesis, stirred media
interest when he reiterated his support for nuclear power (NP) as part of the solution to the
overwhelming threat that humanity (and the planet) is facing from global warming. Since then
the nuclear industry has been lobbying hard to restart its failing programme by presenting it as
the answer to global warming. James Lovelock knows better than any of us that the solution to
global warming will involve complex changes involving everything from finance to forestry and
gigawatts to goat management, interacting together in a huge system change. Above all, it will
involve a shift in our perception of the world. Literally hundreds of new technologies will be
rolled out, primarily in energy conservation, energy efficiency, and many modes of renewable
energy technology. The key to all this, as James taught us, is that Gaia moves in cycles that
interact in mutually complementary ways, sometimes facilitating each other and sometimes
inhibiting each other. We must leave behind our old ways of thinking in isolated, linear, cause
and effect modules, and learn to think in the way that nature moves, in interrelated web-like
systems. The paradox is that nuclear power is an outstanding example of linear thinking. You dig
out your uranium, you burn it, and you bury it (or fire it off into the sun or something, whatever).
From a systems point of view, the main thing to bear in mind is that you must try to cause as few
cancers as you can reasonably get away with, which means isolating the nuclear cycle as best
you can from the rest of nature; (and of course, you have make sure that nobody with brown skin
gets hold of nuclear power, because they might develop nuclear weapons from it, and give them
to Osama bin Laden.). When I put this systems argument to James Lovelock, his only response
was that nuclear fission reactions have occurred in nature. This is true; but asteroid hits are also a
part of nature, but this does not mean that we should contemplating attracting asteroid hits in an
effort to extract energy from them. His response is not a valid defence of his position, and the
systems argument against nuclear power still stands. James recognises that nuclear power is a
risky business, but says that we must use it, because if we continue to use coal oil and gas, it is
certain that global warming will cause immense damage to planet and people. We must address
the question raised by an environmentalist of the stature of James Lovelock. Should we accept
nuclear power, despite its dangers and drawbacks, as a necessary instrument in the battle against
global warming?
Champion Briefs
152
A2 Critical Sustainability AC: Nuclear power is key to

transitioning from coal.
Moore, Patrick. Going Nuclear. The Washington Post. 04-16-2006. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html?utm_term=.fb6230a36805>.
In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was
synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. Thats the conviction that
inspired Greenpeaces first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing
of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaskas Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed,
and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear
energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster:
catastrophic climate change. Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the
United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only
large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to
satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely. I say that guardedly, of
course, just days after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that his country had
enriched uranium. The nuclear technology is only for the purpose of peace and nothing else, he
said. But there is widespread speculation that, even though the process is ostensibly dedicated to
producing electricity, it is in fact a cover for building nuclear weapons. And although I dont
want to underestimate the very real dangers of nuclear technology in the hands of rogue states,
we cannot simply ban every technology that is dangerous. That was the all-or-nothing mentality
at the height of the Cold War, when anything nuclear seemed to spell doom for humanity and the
environment. In 1979, Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon produced a frisson of fear with their
starring roles in The China Syndrome, a fictional evocation of nuclear disaster in which a
reactor meltdown threatens a citys survival. Less than two weeks after the blockbuster film
opened, a reactor core meltdown at Pennsylvanias Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent
shivers of very real anguish throughout the country. What nobody noticed at the time, though,
Champion Briefs
153
Nuclear power is key to transitioning from coal. (Continued)

was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did
just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And
although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or
nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy
generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the
technology: There hasnt been a nuclear plant ordered up since then. Today, there are 103
nuclear reactors quietly delivering just 20 percent of Americas electricity. Eighty percent of the
people living within 10 miles of these plants approve of them (thats not including the nuclear
workers). Although I dont live near a nuclear plant, I am now squarely in their camp. And I am
not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British
atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is
the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth
Catalog, says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves
from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the
anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of
Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the groups board after he wrote a pro-nuclear
article in a church newsletter. There are signs of a new willingness to listen, though, even among
the staunchest anti-nuclear campaigners. When I attended the Kyoto climate meeting in Montreal
last December, I spoke to a packed house on the question of a sustainable energy future. I argued
that the only way to reduce fossil fuel emissions from electrical production is through an
aggressive program of renewable energy sources (hydroelectric, geothermal heat pumps, wind,
etc.) plus nuclear. The Greenpeace spokesperson was first at the mike for the question period,
and I expected a tongue-lashing. Instead, he began by saying he agreed with much of what I said
-- not the nuclear bit, of course, but there was a clear feeling that all options must be explored.
Heres why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and
Champion Briefs
154
Nuclear power is key to transitioning from coal. (Continued)

unpredictable they simply cant replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and
hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to
risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to
capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. Its that simple. Thats not
to say that there arent real problems -- as well as various myths -- associated with nuclear
energy. Each concern deserves careful consideration:
Champion Briefs
155
AFF: Critical Techno-MGMT Bad AC September/October 2016
Critical Techno-Management Bad AC

Techno-management solutions are those which seek to wield human ingenuity to affect
environmental sustainability. These practices are based in the empiricist tradition of Bacon,
Descartes, and Kepler that gained popularity in the west during the scientific revolution. This
tradition operates under the assumption that with enough observation humans can know enough
to predict the outcome of certain actions. Applied to technological solutions to environmental
problems, this means that if humans study an environmental problem enough, we will be able to
come up with a viable technological solution. In the west we take for granted that a solution
exists, and instead focus on which solution to deploy. Many authors generically criticize
technological management solutions including Dodds, Shiva, and Luke. In the interest of
specificity, this file focuses on authors who specifically criticize nuclear technology. In the
context of nuclear power humans have attempted to assuage the environmental problems of over
population and consumption by creating a new technology which allows us to more efficiently
harness the suns energy. This affirmative would argue that this logic is always self-defeating. As
the affirmative you must prove that humans have inherently flawed understandings of the world
and as a result are incapable of accurately assessing the magnitude of externalities. You can do
this by arguing this inaccuracy is incidental or intentional. A strategic affirmative could combine
Marxist criticisms of nuclear energy to argue that neoliberal structures intentionally misrepresent
risks and potential benefits. In general, this argument could work with both a consequentialist
and deontological framework but works better with deontology. The interesting thing about this
argument is that you get layered responses: you can always go for specific environmental
problems in the AR and 2AR that may have been conceded as a result of dealing with the
epistemology level arguments and vice-versa.
Champion Briefs
156
The abstraction of capital that allows humans to separate

themselves from nature cannot be the focal point of human
development.
Shiva, Vandana. Essay: From Eco-Apartheid To Earth Democracy. Next Nature. 05-26-2013.
Web. August 13, 2016. <https://www.nextnature.net/2013/05/from-eco-apartheid-toearth-democracy/#more-34019>.
Karl Marx pointed out how the rule of capital was based on the abstraction of capital, and
separating it from its relation to society and nature. Even while depending on exploitation of land
and labour, capital is treated as immaterial: Where the purely general form of capital as selfpreserving and self-valorizing value is being considered, it is declared to be something
immaterial, and therefore, from the point of view of the political economist, a mere idea; for he
knows of nothing but either tangible objects or ideas relations do not exist for him.7
Redefining the economy by embedding it in society and nature is the first step in a paradigm
shift. Shifting from GDP and GNP to measures of real wealth, welfare, well-being and happiness
is another. Wealth combines weal (well-being) and th (condition). Its original meaning is
condition of well-being. Aristotle distinguished between chrematistics the art of money
making, and oikonomia the art of living.8 Ecology and economics are both derived from the
Greek oikos, meaning home. Economics need to return home to its roots in the Earth and
society. Therefore, we need to create measures beyond money, economies beyond the global
supermarket to rejuvenate real wealth and authentic well-being. We need to remember that the
real currency of life is life itself. The mountain State of Bhutan has given up Gross National
Product and Gross National Growth as measures of human progress and replaced it with Gross
National Happiness (GNH). Bhutan has made a constitutional decision that the pursuit of
happiness for the Bhutanese people will be the guiding principle of their economic policy, not
the pursuit of economic growth as measured in the Gross National Product. Respect for the
natural world and indigenous culture, and the cultivation of human and spiritual values are the
core elements of GNH. Sitting in the beautiful but fragile Himalaya, engaged in shaping another
paradigm for the human enterprise, there is an acute awareness of the impact of the pollution
caused by global economic activities. There is also a fervent hope that humanity can shift away
from the greed- based, pollution-causing growth paradigm, which has turned the right to
pollute into a fundamental right and robbed societies in vulnerable regions not just of peace,
harmony and happiness, but of the very right to survival.
Champion Briefs
157
A radical shift in our human and Earth degrading economic

system must begin with a challenge to the human-centric
world view.
The radical shift that movements around the world are making is a shift from an Earth-degrading,
human-degrading economic system based on greed, profits and financial growth towards Earthcentred systems that reduce the ecological footprint while increasing well- being. Not only will
this shift, which is already underway, bring harmony with nature, it will sow the seeds of social
justice and equity, both in terms of sharing the Earths resources and recognition of work that
goes into caring for the planet and people. It will recognize womens work in sustenance. It will
recognize the knowledge creation and production of Third World and indigenous communities. It
will create space for future generations. Activities that provide sustenance and well-being for all
are currently called unproductive. In a green economy whose aim is to maximize well-being, not
profits, serving the planet and community become the most important work we are called to do.
Activities that rejuvenate the Earth and human communities become the core of a truly green
economy. Making peace with the Earth must begin in our collective minds and consciousness, by
changing our worldviews from those based on war with nature to those that recognize that we are
but a strand in the web of life. It involves a shift from fragmentation and reductionism to
interconnectedness and holistic thinking. It involves a shift from violence, rape and torture as
modes of knowing to non-violence and dialogue with the Earth and all her beings. It involves the
inclusion of biodiversity and of other knowledge systems of women, of indigenous
communities, of our grandmothers.
Champion Briefs
158
Nuclear disasters highlight the fallibility of human

technological solutions.
Shiva, Vandana. Nuclear Insanity. Centre for Research on Globalization. 05-25-2011. Web.
August 13, 2016. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-insanity/24963>.
Fukushima has raised, once again, the perennial questions about human fallibility and human
frailty, about human hubris and mans arrogance in thinking he can control nature. The
earthquakes, the tsunami, the meltdown at Japans nuclear power plant are natures reminders of
her power. The scientific and industrial revolution was based on the idea that nature is dead, and
the earth inert matter. The tragedy in Japan is a wakeup call from Mother Nature an alarm to
tell us she is alive and powerful, and that humans are powerless in her path. The ruined harbours,
villages and towns, the ships, aeroplanes and cars tossed away by the angry waves as if they
were tiny toys are reminders that should correct the assumption that man can dominate over
nature with technology, tools and industrial infrastructure.The Fukushima disaster invites us
to revisit the human-nature relationship. It also raises questions about the so-called nuclear
renaissance as an answer to the climate and energy crisis. President of the Institute for Energy
and Environmental Research, Arjun Makhijani, speaking at Public Interest Environmental Law
Conference, said that nuclear renaissance would need 300 reactors every week and two-three
uranium enrichment plants every year. The spent fuel would contain 90,000 bombs of plutonium
per year if separated. Water required would be 10-20 million litres per day.
Champion Briefs
159
Nuclear power must be examined through its influence on

unequal human and environmental power relations.
Kimura, Aya. Understanding Fukushima: Nuclear Impacts, Risk Perceptions And Organic
Farming In A Feminist Political Ecology Perspective. The International Handbook of
Political Ecology, . 08-28-2015. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://doctoradosociales.com.ar/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bryant_2015_TheInternational-Handbook-of-Political-Ecology.pdf#page=277>.
Nuclear power constitutes a significant portion of the global energy mix today, with more than
430 commercial nuclear reactors in 31 countries (World Nuclear Association, 2014). While some
countries, such as Germany, have decided to phase out nuclear power, others, such as France and
the USA, have maintained a pro-nuclear stance. The USA alone has 104 reactors, five more
under construction and more than a dozen under consideration (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2014).
The nuclear industry is also aggressively promoting nuclear power in developing countries.
Undeterred by the Fukushima accident in 2011, for instance, Japan reached nuclear cooperation
agreements with Turkey and the United Arab Emirates in 2013 (Johnston, 2013) and is in talks
with Vietnam to build a nuclear power plant there (UPI, 2014). There is a long social sciences
tradition of analyzing nuclear power with diverse approaches, including social movements
literature (Walsh, 1988; Walsh and Warland, 1983; Joppke, 1993), risk theory (Slovic et al.,
1991; Peters et al., 1990) and science and technology studies (Wynne, 1992; Petryna, 2002).
Surprisingly, the research field of political ecology (Robbins, 2012) which examines how
unequal power relations shape humanenvironmental interaction has paid scant attention to the
subject, often focusing instead on other things such as land, water and natural resource struggles
(including in Japanese scholarship; see Shimada, 1999; Lye et al., 2003; Sato, 2011).
Champion Briefs
160
Nuclear disasters harm organic agricultural industries.

On 11 March 2011 (hereafter 3.11), a magnitude nine earthquake hit the northeast part of Japans
main island of Honshu. The earthquake and subsequent tsunami damaged the cooling systems of
the Fukushima Daiichi plants reactors operated by Tokyo Electric Company (TEPCO). The
nuclear accident in turn inflicted a major blow on Fukushimas agriculture. One survey there
found that 17 200 out of 50 945 farmers reported damages from earthquake, tsunami or nuclear
accidents (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 2011). But the impact of the nuclear
accident has been felt much longer than that of the earthquake and tsunami. A 2014 survey found
that 77 percent of farmers in Fukushima were still unable to resume farming, with 96.6 percent
of respondents blaming the nuclear accident for this (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, 2014). The accident not only contaminated soil and water, but also made agriculture a
risky business for the farmers. Reports of contaminated food resulted in strong consumer fears
over the safety of food from the region: sales of Fukushima rice and vegetables plummeted
(Fukushima Minpo Newspaper, 2012; Ouse, 2012). Organic agriculture was especially hard hit.
While Japanese organic farms constitute but a fraction of the farming area (0.16 percent), with
similarly tiny plot sizes (1.7 ha on average), their popularity and public recognition had been
increasing in recent years, particularly with the introduction of a national certification system in
the 1990s (Katano, 2007). Organic farmers have habitually sold their produce through
nonconventional routes, particularly consumer-supported agriculture groups or teikei (Japan
Organic Agriculture Association, 2012). And Fukushima was a leading center of organic
farming, at least before the accident (MOA Nature Farming Culture Foundation, 2010).
Champion Briefs
161
The capitalist drive to control is based on the desire for

mastery over nature.
Salleh, Ariel. Neoliberalism, Scientism And Earth System Governance. The International
Handbook of Political Ecology, . 08-28-2015. Web. August 14, 2016.
As Marxist philosophers Horkheimer and Adorno (1973) have explained, the capitalist drive to
control speaks the foundational European Enlightenment narrative of mastery over nature
through instrumental reason. This is exemplified when Biermann (2012: 4) writes: No longer is
the human species a spectator that merely needs to adapt to the natural environment. Humanity
itself has become a powerful agent of earth system evolution. The Anthropocene of ESG is
embedded in this ideology of modernization, with its notion that the step from human cause to
natural effect is linear and predictable. Unfortunately, the obsolete model of classical physics,
foundational to science and engineering, has been adopted by economics and even organizational
sociology. The result is not science, but ideological scientism and, as feminist scholars explain,
the application of mechanics to partially understood living processes risks more than a little
methodological forcing (Fox Keller, 1985; Shiva, 1989). Nonetheless, in a neoliberal economic
system geared to material accumulation, the role of technocrat professionals is to objectify,
design and control living human and external nature as a resource base for entrepreneurs.
Noting the parallel in how mainstream modeling of economics and ecology each relies on
digitized parameters, several prominent scientists recently attempted to dislodge this hubris with
a consciousness-raising question: to what extent can mechanisms that enhance stability against
inevitable minor fluctuations, in inflation, interest rates or share prices perversely predispose
towards full scale collapse? (May et al., 2008: 893). Bromley displays a similar caution about
environmental management: institutions (rules) and governance structures, intended to address a
particular ecological problem, necessarily set[s] in motion a new ecological trajectory whose
salient properties are unknown until it is too late to craft new appropriate and incentivecompatible institutional remedies We may think of this problem as a variation of the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (Bromley, 2012: 2; italics added)
Champion Briefs
162
Policy shaped by economic interests always quantifies risk

improperly.
Salleh, Ariel. Neoliberalism, Scientism and Earth System Governance. The International
Handbook of Political Ecology,. 08-28-2015. Web. August 14, 2016.
If the uncertainty principle does indeed belong here, then earth governance on the scale imagined
by ESG will call for some very skillful public relations. One might draw a parallel with Wynnes
(1997) work on the politics of nuclear power and biotechnology. In his experience, expert
management institutions tend to bolster their authority with communications that reduce social
and ecological complexity. In addition, policy shaped by economic interests quantifies risk in ad
hoc ways to make it tradable against perceived benefit. The result is that citizens lose trust in
governments, agencies and corporations. Even the risk society thesis of Beck et al. (1994)
disguises the fact that environmental impacts are not the same across classes, ethnicities and
genders. ESG operates with a similar flat earth model, ignoring the force of power relations in
both the social construction of science and in the social distribution of its material effects.
Champion Briefs
163
Corporations use a scientific monopoly on objectivity to

technicize discourse in an attempt to maintain power.
Salleh, Ariel. Neoliberalism, Scientism And Earth System Governance. The International
Handbook of Political Ecology, . 08-28-2015. Web. August 14, 2016.
In order to defend its environmental reputation, the corporate sector relies on a notion of sound
science in product marketing and project approvals and, as Van der Pijl (1998) has pointed
out, technocratic professionals command good salaries and play a key role in manufacturing that
validation. However, Gupta et al. (2012) argue that, whereas business interests technicize
arguments, what is wanted is open discussion and sharing with those who live with the impacts
of extractivism, industrial development and free trade. Certainly, a shift is occurring towards
more inclusive sustainability deliberations where contextual knowledge and subjective inputs are
valued (Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). The post-normal scientist or policy maker recognizes that
problem definition, choice of what gets measured and decisions on commensurability have a
normative and political aspect. He or she will reach beyond consensus within a specialist
epistemic community to learn from the experiential skills of othered groupings peasants, for
example, even grandmothers. But can such deliberations ever be effective for earth governance if
contained by neoliberal institutions?
Champion Briefs
164
Nuclear power is gaining traction at the expense of human

health.
Lotz, Corinna. A Faustian Pact With Nuclear Power. Climate & Capitalism . 03-14-2011.
Web. August 14, 2016. <http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/03/14/a-faustian-pactwith-nuclear-power/>.
Politicians in virtually every country have been singing the praises of increased dependence on
nuclear power stations, all of them constructed with huge government subsidies. Sixty reactors
are in construction around the globe. According to the World Nuclear Association another 150
or more planned to come on line during the next 10 years, and over 200 further back in the
pipeline. Ed Miliband, as energy secretary, in 2009 approved 10 more for Britain. None of them
will be built without massive state support. Energy corporations are already suggesting a carbon
tax that could cost the average household more than 200 extra per year. After initial doubts
about the virtues of nuclear power, prime minister David Cameron is now a convert. The result
of the expansion programme will be a huge increase in uranium mining, with new operations
already being opened up in Namibia and Kazakhstan. Uranium mining exposes miners and their
communities to high levels of carcinogenic radon gas. There is no safe way of disposing of
waste, which also carries significant health risks.
Champion Briefs
165
There is no net decrease in carbon emissions as a result of

nuclear power.
Lotz, Corinna. A Faustian Pact With Nuclear Power. Climate & Capitalism . 03-14-2011.
Web. August 14, 2016. <http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/03/14/a-faustian-pactwith-nuclear-power/>.
The idea that nuclear is a contribution to reduced carbon emissions is rubbish. The result of
extracting the uranium and the billions of tons of cement needed to build all these huge plants
will be massive CO2 emissions. It is unlikely any future savings in emissions would offset this
early surge over the whole life of a reactor. A study by the Rocky Mountain Institute, which
campaigns for rational use of the worlds resources, says that if every dollar spent on nuclear
power were invested instead in energy efficiency measures, it would produce seven times greater
reduction in carbon emissions. But the corporations are not going to get profits from energy
efficiency and people using less fuel means smaller profits for them.
Champion Briefs
166
There is disagreement on the direction of influence between

civilization and technology.
Dafoe, Allan. On Technological Determinism: A Typology, Scope Conditions, And A
Mechanism. Science Technology, & Human Values. xx-xx-2015. Web. August 14,
2016. <DOI: 10.1177/0162243915579283>.
The term technological determinism, as Ronald Kline (2001) points out, is presently employed to
criticize the extreme position that (1) technology develops according to an internal logic
independent of social influence (p. 15495) and that (2) technological change determines
social change in a prescribed manner (p. 15495). Exemplifying Klines argument, Bimber
(1994) offers the extreme definition of technological determinism as the view that history is
determined by laws rather than by human will (p. 86) and that these laws involve physical
artifacts as a necessary component (p. 88). Technological determinism so defined does not allow
the possibility of any human agency and thus does not refer to the vast majority of perspectives
that takes the effects of technology seriously. I propose defining technological determinism more
moderately as approaches that emphasize (1) the autonomy of technological change and (2) the
technological shaping of society. Following Smith and Marx (1994, 2), who offer a similar
moderate definition, we can situate deterministic theories along a continuum, with harder
determinists putting more emphasis on the autonomy and power of technology, and softer
determinists allowing for more social control and context. This moderate definition provides a
terminological umbrella for a large set of respectable scholarship, spanning the disciplines that
study technology.
Champion Briefs
167
Technological trends are super predictable.

2016. <DOI: 10.1177/0162243915579283>.
Some technological trends are so predictable and persistent that they seem to follow an internal
logic. Historian of computing Paul Ceruzzi (2005, 593) observes that an internal logic is at
work in the evolution of some technologies. Specifically, over the past forty years, the
exponential growth of chip density has hardly deviated from its slope, (p. 586) as described
by Moores Law. The belief in Moores Law, Ceruzzi writes, is not an indication of the social
construction of computing [but] an indication of the reality of technological determinism.
Computing power must increase because it can (p. 590). Ceruzzi concludes that historians of
technology should step back from a social constructionist view of technology and consider
that, in at least some cases, raw technological determinism is at work (p. 593). Similarly,
many early theorists observed the trend that society was becoming more rationalistic, technical,
and materialistic. Max Weber (1978, lix) warned that rational calculationreduces every
worker to a cog in [the bureaucratic] machine and, seeing himself in this light, he will merely ask
how to transform himself from a little into a somewhat bigger cog. Ellul (1962, 30) was
concerned with the spread of la technique, which is artificial, autonomous, self-determining,
and independent of all human intervention. Mumford (1966, 3) warned that man will become
a passive, purposeless, machine conditioned animal. These processes could be due to our
insufficient awareness about our technological choices (technological somnambulism, Winner
1977, 167).
Champion Briefs
168
The military has powerful selection pressures that allow it to

influence sociotechnical life.
2016. <DOI: 10.1177/0162243915579283>.
Finally, militaryeconomic adaptationism provides a solid microfoundation for technological
determinism. Humans are diverse and persistently generate new ways of living. Technology
enables new forms of sociotechnical life. The proliferation and survival of forms of
sociotechnical life depend on how well adapted they are to different selection pressures. Over the
long run, militaryeconomic competition has exerted powerful selection pressures, promoting
forms of sociotechnical life that are militarily powerful and economically productive. This could
account for the long-run trends in sociotechnical systems toward being large, complex, energyintensive, technical, functionally differentiated, and rationalistic. Selection for power and
productivity, thus, may account for many of the macro-patterns observed by technological
determinists. Lynn White, famous for arguing that the stirrup gave rise to feudalism, wrote that
technology merely opens a door; it does not compel one to enter (White 1962, 28). He was
right. Technology opens the door. It is militaryeconomic competition that drags us through.
Champion Briefs
169
Mining for uranium is environmentally disastrous.

Kurokawa, Glen. Ethics Of Nuclear Energy Technology. Ethics and Climate Change in Asia
and Pacific Project. 11-xx-2009. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.538.8674&rep=rep1&type=p
df>.
U-235 is found within ore deposits around the world. More than 50% of the worlds uranium
production is derived from mines in Canada, Australia, and Kazakhstan (Tradetech, 2009). The
uranium ore is mined from the ground using conventional mining techniques: open-pit,
underground, in-situ, and as a byproduct of mining other minerals such as phosphates
(Tradetech, 2009). As such, uranium extraction is subject to all of the ethical issues that
conventional mining entails, as it can inflict harm on human health and the environment.
Although different mining techniques produce different effects, there are three general categories
of direct detrimental effects. The first is physical, and includes unstable waste rock piles, old
buildings, open mine workings, pits and tunnels, derelict buildings and machines, and water
filled voids (IAEA, 2008). The second is chemical, and includes ponds of contaminated water,
acid drainage from reactive waste, old processing chemicals and residues (IAEA, 2008). Physical
and chemical hazards can represent significant human health and environmental problems to the
local community and surrounding areas, especially if they are not addressed immediately.
Chemical problems, in particular, can cause large ecological and economic damage if not
properly treated and/or remediated.
Champion Briefs
170
The radiological effects of uranium mining can cause

economic, ecological, and health damage to communities and
surrounding areas.
df>.
A third detrimental effect of uranium mining, which is not shared by conventional mining, is
radiological, and includes uranium mill tailings, unprocessed uranium-bearing ore, scale and
sludge in old plants, contaminated scrap metal, and release of uranium dust and radon gas into
the environment (IAEA, 2008). Some radiological hazards can be addressed as with physical and
chemical problems, but if they are not addressed quickly, can cause economic and ecological
damage to the local community and surrounding areas. Other radiological hazards require
specialized methods of remediation and treatment. One widely documented study showed the
radiological effects of uranium mining on human health. During the 1950s, many Navajo
uranium miners in the U.S. later developed cancer due to radon gas exposure (Miller, 2007;
Brugge, 2002). While former miners have been partially compensated, there have been reports
that hundreds of abandoned mines have not been cleaned up and present environmental and
health risks in many communities (Los Angeles Times, 2006). There have been other instances
where radioactive contamination has affected uranium miners. For instance, Areva, a French
state-owned nuclear power company, did not inform its affected mine workers in Niger about the
health risks of uranium mining despite detrimental health effects (Public Eye, 2008).
Champion Briefs
171
Mining increases GHG emissions.

df>.
A fourth detrimental effect of uranium mining is GHG emissions. Although nuclear reactors
themselves do not emit GHGs, uranium mining is not completely GHG emission free. Mining
occurs using fossil fuel energy. Heavy machinery is often operated using fossil fuels, for
instance. However, in comparison to fossil fuel production and consumption, the levels are likely
significantly lower. Soon after uranium ore is mined, it is crushed and ground to a slurry in the
milling process. It is then recovered as uranium oxide (U308) concentrate (WNA, 2009).
Because uranium needs to be gasified before it can be enriched in gas centrifuges, the uranium
oxide is converted to gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in the conversion process (WNA,
2009). While there are small amounts of radioactivity and chemicals produced into waste, there
do not appear to be significant and particular ethical concerns with the technology.
Champion Briefs
172
Spent fuel storage creates long term ethical and

environmental concerns.
df>.
Freshly spent nuclear fuel assembles are highly radioactive and are stored in ponds usually
located at the power plant. The rods stay in the ponds for several years. The ponds act as a
barrier against radiation and absorbs the heat from the fuel (water has a high capacity to absorb
heat). Eventually, the spent fuel becomes less radioactive. The longer it is stored, the easier it is
to handle, due to the decay of radioactivity (Richter, 2008). However, there is enough radiation
leftover to act as a deterrent against nuclear theft or diversion (Richter, 2008). There are two
alternatives for spent fuel. The first is to reprocess, and the second is long-term storage. During
reprocessing, the uranium and plutonium are separated from the wastes. The uranium is returned
to the nuclear fuel cycle at the point of conversion (WNA, 2009b). This fuel contains about 50%
Pu-239 (WNA, 2009b). The 3% wastes are eventually turned into solid wastes (WNA, 2009b).
This waste can be a source of concern as it needs to be stored.
Champion Briefs
173
Reprocessing fails to eliminate waste or prevent terror

attacks with dirty bombs.
df>.
Reprocessing has been criticized for being expensive, posing security threats, harming the
environment and not eliminating the need for geological repositories. Non-government
organizations (NGO) quote the economic and environmental disaster of the West Valley
reprocessing facility in the U.S., the fuel leak from the Sellafield THORP reprocessing plant in
the U.K. and the massive cost overruns of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant in Japan as some of
the examples to highlight the risks of the reprocessing option (Public Citizen, 2008). A standard
1-GWe reactor produces roughly 200 kg of plutonium per year, enough in principle for about 20
weapons (Richter, 2008). Reactor-grade plutonium can be in theory used to build a dirty bomb
which is a sub-nuclear or non-nuclear weapon causing significant loss of life and environmental
damage. If the reactor-grade plutonium were available to rogue elements, it could also be used to
manufacture a fission weapon, although it may be unreliable (Richter, 2008).
Champion Briefs
174
Technology is complicit in humanities problems.

Mitcham, Carl. TECHNOLOGY AND THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY. Values and
Ethics for the 21st Century. xx-xx-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
<https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/valores_y_etica_ing.pdf#page=140>.
Over the course of the five hundred years after 1500, traditional hand and human-based technics
was transformed through a scientific exploitation of previously unseen forces into what is now
known as modern technology. Such technology is complicit in all the most basic problems facing
humanity in the opening decades of the 21st centurywhether nuclear (weapons and power
plants), chemical (environmental pollution), medical (life-extension and body hybridization),
biological (loss of biodiversity, biotechnology), informational (overload, privacy, and virtual
reality), climatological (global transformations of sky, sun, ocean, and earth), and more. Despite
on-going efforts to address such challenges with scientific research and technological innovation,
responses remain fundamentally ethical in character. Technological fixes require ethical
reflection concerning which of the available design options to pursue. Yet so overwhelmed are
we with conflicting crises and divergent interest group arguments for different solution paths that
it is often difficult to think. How can we begin to assess the techno-human condition in which we
now live and move and have our being?
Champion Briefs
175
There are social and political tensions between the general

population and the government due to divergent interests.
Kar-YuYau, Carmen. The Shift In Thinking Ethically About Nuclear Accidents: A
Comparative Ethical And Historical Case Study. Saint Paul University. 01-xx-2013.
<https://www.ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/23740/1/Yau_Carmen_2013_thesis.pdf>.
When there is a change in public perception of nuclear accidents and no change in the
organization perception, one can see that there is a disconnection between the two. This
disconnection is compelling, as it highlights the social and political tensions between the general
population and the government. These tensions are evident when the general publics interest is
directly opposed to the governments interest. In other words, these tensions occur when the
general population is interested in finding ways to prevent a nuclear accident by finding new
alternative energy sources or lobbying the government to listen to their concerns. On the other
hand, the government is more interested in profiting from the products that are manufactured at
the nuclear reactors than dealing with the nuclear accidents and the well-being of the general
population. Here, we see that the social and political tensions are caused by the different interests
of both parties. When this occurs there are also ethical implications to be considered.
Champion Briefs
176
The energy debate encompasses the whole process of energy

production and consumption.
Goldthau, Andreas. The Uniqueness Of The Energy Security, Justice, And Governance Problem
. Energy Policy . 11-17-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Benjamin_Sovacool/publication/251560869_The_
uniqueness_of_the_energy_security_justice_and_governance_problem/links/555c2e4408
aec5ac2232acec.pdf>.
Before we get started, some key terms deserve elaboration. For scientists and engineers, the term
primary energy means the energy embodied in natural resources, such as coal, crude oil,
natural gas, uranium, and even sunlight, wind, geothermal heat, or falling water, which may be
mined, stored, harnessed, or collected but not yet converted into other forms of energy.
Sometimes analysts use the term end-use energy, to refer to the energy content of primary
energy supplied to the consumer at the point of end-use, such as kerosene, gasoline, or
electricity, delivered to homes and factories. The phrases useful energy, useful energy
demands, and energy services are what we are most interested with in this study, and refer
to what end-use energy is transformed into: heat for a stove or mechanical energy for air
circulation. Energy services are often measured in units of heat, or work, or temperature, but
these are in essence surrogates for measures of satisfaction experienced when human beings
consume or experience them. Energy services can thus be regarded as the benefits that energy
carriers produce for human well-being (Modi et al., 2005; Sovacool, 2011b).
Champion Briefs
177
There are four warrants for why energy is of primary

governmental concern.
Goldthau, Andreas. The Uniqueness Of The Energy Security, Justice, And Governance Problem
. Energy Policy . 11-17-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
So for this article, by energy we refer to the socio-technical system in place to convert energy
fuels and carriers into servicesthus not just technology or hardware such as power plants and
pipelines, but also other elements of the fuel cycle such as coal mines and oil wells in
addition to the institutions and agencies such as electric utilities or transnational corporations that
manage the system. We propose that energy is different from a governance perspective due to
four fundamental structural features: vertical complexity, horizontal complexity, cost, and path
dependency. This section explores each in detail.
Champion Briefs
178
Failing infrastructure makes nuclear failure inevitable.

Goldthau, Andreas. The Uniqueness Of The Energy Security, Justice, And Governance
Problem. Energy Policy . 11-17-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
Though less discussed, a second energy security challenge is equally pressing: rapidly aging
infrastructure. According to IEA projections, the total global capacity of retiring power plants
amounts to 2000 gigawatts (GW) until 2035. Two thirds of this loss occurs in coal, oil, and gas
fired power plants, and most of that in OECD countries (IEA, 2010b, p. 227). Nuclear capacity
loss might even be higher than projected, due to recent decisions in many countries to put a
moratorium on atomic energy, topped by a total phase out in Germany. This capacity needs to be
replacednot by yet another generation of fossil fueled power plants; rather, and in light of
looming climate change, it is green, i.e. low carbon capacity that is needed. This is a daunting
challenge: in terms of figures, replacing retiring power capacity would equal some 450
Fukushima plants.
Champion Briefs
179
Nuclear power can have multiple relevant interpretations of

sustainability applied to its processes.
Taebi, Behnam. Ethics Of Nuclear Power: How To Understand Sustainability In The Nuclear
Debate. Nuclear power- Deployment, Operation and Sustainability . September 09,
2011. Web. August 14, 2016. <http://www.intechopen.com/books/nuclear-powerdeployment-operation-and-sustainability/ethics-of-nuclear-power-how-to-understandsustainability-in-the-nuclear-debate>.
Some people might object that sustainable nuclear power is a contradictio interminis. Their
objections probably arise from the fact that nuclear power leaves behind highly dangerous toxic
waste with tremendous long life-times. This correctly relates to one interpretation of
sustainability, but in a comprehensive analysis we need to include all the relevant interpretations.
Sustainability could, for instance, also be seen as the endurance of energy resources for future
generations. New technology in nuclear power production (i.e. nuclear breeders and multiple
recycling of the waste) could facilitate the latter for a very long time. So, nuclear might be
unsustainable in one interpretation and sustainable in another; precisely which one should be
given priority might emerge after thorough moral analysis. Rather than using sustainability as an
adjective, this paper sets out to clarify the notion by focusing on how nuclear power production
affects the distribution of burdens and benefits over the different generations. Such an analysis
can help decision-makers in the making of technically and ethically informed choices, when
opting for a certain nuclear fuel cycle. It could also help when comparing nuclear power or, more
to the point, a certain nuclear fuel cycle with other energy systems on the basis of the notion of
how they affect the interests of people living now and in the future.
Champion Briefs
180
Humans will face deferred consequences for GHG emissions.

Taebi, Behnam. Ethics of Nuclear Power: How to Understand Sustainability in The Nuclear
Debate. Nuclear power- Deployment, Operation and Sustainability. September 09, 2011.
Web. August 14, 2016. <http://www.intechopen.com/books/nuclear-power-deploymentoperation-and-sustainability/ethics-of-nuclear-power-how-to-understand-sustainabilityin-the-nuclear-debate>.
A second intergenerational aspect is the long-term consequences (e.g. pollution) that could be
created for future generations, while benefits mainly accrue to the current (and immediately
following) generations (Gardiner, 2003). A typical example of this intergenerational problem is
the fossil fuel energy consumption situation, which is characterized by predominantly good
immediate effects but deferred bad effects in terms of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions that cause climate change. Intergenerational justice and climate change have received
increasing attention in the literature in recent years (Athanasiou & Baer, 2002; Gardiner, 2001;
Meyer & Roser, 2006; Page, 1999; Shue, 2003). The main rationale behind these discussions is
that a change in a climate system that threatens the interests of future generations raises
questions concerning justice and posterity.
Champion Briefs
181
Values determine our interactions with technology.

Questions about rightness and wrongness are generally subsumed under the heading of values. In
everyday life, there are many things we uphold such as honesty and integrity; those things are
referred to as values and they inspire social norms in human interaction. Outside this common
sense meaning of the term, values are also relevant to many of the choices that we make, also
with regard to technology; they reflect our understanding of the rightness and wrongness of those
choices. The term value indeed has definitions that extend beyond philosophy and ethics. We
find many things such as art and music valuable without making any reference to their moral
goodness or rightness; these are indeed non-moral values. The focus of this paper is confined to
the moral values that deal with how we want the world to be. In other words, moral values are
things worth striving for in order to achieve a good life (Scanlon, 1998, p 78-79). However, we
should not confuse values with the personal interests of individuals; values are the general
convictions and beliefs that people should hold paramount if society is to be good. Those values
in relation to the notion of sustainable development will be reviewed here; what are the things
that we find valuable when we refer to sustainability and why do we find them valuable? More
importantly, which value should be given priority if different values contradict or cannot be
complied with simultaneously?
Champion Briefs
182
Humans always position themselves at the forefront of

impact calculus. Scholars wishing to breakdown
anthropocentric approaches should isolate holistic impacts.
When it comes to the relationship between humans and non-humans, it is probably
uncontroversial to ascribe designations such as moral wrongness; torturing animals is, for
instance, morally wrong. However, our focus in this paper is upon justice to future generations
and I follow Barry (1999, p 95) in his suggestion that justice and injustice can be predicated
only of relations among creatures who are regarded as moral equals in the sense that they weigh
equally in the moral scales. Hence, in addressing intergenerational justice in this paper, we refer
to the environment with regard to what it means in conjunction with safeguarding the vital
interests of human beings. Such considerations would emanate from radiation hazards resulting
from possible seepage of radiotoxic material into the environment, which in turn could affect
human health and safety. Thus, in the anthropocentric approach adopted in this paper, the moral
value of environmental friendliness basically relates to the issues that the value of public health
and safety will raise and so it will be subsumed under the latter value. Indeed, one could defend a
non-anthropocentric account of intergenerational justice and separate these two values. However,
in discussing the sustainability issues of nuclear power deployment, these environmental
concerns relate to exactly the same radiation levels that are relevant when assessing public health
and safety issues. The only difference would thus be that an intrinsic value has been ascribed to
the environment. In other words, the consequences of radiation in the environment should then
be addressed without making reference to what these means for human beings.
Champion Briefs
183
The entire process of nuclear energy production is fraught

with safety concerns.
First, when assessing safety issues in an open fuel cycle, we should at least address the following
steps that relate in one way or another to the safety issues: 1) mining, milling, enrichment and
fuel fabrication, 2) transport of (unused) fuel and spent fuel, 3) reactor operation and
decommissioning period, 4) interim storage of spent fuel and 5) final disposal of spent fuel in
geological repositories. These impacts have been mapped in Fig. 2.[3] - In this figure, it has been
assumed that nuclear power production will last for one generation, this is referred to as the
Period for which the Activity Lasts (PAL). The first four steps particularly create risks in the
short-term, which is slightly longer than the PAL. Especially the decommissioning period and
the interim storage of spent fuel will last several decades longer. From the perspective of longterm safety concerns (issue number 5 above), there will be potential burdens after spent fuel has
been situated in the geological repositories; these concerns will potentially last for the life-time
of the spent fuel, or approximately 200,000 years. So the horizontal black arrow represents these
long-term concerns extending into Generation n in the future. Please note that here the value of
environmental friendliness is discussed in conjunction with the value of public health &
safety.
Champion Briefs
184
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Nuclear power

is necessary.
King, Stuart. FUKUSHIMA, THE LEFT, AND NUCLEAR POWER. Climate & Capitalism .
06-14-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/06/14/socialist-arguments-for-nuclear-power/>.
The accompanying article by David Walters looks at the accident, its causes and consequences.
Unlike many on the left he does not conclude that the accident was the inevitable result of an
impossibly dangerous industry, rather that it was a result of a private company cutting corners on
safety in the interests of short term profit. For much of the far left Fukushima was just a
confirmation of their anti-nuclear prejudices. Socialist Worker was typical. Its front page
headline declared Nuclear Plants are never safe: shut them all down (19 March, 2011). Inside
its editorial declared Every plan to build a nuclear plant in every country across the world
should be stopped now. And all existing plants should be shut down. Thats the message we
should take from the horrific events in Japan. Now just a moments thought by any serious
thinking socialist would have revealed what a ludicrous demand this was. In Britain something
like 19% of electricity comes from our nuclear power plants. Shutting them down immediately
would lead to rolling blackouts across the country. In the medium term it would lead to
electricity being produced by more CO2 polluting forms of electricity production gas and coal
increasing global warming with all the dangers that entails. And in France where almost 80%
of the countrys electricity comes from nuclear? The economy would shut down and workers
would be burning their furniture in the dark to keep warm. Now that would be a real vote
winner!
Champion Briefs
185
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Renewable

energy cant replace nuclear power.
King, Stuart. FUKUSHIMA, THE LEFT, AND NUCLEAR POWER. Climate & Capitalism.
06-14-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
The pat reply to this argument will be that nuclear can by replaced by renewables wind, wave
and solar power and by better energy efficiency in homes, offices etc. Well it cant the
figures dont add up. Building offshore wind farms, renewing the grid to use them, developing
wave power etc will take years if not a decade or more, even if a socialist government threw all
its resources behind it. Even a massive public works programme on energy conservation in
homes and offices would take many years. At the same time we need to phase out all coal-fired
power stations within the next decade or so, a really important demand in relation to CO2
emissions and in Britain they still produce just under a third of our electricity. Renewables
cannot fill the gap if we take out nuclear power as an option. As socialists we cannot magic away
these problems. We can bury our heads in the sand, raise demands that no one takes seriously
(even ourselves) or provide some scientific based and socialist answers to the problems we face
the major one being how we put forward a program to massively reduce CO2 emissions on a
world scale to prevent global warming. Nuclear power as a low CO2 producing energy source,
for all its draw-backs and dangers, will certainly be part of the solution. The lesson of Fukushima
is not, as Socialist Worker would have it, that nuclear power is an impossibly dangerous
industry, but that it is far too dangerous an industry to be in private hands and to be driven by the
profit motive.
Champion Briefs
186
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Nuclear plants

are safe.
Walters, David. FUKUSHIMA, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND A SOCIALIST PROGRAM.
Climate & Capitalism . 06-14-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
The fact is that, thanks to the workers involved in operating these plants, most of whom are
union members, the safety record of the US civilian nuclear energy industry and the sound
regulatory oversight, has made even this, flawed, for-profit industry, the safest of any major
industry in the US for the last 50 years. Can we say the same about the refinery, pharmaceutical,
chemical, coal, gas and oil industries? No, we cannot. The relative risk of these industries has to
be looked at, and anti-nuclear investigative journalism routinely ignores this. But it is not
enough. And there are flaws in the entire system that warrant some serious revisions. We have
serious issues facing our class, our planet. From economic development of the productive forces
in the oppressed neo-colonial world to raise their standard of living, to the phasing out of
climate-changing fossil fuel use, we are going to require more, not, less energy, specifically
electricity. Most on the left are at best confused by this and at worse, seek a return to some sort
of pastoral green, democratic pre-industrial utopia. As Marxists we should reject this we use
too much scenario that has infected the left across the world. We certainly should use energy
more wisely, more efficiently and with a sense of conservation. This can happen only when the
profit motive is removed and scarcity in basic necessities is a thing of the past. No one should
object to this. But these things do not produce one watt of power, especially if you consider what
we have to do. These include: Switching off from fossil fuels completely (they should be used
only as chemical feedstock, i.e. as the basic material to make chemicals and lubricants)
Increasing the development of the productive forces especially in the developing world. This
means developing whole electrical grids, new, primarily non-fossil fuel, forms of generation and
the infrastructure to support this, for the billions without any electrical usage at all Freeing up the
productive forces to eliminate all forms of want as the material basis for a true socialist mode of
production. Using nuclear energy is both the cheapest and safest way to do this.
Champion Briefs
187
A2 Critical Techno-Management Bad AC: Only nuclear

power can meet human needs.
Walters, David. FUKUSHIMA, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND A SOCIALIST PROGRAM.
Climate & Capitalism . 06-14-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
Where Monbiot and I come together is not, obviously, the socialist requirement to get rid of
capitalism. The real Great Divide is between over the need for more energy, not less. It is over
the realization that renewables cannot do it except in the most utopian of fantasies. those among
the Greens who run on fear and fantasy, and those socialists that have a materialist understanding
of the need to move toward a society based not just on current human needs alone, but on
expanding humanitys ability to power such a society. Only nuclear can do this.
Champion Briefs
188
AFF: Indigenous Persons Harmed AC September/October 2016
Indigenous Persons Harmed AC

There are two ways that you could write this AC, both of which are reasonable. The first
is to say, simply, that indigenous people (in the US and elsewhere) have suffered because of
nuclear power. Indigenous people have vehemently protested against the interference of large
corporations who are desecrating their land and threatening natives health, all to make a profit.
You could make a Rawlsian argument that fairness dictates that indigenous people (who are
among the most vulnerable in society) should be given better treatment. You could also say that
respect for cultural diversity requires we respect natives sacred land (which is threatened by
nuclear waste dumping).
The second is to say, not only that natives suffer greatly because of nuclear power, but
also that we should affirm an indigenous conception of nature. Many indigenous tribes see
themselves as spiritually connected to their land. Your argument wouldnt be that we should
merely respect their spiritual views, but that their spiritual view is correct. The land is indeed
sacred, as native tribes see it, and we should rethink our existential relationship to nature. This
version of the aff would probably require a criticism of Western science/epistemology, bringing
your position into more kritikal territory.
Either position is legitimate and strategicit all depends on your interests! Wed
personally recommend that you try both, because debate is fun when you get out of your comfort
zone and experiment with unconventional arguments.
When youre negative against the first aff, you should consider either one of two
argumentsthe give back the land kritik, OR a lot of link turns. If you read the kritik, that
should be your only argumentyou should develop it for five minutes, articulate more links on
case, and express outrage at how the aff is still complicit in white peoples theft. If you read the
link turns, youre arguing that nuclear power is actually good for indigenous peoplewaste is
disposed with minimal impact on natives, theyre paid a fair amount for the use of their land, and
maybe some of them will be employed because of this (poverty is a serious issue on
Champion Briefs
189

reservations). Dont hesitate to say nuclear power is good for natives, out of fear of seeming
callous; youre the negative, and theres two sides to every story.
When youre negative against the second aff, give back the land can also be effective.
The aff understands indigeneity as fundamentally tied to the land, conveniently ignoring that
their land has been stolen by an unethical United States (hence they arent really tied to the land,
because theyve been robbed of it). Additionally, the aff implies that Americans should also see
the land as sacred, but whose land do they mean? White Westerners have no right to love this
land because its not theirs!
Another strategy against the second aff is to say that Western science is correct, nature is
only valuable for human ends, etc. etc. Appealing to a spiritual connection with nature is like
saying that its raining outside because God is cryingblatantly unscientific. You should
establish a middle ground, though, arguing that your view does not justify the rapacious
exploitation of nature; just because nature isnt intrinsically, spiritually significant doesnt mean
its prudent to destroy it into oblivion. Sustainable development (a harmony between
environmental protection and economic development), and we should prefer it to this deep
ecology stuff. Then proceed to argue that nuclear power is good because its essential in the fight
against climate change, which especially harms indigenous people.
Last two points: (1) neg should consider the shift DA; research how fossil fuel production
harms natives and say that the aff results in a shift to oil/coal/natural gas.
(2) The best aff answer to give back the land on this topic is the permutation. Theres
no reason the US couldnt prohibit the production of nuclear power AND give the land back. Just
because the aff uses the USFG to do something doesnt mean that the aff thinks the US is an
ethical actor, just that it should stop encouraging unethical nuclear power. Also, say that the aff
needs to happen firstnatives are suffering right now from nuclear power, and waiting for the
land to come back is a pipe dream.
Champion Briefs
190
Uranium extraction harms indigenous people--the nuclear

industry has violated natives rights.
Graetz, Geordan. Uranium Mining and Indigenous Peoples: The Role of SIA. 32 nd Annual
Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment. January 06, 2012. Web.
August 12, 2016.
<http://conferences.iaia.org/2012/pdf/uploadpapers/Final%20papers%20review%20proce
ss/Graetz,%20Geordan.%20%20Uranium%20Mining%20and%20Indigenous%20Peoples
,%20the%20Role%20of%20SIA.pdf>.
This last point is emerging as a crucial barrier to the extraction of uranium, as the majority of
uranium developments in Australia occur on or adjacent to the lands of indigenous peoples, and
this trend is repeated across other uranium producing countries. Indigenous rights to control
access to these lands and to receive benefits in return for access are increasingly being
recognised in law; however, in the past, the industry has been accused of rights violations
(Katona 2001).
Champion Briefs
191
Australia proves--uranium companies are not respecting

aboriginal rights.
August 12, 2016.
The relationship between uranium companies and Australias indigenous peoples has been
plagued by conflict and mistrust. The social and environmental legacy of the Ranger mine in the
Northern Territory, which stems, in part, from the Traditional Owners experiences of negative
social impacts and violations of rights over several decades, has tainted indigenous perceptions
of the industry across Australia (Graetz and Manning 2011). The industrys reputation was
further diminished as a result the findings of the Commonwealth governments Ranger Uranium
Environmental Inquiry, which recommended that the Ranger development be allowed to proceed
despite opposition by the Mirarr Traditional Owners and the provisions of the Aboriginal Land
Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (Fox 1977).
Champion Briefs
192
Nuclear waste dumping harms indigenous communities-they are subjected to radioactive ransom.
Green, Jim. The Nuclear War Against Australias Aboriginal People. The Ecologist. 07-142014. Web. August 12, 2016.
<http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2476704/the_nuclear_war_against_au
stralias_aboriginal_people.html>.
Radioactive ransom - dumping on the Northern Territory Since 2006 successive federal
governments have been attempting to establish a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty, 110 km north
of Tennant Creek in the Northern Territory. A toxic trade-off of basic services for a radioactive
waste dump has been part of this story from the start. The nomination of the Muckaty site was
made with the promise of $12 million compensation package comprising roads, houses and
scholarships. Muckaty Traditional Owner Kylie Sambo objected to this radioactive ransom: I
think that is a very, very stupid idea for us to sell our land to get better education and
scholarships. As an Australian we should be already entitled to that. While a small group of
Traditional Owners supported the dump, a large majority wereopposed and some initiated legal
action in the Federal Court challenging the nomination of the Muckaty site by the federal
government and the Northern Land Council (NLC).
Champion Briefs
193
Radioactive racism against indigenous people persists in the

uranium mining industry.
Muckaty Traditional Owners have won a significant battle for country and culture, but the
problems and patterns of radioactive racism persist. Racism in the uranium mining industry
involves: ignoring the concerns of Traditional Owners; divide-and-rule tactics; radioactive
ransom; humbugging Traditional Owners (exerting persistent, unwanted pressure); providing
Traditional Owners with false information; and threats, including legal threats. One example
concerns the 1982 South Australian Roxby Downs Indenture Act, which sets the legal
framework for the operation of BHP Billitons Olympic Dam uranium mine in SA. The Act was
amended in 2011 but it retains exemptions from the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Traditional
Owners were not even consulted. The SA governments spokesperson in Parliament said: BHP
were satisfied with the current arrangements and insisted on the continuation of these
arrangements, and the government did not consult further than that. That disgraceful
performance illustrates a broader pattern. Aboriginal land rights and heritage protections are
feeble at the best of times. But the legal rights and protections are repeatedly stripped away
whenever they get in the way of nuclear or mining interests.
Champion Briefs
194
Indigenous people have lost their land rights because of the

exploitative practices of the uranium mining industry. This
is essentially a nuclear war against the Aboriginal people of
Australia.
Nuclear interests trump aboriginal rights Thus the Olympic Dam mine is largely exempt from the
SA Aboriginal Heritage Act. Sub-section 40(6) of the Commonwealths Aboriginal Land Rights
Act exempts the Ranger uranium mine in the NT from the Act and thus removed the right of veto
that Mirarr Traditional Owners would otherwise have enjoyed. New South Wales legislation
exempts uranium mines from provisions of the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The Western
Australian government is in the process of gutting the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 at the
behest of the mining industry. Native Title rights were extinguished with the stroke of a pen to
seize land for a radioactive waste dump in SA, and Aboriginal heritage laws and land rights were
repeatedly overridden with the push to dump nuclear waste in the NT. Most of those laws are
supported by the Liberal / National Coalition and Labor. Radioactive racism in Australia enjoys
bipartisan support. Muckaty Traditional Owners have won a famous victory, but the nuclear war
against Aboriginal people continues - and it will continue to be resisted, with the Aboriginal-led
Australian Nuclear Free Alliance playing a leading role.
Champion Briefs
195
Indigenous people in Australia have rejected the idea that

uranium mining is even necessary.
Boylan, Jessie. Australias Aboriginal Communities Clamour Against Uranium Mining. The
Guardian. September 08, 2010. Web. August 12, 2016.
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/09/austrailia-aboriginal-uraniummining>.
As a mining giant prepares to open a major uranium mining site in Western Australia next year,
the clamour for the state to once more ban mining of the radioactive mineral has become louder.
In fact, the Wongatha Aboriginal clan that calls this region its home does not see any wisdom in
having uranium mining in Australia at all. We dont need uranium mining in this country, says
Wongatha leader and pastor Geoffrey Stokes. We have sun, weve got wind, weve got people.
Why should we pollute our country for money?
Champion Briefs
196
Uranium mining harms indigenous people, workers in the

industry, and the environment.
Today, the Anti Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia says, more than 100 domestic and
foreign companies are exploring for uranium all over Western Australia. One of the industrys
major players, the Australian mining company BHP Billiton, already plans to develop the
Yeelirrie uranium deposit here in 2011 in a 17 billion Australian dollar (15.6 U.S. billion dollar)
project. The mine is set to operate in 2014, with an annual yield of 3,500 tonnes of uranium ore.
Kalgoorlie-Boulder itself is in what is called the Goldfields region of Western Australia. The
town of 30,000 exists purely around the mining industry. But many residents of Kalgoorie, some
600 kilometres east of the state capital, Perth, would rather not have anything to do with
uranium. Even Kade Muir, a Wongatha anthropologist who was born in Kalgoorlie but now
resides elsewhere, says, We dont want this product disturbed from the ground. We dont want
to bequeath a legacy for future generations of a toxic environment. Such sentiments are echoed
by the Labor Party, which had imposed a policy restricting uranium mining to just three locations
in Australia at any one time when it led the federal government in the eighties. Shadow
Environment Minister Sally Talbot told protesters at an anti- uranium mining rally here in
March: We know that all mining is dangerous, but we know that mining uranium is off the
scale. It presents an unacceptable hazard for workers in the industry, it presents an unacceptable
risk to the future and well-being of our indigenous communities, and it presents a dreadful threat
to our environment in Western Australia.
Champion Briefs
197
Not all indigenous groups reject uranium mining--the Martu

in Australia are open to it. Indigenous groups are also
usually paid royalties.
Not all indigenous groups have rejected uranium mining, however. The Martu, for example, have
made in known that they are open to it in their 130,000-square kilometre land here in Western
Australia. The Western Desert Lands Aboriginal Corp, representing the Martu, has signed
uranium exploration agreements in the area with at least two companies. Indigenous groups are
usually paid royalties, the amounts of which depend on location, type and scale of mine, for
mining operations on their land. Yet for the Wongatha apparently, whatever BHP Billiton may
offer may simply be inadequate for the risks they would be taking.
Champion Briefs
198
The US federal government and nuclear power industry

target Native American reservations for waste dumps.
Kamps, Kevin. Environmental Racism, Tribal Sovereignty And Nuclear Waste. Nuclear
Information and Resource Service. 02-15-2001. Web. August 12, 2016.
<http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/pfsejfactsheet.htm>.
Both the federal government and the commercial nuclear power industry have targeted Native
American reservations for such dumps for many years. In 1987, the U.S. Congress created the
Office of the Nuclear Waste Negotiator in an effort to open a federal monitored retrievable
storage site for high-level nuclear waste. The Negotiator sent letters to every federally
recognized tribe in the country, offering hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars to
tribal council governments for first considering and then ultimately hosting the dump. Out of the
hundreds of tribes approached, the Negotiator eventually courted about two dozen tribal councils
in particular.
Champion Briefs
199
Indigenous people in the US have suffered immensely from

uranium mining and nuclear waste dumping. This is a clear
instance of environmental racism.
Nevadans and Utahans living downwind and downstream from nuclear weapons testing, uranium
mining, and radioactive waste dumping have suffered immensely during the Nuclear Age. But
even in the nuclear sacrifice zones of the desert Southwest, it is Native Americans--from
Navajo uranium miners to tribal communities targeted with atomic waste dumps-- who have
borne the brunt of both the front and back ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. The tiny Skull Valley
Band of Goshute Indians Reservation in Utah is targeted for a very big nuclear waste dump.
Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a limited liability corporation representing eight powerful nuclear
utilities, wants to temporarily store 40,000 tons of commercial high-level radioactive waste
(nearly the total amount that presently exists in the U.S.) next to the two-dozen tribal members
who live on the small reservation. The PFS proposal is the latest in a long tradition of targeting
Native American communities for such dumps. But there is another tradition on the targeted
reservations as wellfighting back against blatant environmental racism, and winning. Skull
Valley Goshute tribal member Margene Bullcreek leads Ohngo Gaudadeh Devia (or OGD,
Goshute for Mountain Community), a grassroots group of tribal members opposed to the
dump. In addition to many other activities, OGD has filed an environmental justice contention
before the Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB).
Champion Briefs
200
Yucca Mountain is sacred to the Western Shoshone tribe-dumping nuclear waste there harms indigenous people.
At the same time, the nuclear power industry contributed large sums to Congressional and
Presidential campaigns, and lobbied hard on Capitol Hill to establish a temporary storage site
at the Nevada nuclear weapons test site, not far from the proposed federal permanent
underground dump for high-level atomic waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Both these proposed
temporary and permanent dump sites would be on Western Shoshone land, as affirmed by the
1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley. Yucca Mountain is sacred to the Western Shoshone, and their
National Council has long campaigned to prevent nuclear dumping there.
Champion Briefs
201
Tribal members health is seriously harmed by the toxins

produced by nuclear waste.
Having lost its bid to temporarily store its deadly wastes on Western Shoshone land near
Yucca Mountain, nuclear utilities have re-focused their hopes for interim relief on Nevadas
neighbor, Utah. PFS must have done its homework: it would be hard to find a community more
economically and politically vulnerable than the Skull Valley Goshutes to the Faustian bargain
of getting big bucks in exchange for hosting the nations deadliest poisons. Just 25 tribal
members live on the tiny Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians Reservation, an hours drive
west and south from Salt Lake City in Tooele County, Utah. The remaining 100 Band members
live in surrounding towns in Tooele County, in Salt Lake City, and elsewhere. The reservation is
already surrounded by toxic industries. Magnesium Corporation is the nations worst air polluter,
belching voluminous chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid clouds; hazardous waste landfills and
incinerators dot the map; with a name straight out of Orwells 1984, Envirocare dumps low
level nuclear waste in the next valley and is applying to accept atomic trash hundreds of times
more radioactive than its present license allows. Dugway Proving Ground has tested VX nerve
gas, leading in 1968 to the accidental killing of 6,400 sheep grazing in Skull Valley, whose
toxic carcasses were then buried on the reservation without the tribes knowledge, let alone
approval. The U.S. Army stores half its chemical weapon stockpile nearby, and is burning it in
an incinerator prone to leaks; jets from Hill Air Force Base drop bombs on Wendover Bombing
Range, and fighter crashes and misfired missiles have struck nearby. Tribal members health is
undoubtedly adversely impacted by this alphabet soup of toxins. Now PFS wants to add highlevel nuclear waste to the mix.
Champion Briefs
202
Dumping toxic nuclear waste on indigenous lands has

undermined the ability of tribes to live in an
environmentally sustainable fashion This undermines
environmental justice.
This toxic trend in Tooele County has left the reservation with almost no alternative economy.
Pro-dump tribal chairman Leon Bear summed up his feelings: We cant do anything here thats
green or environmental. Would you buy a tomato from us if you knew whats out here? Of
course not. In order to attract any kind of development, we have to be consistent with what
surrounds us. Targeting a tiny, impoverished Native American community, already so
disproportionately overburdened with toxic exposures, to host the United States nuclear waste
dump would seem a textbook violation of environmental justice. But the nuclear utilities did not
let such considerations slow down their push for the PFS dump on the Skull Valley Reservation.
Champion Briefs
203
The US NRC ignores how nuclear waste dumps

disproportionately harm poor, minority populations.
Nuclear waste forces natives to leave their reservations,
forcing them to turn away from their sacred and traditional
connection to their land.
Bullcreek, a tribal member who resides on the reservation with her children, disagrees with
NRCs ruling that the dump presents no disproportionately high and adverse impacts on low
income or minority populations. (DEIS, pg. LXX of the introduction). She first became
concerned by the way in which Chairman Bear had gone about signing the lease (without first
bringing it to the general council for a vote). As she looked into it, she learned about the dangers
of high-level nuclear waste, about the ways the PFS dump would threaten her tribes health,
culture, traditions and reservation community life. The NRCs ruling assumes that, given enough
money, tribal members such as Bullcreek and her family could simply move from the reservation
if they didnt like the sight of a nuclear waste dump out their kitchen window. Such false logic
fails to recognize traditional tribal members inextricable spiritual attachment to the land they
and their ancestors inhabit. Cedar and Sage are sacred here, says Bullcreek. I cut willow
branches over there to cradle my babies like my mother did, and my grandmother did, and her
mother and her mother. Their bones are on this land. If you think this is desolate then you dont
know the land. You dont know how to be still and listen. There is peace here. I felt I had to be
outspoken or lose everything that has been passed down from generations. The stories that tell
why we became the people we are and how we should consider our animal life, our air, things
that are sacred to us. Leon Bear is trying to convince himself that what he is doing is right, but
this waste will destroy who we are. Bullcreek is fighting the dump because it would ruin that
peace and her familys ancient connection to the land. If the dump is built, she has said she
Champion Briefs
204

The US NRC ignores how nuclear waste dumps disproportionately harm poor, minority
populations. Nuclear waste forces natives to leave their reservations, forcing them to turn away
from their sacred and traditional connection to their land. (Continued)
would be forced to move away from the homeland she loves. Has NRC considered the fact that
for Bullcreek-a fluent speaker of her native tongue-to move away from the community would
be yet another severe blow to the endangered Goshute language? What about other similar
adverse impacts to the traditional culture? NRCs ruling that the dump is justified because of the
large economic benefit for the tribe (DEIS, p. 6-28) also fails to recognize that Chairman Bear
seems to have no intention of sharing proceeds from PFS with opponents to the dump. OGDs
contention before the Licensing Board challenges this NRC finding of no environmental justice
(EJ) violation.
Champion Briefs
205
AFF A2 Natives receive compensation: The nuclear industry

pays off tribes to continue their destructive activities-nuclear waste dumping harms indigenous traditions.
Two days after Christmas in 1996, without the knowledge or approval of the Skull Valley
Goshute General Council (the 60 adult members who govern the tribe), Tribal Chairman Leon
Bear signed a lease agreement with PFS for an undisclosed amount of money. To this day, no
tribal member outside the three member tribal executive committee knows how much money the
tribe would receive for hosting the nations atomic waste dump. The NRC, which must issue a
license in order for the dump to open, ruled in its June, 2000 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) that the dump does not violate environmental justice, because PFS will pay the
tribe so handsomely. Estimates of the secretive pay-off to the tribal council range from 60 to 200
million dollars. PFSs strategy is simple: use unlimited amounts of money to buy out any
potential opposition to locate a dump on the reservation. In 1999, PFS entered into an
undisclosed monetary agreement with resistant local cattle ranchers, and in May 2000 signed a
deal with Tooele County in exchange for support of the dump. In an area of economic scarcity,
money talks loudly. Its pretty clear that utilities are willing to spend billions to move the spent
fuel out of their back yard into ours, said Utah Governor Mike Leavitt, who adamantly opposes
the PFS dump. The real issue is not the money, Bullcreek, has said. The real issue is who we
are as Native Americans and what we believe in. If we accept these wastes, were going to lose
our tradition.
Champion Briefs
206
AFF A2 Natives receive compensation: Impoverished natives

are bribed by the nuclear power industry to live with it.
This is how nuclear power companies set tribal members
against each other, destroying their communities.
If the NRCs DEIS ruling--that the proposed dump is not an EJ violation because PFS will pay
the tribe a relatively large sum of moneystands uncontested, it could serve as a precedent to
justify federal regulatory agencies licensing toxic facilities that target impoverished minority
communities, so long as the polluting corporation compensates the victims with enough
money to live with it or relocate elsewhere. Offering reservation communities enough
money to put up with or relocate away from proposed toxic facilities on their homeland
nevertheless despoils or removes the land in which traditional culture and spirituality is rooted.
Dangling big bucks in front of impoverished reservation communities, tempting them to do
something they otherwise would not, enables corporations to divide and conquer, by setting
tribal councils against traditionals, and tribal members against each other. Even though no waste
has been dumped yet, Bullcreek says PFS is already ripping her community apart.
Champion Briefs
207
AFF A2 Tribal Sovereignty: The nuclear power industry

poses a serious threat to tribal sovereignty--while some
tribes might accept nuclear power, theyre selling away their
independence and their heritage to an unjust corporate
machine.
The outcome of the PFS fight may set important precedents for tribal sovereignty and
environmental protection on reservations. The nuclear power industry is attempting to evade
environmental regulations and State of Utah opposition by hiding behind the shield of tribal
sovereignty. If successful, this could threaten to undermine tribal sovereignty itself. Sovereignty
isnt selling your independence and your heritage to the highest bidder, Bullcreek says. What
choice will we have after they park all that radioactive waste on our land? The lease agreement
signed by Chairman Bear and PFS requires that the tribe use its sovereign nation status to
support and promote this Lease and Project, and that the tribe not, at any time, pass any law,
rule or regulation which could adversely affect or burden this Lease or the Project (Lease
between Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians and PFS, May 20, 1997, p. 18). The lease also
forbids the tribe from setting any environmental protection standards that are stronger than
federal standards (p.24). The agreement, in effect, forfeits control of the reservation dumpsite to
PFS, and regulation to the federal NRC. Calling on the State of Utah to take action by entering
dialogue with the Goshutes about compensation, remediation and clean up of existing
environmental devastation on and around Skull Valley, Indigenous Environmental Network
director Tom Goldtooth said We recognize the sovereignty of the Skull Valley Tribal Council to
make decisions on behalf of their people, but the Tribe is in this situation to begin with because
of unjust policies that have negatively impacted their inherent rights to maintain a healthy,
economically viable community. The Tribe is not the enemy here, Private Fuel Storage is. The
State needs to look at policies that threaten the Tribes health and well-being and work to rectify
those first.
Champion Briefs
208
AFF A2 Social Impact Assessment CP: Social impact

assessment has a number of deficiencies that hinder effective
relations with indigenous communities.
Graetz, Geordan. Uranium Mining And Indigenous Peoples: The Role Of SIA. 32 nd Annual
August 12, 2016.
Current best practice in indigenous community engagement mandates the use of social impact
assessment (SIA); however a number of commentators recently have pointed to the theoretical
and practical deficiencies in SIA that hinder the achievement of successful development
outcomes. Esteves et al. (2012) argue that SIA is still a poor cousin to environmental impact
assessment, and that SIA practitioners have insufficient influence in shaping
project/development alternatives. Perhaps this relates to limited thinking about the ways in
which SIAs can be utilised to deliver benefits to those who have a stake in the outcome of a
proposed development (Vanclay and Esteves 2012, Harvey 2012). Harvey (2012) also highlights
the inability of current SIA processes to take into account free, prior and informed consent
requirements. With regard to indigenous peoples, OFaircheallaigh (2012) contends that, due to a
history of dispossession and economic and political marginalization, as well as past negative
experiences of SIA, indigenous communities are wary of state-initiated or state-controlled
regulatory processes including impact assessment. Indeed, in the case of the Ranger and
Olympic Dam developments, inadequate attention to the rights of the affected indigenous
peoples and their social risk concerns resulted in reports of negative social impacts, as well as
reputational damage to the developers and regulatory agencies (Katona 2001, The Flinders News
2009). Finally, Vanclay and Esteves (2012) argue that limitations in the current practise of SIA
are evinced by stakeholder dissatisfaction with SIA reports, the inability of SIAs to predict all
likely impacts, the presence of residual impacts and operational stoppage time and reputational
damage as a consequence of poorly executed SIAs.
Champion Briefs
209
A2 Indigenous Persons Harmed AC: Not all indigenous

tribes view nuclear energy negatively--the nuclear industry
knows that respecting indigenous people is good business
practice--Australia proves.
August 12, 2016.
Despite past experiences, in recent years the relationship between industry members and
indigenous communities has improved. Representatives of the Martu and Adnyamathanha
communities in Western Australia and South Australia respectively have expressed confidence in
the companies that have approached them with plans to develop deposits on their lands (Graetz
and Manning 2011). Furthermore, the 4 industrys peak body, the Australian Uranium
Association, has opened up an avenue for dialogue between industry members and indigenous
leaders (Australian Uranium Association 2009) and has established a scholarship fund to support
indigenous students who are undertaking mine-related courses at tertiary level (Australian
Uranium Association n.d.). These small steps forward demonstrate industrys growing
recognition that there are good business case arguments for changing current practice, and that
business risks can be reduced, and opportunities enhanced, if companies attend to the social risk
concerns of their indigenous stakeholders.
Champion Briefs
210
A2 Indigenous Persons Harmed AC: (Social Risk CP) The

nuclear industry should engage in social risk assessment;
this corrects for the failures of current social impact
assessment and is key to a new stakeholder engagement
process that respects indigenous people.
August 12, 2016.
Conclusion: A New Approach In light of the constraints associated with SIA and HRIA, this
paper proposes the development of a new approach, which would better incorporate insights
from social risk and business risk disciplines, and their interconnections, as well as theoretical
and practical knowledge about indigenous rights. Indigenous people are increasingly cognisant
of their rights, and the promulgation of indigenous rights instruments over the last 20 years has
enhanced their bargaining position vis--vis uranium companies. If companies fail positively to
respond to this new rights paradigm, they are unlikely to gain or maintain the important social
licence to operate. The approach suggested here would supplement the SIA/HRIA process, and,
importantly, would result in a new stakeholder engagement process being embedded into
corporate decision-making and government policy-making apparatuses. However, social risk is
relatively under-theorised, especially as it pertains to the extractive industries, thereby
necessitating more empirical and theoretical work to demonstrate its appropriateness as a prism
through which to engage with indigenous peoples confronted with uranium developments. The
recent thawing in relations between indigenous peoples and the Australian uranium industry
arguably is attributable to the recognition of both indigenous rights and the business risk
consequences of not getting engagement right. The importance of this nexus cannot be
understated, especially as demand for uranium increases to fuel the next generation of nuclear
power plants.
Champion Briefs
211
A2 Indigenous Persons Harmed AC: Indigenous opposition

is a business risk for the nuclear industry--thats a sufficient
incentive for the nuclear industry to get its act together.
Graetz, Geordan. Uranium Mining And Indigenous Peoples: The Role Of SIA. 32 nd Annual
August 12, 2016.
Indigenous opposition to uranium developments in South Australia, the Northern Territory and
Western Australia has precipitated business risks for companies, including the mothballing of
Cameco and Paladins Angela/Pamela project and the development of the RioTinto-controlled
Jabiluka deposit. Moreover, with evolving indigenous rights instruments, the need for companies
to gain permission to access indigenous lands in the form of a social licence to operate has taken
on increased legal and moral importance. In addition, the Native Title Act 1993 and the
aforementioned Land Rights Act contain a number of regulatory provisions to which companies
must adhere. The recently ratified United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, which contains provisions pertaining to free, prior and informed consent, will further
influence companies engagement policies with indigenous peoples in the future.
Champion Briefs
212
AFF: Nuclear Energy Bad AC
Nuclear Energy Bad AC

This affirmative is a general whole res aff that says nuclear energy is bad and that
countries acquiring that capability, regardless of who is doing it, is something that they should be
dissuaded of doing. This is a more core of the topic affirmative that is quite susceptible to
common negative arguments, but also has a lot of literature backing up its claims.
Framework
There are a couple of different frameworks you could potentially run with this AC, some
are more strategic than others. You want to choose the framework that best excludes most
potential negative arguments, and how you do that is dependent upon what impacts you choose
to read.
The first option is a standard utilitarianism framework that wants to maximize the most
amount of good for the most amount of people. This one is relatively straightforward, but it
definitely allows the negative to link a lot of offense back to the standard.
The second option is a critical anthropocentrism bad framing; this affirmative has a lot of
environment based impacts that say that nuclear energy causes radiation poisoning and leaves
toxic waste permanently embedded into the environment. This framework would say that the
judge has an ethical obligation to reject instances of anthropocentrism and environmental
destruction, and provides a more nuanced approach than the generic utilitarian framework.
Contention Level Offense
There are many potential advantages that you could read, but whats most important is
that you develop each one extensively considering how controversial most of these claims are
and how much debate goes on in the literature about the truth or falsity of them. Leaving yourself
open to impact turns and having to read a ton of cards in the 1AR consumes a lot of time and
Champion Briefs
213
isnt strategic, especially for this affirmative. You should invest time reading preempts to
obvious negative responses, because there are a lot.
The first advantage you could read is an argument about how nuclear power plants cause
radioactive waste to be produced that both destroys the surrounding environment but also
impacts nearby communities. This both permanently destroys the surrounding environment
making it uninhabitable for future generations, but also causes current communities to get sick
and die. In addition, these power plants are often times susceptible to accidents which if they
were to occur, would cause mass devastation and could equate to the same amount of damage
done by a hydrogen bomb.
Another advantage is a national security argument that says nuclear power plants are
prime targets for terrorist attacks, there are very few if any physical security measures which
means attacking the facility would not require an extensive amount of effort on their part. This is
a more utilitarian advantage than the other one and likely requires a more specific impact
scenario of a specific country or region.
Champion Briefs
214
Nuclear energy causes mass waste that causes radiation and

creates an unsustainable future.
Green America. Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. 2014. Web. August 16, 2016.
1. Nuclear waste -- The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than
100,000 years. Its untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist.
To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable.
Nuclear proponents hope that the next generation of nuclear plants will generate much less
waste, but this technology is not yet fully developed or proven. Even if new technology
eventually can successfully reduce the waste involved, the waste that remains will still be toxic
for 100,000 years. There will be less per plant, perhaps, but likely more overall, should nuclear
power scale up to 2,500, 3,000 or 17,000 plants. No community should have to accept a nuclear
waste site, or even accept the risks of nuclear waste being transported through on route to its
final destination. The waste problem alone should take nuclear power off the table.
President Obama took the proposed solution of a national nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca
Mountain, Nevada, off the table, though members of the presidents Blue Ribbon Commission
on Americas Nuclear Future have suggested reopening discussion of this location. But the
people of Nevada have said they dont want a nuclear waste facility there, and we would need to
transfer the waste to this facility from plants around the country, which puts thousands of other
communities at risk.
Champion Briefs
215
Nuclear energy causes toxic environmental and health

damage via uranium mining.
PSR. Dirty, Dangerous And Expensive: The Truth About Nuclear Power. Physicians for Social
Responsibility. 2008. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.psr.org/resources/nuclearpower-factsheet.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/>.
Nuclear Power is Dirty
Each year, enormous quantities of radioactive waste are created during the nuclear fuel process,
including 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste(1) and 12 million cubic feet of lowlevel radioactive waste(2) in the U.S. alone. More than 58,000 metric tons of highly radioactive
spent fuel already has accumulated at reactor sites around the U.S. for which there currently is no
permanent repository. Even without new nuclear production, the inventory of commercial spent
fuel in the U.S. already exceeds the 63,000 metric ton statutory capacity of the controversial
Yucca Mountain repository, which has yet to receive a license to operate. Even if Yucca
Mountain is licensed, the Department of Energy has stated that it would not open before 2017.
Uranium, which must be removed from the ground, is used to fuel nuclear reactors. Uranium
mining, which creates serious health and environmental problems, has disproportionately
impacted indigenous people because much of the worlds uranium is located under indigenous
land. Uranium miners experience higher rates of lung cancer, tuberculosis and other respiratory
diseases. The production of 1,000 tons of uranium fuel generates approximately 100,000 tons of
radioactive tailings and nearly one million gallons of liquid waste containing heavy metals and
arsenic in addition to radioactivity.(3) These uranium tailings have contaminated rivers and
lakes. A new method of uranium mining, known as in-situ leaching, does not produce tailings but
it does threaten contamination of groundwater water supplies.
Champion Briefs
216
Nuclear proliferation incentivizes unstable countries to

proliferate nuclear weapons.
2. Nuclear proliferation In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, During my
eight years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was
connected to a nuclear reactor program. Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every
day. We cant develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in
other countries.
Here too, nuclear power proponents hope that the reduction of nuclear waste will reduce the risk
of proliferation from any given plant, but again, the technology is not yet proven and reduced
risk doesnt mean no risk of proliferation. If we want to be serious about stopping proliferation in
the rest of the world, we need to get serious here at home, and not push the next generation of
nuclear power forward as an answer to climate change. There is simply no way to guarantee that
nuclear materials will not fall into the wrong hands.
Champion Briefs
217
Nuclear power incentivizes proliferation that leads to loose

nukes and terrorism.
Proliferation, Loose Nukes and Terrorism
The inextricable link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons is arguably the greatest
danger of nuclear power. The same process used to manufacture low-enriched uranium for
nuclear fuel also can be employed for the production of highly enriched uranium for nuclear
weapons. As it has in the past, expansion of nuclear power could lead to an increase in the
number of both nuclear weapons states and threshold nuclear states that could quickly produce
weapons by utilizing facilities and materials from their civil nuclear programs a scenario many
fear may be playing out in Iran. Expanded use of nuclear power would increase the risk that
commercial nuclear technology will be used to construct clandestine weapons facilities, as was
done by Pakistan.
In addition to uranium, plutonium can also be used to make a nuclear bomb. Plutonium, which is
found only in extremely small quantities in nature, is produced in nuclear reactors. Reprocessing
spent fuel to separate plutonium from the highly radioactive barrier in spent fuel rods, as is being
proposed as a waste solution under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, increases
the risk that the plutonium can be diverted or stolen for the production of nuclear weapons or
radioactive dirty bombs. Reprocessing is also the most polluting part of the nuclear fuel cycle.
The reprocessing facility in France, La Hague, is the worlds largest anthropogenic source of
radioactivity and its releases have been found in the Arctic Circle.
In addition to the threat of nuclear materials, nuclear reactors are themselves potential terrorist
targets. Nuclear reactors are not designed to withstand attacks using large aircraft, such as those
used on the September 11, 2001.(7) A well-coordinated attack could have severe consequences
for human health and the environment. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded
that a major attack on the Indian Point Reactor in Westchester County, New York, could result in
44,000 near-term deaths from acute radiation sickness and more than 500,000 long-term deaths
from cancer among individuals within 50 miles of the reactor.(8)
Champion Briefs
218
Power plants are prime targets for terrorism leads to

major meltdowns.
3. National Security Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive
target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr.
found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear
power plant.
Whats more, Kennedy has sailed boats right into the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the
Hudson River outside of New York City not just once but twice, to point out the lack of security
around nuclear plants. The unfortunate fact is that our nuclear power plants remain unsecured,
without adequate evacuation plans in the case of an emergency. Remember the government
response to Hurricane Katrina, and cross that with a Chernobyl-style disaster to begin to imagine
what a terrorist attack at a nuclear power plant might be like.
Champion Briefs
219
Power plants are uniquely vulnerable to terrorist attacks

9/11 pales in comparison.
McCluskey, Jim. Ten Urgent Reasons To Reject Nuclear Power Now. Truth Out. 02--17-2013. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14461-ten-urgentreasons-to-reject-nuclear-power-now>.
5. Plants and Waste Storage are Vulnerable to Terrorist Attack. Because of their potential of
mass destruction, nuclear power stations are a major target for terrorists. The 9/11 atrocity would
be tiny by comparison. If a large plane were flown into a nuclear power station, the disaster
would be immeasurably worse than Chernobyl. John Large, an international independent expert
on nuclear power, has said that if a plane was flown into the nuclear waste storage tanks at
Sellafield, the whole of the English Midlands could be catastrophically contaminated. Safety
studies of Sellafield carried out for local authorities tell us that a direct hit by a passenger jet on
the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant would contaminate Britain with two and a half times
more radioactivity than the amount that escaped during the Chernobyl disaster. The studies also
inform us that up to 2,646 pounds of the highly radioactive and long-lasting isotope caesium-137
would be released into the atmosphere, contaminating Britain, Ireland, continental Europe and
beyond, making huge swathes of the country uninhabitable and causing more than two million
cancers. In the light of the twin towers atrocity, this is a completely unacceptable risk.
Champion Briefs
220
Power plants are super susceptible to major accidents

human error can lead to mass devastation and damage.
4. Accidents Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents human error
or natural disasters can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl
disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, with thousands
poisoned by radiation. The Fukushima disaster forced the evacuation of 150,000 people, and the
costs of the clean-up are still being calculated.
Here in the US, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 triggered a clean-up effort that
ultimately lasted for nearly 15 years, and topped more than two billion dollars in cost. The cost
of cleaning up after one of these disasters is simply too great, in both dollars and human cost
and if we were to scale up to 17,000 plants, is it reasonable to imagine that not one of them
would ever have a single meltdown? Many nuclear plants are located close to major population
centers. For example, experts argue that if there was an accident at the Indian Point Nuclear
Power Plant outside of New York City, evacuation would be impossible.
And accidents arent limited to power plants. Also in 1979, another nuclear-related accident
occurred at the Church Rock uranium mine in New Mexico, where more than 1,000 tons of
radioactive mill waste was spilled into the Puerco River. The accident, occuring in a rural area of
the Navajo Reservation, received little media attention, though it would have long-term
consequences. A 2007 study found significant radiation still present in the area, and in 2008
Congress authorized funds for continued clean-up efforts. In the US, uranium mining occurs
disproportionately on Native American lands, with Native communities facing the worst
consequences of potential accidents.
Champion Briefs
221
Major accidents lead to irrevocable damage history

proves.
1. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Dangerous.
There have now been four grave nuclear reactor accidents: Windscale in Britain in 1957
(the one that is never mentioned), Three Mile Island in the United States in 1979, Chernobyl in
the Soviet Union in 1986 and now Fukushima. Each accident was unique, and each was
supposed to have been impossible.
A recent book, Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the
Environment, concludes that, based on records now available, some 985,000 people died
between 1986 and 2004, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident.
Alice Slater, New York representative of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, comments:
The tragic news uncovered by comprehensive new research that almost one million people died
in the toxic aftermath of Chernobyl should be a wake-up call to people all over the world to
petition their governments to put a halt to the current industry-driven nuclear renaissance.
Aided by a corrupt IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), the world has been subjected
to a massive coverup and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl.
At Fukushima we have the worst industrial disaster ever. Three simultaneous ongoing
complete meltdowns have proven impossible to stop or contain since they started almost two
years ago. These meltdowns are still pouring radiation pollution across the Japanese landscape.
International experts (e.g. Charles Perrow in Normal Accidents) agree that there will continue to
be disastrous failures at nuclear power stations, and that this cannot be avoided.
As Edward Teller, the great nuclear physicist, said, If you [try to] construct something
foolproof, there will always be a fool greater than the proof.
Champion Briefs
222
An accident is inevitable more power plants increase the

probability of catastrophic meltdowns.
Coplan, KarlS. The Intercivilizational Inequities Of Nuclear Power Weighed Against The
Review. 2006. Web. August 16, 2016.
.
Every operating nuclear power plant poses some risk of a severe accident, including an
uncontrolled nuclear reaction that leads to core meltdown and potentially huge releases of
radioactivity into the environment. The nuclear industry estimates the chances of a severe reactor
accident to be about one out of every 10,000 reactor years of operation. 98 While this may sound
like a small risk, it means that with 100 operating nuclear power plants in the United States, we
can expect one severe accident every 100 years. If these 100 plants keep operating indefinitely
into the future, or are replaced in kind to mitigate global carbon emissions, a severe reactor
accident is virtually certain in this country in the future.
Moreover, if we were to construct the 200 additional nuclear power plants in this country
necessary to meet the Phase I carbon [*244] reductions contemplated by the Kyoto Protocol, 99
that same one-in-ten thousand chance of a severe reactor accident would turn into an expectation
of one severe reactor accident every thirty years. Combined with all the other nuclear reactors
around the world - and assuming that all such reactors are at least as safe and well operated as
those in the United States - severe nuclear reactor accidents would be expected to occur ever few
years.
Champion Briefs
223
Earthquakes in the United States threaten nuclear melt

downs and environmental disasters.
Gunter, Linda. Beyond Nuclear. 07--18--2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0718-14.htm>.
MARYLAND JULY 18 The extensive damage at a seven-reactor nuclear power plant in
Japan after an earthquake this week is stoking concern that U.S. reactors and other nuclear
facilities may also be vulnerable to releases of deadly radioactivity into the environment due to
earthquakes.
Tokyo Electric Power Companys Kashiwazaki-Kariwa atomic power plant, the largest in
the world in terms of electricity output, suffered 50 cases of malfunctioning and trouble after a
6.7 tremor struck nearby two days ago. Radioactively contaminated water, now calculated at
more than 600 gallons, leaked into the Pacific Ocean and an estimated 400 barrels containing
radioactive waste tipped over, with 10% of the lids falling off. Hazardous radioactive isotopes,
cobalt-60 and chromium-51, were emitted into the atmosphere from an exhaust stack.
Concerns that a similar event could happen here are confirmed by an incident in August 2004,
when an earthquake in Illinois broke an underground pipe attached to one of the Dresden nuclear
power plants radioactive waste condensate storage tanks. The broken pipe was leaking tritium (a
harmful, radioactive form of hydrogen) into groundwater, creating an expanding underground
plume of hazardous radioactive contamination.
Several U.S. atomic reactors may be especially vulnerable to earthquakes. The twin
reactor Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California was already built
before it was discovered that an earthquake fault line associated with the infamous San Andreas
Fault lay just offshore in the Pacific Ocean.
Fires, such as the one that broke out in Japan, are also a legitimate U.S. concern.
Earthquakes are notorious for sparking fires, which could spell disaster at U.S. nuclear power
plants given that many are not in compliance with safety regulations for fire protection and
reactor shutdown systems, said Paul Gunter, the nuclear industry watchdog at Beyond Nuclear,
and an expert on nuclear plant fire protection. An earthquake-sparked inferno, or failure to
Champion Briefs
224
Earthquakes in the United States threaten nuclear melt downs and environmental disasters.
(Continued)
Gunter, Linda. Beyond Nuclear. 07--18--2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0718-14.htm>.
safely shut down a reactor, could lead to a meltdown, catastrophic release of radioactivity, and
deadly fallout hundreds of miles downwind and downstream, Gunter added.
A 1982 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) report, known as CRAC-2, shows
that a major accident at a U.S. atomic reactor could cause tens to hundreds of thousands of
radiation-related deaths and injuries, as well as hundreds of billions of dollars of property
damage.
Risks extend to the radioactive wastes stored on-site at U.S. reactors as well.
Environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit last month against the NRC for failing to enforce its
earthquake safety regulations for outdoor storage of high-level radioactive wastes at the
Palisades atomic reactor on the shores of Lake Michigan. The lake supplies drinking water for
Chicago and millions downstream.An earthquake could bury the containers under sand causing
the nuclear fuel rods to overheat, or could even submerge them under the waters of Lake
Michigan, said Kevin Kamps, Radioactive Waste Watchdog at Beyond Nuclear. This could
initiate a nuclear chain reaction in the wastes making emergency response a suicide mission. In
either case, it would amount to a radiological disaster for Lake Michigan and the millions who
depend on it for drinking water.
Earthquake risks also plague the proposed Yucca Mountain, Nevada dumpsite for
commercial and military high-level radioactive wastes. Nearly three dozen earthquake fault lines
are in the vicinity, and two faults actually intersect the proposed burial spot. Many hundreds of
tremors larger than 2.5 on the Richter scale have struck within 50 miles of Yucca Mountain since
1975. One jolt, measuring 5.4 on the Richter scale, struck just ten miles from Yucca Mountain in
1992, doing extensive damage to the U.S. Department of Energys field office at the site. Critics
fear that a major earthquake at the dump site could cause a radiological catastrophe by damaging
waste handling surface facilities planned for the site, or could cause tunnel collapses that would
breach waste burial containers, spilling their deadly contents into the drinking water aquifer
below.
Champion Briefs
225
Even a tiny mistake have enormous consequences trivial

oversights can produce full-scale nuclear detonations.
Schlosser, Eric. Why We Must Rid The World Of Nuclear Weapons. The Guardian.
November 27, 2014. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/27/nuclear-weapons-nearmisses-iran-bomb-peace>.
The Pentagon has long claimed that only 32 serious accidents have occurred with American
nuclear weapons. But a document that I obtained through the Freedom of Information Act listed
more than a thousand accidents involving US nuclear weapons just between the years of 1950
and 1968. Many of those accidents were trivial; others were more likely to produce a full-scale
nuclear detonation than some of the accidents on the official list.
Seemingly innocuous things could have led to disaster. A tiny metal nut that came off a screw
inside a B-52 bomber created a new electrical pathway, circumventing a safety switch and fully
arming four hydrogen bombs. A maintenance technician investigating a faulty intruder alarm at a
missile silo pulled the wrong fuse with a screwdriver, caused a short circuit, and blew the
warhead off a missile. Four rubber seat cushions inadvertently stowed near a heat vent in the
cockpit of a B-52 set the plane on fire, forced the crew to bail out mid-flight, and could have
detonated hydrogen bombs at one of Americas most important, top-secret military installations.
Other countries came up with nuclear weapon designs that were vastly less safe. Had Saddam
Hussein built nuclear weapons, they might have posed a greater threat to Baghdad than to any of
his enemies. It could go off if a rifle bullet hit it, a UN inspector said about an Iraqi weapon
design. I wouldnt want to be around if it fell off the edge of this desk.
Champion Briefs
226
Living near nuclear power plants causes cancer and

devastates local communities.
5. Cancer -- There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for
childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer even when a plant has an accident-free track
record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche
Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood
leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe.
According to Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear energy expert, nuclear power plants produce
numerous dangerous, carcinogenic elements. Among them are: iodine 131, which bioconcentrates in leafy vegetables and milk and can induce thyroid cancer; strontium 90, which
bio-concentrates in milk and bone, and can induce breast cancer, bone cancer, and leukemia;
cesium 137, which bio-concentrates in meat, and can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a
sarcoma; and plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is so dangerous that one-millionth of a gram is
carcinogenic, and can cause liver cancer, bone cancer, lung cancer, testicular cancer, and birth
defects. Uranium mining and transportation increase background radiation and cancer risks
worldwide, not only at nuclear power-plant sites. Because safe and healthy power sources like
solar and wind exist now, we dont have to rely on risky nuclear power.
Champion Briefs
227
Building power plants produce massive amounts of CO2

that offsets any benefits.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Is Nuclear Power The Answer?. 10--00--2005. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4216302.stm>.
But it still engenders massive distrust, so much that many people say it can never be part of the
way to avoid a disastrously warming world. Nuclear energy has always had its proponents, their
ranks swollen now by people who dislike the technology but believe it may be essential. They
point out that a reactor emits virtually no carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas
released from human activities (though of course building the power station produces a lot of
CO2).
Champion Briefs
228
Nuclear energy isnt feasible not enough sites.

6. Not enough sites Scaling up to 17,000 or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isnt possible
simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of
water for cooling, and there arent enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts,
flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear
accident. Over 24 nuclear plants were at risk of needing to be shut down in the summer of 2008
because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power.
There are many communities around the country that simply wont allow a new nuclear plant to
be built further limiting potential sites. And there are whole areas of the world that are unsafe
because of political instability and the high risk of proliferation. In short, because of geography,
local politics, political instability and climate change itself, there are not enough sites for a
scaled-up nuclear power strategy.
Champion Briefs
229
Nuclear energy isnt feasible Uranium is limited.

, Green America. Ten Strikes Against Nuclear Power. 2014. Web. August 16, 2016.
7. Not enough uranium Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of
nuclear plants, were running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the
US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all
the worlds electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years.
As uranium supplies dwindle, nuclear plants will actually begin to use up more energy to mine
and mill the uranium than can be recovered through the nuclear reactor process. Dwindling
supplies will also trigger the use of ever lower grades of uranium, which produce ever more
climate-change-producing emissions resulting in a climate-change catch 22. To increase our
access to uranium, there will be heightened pressure to open new mines and expand existing
mines, including in fragile or protected areas, bringing increased risk to mine workers and local
communities, and contributing to the overall issue of increases in background radiation local to
the mines and globally.
Champion Briefs
230
Nuclear energy isnt feasible too expensive.

8. Costs Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to
scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down.
Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and
uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with
taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price.
Whats worse, nuclear power is centralized power. A nuclear power plant brings few jobs to its
local economy. In contrast, accelerating solar and energy efficiency solutions create goodpaying, green-collar jobs in every community.
Around the world, nuclear plants are seeing major cost overruns. For example, a new generation
nuclear plant in Finland is already experiencing numerous problems and cost overruns of 25
percent of its $4 billion budget. The US governments current energy policy providing more than
$11 billion in subsidies to the nuclear energy could be much better spent providing safe and
clean energy that would give a boost to local communities, like solar and wind power do.
Subsidizing costly nuclear power plants directs that money to large, centralized facilities, built
by a few large companies that will take the profits out of the communities they build in.
Champion Briefs
231
Nuclear energy costs and incredible amount and isnt

economically viable.
Nuclear is Expensive
In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the
nuclear industry would one day provide energy too cheap to meter.(5) More than 50 years and
tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively
expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that
nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this
poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the
nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production
subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.
The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers
comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear
utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is very high well above 50 percent.(12) The
nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these
guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion.
Champion Briefs
232
Nuclear energy deters investment and is subject to huge

amounts of liability.
2. Nuclear Power Stations are Prohibitively Expensive.
Nuclear power stations are so expensive that they are never built without substantial contribution
to their costs from citizens in the form of subsidies.
The UK government has said it will not subsidize new nuclear power stations. However this
seems to refer to the most overt form of subsidies and not to hidden subsidies.
Nuclear power stations are so dangerous that no insurance company will undertake to pay the
total costs of a disaster or a terrorist attack. So to get them built, the government has to limit
liability. This is a subsidy.
The cost of decommissioning also is an enormous sum. Any limitation to liability for
decommissioning costs will be a subsidy. If the industry does not pay the total costs of disposing
of nuclear waste and ensuring it is safe for thousand of years, then this is a subsidy. The industry
does not pay the total costs of all research into nuclear energy. This is a subsidy.
Champion Briefs
233
No one will invest in nuclear energy the private sector

wont back it.
9. Private sector unwilling to finance Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely
chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what leads the industry to
seek taxpayer loan-guarantees and insurance from Congress in the first place.
As the Nuclear Energy Institute reported in a brief to the US Department of Energy, 100 percent
loan coverage [by taxpayers] is essential because the capital markets are unwilling, now and
for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary for new nuclear power plants.
Wall Street refuses to invest in nuclear power because the plants are assumed to have a 50
percent default rate. The only way that Wall Street will put their money behind these plants is if
American taxpayers underwrite the risks. If the private sector has deemed nuclear power too
risky, it makes no sense to force taxpayers to bear the burden.
Champion Briefs
234
Even if we lose all of our other defense the number of

plants isnt possible to build in the short time frame we have.
10. No time Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other
dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector
unwilling to insure and finance the projects werent enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear
power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclears coffin is time. We have the next
ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isnt possible to build 17,000
or 2,500 or 17 for that matter in ten years.
With so many strikes against nuclear power, it should be off the table as a climate solution, and
we need to turn our energies toward the technologies and strategies that can truly make a
difference: solar power, wind power, and energy conservation.
Champion Briefs
235
Nuclear power doesnt lead to energy independence

uranium still causes interdependence.
Nuclear Power Doesnt Mean Energy Independence
Assertions that nuclear power can lead us to energy independence are incorrect. In 2007, more
than 90 percent of the uranium used in U.S. nuclear power reactors was imported.(9) The U.S.
only has the ninth largest reasonably assured uranium resources in the world.(10) Most of it is
low to medium grade, which is not only more polluting but also less economical than uranium
found in other nations. The U.S.s high-priced uranium resources and world uranium price
volatility mean that current dependence on foreign sources of uranium is not likely to change
significantly in the future.
One country that the U.S. continues to rely on for uranium is Russia. The Continuing Resolution
signed into law in September 2008 extended and expanded the program to import Russian highly
enriched uranium that has been down-blended for use in U.S. commercial reactors. This
program, which was set to expire in 2013, has been extended through 2020 and expanded to
allow more uranium imports per year from Russia. While the program is an important nonproliferation measure (highly enriched uranium can be used to make a nuclear weapon), it means
that the U.S. will continue to rely on Russia for a significant amount of uranium for commercial
nuclear reactors.
Champion Briefs
236
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Suggestions that power plants

can explode like nuclear bombs are based on fiction.
Eiden, Thomas J. Nuclear Energy: The Safe, Clean, Cost-Effective Alternative. 2013. Web.
August 16, 2016. <https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2013-fall/nuclearenergy-safe-clean-cost-effective/>.
Next, consider the ridiculous implications that a nuclear power plant can explode like a nuclear
bomb. This is physically impossible. To begin with, in order to explode, nuclear material must be
enriched to more than 95 percent uranium-235, and fuel is only around 3 percent uranium-235.
Further, in order to explode, the uranium would have to be shaped in a very specific wayand
then intentionally triggered. No one with even a smidgen of understanding of the nature of
nuclear energy can honestly suggest or imply that a nuclear reactor core can explode like a
nuclear bomb. But that doesnt stop antinuclear zealots from pretending otherwise and terrifying
people in the process.
The Sierra Club has a fact sheet similar to that of Greenpeace. The Sierra Clubs fiction
begins: As the disasters at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima have shown, nuclear
power can cause catastrophic damage to land, human health, and our food supply.9 That is an
intentional grouping of wildly dissimilar things. The Chernobyl accidentwhich occurred under
the Soviet political regime and could never be repeated with modern plants in the Westwas a
disaster and did result in immediate fatalities to many plant workers. It also appears to have
caused a large increase in thyroid cancer due to people unknowingly ingesting food
contaminated by the radiation.10 (Fortunately, the vast majority of these cases were treatable.)
Champion Briefs
237
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Fukushima/Three Mile Island

have been overhyped and the damage was caused by other
factors altogether.
Eiden, ThomasJ. Nuclear Energy: The Safe, Clean, Cost-Effective Alternative. 2013. Web.
The events at Three Mile Island and Fukushima, however, were different matters altogether.
These incidents were testaments not to the danger but to the safety of nuclear power plants. Zero
people died as a result of the problems at these plants.
The Three Mile Island accident originated when a valve became stuck open and began to drain
coolant from one of the reactors. This situation, combined with the fact that plant operators
mistakenly thought too much coolant was flowing in, led operators to remove even more coolant.
Eventually, the reactor core became too hot, and the fuel melted but did not leak from the steel
pressure vessel that contains the core. However, during the initial confusion, operators
intentionally released a very small quantity of radioactive steam. Even so, the accident did not
(significantly) contaminate surrounding land, nor did it have any impact on human health.11 The
power plant continues to operate to this day with its other reactor core, and valuable information
was gleaned from the incident on how a reactor handles a meltdown, the worst-case scenario.
The incident at the Fukushima-Daiichi power plant was caused by an immense natural disaster
involving a massive earthquake and a huge tsunami. The power plant is located on the coast,
where it used ocean water to cool its reactors. When the earthquake occurred, it triggered the
automatic shutdown of the reactors, but the tsunami that followed destroyed most of the
electrical equipment in the plant as well as infrastructure as far as several miles inland. The
plants backup generators were flooded with water, and the plant was cut off from the electrical
grid. A third backup battery system kicked in but eventually ran out of power. With no power to
pump water to remove the remaining heat, some of the reactor cores melted.
The meltdown at Fukushima released some radioactive material, mostly in the form of
contaminated vented steam or dust, but the released material was and is monitored and tracked
(the current status can be checked on interactive maps online).12 The meltdown at Fukushima
did not kill anyone or destroy large swaths of land. Some people died from the stress of the
disaster, and others from being abandoned in nearby hospitals or retirement homes when their
staff fled the buildings unnecessarily.13 But no one died from radiation exposure.
Champion Briefs
238
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Nuclear Plants cause little to no

waste and actually prevent environmental damage.
Nuclear power plants also create very little waste compared to other forms of energy generation
and emit no air pollution. Because nothing is burned or leaves the core during the nuclear fission
process, the only emission from a nuclear plant is steam or hot water. When the fuel is removed,
it comes out of the core looking identical to when it was put in: a metal assembly containing
nuclear fuel pelletsnot some glowing, green ooze, as works of fiction would have us believe.
The only difference is that about 5 percent of the uranium-235 has been spent, and the fuel no
longer contains enough of it to sustain the nuclear chain reaction. Used fuel assemblies are stored
and cooled in pools of water outside of the core (but still in the plant) to let highly radioactive
materials decay. Later the used fuel assemblies are removed from the pools and stored in steellined concrete casks.
All of the nuclear waste produced in the past forty years by commercial nuclear power plants in
the United States can be stacked in the space of a football field and only seven yards high.4 If
these nuclear plants were solar plants of comparable electrical output, the volume of waste would
be some sixty-three thousand times greater,5 as solar panels contain glass and toxic metals that
need to be safely disposed of after their operational life.
The waste generated by nuclear power is extremely compact because of the energy density of
nuclear fuel. A small volume of purified uranium packs enormous potential energy: A one-gram
pellet has potential energy equal to 2.8 tons of coal or six hundred gallons of oil.6 This is why, in
addition to creating a relatively miniscule amount of waste, nuclear reactors can run continuously
for up to eighteen months without refueling.
Champion Briefs
239
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Nuclear energy is safer than all

its alternatives laundry list of reasons.
Nuclear power is safer than other forms of energy for several reasons. To begin with, multiple
layers of safety mechanisms and precautions are built into nuclear power plants. For instance, if
a nuclear power plant is completely cut off from the electrical grid during an accident, backup
generators automatically start to power safety systems that continue to cool the reactor. If the
generators fail, secondary backups such as battery banks are deployed. In case of an earthquake
or a seismic event beyond a certain magnitude, nuclear plants automatically shut down. New
plant designs currently under construction use circulating air and water moved by the heat of the
core itself to cool the shut-down reactor, which means the safety system does not require human
intervention or even power to operate for sustained periods.1 And massive, immensely fortified
containment domes are hallmarks of nuclear power plants. In the extremely rare event that
radioactive material leaks from the core of a modern power plant, a dome serves to contain it.
During a severe accident scenario or natural disaster involving a nuclear reactor, the event
typically unfolds over hours or even days, enabling engineers and operators to react as necessary
and mitigate damage. Few types of industrial accidents enable such long periods for corrective
action, containment, or, in the rare case it is necessary, evacuation. If a construction crew
accidentally ruptures an underground natural gas line with a backhoe and it explodes, the whole
event occurs in a fraction of a second. If a coal mine caves in, the whole event might take several
seconds, perhaps a minute. Likewise if a hydroelectric dam breaks.
Of course, the production of energy by any means can be dangerous, and like any toxic or
combustible materials, radioactive materials must be handled with care. But the technology and
advanced reactor designs scientists and engineers have developed in recent decades render
catastrophes practically impossible. And, of course, reactors get safer and safer as technology
advances and designs improve. Currently, it is beyond doubt that modern nuclear reactors are far
and away the safest of the energy alternatives.
Champion Briefs
240
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Nuclear energy is the same if

not cheaper in the long run than conventional forms of
energy.
Halper, Mark. Nuclear Power Cheaper Than Gas. 07--26--2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/nuclear-power-cheaper-than-gas/>.
All things being equal, natural gas plants are marginally cheaper than nuclear plants at
$83.54 per megawatt-hour (MWh) verus $87.27 per MWh for nuclear (dollar per MWh is solid
yardstick of energy economics). But all things are not equal.
Evaluating the two types of power over 60 years -- the lifetime of a new nuclear plant -- rather
than the 30 years of a natural gas plant, Bryan notes that nuclear beats gas hands down as a stable
investment because the long term cost of gas fuel is higher than the long term cost of nuclear
fuel.
One reason: At a nuclear station, fuel represents a much lower percentage of overall costs
- 10 percent versus 60 percent. While nuclear plant construction requires a huge upfront capital
hit, the costs tumble once the plant is operating.
Throw in price volatility of natural gas, and suddenly the investment risk soars. Bryan notes:
The long-term fuel cost uncertainty for gas creates significantly higher long-term
investment riskThe report found that over 60 years, the nuclear plant had a 90% probability
that the total cost would stay within the range of $77 to $99/MWh a range of $22/MWh, but
that the gas plant had a 90% probability that the total cost would stay within the range of $64 to
$103/MWh a range of $39/MWh or almost double of nuclears range.
And the chances of gas prices rising are good. Gas is, after all, a fossil fuel, and fossil fuels are
infamous for price rises. On top of that, carbon taxes on gas could push up the cost. Nuclear
would not be susceptible to a carbon tax, because nuclear plants do not emit CO2.
Once the gas plant is built, utility customers are more or less stuck with it, even if
natural gas prices skyrocket, which is highly likely once cheap supplies are depleted, or even if
carbon taxes are applied by governments, which is also highly likely, Bryan notes.
Champion Briefs
241
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Tech innovation solves for

nuclear waste.
AEI. Nuclear Waste Storage. American Energy Independence. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/nuclearwaste.aspx>.
If technology continues to advance for the next 100 years at the pace we have witnessed in the
past, then future technology will solve many of the problems we face today. For this reason, it is
safe to assume that engineers in the 22nd century and beyond will not consider nuclear waste
or radioactivity of any kind too great of a problem to solve (and it is likely that technological
advancements will solve the problem before the end of the 21st century).
Take a couple of minutes and try to imagine the tools and technology that will be available to
nuclear engineers and scientists 50 years from now.
One obvious possibility is advanced robotics that will surpass anything we have imagined in
cost, capability and widespread use. The handling of radioactive material through future robotics
could eliminate all risk of radiation exposure to humansnot only during normal maintenance
and inspections like that which is performed today, but also work that cannot be done today
because of risk of radiation exposure, such as performing detailed work with the dexterity that
now requires direct human contacthands and fingers. Future technology will enable an
operator to use remote robotics with the ease and dexterity equivalent to direct human touch.
And, in the not so distant future, such technology will be available for less than hundreds of
dollars, not tens of thousands of dollars.
Future advances in Nuclear Chemistry and Metallurgy will likely produce technology that will
enable inexpensive reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel as well as inexpensive and reliable
methods of reducing or eliminating long-term radioactivity.
Champion Briefs
242
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Studies prove that the impact

of radioactivity is hyped and based on doomsday folklore.
Schulz, Matthias. Nuclear Exaggeration: Is Atomic Radiation As Dangerous As We Thought?.
11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
<http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nuclear-exaggeration-is-atomic-radiation-asdangerous-as-we-thought-a-519162.html>.
And yet the amount of health damage sustained by these workers was astonishingly low.
The GSF study has examined 6,293 men who worked at the chemical plant between 1948 and
1972. So far 301 have died of lung cancer, says Jacob. But only 100 cases were caused by
radiation. The others were attributed to cigarettes.
The second large, but as yet unpublished study by the GSF scientists also offers
surprisingly low mortality figures. The subjects in this study were farmers who lived downstream
from the nuclear reactors, in 41 small towns and villages along the Techa River. From 1949 to
1951, waste material from the plutonium production -- a bubbling toxic soup -- was simply
poured into the river untreated. As a result, highly radioactive elements such as cesium 137 and
strontium 90 were deposited in the rivers sediments. The riverbanks became radioactive.
Atomic Dangers or Doomsday Folklore?
A report warning of the dangers was sent to Moscow in 1951. A series of X-ray tests was
conducted, and police officers were assigned to guard the river. We could only see the river
through barbed wire or from a small wooden bridge, says a former resident. By 1960, 22
villages had been evacuated.
From the standpoint of Russian citizens groups, which are currently suing for
compensation in the courts, these official steps were half-hearted. In their view, the plant
management committed atomic genocide against the ethnic Tatars living in the area.
But as the analyses show, even this accusation is exaggerated. The US National Cancer
Institute (NCI) studied 29,873 people who lived along the Techa between 1950 and 1960.
According to the NCI scientists, only 46 deaths came about due to radiation exposure.
Champion Briefs
243
Studies prove that the impact of radioactivity is hyped and based on doomsday folklore.
(Continued)
11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
The German researchers now know why the death rate was relatively low. Although the
Techa was abused as a nuclear waste dump, the abuse was not as severe as the rumor-mongers
would have us believe. The Techa farmer most heavily exposed to the radiation received a dose
of only 0.45 Gray, explains Jacob. By comparison, a lethal dose of radiation, which causes
fever, changes in the composition of the blood, irreparable damage to the body and death within
two weeks, is 6 Gray.
The findings hardly jive with the popular image of the atom as evil incarnate.
Nightmarish scenarios of lingering illness and birth defects on an apocalyptic scale populate
nightmares. In West Germany, the moral and political self-image of an entire generation arose
from its battle against radiation, from no nukes protest marches to facing off against police
water cannons at the Brokdorf nuclear power plant to sit-ins in front of Castor rail containers of
reprocessed nuclear waste.
Champion Briefs
244
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Concerns of mass radioactive

damage is based on inaccurate propaganda.
11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
This hard-line stance was partly rooted in history. On Aug. 6, 1945, a US bomber dropped an
atomic bomb code-named Little Boy over Hiroshima. The bomb detonated at an altitude of 600
meters (about 2,000 feet), directly above the center of the city and the resulting fireball,
generating temperatures in excess of 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, swept away all of downtown
Hiroshima, killing 140,000 people. Three days later, a second atom bomb was dropped over
Nagasaki, killing 70,000.
The more recent meltdown at the reactor in Chernobyl in 1986 reminded the world of the
dangers of the atom. The incident was referred to as nuclear genocide, and the press wrote of
forests stained red and of deformed insects. The public was bombarded with images of Soviet
cleanup crews wearing protective suits, bald-headed children with cancer and the members of
cement crews who lost their lives in an attempt to seal off the cracked reactor with a concrete
plug. Fifteen years after the reactor accident, the German newsmagazine Focus concluded that
Chernobyl was responsible for 500,000 deaths.
Was all this just doomsday folklore? There is no doubt that large sections of the countryside
were contaminated by the accident in the Ukraine. In the ensuing decades, up to 4,000 cleanup
workers and residents of the more highly contaminated areas died of the long-term consequences
of radiation exposure. But the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited
are simply nonsense. In most cases, they were derived from vague extrapolations based on the
hearsay reported by Russian dissidents. But such horror stories have remained part of the nuclear
narrative to this day.
Champion Briefs
245
Concerns of mass radioactive damage is based on inaccurate propaganda. (Continued)

11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
In fact, contemporaries who reported on the Chernobyl incident should have known better. Even
in the 1980s, radiobiologists and radiation physicists considered the medias doomsday reports to
be exaggerated.
And their suspicions have become a virtual certainty today. Groups of researchers have set up
shop at all of the sites of nuclear accidents or major nuclear contamination. They work at
Hanford (where the United States began producing plutonium in 1944), they conduct studies in
the English town of Sellafield (where a contaminated cloud escaped from the chimney in 1957),
and they study the fates of former East German uranium mineworkers in the states of Saxony and
Thuringia. New mortality rates have now been compiled for all of these groups of individuals at
risk. Surprisingly, the highest mortality rates were found among the East German mineworkers.
Champion Briefs
246
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: There are safe doses of

radiation Greenpeace based arguments that say its always
bad are based on scare tactics.
People are also frequently misled to the effect that there is no safe dose of radiation or an
explosion at a nuclear power plant can kill thousands of people. (Such claims are sometimes
accompanied by pictures of people who have been poisoned by radiation or mushroom clouds
from nuclear bombs.) Environmentalist groups such as Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the Natural
Resource Defense Council (NRDC) have a long track record of spreading such falsehoods while
campaigning against nuclear power. (They use the same tactics to campaign against fossil fuels.)
Greenpeace, for example, released a fact sheet on radiation that, far from clarifying matters or
enlightening people about nuclear power, muddles the issues with the obvious aim of terrifying
people. Concerning radiation exposure, Greenpeace says:
There is no safe dose of radiation. Radiation doses need to be kept as low as possible.
Internationally accepted limits are set for members of the public for doses that are in addition to
background or natural radiation. The limit is set at one millisievert a year. For nuclear workers,
this limit is 20 millisieverts a year. To compare, the global average for natural radiation doses is
2.4 millisieverts a year.7
This is a scare tactic. The so-called internationally accepted limit of one millisievert per year is
about the same amount of radiation that Grand Central Station employees receive each year from
the granite walls of the station. Even the rules of the Nuclear Regularity Commission (NRC)
concerning professions involving radiationsuch as nuclear power plant workers and medical
staff who handle radioactive medicine or operate radiation-producing equipmentpermit
workers to receive up to fifty millisieverts of radiation per year. (Workers, however, rarely
receive anything near that.)
Champion Briefs
247
There are safe doses of radiation Greenpeace based arguments that say its always bad are
based on scare tactics. (Continued)
We all get around three to four millisieverts of radiation per year by such means as traveling in
planes, living in brick houses, or residing at higher elevations (such as Denver, Colorado). Our
sun is a giant nuclear fusion reactor, so, naturally, being closer to it or being exposed to sunlight
more often exposes a person to more radiation. So does receiving an X-ray or using a tanning
lamp. So does eating Brazil nuts or bananas. We regularly receive background doses of
radiation because radiation is practically everywhere. If, as Greenpeace claims, there is no safe
dose of radiation, then there is no safe place to be.
Modern scientific observations show that doses of radiation under a certain threshold have no
discernible negative health effects. In parts of the worldsuch as Ramsar, Iran, and Guarapari,
Brazilwhere people receive larger annual doses of background radiation than most nuclear
plant technicians receive, cancer rates have shown no statistical increase.8 But such facts have no
effect on the likes of Greenpeace.
Champion Briefs
248
A2 Nuclear Energy Bad AC: Hiroshima/Chernobyls

damage wasnt because of radiation multiple studies prove.
11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
In Hiroshima, on the other hand, radioactivity claimed surprisingly few human lives. Experts
now know exactly what happened in the first hours, days and weeks after the devastating atomic
explosion. Almost all of Hiroshimas 140,000 victims died quickly. Either they were crushed
immediately by the shock wave, or they died within the next few days of acute burns.
But the notorious radiation sickness -- a gradual ailment that leads to certain death for anyone
exposed to radiation levels of 6 Gray or higher -- was rare. The reason is that Little Boy simply
did not produce enough radioactivity. But what about the long-term consequences? Didnt the
radiation work like a time bomb in the body?
To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant epidemiological
study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had
survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned
the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information
to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.
Today, 60 years later, the studys results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a
result of radiation received from the atomic attack:
87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors;
and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.
Such statistics have attracted little notice so far. The numbers cited in schoolbooks are much
higher. According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, 105,000 people died of the long-term
consequences of radiation.
Champion Briefs
249
Hiroshima/Chernobyls damage wasnt because of radiation multiple studies prove.

(Continued)
11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated the health risks of
radioactivity, says Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist. But contrary to widespread
opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands.
Especially surprising, though, is that the stories of birth defects in newborns are also pure
fantasy. The press has repeatedly embellished photos of a destroyed Hiroshima with those of
deformed children, children without eyes or with three arms. In reality, there hasnt been a single
study that provides evidence of an elevated rate of birth defects.
A final attempt to establish a connection is currently underway in Japan. The study includes
3,600 people who were unborn fetuses in their mothers wombs on that horrific day in August
1945. But it too has failed to furnish any evidence of elevated chromosomal abnormality.
In Germany, where nuclear fears have coalesced with the fear of dying forests and mad cow
disease into a general psychosis of threat, the degree of concern over nuclear radiation remains
high. To this day, some are so fearful about the long-term effects of fallout from Chernobyl that
they refuse to eat mushrooms from Bavaria. Even 20 years ago such behavior would not have
made sense.
Officially 47 people -- members of the emergency rescue crews -- died in Chernobyl from
exposure to lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough. But overall the amount of radiation
that escaped was simply too low to claim large numbers of victims, explains Kellerer.
The iodine 131 that escaped from the reactor did end up causing severe health problems in
Ukraine. It settled on meadows in the form of a fine dust, passing through the food chain, from
grass to cows to milk, and eventually accumulating in the thyroid glands of children. About
4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of
those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on.
Champion Briefs
250
Hiroshima/Chernobyls damage wasnt because of radiation multiple studies prove.

(Continued)
11--23--2007. Web. August 17, 2016.
Chernobyl was certainly a catastrophe, says GSF spokesman Heinz-Jrg Haury. But it was
also distorted and exaggerated.
Still, there is no doubt that radiation poisoning remains ominous and highly dangerous. It is also
still something of a puzzle to researchers. Stalins old weapons plant at Mayak is, in that sense, a
goldmine for researchers. It is the equivalent of a laboratory containing thousands of welldocumented cases.
Russian doctors have accumulated a huge store of knowledge in Mayak, explains Haury,
which is why everyone wants to go to Siberia now.
Champion Briefs
251
AFF: North Korea Plan
North Korea Plan

This affirmative has a litany of strategic elements that I think avoids my biggest concern
with this topic, that being the massive amount of negative ground that exists. Most of the
literature, in my opinion, goes affirmative, which means that the affirmative has a much more
limited set of arguments to prepare and answer, equalizing the debate. Lets break down all the
elements of this AC.
Framework
There are a couple of different frameworks you could read with this AC, the most
common and likely obvious one to read would be a utilitarian framework that analyzes the
consequences of the policy and attempts to maximize the best ones for the most amount of
people. Additionally, not all the advantages have a terminal impact of extinction but many do;
you could potentially add extinction prior framing to bolster your framework if you lose the
framework debate proper.
Contention Level Offense
There are several potential advantages you could read, and for the negative many of these
are impact turn-able so you could hypothetically also read them as disadvantages against the
affirmative.
The first, and main advantage, is a North Korean proliferation argument that says that
North Korea is acquiring nuclear capabilities right now for military purposes, not just to strongarm other nations. They want to engage in conflict with the U.S. and our allies because they see
an imminent military conflict in the near future, which is why de-nuclearizing them is necessary
to avoid that.
There are some other additional advantages you could read, which arent as expanded
upon such as an argument that says that North Korea is selling their weapons to terrorist
organizations and their nuclear weapons, once they develop the capability to deliver the
weaponized uranium, wouldnt be excluded from that. There are a couple of other internal links
such as the South Korea/U.S. relations argument, Iran Modeling argument, and the reunification
argument, but all of those are not nearly as developed as some of the other arguments in this file.
Champion Briefs
252
Sanctions are useless, result in nothing, and only contribute

to the rise in tensions.
Nuclear Threat Initiative. North Korea: Nuclear. 04--00--2016. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/nuclear/>.
North Korea has periodically asserted its need for a nuclear deterrent since the Korean War,
when the United States threatened to use nuclear weapons against it. The UN Security Council
has issued a series of sanctions against North Koreas nuclear program, including Resolution
1695, Resolution 1718, Resolution 1874, Resolution 2087, and Resolution 2270. The Six-Party
Talks between North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States began in
2003 with the goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. However, these talks have been
suspended since April 2009. Tensions have continued to rise since North Korea torpedoed the
South Korean naval ship, the Cheonan, and shelled the island of Yeonpyeong in 2010. North
Korea possesses full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, including a presumed basic capability to
enrich uranium, although the functionality of its centrifuges has not yet been substantiated to the
outside world. North Korea is building a small light water reactor (LWR) at Yongbyon, which
will be fueled by the enriched uranium after it is completed. [1]
Champion Briefs
253
North Korea uses the excuse of energy development to

advance their military programs international efforts to
curb this have consistently failed domestic action is key.
Although bolstered by early assistance from Moscow, and to some extent Beijing, North
Koreas nuclear program developed largely without significant foreign assistance. Reportedly,
Kim Il Sung asked Beijing to share its nuclear weapons technology following Chinas first
nuclear test in October 1964, but Chinese leader Mao Zedong refused. [5] In any case, shortly
thereafter, North Korean relations with China began to deteriorate.
1970s to 1993: Indigenous Development Under the Radar of the International Community
In the late 1960s, North Korea expanded its educational and research institutions to support a
nuclear program for both civilian and military applications. By the early 1970s, North Korean
engineers were using indigenous technology to expand the IRT-2000 research reactor, and
Pyongyang had begun to acquire plutonium reprocessing technology from the Soviet Union. [6]
In July 1977, North Korea signed a trilateral safeguards agreement with the IAEA and the USSR
that brought the IRT-2000 research reactor and a critical assembly in Yongbyon under IAEA
safeguards. The Soviets were included in the agreement because they supplied the reactors fuel.
[7]
The early 1980s was a period of significant indigenous expansion, when North Korea
constructed uranium milling facilities, fuel rod fabrication complex, and a 5MW(e) nuclear
reactor, as well as research and development institutions. Simultaneously, North Korea began
experimenting with the high explosives tests required for building the triggering mechanism of a
nuclear bomb. By the mid-1980s, Pyongyang had begun constructing a 50MW(e) nuclear reactor
in Yongbyon, while also expanding its uranium processing facilities. [8]
Pyongyang also explored the acquisition of light water reactor technology in the early to mid1980s. This period coincided with the expansion of North Koreas indigenously designed reactor
program, which was based on gas-graphite moderated reactors similar in design to the Calder
Champion Briefs
254
North Korea uses the excuse of energy development to advance their military programs
international efforts to curb this have consistently failed domestic action is key. (Continued)
Hall reactors first built in the United Kingdom in the 1950s. Pyongyang agreed to sign the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapon state in December
1985 in exchange for Soviet assistance constructing four LWRs. [9]
In September 1991, U.S. President George H. W. Bush announced that the United States
would withdraw its nuclear weapons from South Korea, and on December 18, 1991, President
Roh Tae Woo declared that South Korea was free of nuclear weapons. [10] North Korea and
South Korea then signed the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
whereby both sides promised they would not test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store,
deploy or use nuclear weapons. The agreement additionally bound the two sides to forgo the
possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. The agreement also
provided for a bilateral inspections regime, but the two sides failed to agree on its
implementation. [11]
The 1994 Crisis and the Agreed Framework
North Korea finally signed an IAEA safeguards agreement on January 30, 1992, and the
Supreme Peoples Assembly ratified the agreement on April 9, 1992. Under the terms of the
agreement, North Korea provided an initial declaration of its nuclear facilities and materials,
and provided access for IAEA inspectors to verify the completeness and correctness of its initial
declaration. [12] Six rounds of inspections began in May 1992 and concluded in February 1993.
Pyongyangs initial declaration included a small plutonium sample (less than 100 grams), which
North Korean officials said was reprocessed from damaged spent fuel rods that were removed
from the 5MW(e) reactor in Yongbyon-kun. However, IAEA analysis indicated that Korean
technicians had reprocessed plutonium on three occasionsin 1989, 1990, and 1991. [13] When
the Agency requested access to two suspect nuclear waste sites, North Korea declared them to be
military sites and therefore off-limits. [14]
Champion Briefs
255
After the IAEA was denied access to North Koreas suspect waste sites in early 1993, the
Agency asked the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to authorize special ad hoc
inspections. In reaction, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT on
March 12, 1993. [15] Under the terms of the treaty, a states withdrawal does not take effect until
90 days after it has given notice. Following intense bilateral negotiations with the United States,
North Korea announced it was suspending its withdrawal from the NPT one day before the
withdrawal was to take effect. Pyongyang agreed to suspend its withdrawal while talks continued
with Washington, but claimed to have a special status in regard to its nuclear safeguards
commitments. Under this special status, North Korea agreed to allow the continuity of
safeguards on its present activities, but refused to allow inspections that could verify past nuclear
activities. [16]
As talks with the United States over North Koreas return to the NPT dragged on, North
Korea continued to operate its 5MW(e) reactor in Yongbyon. On May 14, 1994, Korean
technicians began removing the reactors spent fuel rods without the supervision of IAEA
inspectors. [17] This action worsened the emerging crisis because the random placement of the
spent fuel rods in a temporary storage pond compromised the IAEAs capacity to reconstruct the
operational history of the reactor, which could have been used in efforts to account for the
discrepancies in Pyongyangs reported plutonium reprocessing. [18] U.S. President Bill
Clintons administration announced that it would ask the UNSC to impose economic sanctions;
Pyongyang responded that it would consider economic sanctions an act of war. [19]
The crisis was defused in June 1994 when former U.S. President Jimmy Carter traveled to
Pyongyang to meet with Kim Il Sung. Carter announced from Pyongyang that Kim had accepted
the broad outline of a deal that was later finalized as the Agreed Framework in October 1994.
[20] Under the agreement, North Korea agreed to freeze work at its gas-graphite moderated
reactors and related facilities, and to allow the IAEA to monitor that freeze. Pyongyang was also
Champion Briefs
256
required to consistently take steps to implement the North-South Joint Declaration on the
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and to remain a party to the NPT. In exchange, the
United States agreed to lead an international consortium to construct two light water power
reactors, and to provide 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil per year until the first reactor came online
with a target date of 2003. Furthermore, the United States was to provide formal assurances
against the threat or use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. [21]
2001 to 2003: Collapse of the Agreed Framework and Withdrawal from the NPT
While the Agreed Framework froze North Koreas plutonium program for almost a decade,
neither party was completely satisfied with either the compromise reached or its implementation.
The United States was dissatisfied with the postponement of safeguards inspections to verify
Pyongyangs past activities, and North Korea was dissatisfied with the delayed construction of
the light water power reactors.
After coming to office in 2001, the George W. Bush administration initiated a North
Korean policy review, which it completed in early June. The review concluded that the United
States should seek improved implementation of the Agreed Framework, verifiable constraints
on North Koreas missile program, a ban on missile exports, and a less threatening North Korean
conventional military posture. [22] From Washingtons perspective, improved implementation
of the Agreed Framework meant an acceleration of safeguards inspections, even though the
agreement did not require Pyongyang to submit to full safeguards inspections to verify its past
activities until a significant portion of the reactor construction was completed, but before the
delivery of critical reactor components.
The international community also became concerned that North Korea might have an
illicit highly enriched uranium (HEU) program. In the summer of 2002, U.S. intelligence
reportedly discovered evidence of transfers of HEU technology and/or materials from Pakistan to
North Korea in exchange for ballistic missiles technology. [23] (Later, in early 2004, it was
Champion Briefs
257
revealed that Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. A. Q. Khan had sold gas-centrifuge technology to
North Korea, Libya and Iran.) [24]
In October 2002, bilateral talks between the United States and North Korea finally
resumed when U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs James Kelly
visited Pyongyang. [25] During the visit, Kelly informed First Vice Foreign Minister Kang Sok
Chu and Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye Kwan that Washington was aware of a secret North
Korean program to produce HEU. The U.S. State Department claimed that North Korean
officials admitted to having such a program during a second day of meetings with Kelly, but
North Korea later argued that it had only admitted to having a plan to produce nuclear
weapons, which Pyongyang claimed was part of its right to self-defense. [26]
The United States responded in December 2002 by suspending heavy oil shipments, and
North Korea retaliated by lifting the freeze on its nuclear facilities, expelling IAEA inspectors
monitoring that freeze, and announcing its withdrawal from the NPT on January 10, 2003. [27]
Initially, North Korea claimed it had no intention of producing nuclear weapons, and that the
lifting of the nuclear freeze was necessary to generating needed electricity.
Champion Briefs
258
International pressure doesnt work North Korea lies

about concessions and tightening sanctions just makes their
operations more covert.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). North Koreas Nuclear Programme: How Advanced
Is It?. 02--10--2016. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asiapacific-11813699>.
What has the global community done about this? The US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea
have engaged the North in multiple rounds of negotiations known as six-party talks, but none of
this has ultimately deterred Pyongyang. In 2005, North Korea agreed to a landmark deal to give
up its nuclear ambitions in return for economic aid and political concessions. But implementing
it proved difficult and talks stalled in 2009. Then in 2012, North Korea suddenly announced it
would suspend nuclear activities and place a moratorium on missile tests in exchange for US
food aid,. But this came to nothing when Pyongyang tried to launch a rocket in April that year.
The UN further tightened sanctions after the 2013 test. The 2016 test brought another round of
universal international condemnation, including from China, the Norths main ally.
Champion Briefs
259
North Korea has the nuclear material and is on the verge of

developing the capability to deliver it via missile now is key
U.S. intelligence proves.
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). North Koreas Nuclear Programme: How Advanced
Is It?. 02--10--2016. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asiapacific-11813699>.
North Koreas nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern for the international
community. Despite multiple efforts to curtail it, Pyongyang says it has conducted four nuclear
tests and there are indications it is developing long-range missile technology. Has North Korea
got the bomb? Technically yes, but not the means to deliver it via a missile - yet. North Korea
said it conducted four successful nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016. Analysts believe
the first two tests used plutonium, but whether the North used plutonium or uranium as the
starting material for the 2013 test is unclear. While these three were atomic bomb tests, North
Korea said its test in January 2016 was of a more powerful hydrogen bomb. Again, the starting
material is unclear and experts cast doubt given the size of the explosion registered. H-bombs use
fusion - the merging of atoms - to unleash massive amounts of energy, whereas atomic bombs
use nuclear fission, or the splitting of atoms. Shortly after that test Pyongyang launched a
satellite, a launch widely seen as a test of long-range missile technology. The US said in
February it had intelligence indicating that North Korea could soon have enough plutonium for
nuclear weapons and was taking steps in making a long-range missile system. The Yongbyon
site is thought to be its main nuclear facility. The North has pledged several times to halt
operations there and even destroyed the cooling tower in 2008 as part of a disarmament-for-aid
deal. However, the US never believed Pyongyang was fully disclosing all of its nuclear facilities
- a suspicion bolstered when North Korea unveiled a uranium enrichment facility at Yongbyon,
purportedly for electricity generation, to US scientist Siegfried Hecker in 2010. In March 2013,
after a war of words with the US and with new UN sanctions over the Norths third nuclear test,
Pyongyang vowed to restart all facilities at Yongbyon. In 2015 a US think tank said satellite
pictures suggested the reactor at Yongbyon may have been restarted. Then in September, state
media announced that normal operation had started at the production plant. The January 2016
test was said to have been carried out at the Punggye-ri site. Both the US and South Korea have
also said that they believed the North had additional sites linked to a uranium-enrichment
programme. The country has plentiful reserves of uranium ore.
Champion Briefs
260
North Korea is developing their weapons programs for

military use recent trends prove our understanding of the
countrys motivations are wrong.
Fisher, Max. Maybe North Koreas Nuclear Goals Are More Serious Than Once Thought.
New York Times. 07--13--2016. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/world/asia/maybe-north-koreas-nuclear-goalsarent-a-farce-afterall.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FNorth%20Korea%27s%20Nuclear%20Progra
m>.
But they did. And that has brought new urgency to a growing conversation among many
North Korea watchers: Is our understanding of this country fundamentally wrong?
The countrys weapons programs have long been understood as meant not for immediate military
purposes, but to rally North Koreans behind the leadership and extract concessions from foreign
governments. North Koreas bluster, in this view, is not sincere, but just another set piece in an
elaborate, never-ending show.
This does not, however, adequately explain North Koreas recent flurry of weapons tests,
often using unproven technology that tends to fail many times, bringing embarrassment to a
government that prefers to project confidence, and that incurs heavy diplomatic and financial
tolls the country cannot afford.
Such tests, according to a growing chorus of experts, suggest that North Korea is now
seeking, in a more focused and determined way, a real, functioning nuclear weapons program
and could be on the way to getting it.
The conventional wisdom treats these tests and strategic programs as political tools,
said Mark Fitzpatrick, a scholar at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Theyre more
than that.
This realization is forcing analysts to rethink not just nuclear issues, but also the
underlying goals and motivations of the North Korean state itself, with sweeping implications for
how one of the worlds most secretive nations is understood.
Champion Briefs
261
Theyve filled in major tech gaps they want the ability to

strike the U.S.
m>.
In any case, Ms. Berger said the countrys activity since 2014 had led to growing
sentiment, and I would go so far as to say it is now the majority view, that North Korea may not
be willing to give up its nuclear program or missile programs at all.
The medium-range missile North Korea tested in late June, known as a Musudan, had
failed in all five of its prior launches. Last months launch, while not a categorical success,
showed progress one of many hard-won breakthroughs.
We are coming to the realization that North Korea is filling some of the technological
gaps we thought they had and erasing some of the question marks quicker than we are
comfortable with, Ms. Berger said.
North Korea appears focused on acquiring key nuclear capabilities, including, Ms. Berger
said, a demonstrated ability to strike the continental United States.
John Schilling, who tracks North Koreas weapons programs at the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns
Hopkins University, has concluded that within the next decade, North Korea will probably
produce a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach parts of the West Coast
of the United States.
The country is also developing multiple ways to deliver these missiles, as indicated by
Saturdays submarine test-launch.
Theyve just solved one of the key technical challenges to making a mobile I.C.B.M.,
Mr. Schilling said, referring to a kind of launcher that is harder for adversaries to find or target
because it can be moved on large trucks.
Multiple launch systems are considered an expensive but crucial component of any
serious, field-ready nuclear weapons program, underscoring the magnitude of Mr. Kims
ambitions.
Champion Briefs
262
North Korea military stance is aggressive now leaders

perceive a war coming and will lash out at our allies in
response to any perceived aggression.
m>.
As analysts adjust their view of North Koreas intentions, they are grappling with a much
bigger question: Why is North Korea so bent on a program that brings economic sanctions, the
risk of conflict and isolation even from China, its sole remaining ally and benefactor?
Put another way: What does North Korea believe it will gain from nuclear weapons that is worth
these costs?
Experts have not settled on a consensus answer, but offer a range of possible
explanations. What these theories share is a sense that North Koreas leadership believes it is
facing a potentially existential crisis and is willing to take extreme steps to survive.
Some analysts say the North Korean warnings of a looming conflict with the United States and
South Korea might not just be for show, but rather indicate that the countrys leaders earnestly
believe war could be coming.
In this view, the country would need more than just a single bomb to deter its enemies. It
would require a nuclear program large enough to make such a war winnable.
Details about North Koreas advances suggest the outlines of a war plan, Mr. Lewis said.
The country seems to be building the capability to launch rapid nuclear strikes against nearby
military targets, such as the United States military bases on Guam and the Japanese island of
Okinawa, as well as South Korean ports where any American invasion force would land.
I think their hope is that the shock of that will cause us to stop, Mr. Lewis said. Then
the whole point of the I.C.B.M.s is that there is something in reserve to threaten West Coast
American cities, in theory forcing the United States to stand down.
Champion Briefs
263
North Koreas nuclear program will drive a wedge between

U.S.South Korea relations.
m>.
Mr. Fitzpatrick argued that even if North Korea does not intend to carry out such a plan, it hopes
that raising concerns of a nuclear conflict will drive a wedge between the United States and its
allies, particularly South Korea.
Should North Korea acquire a nuclear-capable missile that could hit Washington State, some
Americans might well question the value of continuing to guarantee South Koreas security.
The North Koreans would like people to doubt that the United States would trade Seattle for
Seoul, Mr. Fitzpatrick said, referring to a Cold War adage that the United States accepted risks
to its own cities so as to defend those of its allies.
Champion Briefs
264
North Koreas nuclear program leads to North Korea-South

Korea reunification under North Koreas terms.
m>.
B. R. Myers, a North Korea scholar at Dongseo University in South Korea, takes this
theory one step further. The nuclear program, he believes, is meant not only to scare off the
United States, but to one day coerce the South into accepting the Norths long-stated demand:
reunification on its own terms.
It is the only goal big enough to make sense of a nuclear program that has made the
D.P.R.K. less secure than it was 10 years ago, Mr. Myers said, using the abbreviation of North
Koreas formal name.
North Koreas greatest source of insecurity, he argued, is not its enemies abroad
whose efforts at rapprochement it has long spurned but its own looming crisis of legitimacy.
Because the country positions itself as the true protector of the Korean people but is so much
poorer than the South, it has no reason to exist as a separate state, Mr. Myers wrote in a recent
research paper. Unification is therefore the only long-term solution to the regimes chronic
security problems.
While such scenarios may sound outlandish, Mr. Lewis pointed to the 2003 United
States-led invasion of Iraq and NATOs 2011 intervention in Libya, which led to the grisly
deaths of those countries leaders. North Korea is far weaker than its enemies, whom the country
sees as bent on its destruction. And it faces a possible legitimacy crisis of the sort that seems to
topple another government every year.
These fears, analysts say, could be spurring Kim Jong-un to drastically change his
countrys behavior upending long-held assumptions in the process.
Champion Briefs
265
Increasing U.S. presence in the region leads to Chinese and

Russian backlash - any agent CP or NATO CP still triggers
our impacts.
Sang-Hun, Choe. North Korea Cuts Off Only Diplomatic Channel With U.S. Over Sanctions.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/world/asia/north-korea-missile-defensethaad.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FNorth%20Korea%27s%20Nuclear%20Pro
gram&action=click&contentCollection=timestopicsion=stream&module=stream_unit&
version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection>.
American and South Korean defense officials viewed the test of the Norths Musudan missile
last month as the latest proof that the country was developing a capability to strike American
military bases in the Pacific, including those on Guam, a major launching pad for American
reinforcements should a conflict break out on the Korean Peninsula or elsewhere in the region.
On Monday, North Korea said the Thaad deployment was part of the United States plan to build
an Asian version of NATO to check China and Russia and secure military hegemony in the
region. It also said that the deployment would place South Korea deeper under the Americans
military dominion.
South Korea and the United States insisted that Thaad was solely to protect their forces from
North Korea. But China and Russia have opposed its deployment, seeing it as a threat to their
own security.
Analysts said that the deployment would make China value North Koreas role in countering
United States influence in the region and become less cooperative in enforcing United Nations
sanctions against its neighbor.
Champion Briefs
266
Missile defense systems exacerbates existing tensions in the

region and causes mass weapon development.
Perlez, Jane. For China, A Missile Defense System In South Korea Spells A Failed Courtship.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/world/asia/south-korea-us-thaadchina.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FNorth%20Korea%27s%20Nuclear%20Pro
BEIJING However isolated North Korea may be, it has long had one major ally:
China. But for two years, Chinas leader, President Xi Jinping, seemed to be favoring
Pyongyangs neighbor and nemesis to the south.
He spent much political capital wooing South Koreas president, Park Geun-hye, in hopes
of drawing the country away from its longtime ally, the United States. He made an elaborate
state visit to Seoul while shunning North Korea and its young leader, Kim Jong-un, whom he has
yet to meet. Ms. Park returned the favor last year, coming to Beijing for a major military parade
at Tiananmen Square, the only leader of an American ally to attend.
But on Friday, it became clear that Mr. Xis efforts had fallen short. In announcing plans
to deploy an advanced American missile defense system in South Korean, Ms. Parks
government showed that it was embracing its alliance with Washington more than ever, and that
it would rely less on China to keep North Korea and its nuclear arsenal at bay.
In Beijing, the decision was seen as a major setback, one that went beyond its interests on
the Korean Peninsula to the larger strategic question of an arms race in Northeast Asia that could
impel China and Russia to develop more sophisticated weapons.
Analysts said the deployment of the so-called Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense
system, or Thaad, would reinforce the already high level of mistrust in United States-China
relations as the Obama administration nears its end, adding to the raw nerves over disputes in the
South China Sea and differences over American business access to the Chinese market.
And North Korea, an issue on which there had been some common ground between the two
Champion Briefs
267
powers at least when it came to the latest round of United Nations sanctions is likely to
become a greater source of irritation, as China loses an incentive to be tougher on the regime.
On Saturday, North Korea test-fired a submarine-launched ballistic missile off its east coast at
11:30 a.m., the South Korean military said. The missile was successfully ejected from the
submarine, it said, but failed in the first stage of flight. The North also tested a submarinelaunched ballistic missile in April.
In announcing the American missile defense system, which has been under discussion for
years, the top commander of the United States military in South Korea, Gen. Vincent K. Brooks,
said Friday that it was needed to protect South Korea from the Norths nuclear weapons.
But Chinese officials have repeatedly said that they do not believe the North Korean threat is the
true reason for the American-initiated deployment. Rather, they say, the purpose of the Thaad
system, which detects and intercepts incoming missiles at high altitudes, is to track missiles
launched from China.
Now that the systems implementation has been confirmed, China will almost certainly
consider developing more advanced missiles as a countermeasure, said Cheng Xiaohe, an
associate professor at Renmin University in Beijing and a North Korea expert.
A way to deal with Thaad a shield is to sharpen your spear, Mr. Cheng said.
The possibility of the Thaad deployment has bedeviled relations between Washington
and Beijing for more than a year.
Champion Briefs
268
Missile defense programs cause proliferation and accelerates

North Koreas nuclear weapons research.
Last month, Mr. Xi and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia made a point of
denouncing the Thaad system during Mr. Putins visit to Beijing, equating it with the Americanbuilt Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system deployed in some NATO countries. The
implicit message was that the United States was trying to encircle China in the same way that,
according to Mr. Putin, it was trying to contain Russia.
Before Mr. Putins visit, Chinas foreign minister, Wang Yi, expressed the Chinese view
that the Thaad system is a strategic game-changer in Northeast Asia.
The Thaad system has far exceeded the need for defense in the Korean Peninsula and
will undermine the security interests of China and Russia, shatter the regional strategic balance
and trigger an arms race, Mr. Wang said. China understands South Koreas rational need for
defense, he said, but we cant understand and we will not accept why they made a deployment
exceeding the need.
Chinese analysts have said that they expect Japan to eventually deploy Thaad as well, in
what they say would be an American attempt to draw it closer into a three-way alliance with
South Korea. So far, Japan has shown little interest in the Thaad system, but Washington and
Tokyo are jointly working on a new missile interceptor that is expected to start production in
2017.
Talks between Seoul and Washington on the Thaad deployment picked up speed after
North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January. After that test, which Pyongyang
claimed was of a hydrogen bomb, Ms. Park tried but failed to reach Mr. Xi by telephone,
according to South Korean news reports that were later confirmed by Chinese officials.
Champion Briefs
269
Missile defense programs cause proliferation and accelerates North Koreas nuclear weapons
research. (Continued)
The nuclear test left Ms. Park convinced that Mr. Xi could not rein in North Koreas nuclear
ambitions, and that China was uninterested in her trustpolitik strategy of finding ways to
engage with the North while responding strongly to provocations, South Korean officials said.
In March, South Korea and the United States began formal talks on the Thaad deployment.
China tried to persuade Ms. Park to accommodate Beijings interests by asking for technical
adjustments to the system, under which its radar would penetrate less deeply into China,
according to Wu Xinbo, the director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in
Shanghai. But those adjustments were not made, he said.
Champion Briefs
270
Missile defense programs cause economic backlash against

South Korea.
Some in South Korea have expressed concern that China, the countrys top trading partner, might
engage in economic retaliation for the Thaad deployment. Cheong Seong-chang, a senior analyst
with the Sejong Institute in Seongnam, south of Seoul, said China could reduce the number of
tourists it allows into the country or boycott some South Korean goods.
Champion Briefs
271
North Korea is irrational and will arbitrarily lash out now

against the U.S. your impact D doesnt apply.
Davis, MarkW. The Slow Nuclear Bomb Boil. USA News. 05--08--2015. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/mark-davis/2015/05/08/north-koreasnuclear-bomb-buildup-is-a-real-threat>.
In other words, the North Koreans have learned how to miniaturize their warheads so they can be
mounted on missiles, but they have yet to perfect their technique. There are three reasons for
these reports to leave every American deeply worried.
The first is North Koreas history of terrorism. The regime assassinated much of the South
Korean cabinet with a bomb in 1983. It downed a South Korean airliner with more than 100
passengers in 1987. It fired a missile through Japanese airspace in 1998. It shelled a South
Korean island, killing two South Korean Marines and two civilians in 2010.
The reckless character of this regime puts the doctrine of deterrence to a severe test. A regime
rash enough to wage war on its neighbors, and evil enough to punish its people with starvation,
privation and a system of gulags, might well decide if it senses it is losing power to commit a
clean suicide by pushing the button. By developing the beginnings of a robust nuclear arsenal,
Kim is giving Washington a stake in his regimes survival.
Champion Briefs
272
North Korea only has a couple weapons now but initial

development is the hardest production will escalate quickly
which has the potential to cause mass damage globally.
The second reason to worry has to do with the economies of scale in the production of weapons.
Nuclear bombs are like Fords Model-Ts. Once the massive investment has been made to
produce the model, each subsequent bomb becomes relatively cheaper to produce.
Pakistan showed that a relatively poor country can ramp up production quickly. Since it became
a nuclear power in the 1990s, experts estimate that Pakistan has produced more than 100 nuclear
weapons, and could soon have a force the size of the United Kingdoms.
In a similar way, North Korea is on a trajectory to build a large arsenal with an escalating ability
to deliver its warheads to American cities. Even a single blast in the upper atmosphere over
Kansas would generate an electromagnetic pulse that would pull down electrical grids and fry
circuits from coast to coast, destroying much of the U.S. economy.
Champion Briefs
273
Conflict leads to rapid escalation, especially with nuclear

weapons leads to massive retaliation.
Cha, Victor. Stopping North Koreas Nuclear Threat. New York Times. 01--08--2016. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/opinion/stopping-north-koreasnuclear-threat.html>.
There are other ways that the nuclear program makes the government less secure. Over the past
several years, North Korea has degraded its conventional military capacity in order to pursue
nuclear weapons. Under normal circumstances, a weaker North Korean Army would be welcome
news to the rest of the world, but with a budding nuclear state it can lead to rapid escalation in
the event of a conflict. This could mean either pre-emptive action by the United States, or, if
North Korea ever used nuclear weapons, a massive retaliation.
Champion Briefs
274
North Korea has historically sold weapons systems to

terrorists no reason nukes would be excluded.
Many serious dangers come with being a nuclear power, and the North Koreans seem to
recognize few of them. One is the temptation to transfer weapons, fissile material or technology
to other states or terrorist groups. North Korea has a history of selling its traditional weapons
systems. But the government must recognize that selling its nuclear technology could compel the
United States to respond in ways that would bring an end to nearly 70 years of Communist rule.
Champion Briefs
275
North Korea should denuclearize based on the Tehran

model.
Nam, Sung-Wook. North Korea, Nuclear Power And The Future. 05--12--2016. Web. August
16, 2016. <http://www.policyforum.net/north-korea-nuclear-power-future/>.
There is a final chance for denuclearisation in the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang should look at
the Teheran model for denuclearisation in the Middle East. North Korea could also learn a lesson
from Obamas trip to Cuba more specifically from the Cuban style of reconciliation. As the
history of Cuba suggests, North Korea must realise that it can sustain its regime without nuclear
weapons.
Champion Briefs
276
Coordinated multilateral action is a key middle ground that

allows for regime survival while prompting debate that
creates internal reform.
Snyder, Scott. Addressing North Koreas Nuclear Problem. 11--00--2015. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.cfr.org/north-korea/addressing-north-koreas-nuclearproblem/p37258>.
To address the risk that a self-isolated and risk-tolerant North Korean leadership might follow
through on its threats when it achieves these capabilities, the United States should redouble
efforts to lead coordinated multilateral action to oppose North Koreas nuclear status, while still
leaving a denuclearized North Korea a route for regime survival. A coordinated international
effort should demonstrate that there are tangible prospects for regime survival in a denuclearized
North Korea in order to prompt an internal debate among leadership in Pyongyang over the
merits of its nuclear program. The United States should take the following measures to achieve
this objective:
Champion Briefs
277
Obama placing pressure in conjunction with soft threats

creates the motivation to start reform.
The Obama administration should apply increased political and economic pressure on North
Korea to convince its leaders that a nuclear North Korea is a dead-end option. The United States
should work with its allies to expand sanctions to target businesses and banks that refuse to cease
cooperation with North Korea. At the same time, the United States and its allies should
emphasize to Pyongyang that expanded sanctions will be relieved if North Korea takes
meaningful, concrete steps toward denuclearization, such as resuming cooperation with the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by allowing the return of international inspectors to
the country. The United States should also remind North Korea that military provocations risk
escalation that could lead to the countrys demise.
Champion Briefs
278
Commissioning the World Bank to create incentives

develops clarity around the benefits of denuclearization.
Alongside these sanctions, the United States and South Korea should commission the World
Bank to identify sectoral trade and investment opportunities best suited to yield concrete
economic benefits that would accompany North Koreas integration into the region. The
objective of such an approach would be to spell out the benefits to North Korea of
denuclearization, integration, and peaceful coexistence in conjunction with strengthened
sanctions.
Champion Briefs
279
The U.S. should place pressure to increase Chinese sanctions

that creates massive pressure by taking advantage of one
of the few North Korea allies.
The U.S. and South Korean presidents should leverage an emerging debate within the Chinese
government about North Koreas strategic value and press Chinese President Xi Jinping to
strengthen Chinese sanctions on North Korea, even at the risk of inducing North Korean
instability. To convince Beijing to take such a course, U.S. President Barack Obama and South
Korean President Park Geun-hye should pledge that no U.S. troops would be permanently
stationed north of the 38th parallel in the event of a North Korean collapse. At the same time, the
two leaders should note that Korean reunification would allow for the reduction in the overall
number of U.S. troops on the Korean Peninsula while affirming that the U.S.-South Korea
alliance will remain strong even after unification.
Champion Briefs
280
The U.S. should resume five party talks to pursue

transformation in the North Korean regime it creates a
clear path for denuclearization.
In return for Chinese cooperation to enhance pressure on North Korea, the United States should
respond to Chinas long-standing calls for resumption of North Korea-focused diplomacy by
working with the other five parties in the Six Party Talks to develop detailed measures to
peacefully pursue a transformation of the North Korean regime. The parties should recognize
that forcible regime change would be the only remaining means to achieve denuclearization if
North Korea fails to accept these measures. The parties would spell out a detailed pathway to
peaceful coexistence, denuclearization, diplomatic normalization, and improved internal
governance. The purpose of this process would be twofold: to establish a coordination
mechanism that enables the United States and its allies to address Chinese and Russian
geopolitical concerns surrounding North Korea in exchange for increased pressure on the North
Korean leadership, and to induce a policy debate among North Korean leaders regarding the
value of its nuclear program.
Champion Briefs
281
The U.S. should increase deterrence capabilities in the

region to counter North Koreas missile capabilities.
The United States and South Korea should strengthen deterrence against North Korean military
provocations at the demilitarized zone and the Northern Limit Line by coming up with a detailed
escalation ladder comprising tailored responses to match different types and levels of
provocations. U.S. and South Korean forces should also design a clear protocol for officers on
the ground to implement these responses swiftly, in consultation with senior officials. To counter
North Koreas growing missile capabilities, the United States and South Korea should obtain
appropriate defense mechanisms such as the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD).
Champion Briefs
282
The U.S. and U.N. should bilaterally increase sanctions

creates pressure points that drain North Korea of resources.
A new approach to persuading the North to abandon its nuclear program must focus on
asymmetric pressure points. A look at recent history helps to outline such a strategy. In our
experience working on North Korea policy, the government in Pyongyang has seemed truly
caught off guard only twice: in September 2005 when the Treasury Departments sanctions led to
a freezing of its bank accounts in Macau; and in February 2014 when a United Nations
commission called for the Security Council to refer the Norths leadership to the International
Criminal Court for a long list of crimes against humanity.
The United States and the United Nations should immediately increase sanctions. A new
Security Council resolution will most likely emerge soon, providing one opportunity for this.
Another comes in the form of the presidential executive order created after the cyber attack on
Sony Pictures last year. These should include targeted financial sanctions; travel bans and
indictments against officials working on the nuclear program, human rights abusers and cyber
criminals; as well as secondary sanctions on anyone doing business with North Korean
companies.
Champion Briefs
283
The U.N. should intervene for human rights abuses those

are key to their nuclear weapons program.
But sanctions are only one part of the strategy. Many observers believe, credibly, that slave labor
bankrolls the nuclear weapons program. The United Nations must also continue to hold
individuals in the government directly accountable for crimes against humanity, and all
countries, including China and Russia, should be pressured to stop accepting North Korean
laborers.
Champion Briefs
284
China should cut off business from China pressures North

Korea to agree to new negotiations.
Even if Chinas government has made clear that it is unhappy with North Koreas behavior,
Beijing wont abandon its ally anytime soon. But the United States can and should push
for Beijing to dial back its support. China could instruct Chinese companies to curtail business
with North Korea, and the government could reject any calls from North Korea for new
economic projects until the government returned to negotiations. China could also agree to not
obstruct any Security Council discussions on human rights abuses in the North. Washington must
frame cooperation on North Korea as a cornerstone of United States-China relations.
Champion Briefs
285
We should cut off all interaction to drain the regime and

cause regime change.
What can be done now?
The United States should work feverishly with our allies to use every available means to defund,
cut off and starve the regime, seeking to topple it before it becomes a fully capable nuclear
power. Chinas new openness about North Korea suggests that Beijing might be open to the
prospect of regime change. And as soon as the next president is elected, we should reverse the
starvation diet on which the Obama administration has placed anti-ballistic missile technology.
Champion Briefs
286
A2 North Korea Plan: No enforcement North Korea will

just circumvent the plan theyve invested far too many
resources to give up now.
Ramberg, Bennett. North Korea Is A Nuclear Power. Heres Why The World Just Has To Live
With It. 03--10--2016. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2016/03/10/it-may-be-time-to-return-u-s-nukes-to-the-korean-peninsula/>.
What are Washington and its allies to do about North Korea? In January, Pyongyang tested its
fourth nuclear device. It launched a satellite in February to gather additional data for developing
an intercontinental ballistic missile. Meanwhile, North Korean engineers keep cranking out
weapons material that could fuel dozens of nuclear bombs in years to come.
The international response continues to be ineffective. After much pouting from concerned
countries, the United Nations Security Council recently responded to the new round of tests with
an impressive new collection of sanctions.
The sanctions promise to halt the movement of contraband by monitoring North Korean
commerce moving in and out of the country, prohibit the export of jet and rocket fuel to
Pyongyang, block the Norths ability to conduct international financial transactions and ban the
export of North Korean coal and minerals. But they are not enough. Even combined with the
previous sanctions, this will not move the North off its nuclear pedestal. It is simply too late.
First, it is inconceivable that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would give up the weapon that
places his nation in the exclusive global nuclear club. Pyongyang has invested so much and come
so far to mature a nuclear program that provides it with an atomic deterrent and a means of
intimidation. Second, history repeatedly shows that sanctions are unlikely to be fully enforced or
sufficient to squeeze North Korea.
Champion Briefs
287
A2 North Korea Plan: No chance they give up nuclear power

they see it as key to their survival.
Nam, Sung-Wook. North Korea, Nuclear Power And The Future. 05--12--2016. Web. August
16, 2016. <http://www.policyforum.net/north-korea-nuclear-power-future/>.
The North has not budged and it will not, because it has no other choice. The ruling Kim dynasty
knows well that nuclear weapons and missiles are the key to its survival. Without them, it would
collapse. Kim Jong-un cannot afford to open up to the outside for full economic cooperation
because it would cause the public to become disenchanted and rebel against him due to the
renewed awareness of Pyongyangs exclusive dictatorship. The third-generation heir would not
have a chance of holding on to power in an open North Korea, and his strategy of nuclear
development and economic development is unrealistic.
Therefore, North Koreas survival strategy is to portray the US as public enemy number one and
give North Koreans a target for hate. This is why the North claims its missiles and nuclear
weapons target the US.
As the North will not give up its weapons of mass destruction, it is inevitable that Seoul will
need to make a policy shift and seek regime change in Pyongyang. Or, if that is too controversial,
Seoul at least should not rule it out.
Champion Briefs
288
A2 North Korea Plan: Status quo solves laundry list of

reasons.
Ramberg, Bennett. North Korea Is A Nuclear Power. Heres Why The World Just Has To Live
With It. 03--10--2016. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2016/03/10/it-may-be-time-to-return-u-s-nukes-to-the-korean-peninsula/>.
Washington and its allies must now come to the realization that it is time to adapt. Adaptation
has already begun. South Korea has made a multi-year commitment to increase its military
budget and modernize its conventional forces. It has begun deploying longer-range surface-tosurface missiles and is acquiring U.S. F-35 strike aircraft. Seoul is talking with Washington
about installing the sophisticated missile defense system Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
or THAAD. Collectively, beefing up of its conventional forces bolsters Seouls deterrence
capabilities.
Champion Briefs
289
AFF: Terrorism AC
Terrorism AC
The thesis of this case is that by prohibiting the production of nuclear power, we decrease the
risk of theft of nuclear/radioactive material by terrorist organizations.
The best framework for this would be most likely a consequentialism framework such as
utilitarianism where you work to prove that the debater who saves the most lives ought to win
the debate round. Justifications for this framework include reasons such as:
1. The government has an obligation to maximize wellbeing for their citizens because of
the social contract. If citizens give up their rights to the government, then the
government is obligated to provide them with protections. Additionally, they must
choose the more numerous group because it would be arbitrary otherwise.
2. Life is a prerequisite for valuing anything else, thus we must prioritize it. If life isnt
being put first, then we have to way to protect rights in the first place.
For the contention level, these arguments should ensure that you prove a few key concepts:
1. The first big concept to prove is that terrorism is increasing and is a threat in the status
quo. While this might seem obvious, it its still necessary to be proven in the debate
round. You need to prove that there is a viable threat.
2. Next, you should prove that there is motive and ability for terrorist organizations to steal
weapons grade nuclear material. There are a lot of authors that write about the previous
thefts of nuclear material. Matthew Bunn is an author that I have found helpful.
Lastly, you need to prove what the impact of this theft of nuclear material is. There should be
both small-scale impacts like from a small dirty bomb and large impacts such as extinction. This
makes sure you have more ability to diversify your impacts and pick what you want to go for in
your rebuttal speeches.
Champion Briefs
290
AFF: Terrorism AC
Terrorism is increasing in the status quo.

Williams, Abagail. State Dept: 35 Percent Increase In Terrorist Attacks Worldwide. 06-192015. Web. August 14, 2016. <http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/state-dept-35percent-increase-terrorist-attacks-worldwide-n378416>.
The U.S. State Department released the Country Reports on Terrorism on Friday finding that
nearly 33,000 people were killed and 34,700 injured in almost 13,500 terrorist attacks around the
world in 2014. That is a 35 percent increase in terrorist attacks and an 81 percent increase in total
fatalities since 2013. The terrorist attacks took place in 95 countries, but were concentrated in
Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Nigeria and Syria. Twenty attacks in 2014 were particularly
lethal, killing more than 100 people. In 2013 there were only two such attacks. The impact of the
Islamic State in the Middle East region and Boko Haram in Africa figured prominently in the
report which noted that al-Qaeda leadership appeared to lose momentum as the self-styled
leader of a global movement in the face of ISIL's rapid expansion.
Champion Briefs
291
AFF: Terrorism AC
Nuclear materials have been stolen in the past.

Bunn, Matthew. Mathematical Model Of The Risk Of Nuclear Terrorism. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science. 09-2006. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://ann.sagepub.com/content/suppl/2007/01/25/607.1.103.DC1/103_corrected.pdf>.
The principal source of black market nuclear material is likely to be nuclear theft, by outsiders or
insiders not directly connected to terrorist groups. Numerous cases of theft of weapons-usable
nuclear material, apparently with the intention of selling the stolen nuclear material on the black
market, have occurred. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA; 2005) has documented
eighteen seizures of stolen HEU or separated plutonium confirmed by the states concerned. More
incidents have occurred, but the states in question have not been willing to confirm them.
Champion Briefs
292
AFF: Terrorism AC
Terrorists have the ability to launch a nuclear-type weapon.

Bunn, Matthew. Mathematical Model Of The Risk Of Nuclear Terrorism. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science. 09-2006. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://ann.sagepub.com/content/suppl/2007/01/25/607.1.103.DC1/103_corrected.pdf>.
As one U.S. government study put it, a small group of people, without any access to the
classified literature, using only modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for
without arousing suspicion, could potentially make a crude nuclear bomb, if they obtained the
necessary nuclear material (U.S. Efforts to rebuild failed states, avoid future failed states, and
help countries gain control over areas the CIA refers to as stateless zones could help limit
terrorists' access to sanctuaries where they could work on a bomb pro gram, but such a program
would also have a significant chance of being carried out undetected in a machine shop in any
country in the world.
Champion Briefs
293
AFF: Terrorism AC
ISIS poses a large nuclear security threat.

Bunn, Matthew. Preventing Nuclear Terrorism: Continuous Improvement Or Dangerous
Decline?. 2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/PreventingNuclearTerrorism-Web.pdf>.
ISs capabilities are substantial. If the group were to pursue nuclear weapons, it has more money,
controls more territory and people, and enjoys a greater ability to recruit experts globally than al
Qaeda at its strongest ever had. Moreover, unlike many terrorist groups, IS has demonstrated an
ability to manage implementation of large-scale, long-term projects.22 ISs intentions with
respect to nuclear terrorism remain more obscure. There is no publicly available evidence of a
significant IS nuclear weapons effort. The groups apocalyptic ideology, however, envisions a
final war between its forces and those of the United States and the West (the Crusaders), which
the group expects ultimately to win. For taking on the worlds leading superpower and its allies,
nuclear weapons would surely be extremely useful. The groups documented indiscriminate mass
casualty attacks and horrific individual acts of cruelty and mayhem demonstrate a significant
willingness to inflict destruction on a wide scale and disregard for the Islamic prohibition on the
slaughter of innocents. In November 2015, Belgian police discovered that some IS operatives
involved in the Paris attacks had taken hours of surveillance video at the home of a senior
official of SKN-CEN, a Belgian nuclear research center with a substantial amount of HEU onsite. Investigators have not managed to confirm what the terrorists were seeking to accomplish
through this monitoring. One possibilityand it is only a possibilityis that they envisioned
kidnapping the official or his family in an effort to force him to help them gain access to the
nuclear facility and its materials.23 This focused, extended monitoring of a nuclear official at a
sensitive site is the most worrying indicator of IS nuclear intent to date.
Champion Briefs
294
AFF: Terrorism AC
The status quo allows for a risk of nuclear proliferation.

Kessides, Ioannis. Nuclear Power: Understanding The Economic Risks And Uncertainties.
2010. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510001680>.
If there is a considerable expansion of nuclear power throughout the world, a large number of
currently non-nuclear weapon states will acquire nuclear materials and facilities as well as the
technology and expertise. In that case, it will likely become necessary for IAEAs monitoring
and inspection activities to be calibrated roughly by the number of facilities in non-nuclear
weapon states. Thus, a robust nuclear future will likely require a significant expansion of the
agencys safeguards system (Feiveson, 2003). Moreover, under a robust global nuclear power
expansion program, there will be increasing pressures on countries to deploy reprocessing and
recycling technologies. This will happen for two main reasons. First, a large-scale deployment
based on a once through fuel cycle will require substantial quantities of uranium. How long will
the global uranium resources be sufficient to support such deployment is a critical policy issue.
Present data on the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock (which can be mined
for less than $US130/kg) suggest that it is sufficient for several decades.27 However, expanded
utilization could lead to more costly extraction from low-concentration terrestrial ore deposits
and seawater, and a more tightly balanced uranium market that will be prone to higher and more
volatile prices (Cabrera-Palmer and Rothwell, 2008).28 Higher prices will generate irresistible
pressures for more efficient resource utilization, i.e., to reprocess and recycle. Second, expanded
deployment based on a once-through fuel cycle will lead to a substantial increase in the quantity
of waste materials requiring permanent disposal. Closed cycles have a distinct advantage with
respect to long-term waste disposal, because long-lived actinides can be separated from the
fission products and transmuted in a reactor (MIT, 2003).
Champion Briefs
295
AFF: Terrorism AC
India has significant potential security issues for terrorism

in nuclear facilities.
Azad, Tahir. Threats Of Nuclear Terrorism: A Case Study Of India. Institute for Security and
Development Policy. April 13, 2004. Web. August 15, 2016.
<http://isdp.eu/content/uploads/publications/2013-azad-nuclear-threats-india.pdf>.
Indias nuclear establishment, most of it civilian, is large.8 Although, India claims that it has
managed a high level of security and inherent safety features, there are several security risks for
Indian nuclear power plants from terrorists or non-State actors. The reliability of personnel is of
serious concern in India as civilians, and not military personnel, maintain operational control of
the weapons.9 While little information is available on the policy of personnel reliability in India,
the system of intelligence vetting is not believed to be complemented by regular psychological
testing, behavior analysis, or a reporting system, such as the Continuous Behavior Observation
Program in the US.10 As a result, the level of vulnerability to nuclear and radiological terrorism
will grow commensurately if nuclear weapons inventories expand. The larger a nuclear force the
greater its exposure and therefore its vulnerability to terrorist assault; more weapons offer more
targets for terrorists.
Champion Briefs
296
AFF: Terrorism AC
There is public opposition to nuclear energy because of

terrorist threats.
Kim, Minki. An International Comparative Analysis Of Public Acceptance Of Nuclear Energy.
Energy Policy. 2014. Web. August 15, 2016.
To overcome such limitations in previous studies, this analysis exploits unique data from the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on public perception of nuclear energy in 19
countries. This data enables us to examine the differences in the effects of knowledge of nuclear
inspection, trust in inspection authorities, risk of terrorist acts, and benefit of peaceful
applications of nuclear technology among three levels of public acceptance of nuclear
power: strongly accept, reluctantly accept, and oppose. In particular, based on the ratio of those
who strongly accept to those who reluctantly accept, and the ratio of those who accept (both
strongly and reluctantly) to those who oppose, we further classify the 19 countries into four
groups, to examine heterogeneous effects of factors that affect public acceptance of nuclear
power among the groups.
Champion Briefs
297
AFF: Terrorism AC
Nuclear power plants pose threats for terrorist attacks.

Kim, Minki. An International Comparative Analysis Of Public Acceptance Of Nuclear Energy.
Energy Policy. 2014. Web. August 15, 2016.
The consequences of terrorism are terrible andthough still smaller than those due to mutually
assured destruction (MAD)increase approaching those that the world faced at the peak of the
Cold war MAD confrontation. The vast majority of terrorists acts are now performed with
conventional weapons. However, the greatest danger comes from the intersection of terrorism
and state stockpiles of nuclear weapons, fissile material, chemical and biological weapons. The
minister of defence of Ukraine told in an interview [8] that several hundreds of their Soviet-built
missiles are unaccounted for. Also, the US sold 17.5 ton of enriched uranium and only 2.6 ton
will be returned to the US [9]. Perkovich et al. [10] report that spent reactor fuel pools at
commercial nuclear power plants are very vulnerable. Similarly, according to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) there are 123 facilities where a release of chemicals
could threaten more than one million people, and 750 such facilities that could threaten more
than 100,000 people. Food safety represents another particularly sensitive issue. Terrorists do not
need to produce their own weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Terrorists can steal those
weapons of mass destruction that are already available. Moreover, the psychological effect of a
mere threat is enormous.
Champion Briefs
298
AFF: Terrorism AC
Nuclear power poses a threat for terrorist actions in the

Middle East.
Early, Bryan. Atoms For Terror? Nuclear Programs And Non-Catastrophic Nuclear And
Radiological Terrorism. British Journal of Political Science. 2013. Web. August 15,
2016.
<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8976518&
fileId=S000712341200066X>.
Nuclear power has become increasingly appealing as an alternative energy source due to
growing energy demands, worsening energy shortages, and rising concerns about climate
change. In the Middle East, for example, twelve countries are considering building nuclear
power plants as part of a movement commonly known as the nuclear renaissance.1 At the same
time, there are serious concerns that nuclear programs could make countries more vulnerable to
nuclear and radiological (NR) terrorism. Revelations that Al-Qaeda planned to fly an airplane
into an American nuclear power plant as part of the 9/11 attacks underscored that nuclear
programs may provide terrorists with inviting targets of opportunity. Many also fear that nuclear
plants will increase the availability of NR materials terrorists can use for violent attacks,
especially if additional countries join the nuclear energy club in the coming years.2
Champion Briefs
299
AFF: Terrorism AC
Nuclear terrorism is really difficult.

2016.
fileId=S000712341200066X>.
For violent extremist actors, the choice between employing conventional and nonconventional
forms of terrorism involves tradeoffs. NR terrorism is typically much more challenging than
conventional terrorism, requiring longer planning, larger amounts of organizational and financial
resources, more highly trained personnel, and greater risks.5 Generally, obtaining nuclear or
radiological materials is much more difficult than obtaining conventional weapons or explosives;
and even when countries have poor nuclear security, nuclear facilities still tend to be better
protected than other soft targets that terrorists could attack instead. In light of these challenges,
it is not surprising that conventional terrorist attacks have a far better track record of success
compared to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorist attacks.6 Yet, NR
terrorism also has the potential to inflict much more damage and disruption than any other type
of terrorism, elicit more widespread fear and insecurity far beyond its immediate targets, and
generate greater publicity for its perpetrators.7
Champion Briefs
300
AFF: Terrorism AC
Rational terrorist organizations will steal/purchase nuclear

materials.
2016.
fileId=S000712341200066X>.
Therefore, rational and cost-sensitive terrorists will be tempted to either steal NR materials or
purchase them illicitly when they are cheap and/or readily available. Since terrorists have
significantly greater access to nuclear and radiological materials in countries with larger civil
nuclear programs, the probability that they will employ NR terrorism in these states increases.
Although terrorists could acquire NR materials in one country and use them in another, it is
easier to use the materials in the country in which they have been acquired. Transporting NR
materials across borders involves additional costs and raises the likelihood of interception.15
Groups are cognizant of this consideration and often look for NR materials in the country they
wish to attack.
Champion Briefs
301
AFF: Terrorism AC
Nuclear power plants pose threats for terrorist attacks.

2016.
fileId=S000712341200066X>.
Third, nuclear facilities present targets of opportunity for terrorist groups.21 Attacking structures
that produce or house radioactive materials, such as nuclear power plants, could cause largescale radiological contamination or, at least, create widespread panic among the public.22 Such
attacks may appeal to groups seeking to cause mass casualties or generate publicity. An
unidentified Chechen rebel field commander underscored the perception that nuclear power
plants are inviting targets of opportunity when he said, Take nuclear power stations
Chernobyl. Blow one up and the damage lasts for 300 years.23 Chechen rebels issued a number
of public threats to bomb nuclear power plants in Russia throughout the 1990s. Numerous other
groups have targeted nuclear plants. For example, from 1977 to 1981, Basque terrorists carried
out a sustained terrorist campaign against a Spanish nuclear power plant. Over that period, they
attacked the facility four times, killing four of its workers and causing damage worth over $21
million.24 In 1982, environmental activists with ties to French and German terrorist groups fired
five rocket-propelled grenades at the Superphenix fast breeder reactor, which was under
construction in France.25 More recent terrorist interest in targeting nuclear facilities is evidenced
by the revelations that a suspected Al-Qaeda agent worked in five US nuclear plants from 2002
to 2008.
Champion Briefs
302
AFF: Terrorism AC
Security can prevent nuclear theft.

2016.
fileId=S000712341200066X>.
Nuclear security could dampen the relationship between NR terrorism and nuclear programs for
two main reasons. First, because terrorists are strategic actors, they respond to counterterrorism
policies instituted by governments. Defensive measures that states adopt to protect themselves
from one type of attack cause terrorists to switch to other forms of violence that are less costly, a
process that is known in the terrorism literature as a substitution effect.26 Landes, for instance,
finds that the installation of metal detectors in airports reduced the number of skyjackings in the
United States by raising the costs of this particular strategy.27 This evidence is also consistent
with the notion that deterrence by denial can influence the behavior of non-state actors.28
When it comes to NR terrorism, the most effective way to deter extremists by denial is to
harden nuclear facilities. Securing facilities where nuclear and radiological materials are
housed makes it more difficult for groups to steal or otherwise acquire what they need for an
attack. It is also more difficult for terrorists to sabotage better secured nuclear plants, particularly
if they hope to attack a facility from the outside.
Champion Briefs
303
AFF: Terrorism AC
Nuclear materials were recently stolen from Iraq.

Rasheed, Ahmed. Exclusive: Radioactive Material Stolen In Iraq Raises Security Concerns.
Reuters. 02-14-2016. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://www.reuters.com/article/usmideast-crisis-iraq-radiation-idUSKCN0VQ22F>.
Iraq is searching for highly dangerous radioactive material whose theft last year has raised
fears among Iraqi officials that it could be used as a weapon if acquired by Islamic State.
Baghdad reported the stolen material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in
November but has not requested assistance to recover it, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said on
Wednesday.
The material, stored in a protective case the size of a laptop computer, went missing from a
storage facility near the southern city of Basra belonging to U.S. oilfield services company
Weatherford (WFT.N), an environment ministry document seen by Reuters showed and security,
environmental and provincial officials confirmed.
Champion Briefs
304
AFF: Terrorism AC
There are worries about a dirty bomb being developed from

stolen nuclear material.
Reuters. 02-14-2016. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-mideastcrisis-iraq-radiation-idUKKCN0VQ22F>.
Large quantities of Ir-192 have gone missing before in the United States, Britain and other
countries, stoking fears among security officials that it could be used to make a dirty bomb.
A dirty bomb combines nuclear material with conventional explosives to contaminate an area
with radiation, in contrast to a nuclear weapon, which uses nuclear fission to trigger a vastly
more powerful blast.
We are afraid the radioactive element will fall into the hands of Daesh, said a senior security
official with knowledge of the theft, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.
They could simply attach it to explosives to make a dirty bomb, said the official, who works at
the interior ministry and spoke on condition of anonymity as he is also not authorized to speak
publicly.
There was no indication the material had come into the possession of Islamic State, which seized
territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014 but does not control areas near Basra.
A State Department spokesman declined to comment on whether the missing material might be
suitable for use in a dirty bomb.
The security official, based in Baghdad, told Reuters there were no immediate suspects for the
theft. But the official said the initial inquiry suggested the perpetrators had specific knowledge of
the material and the facility. No broken locks, no smashed doors and no evidence of forced
entry, he said.
An operations manager for Iraqi security firm Taiz, which was contracted to protect the facility,
declined to comment, citing instructions from Iraqi security authorities.
A spokesman for Basra operations command, responsible for security in Basra province, said
army, police and intelligence forces were working day and night to locate the material.
Champion Briefs
305
AFF: Terrorism AC
There are also pollution risks through theft of nuclear

materials.
Reuters. 02-14-2016. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-mideastcrisis-iraq-radiation-idUKKCN0VQ22F>.
Iraqi forces are battling Islamic State in the country's north and west, backed by a U.S.-led
coalition. The Sunni Muslim militant group has been accused of using chemical weapons on
more than one occasion over the past few years.
The closest area fully controlled by Islamic State is more than 500 km (300 miles) north of Basra
in the western province of Anbar. Islamic State controls no territory in the predominantly Shi'ite
southern provinces but has claimed bomb attacks there, including one that killed 10 people in
October in the district where the Weatherford facility is located.
Besides the risk of a dirty bomb, the radioactive material could cause harm simply by being left
exposed in a public place for several days, said David Albright, a physicist and president of the
Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
If they left it in some crowded place, that would be more of the risk, if they kept it together but
without shielding, he said. Certainly it's not insignificant. You could cause some panic with
this. They would want to get this back.
The senior environmental official said authorities were worried that whoever stole the material
would mishandle it, leading to radioactive pollution of catastrophic proportions.
A second senior environment ministry official, also based in Basra, said counter-radiation teams
had begun inspecting oil sites, scrapyards and border crossings to locate the device after an
emergency task force raised the alarm on Nov. 13.
Two Basra provincial government officials said they were directed on Nov. 25 to coordinate with
local hospitals. We instructed hospitals in Basra to be alert to any burn cases caused by
radioactivity and inform security forces immediately, said one.
(Additional reporting by Humeyra Pamuk in Istanbul, Jonathan S. Landay and Arshad
Mohammed in Washington; Writing by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Pravin Char/Mark Heinrich)
Champion Briefs
306
AFF: Terrorism AC
Mexico has had theft of nuclear materials this year.

Castillo, Mariano. Mexico Issues Alert After Radioactive Material Stolen. CNN. January 03,
2016. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/29/americas/mexicoradioactive-device-missing/>.
The Mexican government has issued an alert for a large swath of central Mexico after the theft of
an industrial device containing radioactive material.
The device, used for industrial radiography, was being transported in a pickup that was stolen
early Saturday in the state of Queretaro, Mexico's National Commission of Nuclear Security and
Safety said.
The agency did not say whether the radioactive material was the target of the theft, or if the truck
thieves made off with more than they bargained for.
The radioactive material inside the device is Iridium-192, the nuclear commission said. The
material can be deadly if removed from its protective shielding.
The nuclear commission was alerted to the stolen radioactive material Sunday and issued an alert
to authorities in six Mexican states and the Federal Highway Police to be on the lookout for the
stolen Chevrolet Silverado truck.
The truck and radioactive material belonged to a company called Central Industrial Maintenance.
An industrial radiography device is basically a tool that uses the radioactive isotope Iridium-192
to beam gamma radiation. It can be used to test pipelines for structural problems such as
weakening welds.
Gamma rays emitted by the isotope can deliver fatal doses of radiation at close range.
A similar device went missing from a contractor in Iraq this year, creating concerns that terrorists
could use it to contaminate water supplies or help make a dirty bomb. After the disappearance
made headlines, the device was found, undamaged, near a police station.
Champion Briefs
307
AFF: Terrorism AC
A2 Terrorists Steal Waste: There are security measures in

the US to prevent theft of nuclear waste.
Swift, P. Current Status Of Nuclear Waste Management (and Disposal) In The United States.
November 08, 2013. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://ocean.kisti.re.kr/downfile/volume/krws/E1RKCU/2013/v1n1/E1RKCU_2013_v1
n1_29.pdf>.
If there is a considerable expansion of nuclear power throughout the world, a large number of
currently non-nuclear weapon states will acquire nuclear materials and facilities as well as the
technology and expertise. In that case, it will likely become necessary for IAEAs monitoring
and inspection activities to be calibrated roughly by the number of facilities in non-nuclear
weapon states. Thus, a robust nuclear future will likely require a significant expansion of the
agencys safeguards system (Feiveson, 2003). Moreover, under a robust global nuclear power
expansion program, there will be increasing pressures on countries to deploy reprocessing and
recycling technologies. This will happen for two main reasons. First, a large-scale deployment
based on a once through fuel cycle will require substantial quantities of uranium. How long will
the global uranium resources be sufficient to support such deployment is a critical policy issue.
Present data on the total identified amount of conventional uranium stock (which can be mined
for less than $US130/kg) suggest that it is sufficient for several decades.27 However, expanded
utilization could lead to more costly extraction from low-concentration terrestrial ore deposits
and seawater, and a more tightly balanced uranium market that will be prone to higher and more
volatile prices (Cabrera-Palmer and Rothwell, 2008).28 Higher prices will generate irresistible
pressures for more efficient resource utilization, i.e., to reprocess and recycle. Second, expanded
deployment based on a once-through fuel cycle will lead to a substantial increase in the quantity
of waste materials requiring permanent disposal. Closed cycles have a distinct advantage with
respect to long-term waste disposal, because long-lived actinides can be separated from the
fission products and transmuted in a reactor (MIT, 2003).
Champion Briefs
308
AFF: Environmental Oppression AC September/October 2016
Environmental Oppression AC
This affirmative offers a critical approach to policy making on the Sept-Oct. nuclear
power topic. The file itself contains a 1ac with Indigeneity and Meltdown advantages with a
social impacts framework. You should approach writing this case under the assumption you will
engage in a post fiat debate; meaning that case cards should be highlighted to provide preempts
to common arguments such as warming while containing clear routes to more probable and
pervasive problems with accidents and storage. The framework is set-out to preempt utilitarian
and other right-of-center ethical theories while still defending policy making and discourse. You
should work to emphasize social and human detriments important in the context of nuclear
power debates with the evidence provided and expand with your own more philosophical
approaches to frontlining. The 1ar provides overview evidence for each contention. Cut these
pieces of evidence to tell the overall story of each advantage, framework and inherency, and use
the big picture items you highlight to develop a rigorous frontline plan. The negative file
contains a variety of impact defense to the two scenarios mentioned, along with intrinsic
justifications for nuclear power being good along with a DA that impacts to nuclear disarmament
and global warming. These articles should be cut in a minimalist fashion; answering back and
interacting with specific components of the affirmative. Use the missing pieces (things you need
to cover that the brief doesnt provide specifically) to draw up a frontline plan. The specific
content that defends and justifies nuclear power as well as highlights Das to banning it provide
rudimentary insight into the core of the policy discussion on the topic; so use the ideas behind
each argument and expand on them. Happy Prepping!
Champion Briefs
309
Inherency Nuclear power is on the rebound; market

predictions are good.
Simpson, Scott. Uranium Poised For Price Jump In Nuclear Power Boom. BNN. 07-26-2016.
Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.bnn.ca/uranium-poised-for-price-jump-in-nuclearpower-boom-1.530960>.
Weve been calling for a long period of time for higher prices for uranium and that
hasnt been the case, said uranium market analyst Rob Chang of Cantor Fitzgerald. Right now,
utilities are mostly contracted for the supply they receive. When prices spiked up in the last
decade, they quickly contracted as much as they could.
Spot prices are below what most producers need to make a profit. Long-term contract
prices are at five-year lows as nuclear power generation utilities around the world take advantage
of a persistent global uranium supply glut.
Those contracts, for periods reaching 10 and even 15 years, have begun to expire. Chang
said 15 to 20% expire in 2017 and that number grows each year. Unsurprisingly, utilities have
been eschewing long-term supply contracts in favour of buying on the spot market to take
advantage of global oversupply.
Its not a sustainable situation at these prices because most producers would be losing
money, Chang added. He anticipates a market shift in favour of producers maybe halfway
through next year. Nuclear power is the only viable source of base load power that is zero
carbon-emitting when you factor out the mining process and the building of facilities. Countries
are putting more resources into nuclear power, not less.
According to a study from the World Nuclear Association, there are more than 60 nuclear
reactors under construction worldwide, including 12 coming online this year and 18 in 2017.
China, with 32 operating reactors, has 20 more in construction and plans to double its nuclear
generating capacity by 2020. By 2030, a further 173 reactors are planned, including 42 in China,
and 337 others have been proposed. At present, there are 440 operable reactors worldwide.
Even Cameco has said that they would need two or three more Cigar Lake-sized mines to open
by 2025 in order for supply to meet demand. So there is definitely room from a primary
standpoint to add production, Chang added.
Champion Briefs
310

Inherency Nuclear power is on the rebound; market predictions are good. (Continued)
Simpson, Scott. Uranium Poised For Price Jump In Nuclear Power Boom. BNN. 07-26-2016.
Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.bnn.ca/uranium-poised-for-price-jump-in-nuclearpower-boom-1.530960>.
Chang cited Denison Mines, which has cash flow and strong assets near Cameco in the
world-class Athabasca Basin, as particularly well positioned to take advantage of the upswing
over the next 10 years. Sources of new primary supply have been stifled by sustained low prices;
companies that can respond quickly to new demand will have the advantage.
Denison is in one of the best spots to take advantage of the upcoming uranium cycle,
Chang said. They have a path to production on a timeline thats feasible to actually enjoy the
upcoming uranium price spike.
Uranium is the most highly regulated commodity on the planet. Development for a
uranium mine usually takes 8 to 10 years. Denison is far down the path in terms of its
exploration work, and in particular, it is located right in the middle of Camecos operations.
Theres a mill nearby, there are roads nearby, the infrastructure is fully built up in that areaand
Cameco is even a partial owner in some of the assets.
We believe the uranium price boom will happen during the time when Denison is able to
go into productionin 6 to 8 yearswhich many other asset-holders cannot say, especially in
terms of size. They can produce potentially four to five, maybe six or eight million pounds a year
whereas any other newer producer might only be able to squeak out one or two million pounds in
the same time frame.
Champion Briefs
311
Inherency: Alternatives Fail. Only a full-out ban on

alleviates social and environmental stress.
Ross, Timothy. Avoiding Apocalypse: Congress Should Ban Nuclear Power. Environmental
Advocacy Seminar @ University of Buffalo Law School. November 30, 2010. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://www.law.buffalo.edu/content/dam/law/restrictedassets/pdf/environmental/papers/ross12.pdf>.
From the above, I am convinced that this nation needs to eliminate nuclear fission from its
energy sources. My suggestion is that the most efficient means is via Congressional ban.
Congress should pass a law that does the following three things: 1) limit the United States
production of radioactive materials to those necessary for much smaller-scale purposes such as
medical radiology, etc., 2) prohibit the building of any new nuclear power plant, and 3) devise a
plan/schedule for decommissioning existing nuclear power plants. Of course, it would be useful
if the same law or another one set up a viable plan for dealing with waste, but it should be a
priority to cease their production by abolishing nuclear power. Of course, there are economic
issues related to the decrease in supply of energy (which is a valid concern), but this country
cannot afford to do nothing about the nuclear problem. There are a number of things which could
be done to mitigate the negative economic impact of losing nuclear power. Such things include
(but may not be limited to): increased investment in alternative and sustainable energy, such as
solar, wind, hydro, etc. and conservation of energy (use more sunlight and less light bulbs, read a
book instead of watching a movie once in a while, etc). It likely wont be easy at first, but few
worthwhile things are. This country simply cannot afford to continue playing the odds against a
nuclear catastrophe, and it cannot afford to keep compounding the waste issue. These problems
are not going away on their own, and viable solutions dont seem to be on the horizon. I, for one,
am not content to sit by and see how far this problem can progress before this country reaches a
point at which it cannot fix the problem or its simply too late.
Champion Briefs
312
ADV1: Banning Reactors is key to avoiding meltdowns

radiation is disastrous.
Ross, Timothy. Avoiding Apocalypse: Congress Should Ban Nuclear Power. , Environmental
One cannot meaningfully talk about why nuclear fission should be banned without first
discussing the dangers associated with the isotopes that are used for fuel, as well as their
byproducts. The two elements which United States power plants currently use in nuclear fission
reactions for commercial nuclear power are Uranium and Thorium.35 Most commonly, power
reactors use Uranium, as Thorium is less efficient.36 The isotope of Uranium that power reactors
use is U-235.37 U-235 is not that common in nature; it comprises less than one percent of the
total naturally occurring Uranium.38 U-235 is far more radioactive than U-238 the most
common Uranium isotope and has a significantly shorter half-life.39 In order to get the most
productivity out of Uranium, it is enriched; Uranium processors separate out the isotopes
within naturally occurring Uranium in order to concentrate the more radioactive U-235.40 Also,
U-238 can capture neutrons in the reaction chamber and become (through decay) Plutonium (Pu239), which produces about a third of the energy in Uranium reactors. 41 Pu-239, in turn, decays
directly into U-235.42 Between them, Uranium and Plutonium release a number of other
radioactive elements including Radium, Radon, and others. 43 U-235, the more radioactive of
the two Uranium isotopes discussed above, has a half-life of 700,000 years. 44 Uranium enters
the body through inhalation, swallowing (most common) or, in rare circumstances, through
breaks in the skin.45 While the body tends to pass most Uranium under normal conditions
either through digestion or via the kidneys some may wind up deposited in bones.46 The most
prevalent health issue from Uranium exposure is an increased risk for cancer but, given enough
exposure over time, it can cause internal irradiation or chemical toxicity.47 Pu-239 has a half life
of 24,100 years.48 It enters the body in much the same way as Uranium and, like Uranium, the
body usually passes most of it out.49 However, if Plutonium is absorbed it tends to move
Champion Briefs
313

Banning Reactors is key to avoiding meltdowns radiation is disastrous. (Continued)
Ross, Timothy. Avoiding Apocalypse: Congress Should Ban Nuclear Power. , Environmental
through the bloodstream into bones and internal organs, where it irradiates those organs for
decades.50 Plutonium also presents an increased risk when inhaled.51 Different isotopes of
Thorium have a wide range of half-lives, from days to billions of years.52 Thorium presents
many of the same health risks common to Uranium and Plutonium but there is some evidence
that, unlike Uranium and Plutonium, the body may also absorb Thorium through the skin.53
The potential impact of a nuclear plant disaster can be quite grave. Not only can a disaster be
grave, but its full effect can take decades to discover. In fact, the full effect may never be
discoverable for a number of reasons, not least of which are the dispersal of released materials
and the passage of time. Consider the following examples of Chernobyl and Fukushima, the two
most pronounced disasters to date.
Champion Briefs
314
ADV1: Radiation is Lethal; single meltdown exposes

millions.
Lelieveld, J. Severe Nuclear Reactor Accidents Likely Every 10 To 20 Years, European Study
Suggests. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 5-22-2012. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm>.
The computer simulations revealed that, on average, only eight percent of the 137Cs
particles are expected to deposit within an area of 50 kilometres around the nuclear accident site.
Around 50 percent of the particles would be deposited outside a radius of 1,000 kilometres, and
around 25 percent would spread even further than 2,000 kilometres. These results underscore
that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national borders.
The results of the dispersion calculations were combined with the likelihood of a nuclear
meltdown and the actual density of reactors worldwide to calculate the current risk of radioactive
contamination around the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
an area with more than 40 kilobecquerels of radioactivity per square meter is defined as
contaminated.
The team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is
particularly high, the contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected
to occur once in about every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated
southwestern part of Germany run the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination,
associated with the numerous nuclear power plants situated near the borders between France,
Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind direction.
If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million people
on average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter.
This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major nuclear
accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in the eastern USA and in East Asia
this would be 14 to 21 million people.
Champion Briefs
315
ADV1: The impact is extinction.

McPherson, Guy. Guest Post: Three Paths To Near-Term Human Extinction. Zero Hedge. 822-2011. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-threepaths-near-term-human-extinction>.
Were headed for extinction via environmental collapse
Nature is bankrupt, just like Wall Street and the USA. Thanks for playing, but you lose. The
banksters on Wall Street win. But only in the short term. In the long run, were all dead (as
first stated by John Maynard Keynes).
Among the consequences of taking down more than 200 species each day: at some point, the
species we take into the abyss is Homo sapiens (the wise ape). The vanishing point draws nearer
every day. Our response, in the industrialized world: Bring on the toys. Burn all fossil fuels.
Harvest the rain forests and strip-mine the soil. Pollute the water, eat the seed bank.
And, most importantly, figure out how we can make a few bucks as the world burns.
We have our hand in a monkey trap, and we cant let go.
Were headed for extinction via nuclear meltdown
Safely shuttering a nuclear power plant requires a decade or two of careful planning. Far sooner,
well complete the ongoing collapse of the industrial economy. This is a source of my nuclear
nightmares.
Champion Briefs
316
ADV2: Bans are key to stopping reactor waste

contamination in Native American lands - its unsustainable
and dangerous.
Brown, Paul. World Group Seeks Ban On Uranium And Nuclear Power. Climate News
Network. 4-24-2015. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://climatenewsnetwork.net/worldgroup-seeks-ban-on-uranium-and-nuclear-power/>.
Uranium mining across the world should cease, nuclear power stations be closed and
nuclear weapons be banned, according to a group of scientists, environmentalists and
representatives of indigenous peoples. Three hundred delegates from 20 countries that produce
uranium for nuclear power, weapons and medical uses called for an end to all uranium mining in
a declaration launched on Earth Day this week at a meeting in Quebec, Canada. The venue for
the World Uranium Symposium was chosen because Quebec state is currently considering
whether to continue its moratorium on uranium mining, having already closed down its only
nuclear power plant in 2013.
Symbolic choice
The city of Quebec is also symbolic because this is where Canada, the US and the UK
made a co-operation agreement in 1943 that led to the building of the worlds first nuclear
weapons. Two of the resulting A-bombs were used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki in 1945. But the symposium was more concerned about the damage that existing
uranium mining is doing to the welfare of indigenous peoples, and the erroneous view that
nuclear power can help solve the problem of climate change. The declaration applauded the
expansion of renewable energy and the significant strides in phasing out nuclear power following
the growing awareness that nuclear power is not a cost-effective, timely, practical or safe
response to climate change.
The risks to health, safety and the environment represented by the entire nuclear fuel
chain greatly exceed the potential benefits for society
Champion Briefs
317

Bans are key to stopping reactor waste contamination in Native American lands - its
unsustainable and dangerous. (Continued)
Brown, Paul. World Group Seeks Ban On Uranium And Nuclear Power. Climate News
Network. 4-24-2015. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://climatenewsnetwork.net/worldgroup-seeks-ban-on-uranium-and-nuclear-power/>.
It called for a worldwide ban on uranium exploration, mining, milling and processing, as well as
the reprocessing of nuclear waste, and the irresponsible management of radioactive waste. Dr.
Eric Notebaert, associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal, co-president of the
Symposium, and member of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said
that the symposium delegates all agreed that the risks to health, safety and the environment
represented by the entire nuclear fuel chain from uranium mines, to power reactors, to nuclear
weapons, to radioactive wastes greatly exceed the potential benefits for society. Dr. Juan
Carlos Chrigwin, a physician affiliated with McGill University, and president of Physicians for
Global Survival, said: The issuing of this World Declaration on Uranium is the culmination of
essential work carried out over many years by international coalitions who, despite geographical
and cultural differences, share common objectives and who desire to shape a common vision of a
better world. Uranium does not provide a viable or sustainable approach for dealing with
climate change, nor for providing isotopes for medical use. Today, there are a number of medical
and energy alternatives that are cheaper and safer. The declaration is open for organisations and
individuals to sign on the internet and is bound to put further pressure on an industry already
suffering from falling confidence. The price of uranium has dropped from $138 a pound in 2007
to less than $40 a pound currently as plans to build more nuclear stations have been shelved in
several countries. While the search continues for rich new uranium deposits particularly by
China in Africa and the US in Greenland it is unlikely to be economically viable to exploit
them at current prices.
Champion Briefs
318
ADV2: Uranium Leeching is pervasive multiple routes to

radiological illnesses to indigenous people.
Atcheson, Ray. Costs, Risks, And Myths Of Nuclear Power . Reaching Critical Will of the
Womens International League for Peace and Freedom. November 30, 2010. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://www.nirs.org/international/reachingcriticalwillreport.pdf>.
While the impacts of uranium mining affect many communities, 70% of the worlds uranium lies
on Indigenous lands.2 Therefore Indigenous people bear a disproportionate burden at this end of
the nuclear chain. These impacts, which also adversely affect broader communities, can be wide
ranging and include both environmental and cultural/social, as shown in Table 1.
Before mining, the radioactive elements in uranium are generally locked in an impervious rock
cocoon, so little radioactivity reaches the open environment. Once these materials are mined,
radioactive elements become far more bio-available and can readily escape into waterways and
the atmosphere. Uranium is also chemically toxic at high concentrations and can cause damage
to internal organs. Uranium has been linked with adverse impacts on reproduction, foetal
development, and an increased risk of cancer and leukaemia. Even after mining ceases, uranium
tailings retain about 80% of the radioactivity of the original ore body. These tailings contain over
a dozen radioactive materials that pose significant health hazards, including thorium-230,
radium-226, and radon gas. These materials can emit radioactivity into the environment for tens
of thousands of years. Global experience has shown that most areas exploited for uranium
extraction remain contaminated in perpetuity with limited or no effective rehabilitation.
Champion Briefs
319
ADV2: Nuclear contamination of Indigenous Land and

People is global - massive health problems make banning the
only option.
Norrell, Brenda. Leave It In The Ground!. Counterpunch. August 02, 2007. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/02/08/quot-leave-it-in-the-ground-quot/>.
Indigenous peoples from around the world, victims of uranium mining, nuclear testing, and
nuclear dumping, issued a global ban on uranium mining on native lands.
The declaration, signed during the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, held Nov. 30-Dec. 2,
2006 on the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona, brought together Australian aboriginals
and villagers from India and Africa. Pacific islanders joined with indigenous peoples from the
Americas to take action and halt the cancer, birth defects, and death from uranium and nuclear
industries on native lands.
Villagers from India testified to the alarming number of babies who die before they are
born or are born with serious birth defects, and of the high rates of cancer that are claiming the
lives of those who live near the uranium mines.
Australia Aboriginal Rebecca Bear-Wingfield, stolen as an infant and now an activist,
told of the death threats for those who oppose the expansion of uranium mining in South
Australia. Corporations have attempted to buy Aboriginals approval for new uranium mining
projects on native lands.
From northern China came the voice of Sun Xiaodi, a whistleblower who has exposed
massive unregulated uranium contamination. Xiaodi is now under house arrest in Gansu
Province after he was disappeared and imprisoned in 2004-2005.
Xiaodi, along with five other anti-nuclear activists, was awarded the Nuclear-Free Future Award
in 2006. The awards highlighted not only the personal and collective achievements of the
recipients but also the international collaboration that has grown within the movement. Those
honored came from several continents.
Champion Briefs
320

Nuclear contamination of Indigenous Land and People is global - massive health problems make
banning the only option. (Continued)
Organizing International Resistance to Uranium Mining: From Salzburg to Window Rock
The Navajo Nation provides a fitting backdrop for discussions of the dangers of uranium mining.
The history of uranium mining on these native lands goes back decades to when Navajo workers
were sent to their deaths in Cold War uranium mines, unknowingly aiding the production of the
worlds first weapons of mass destruction.
Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. remarked, As a result, radiation exposure has
cost the Navajo Nation the accumulated wisdom, knowledge, stories, songs, and ceremoniesto
say nothing of the livesof hundreds of our people. Now, aged Navajo uranium miners and their
families continue to fight the Cold War in their doctors offices as they try to understand how the
invisible killer of radiation exposure left them with many forms of cancer and other illnesses
decades after leaving the uranium mines.
The tragedy spurred a growing resistance to the mines, and the Navajo Nation today is at
the head of an international movement. In one of the movements greatest achievements, in 2005
the tribe passed the Dineh Natural Resources Protection Act banning uranium mining on Navajo
lands. Norman Brown, a Navajo and member of the organization Dineh Bidzill Coalition that coorganized the Summit, said, The heart of this movement is herewe are at the center of this
movement today.
Major challenges
For years uranium mining was shrouded in secrecy as part of the Cold War and its
victims were isolated.
Compensation has been hard to win in the courts and although recognized in the 1990
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for Navajo Uranium Miners, only a small percentage of
mining families have received their due.
A general lack of political power in indigenous communities makes them easy marks for
dangerous uranium mining and dumping projects.
The rising price of uranium has caused renewed pressure on indigenous lands.
Champion Briefs
321
FW - The role of the ballot is minimizing social harm utilitarianism needs side-constraints and presumption
should fall to nuclear power bad.
Flanagan, Kevin. Ethical Considerations For The Use Of Nuclear Energy. Global Ethics
Network . 04-25-2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/ethical-considerations-for-the-useof-nuclear-energy>.
The debate around nuclear energy, and the consequent problems that rise there from, are often
dealt with from a utilitarian perspective, trying to minimize the harm in order to allow society to
benefit from the good. The IAEA, for the most part, adopts this approach, as a regulatory body
tasked to monitor and safeguard against the inherently dangerous nature of nuclear technology.
The concept of informed consent is a foundational element to their ethical charter. The IAEA
believes that the general public must be made aware of the dangers. For example, in order to
build a nuclear waste depository, refinement facility, or power plant, the developing organization
must share technical information about the plans with the general public, providing them with
the ability to protest and refuse if desired. Furthermore, the consequences of nuclear energy
programs should be equally shared, just as should the energy output, and for those that do suffer,
there should be some form or repayment to compensate for their burdens.
The nuclear energy debate does logically lend itself to a utilitarian way of thinking if the crux of
the issues, as mentioned prior, is the immense potential for energy output versus the very
dangerous and potentially damaging nature of the process. However, there is a consideration that
serves to counteract this particular approach. For a utilitarian, one does not have to completely
eliminate all the harm in order to maximize the good, just minimize it to an extent that the
benefits outweigh the damages. Perhaps if nuclear energy were the only viable alternative to
fossil fuel consumption then the utilitarian approach would be a more appropriate lens from
which to address this problem. This, however, is not the case. The IEA has identified a number
of other potential alternatives that, though may not be quite as efficient, can still help promote
Champion Briefs
322

The role of the ballot is minimizing social harm - utilitarianism needs side-constraints and
presumption should fall to nuclear power bad.
Network . 04-25-2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
sustainability and reduce our reliance on carbon-based energy. These are far cleaner, pose less
risk to society, and do not have the potential to pollute our planet for the next hundreds of
thousands of years. This being the case, justifying the harm in the context of the significant
increase in non-emission energy is not longer appropriate. Rather, to understand whether or not
nuclear energy is morally justifiable, one must take into consideration the two-level
understanding of social justice the impact it has on current persons and will have on future
generations.
Champion Briefs
323
Human life and dignity is a-priori - only way to experience

moral agency and util creates serial policy failure.
Debate . Nuclear Power Deployment, Operation and Sustainability. November 30,
2010. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/19672.pdf>.
While CBA and discounting are undisputed11 and sometimes desirable for certain short-term
decisions in policy-making, the whole matter becomes complicated and even controversial when
there is more at stake than just monetary costs and benefits, or when we need to account for the
detrimental effects and benefits of the distant future. The first issue is the problem of
incommensurability. How should we incorporate human lives, environmental damage and longterm radiation risks into a CBA? Although there are ways of expressing such concerns in terms
of monetary units, all the approaches face the problem of comparing matters that are essentially
incomparable. The second issue, accounting for harm and benefit in the distant future, raises
questions about the moral legitimacy of discounting (Cowen & Parfit, 1992). Discounting is
particularly controversial in the case of non-economic decisions, for example when decisions are
made from an intergenerational point of view in the way advocated in this paper (see for an
overview (Portney & Weyant, 1999)). There are many philosophical objections to the
applications of a CBA (see for an overview (Hansson, 2007)), but at least two of these objections
are worth mentioning here. Firstly, CBAs fail to address the distribution issue between
generations and, secondly, if we are to discount risks in the remote future, the policies for
mitigating climate change and disposing of nuclear waste will be seriously undermined. The
following example may serve to illustrate this: at a discount rate of 5 percent, one death next year
becomes equivalent to more than a billion deaths in 500 years. It would be outrageous to include
such conclusions in the assessment of future risks. In light of the fact that we are considering
tremendously long periods of time, discounting even at a very small rate will make future
catastrophes morally trivial (Parfit, 1983). To conclude, policy-making on nuclear power
production and nuclear waste management needs to include fundamental discussions on our
relationship with posterity and to address issues surrounding the distribution of burdens and
benefits between generations and also among the present generation. Since economic instruments
such as CBA offer no solace, policy-making in nuclear technology should go hand in hand with
more fundamental moral discussions.
Champion Briefs
324
1AR Inherency - Try or Die Overview.

Network. 4-25-2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
Nuclear byproduct is extremely hazardous material. Radioactive elements behave like calcium in
that they are easily absorbed into the human body by way of the food chain through plants,
cows, and milk for example or through direct exposure. The human body is unable to
determine between most healthy elements versus their radioactive counterparts. So if we are
exposed to a radioactive version of an otherwise healthy species, such as iodine 131, our bodies
will absorb it, unable to discriminate. Once absorbed, it can lead to cancer or genetic mutation,
affecting both the individual as well as their future off spring. These hazardous elements then
take hundreds of thousands of years to deteriorate and effectively become safe for human
exposure. The most widely known example is plutonium, one of the most poisonous substances
in existence, which will take at least 240,000 years to safely decay.
This level of toxicity, when coupled with the very real and unavoidable issues associated with
storage and facility operation, will significantly impede the quality of life of those at risk of
exposure. This directly contradicts an understanding of justice that strives to ensure a decent life,
free from harm, for all people. Even in situation where we have the consent of those at risk, and
perhaps even compensating them for potential damages, there is still no way to provide the same
right to those of future generations, despite the fact that they will be just as at risk, if not more so,
than those affected in the present. So in conclusion, the potential for severe harm caused by
nuclear energy on the human person, our communities, and future generations is far to great a
threat to our collective livelihood for there to be any sensible threshold for use when there are
additional alternatives available.
Champion Briefs
325
1AR Inherency - Environment Impact.

Ryser, Rudolph. The Indigenous World Under A Nuclear Cloud. Truthout. 3-27-2016. Web.
August 16, 2016. <, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-worldunder-a-nuclear-cloud>.
Nuclear weapons, electrical power reactors and radioactive materials waste disposal results in the
contamination of surface and subsurface water and soil with substances such as radioactive
plutonium, uranium, strontium and cesium. These materials increase mutations, and they remain
harmfully toxic for thousands or even millions of years. Accidents at nuclear power facilities
have resulted in decreases in regional animal and plant populations and damaging food sources,
water sources and entire ecosystems. Studies conducted around Hanford, Washington revealed
that even small concentrations of nuclear waste damaged plants, contaminated soil, and rendered
edible crops dangerous to eat.
To date, the only containment solution is to bury the waste. However, burial is neither safe nor
predictable, since there are no successful ways to dispose of waste or remediate contaminated
sites. Various amounts of radioactive materials continue to be found in animals, soils, plants, and
water near storage and production facilities. Studies suggest that protracted exposure to nuclear
waste has resulted in genetic and epigenetic mutations in wildlife.
Champion Briefs
326
1AR Inherency - Health Impact.

Ryser, Rudolph. The Indigenous World Under A Nuclear Cloud. Truthout . 03-27-2016. Web.
August 16, 2016. <http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35381-the-indigenous-worldunder-a-nuclear-cloud>.
Radioactive substances carry uniquely dangerous characteristics compared to other toxins made
by human industry. When nuclear technology was first being developed, researchers quickly
discovered that radioactive isotopes had a super-poisonous quality. They destroy cells, damage
the immune and digestive system, and accelerate aging and death. Radioactive isotopes
accumulate in different organs of the body, including the lungs, thyroid, or kidneys. There, they
trigger growth of cancerous cells. Worse, the consequences are far-reaching: they cause transgenerational harm through genetic alteration.
Anyone exposed to the fallout of nuclear accidents, waste disposal or tests may experience any
number of consequences including increased cancer rates, birth defects, severe cognitive
disabilities, premature aging and death. Thyroid cancer and leukemia are among the most
common cancers associated with radiation exposure. It is also an established cause of
cardiovascular disease and solid tumors. However, It is not just high-levels of radiation exposure
that are dangerous. As early as 1956, a report commissioned by the US Atomic Energy
Commission (AEC) found that even low-levels of radiation could cause harmful genetic changes
in individuals and in entire populations with significant trans-generational results. In a recent
major World Health Organization study, scientists pointed to the emissions from nuclear power
plants as a specific source of potential increased cancer risk -- particularly from disposed spent
radioactive fuel rods.
Champion Briefs
327
ADV1 Meltdowns - Brink/Extinction Overview.

Huff, Ethan. Nuclear Power + Grid Down Event = Global Extinction For Humanity. Natural
News. December 08, 2014. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.naturalnews.com/046429_nuclear_power_electric_grid_global_extinction.ht
ml>.
(NaturalNews) If you think the Fukushima situation is bad, consider the fact that the United
States is vulnerable to the exact same meltdown situation, except at 124 separate nuclear reactors
throughout the country. If anything should happen to our nations poorly protected electric power
grid, these reactors have a high likelihood of failure, say experts, a catastrophic scenario that
would most likely lead to the destruction of all life on our planet, including humans.
Though they obviously generate power themselves, nuclear power plants also rely on an
extensive system of power backups that ensure the constant flow of cooling water to reactor
cores. In the event of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP), for instance, diesel-powered backup
generators are designed to immediately engage, ensuring that fuel rods and reactor cores dont
overheat and melt, causing unmitigated destruction.
But most of these generators were only designed to operate for a maximum period of about 24
hours or less, meaning they are exceptionally temporary in nature. In a real emergency situation,
such as one that might be caused by a systematic attack on the power grid, it could take days or
even weeks to bring control systems back online. At this point, all those backup generators
would have already run out of fuel, leaving nuclear reactors everywhere prone to meltdowns.
Champion Briefs
328
1AR ADV1 Meltdowns - Cultural Genocide Overview A.

Risks of Radioactive and Chemical Exposures Faced by Fourth World Peoples
Medical, genetic and social researchers have attempted to understand the complex public health
effects of exposure to radioactive elements. Researchers conducting human subjects experiments
repeatedly conclude that radioactive exposures cause many serious health problems. Various
types of cancers, tumors, genetic mutations, congenital malformations, heart failure,
gastrointestinal disorders, immunological dysfunction, and infertility are the common results. For
Fourth World peoples, these risks overlap the destruction of culture and heritage, natural
resources and and denial of their human rights. Contaminated plants, water, animals, and soil in
the worlds nuclear hot spots are also the foods, medicines, and sacred places. As with any
human society these are central to indigenous religions, cultures, identities, societies, economies,
and knowledge bases -- life. Thus, the burden of nuclear contamination essentially destroys these
life-supporting resources and amounts to cultural genocide, or culturcide. These consequences
are particularly acute on the Spokane Indian Reservation, parts of the Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Reservation and the Yakama.
Champion Briefs
329
1AR ADV1 Meltdowns - Cultural Genocide Overview B.

The continuity of cultures in nuclear zones is an unstudied topic. The dynamic relationship
between a people, earth and the cosmos is dramatically interrupted when the catastrophic
introduction of nuclear radiation and toxic chemicals lays waste on a society. Fourth World
nations across the globe repeatedly insist that the states responsible for the contamination of their
territories have failed to clean up contaminated sites or to prevent further damage. Even where
states government bodies have tried to manage the health risks of radioactive contamination,
they have done so in ways that neglect harmful consequences to cultures. Some states
governments use risk avoidance strategies to reduce or prevent damage to peoples health. In
northwest United States, for example, the US Department of Ecology uses fish consumptions
rates to prevent people from eating irradiated fish -- telling the public not to eat high levels of
fish to avoid cancer risks. Instead of cleaning up the waste, or preventing its storage in the first
place, avoidance warnings ask Fourth World peoples to stop using foods and medicines, even
though they are core aspects of their cultures and community.
Champion Briefs
330
1AR FW - Plan Meet RoB Overview.

Network. 04-25-2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
This essay will proceed to assert that the utilitarian foundations of the nuclear energy debate
the understanding that by minimizing the harm one can justify the reward as adopted by
organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is an inadequate
approach. This is based on two distinct ways that nuclear energy impacts our current society as
well as threatens the livelihood of future generations, in light of the understanding that nuclear
energy is not the only alternative available. There is currently no safe method of disposing of the
waste and reactor facilities are currently susceptible to radioactive leaks and meltdowns, both of
which threaten the livelihoods of all those exposed to the by-product. Especially when
considering that nuclear energy is not the only alternative, just the most powerful, thoroughly
understanding the very impacts these three particular issues have on our current population as
well as on the well being of future generations will paint a much different picture of the ethical
considerations.
Champion Briefs
331
1NC Frontlining DA - Link.

Biello, David. How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming. Scientific American.
December 12, 2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-globalwarming/>.
When the Atlantic Navigator docked in Baltimore harbor earlier this month, the freighter carried
the last remnants of some of the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union had brandished in the
cold war. During the past 20 years more than 19,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled
and processed to make fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors. In fact, during that period more than half
the uranium fuel that powered the more than 100 reactors in the U.S. came from such
reprocessed nuclear weapons.
In addition to reducing the risk of nuclear war, U.S. reactors have also been staving off another
global challenge: climate change. The low-carbon electricity produced by such reactors provides
20 percent of the nations power and, by the estimates of climate scientist James Hansen of
Columbia University, avoided 64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also
avoided spewing soot and other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved
some 1.8 million lives.
And thats why Hansen, among others, such as former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks
that nuclear power is a key energy technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. We cant
burn all these fossil fuels, Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long
as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned. Coal is almost
half the [global] emissions. If you replace these power plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors
you could do a lot of [pollution reduction] quickly.
Champion Briefs
332
1NC Frontlining DA - Proliferation Impact.

Warren, Roslyn. Georgetown Security Studies Review Miscalculating Nuclear Deterrence In
The Middle East: Why Kenneth Waltz Gets It Wrong. Georgetown Security Studies
Review. 12-19-2013. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2013/12/19/miscalculating-nucleardeterrence-in-the-middle-east-why-kenneth-waltz-gets-it-wrong/>.
In contrast, many nuclear proliferation experts use the stability-instability paradox to explain
how regions with rival nuclear powers become increasingly unstable. The stability-instability
paradox posits that two nuclear-armed, adversarial states, believing that neither will initiate a
nuclear strike, can and will increasingly engage in offensive posturing and limited conflict with
one another.[5] The newly-weaponized, revisionist state for example, Pakistan or potentially
Iran feels emboldened, and more freely resorts to adventurism in the form of enhanced
offensive posturing, increasing low-level conflict, and perhaps stronger support for terrorists. On
the other hand, the status quo state India or Israel in these cases perceives its freedom of
action constrained by its adversarys new status.[6] Instability at the conventional level in the
form of more pronounced aggressive posturing and/or limited conflict heightens tensions
between major regional powers, and leaves the door open for escalation and miscalculation at the
nuclear level.
Champion Briefs
333
1NC Frontlining DA - Warming Impact.

Flournoy, Don. Solar Power Satellites. SpringerBriefs in Space Development. December 31,
2011. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-46142000-2>.
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard
Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, The
evidence of global warming is alarming, noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate
change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in
monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received firsthand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of
polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on
the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global
warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are
due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts
that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations
between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earths atmosphere with respect to the
historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the
worlds scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global
climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we
continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earths biosphere, humanity will be
at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with
some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy
addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is
because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction
of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances (Hsu 2010 )
Champion Briefs
334
A2 Environmental Harm.
Lynas, Mark. Why A Green Future Needs Nuclear Power. An Ecomodernist Manifesto. 06-182015. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.ecomodernism.org/readings/2015/6/17/why-agreen-future-needs-nuclear-power>.
Despite all the high emotion that nuclear power seems to cause, few people remember the rather
prosaic fact that all a nuclear reactor does is generate heat. This heat boils water into steam,
which expands to drive turbines, just as in any other thermal power plant. Unlike in a coal or gas
plant, however, nuclear does not release CO2 because it operates via fission rather than
combustion of fuel. (There are emissions produced in the mining and refining of uranium, and
via the concrete and steel of a power plant. Most experts agree that nuclear has emissions
comparable to those of wind power.) The problem is that the splitting apart of atoms of uranium
to generate this heat releases highly-radioactive fission product elements which need to be
safeguarded in order to prevent them harming people.
I recently visited one of the UKs fleet of Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors at Hinkley Point B in
Somerset, and was conducted on a tour by the plants owner, EDF Energy. I was able to walk
around right on top of the reactor core, and could feel a gentle humming as the gas circulated
below my feet to conduct away heat being produced by the fissioning of uranium in the fuel rods.
The core is so heavily protected by concrete shielding that I needed no special protection (other
than the standard-issue hazmat suit and goggles which are mandatory for everyone inside the
building) and the dosimeter my guide was carrying remained obstinately at a zero reading the
entire time. Looking round the turbine hall afterwards, I could see a digital display indicating
that the plant was generating 500 megawatts of clean power, enough to run a small city.
Nuclear powers singular environmental advantage can be summed up in the term energy
density consider that a golf ball-sized lump of uranium, weighing just 780 grams, can deliver
enough energy to cover all your lifetime use, including electricity, car driving, jet flights,
food, and manufactured goods a total of 6.4 million kWh. To get the same energy output from
coal would require 3,200 tonnes of black rock, a mass equivalent to 800 adult elephants and
resulting in more than 11,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The volume of this pile of coal would be
4,000 cubic meters: you can imagine it as a cube 16 meters in height, depth and width, about the
size of a large 5-story building.
Champion Briefs
335

A2 Environmental Harm. (Continued).
Lynas, Mark. Why A Green Future Needs Nuclear Power. An Ecomodernist Manifesto. 06-182015. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.ecomodernism.org/readings/2015/6/17/why-agreen-future-needs-nuclear-power>.
The uranium fuel cycle is not the only way that nuclear power can be generated. Recently the
potential of thorium as a nuclear fuel has generated a lot of interest thorium is much more
abundant than uranium in the Earths crust, and could conceivably power advanced human
civilization for tens of thousands of years. (All these heavy elements were originally fused in a
supernova, an epochal explosion of a previous star more than 5 billion years ago, before our own
sun and solar system came into existence. What we are doing is merely reversing the energy
cycle which that supernova generated.) Either way, nuclear power is the only means by which
we can generate prodigious amounts of energy with only a tiny human footprint on the planetary
biosphere.
Champion Briefs
336
1NR Scare Tactics Indict.

Lynas, Mark. Why A Green Future Needs Nuclear Power. An ECOMODERNIST
MANIFESTO. 06-18-2015. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.ecomodernism.org/readings/2015/6/17/why-a-green-future-needs-nuclearpower>.
Conspiratorial thinking about nuclear power was also rampant in the US, where activists
believed that power company executives would stop at nothing to contaminate and poison the
population in the name of utility profits, fictional scenarios acted out in Hollywood movies
like The China Syndrome and Silkwood. The extraordinary coincidence between the release
of The China Syndromeand the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) in 1979 led to a national
panic: few in the media or general public were prepared to believe official reassurances about
safety and containment even though they later turned out to largely be true. (Only a tiny release
of radiation took place at TMI, far too small to cause any health effects in the surrounding
population.)
On one occasion, opposition to nuclear power did spill over into outright violence: on the night
of 18 January 1982, five RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades (apparently sourced from Germanys
murderous Red Army Faction) were fired across the Rhone River in France at the unfinished
containment dome of the Superphenix fast reactor, where earlier mass protests involving
thousands had left dozens injured and one person dead. The perpetrator Chaim Nissim who
remained anonymous for two decades later became a Green Party MP in Switzerland, and
today works as a member of a Swiss think-tank promoting renewable energy. To date this
episode is still the only terrorist attack to have been carried out against a civil nuclear installation
in the world.
Champion Briefs
337
Champion Briefs
Evidence for the

Negative
NEG: Deontology NC
Deontology NC
Deontology in its most basic sense is a normative ethical position that judges the morality
of an action based on how closely it aligns to a set of rules or ethical standards. Since its early
days, much of the debate surrounding nuclear power from a deontological perspective has
focused on its negative repercussions. Many deontologists would reject nuclear power on face
because of its non-renewability, its general relationship with nuclear weapons, and its adverse
effects on future civilizations. The cards provided should offer valuable assistance on this
perspective but are generally more focused on subverting this narrative and making deontology
work as a pro nuclear argument. To this end there are a couple of tasks necessary for the
negative. The first is establishing a framework. Reading a deontology NC could end up being
extremely strategic because in many instance you will just be coopting the affirmative
framework. Deontology is traditionally wielded against nuclear power and as such reading
framework might not necessary. On the other hand this also means the affirmative will be very
prepared for the link debate. In either event, the negative should have a robust defense of
deontology prepared; the only real question is deployment in specific rounds. Beyond the
framework the link debate is most important. Here the negative will be tasked with proving that
nuclear power can be justified under deontological ethics. One option here is to focus on fossil
fuels in the SQ and simply compare nuclear power. The Nuclear Energy International evidence is
really good on this question because it isolates intergenerational ethical concerns as the focal
point for a deontological defense of nuclear power. An additional option might be to extend the
link story to nuclear weapons and impact turn horizontal proliferation. Authors argue both ways
on the deontological validity of nuclear deterrence so be prepared on this link debate. There are
also answers to this position included. It is important to note that much of this file can be useful
as link turns to deontology affirmatives even without the negative establishing a robust
framework. As always make sure you are familiar with the generic
utilitarianism/consequentialism vs deontology debate if you wish to deploy these arguments.
Champion Briefs
339
NEG: Deontology NC
Nuclear power is a necessary alternative to fossil fuels.

Nuclear Engineering International. A Deontological Solution To The Waste Problem. Nuclear
Engineering International. 10-30-2001. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-deontological-solution-to-the-wasteproblem/>.
The merit of MRSS as an interim solution is also dependent to some extent on the likelihood of
the need for a large re-expansion of nuclear power within the next 50-300 years, in order to meet
the demand for new energy sources. These will become essential as the finite supplies of fossil
fuels become depleted, or considerations such as global warming necessitate a reduction in the
rate at which they are consumed. Thus at some future time, the re-expansion of nuclear power is
likely to be necessary. This would have a five-fold effect on the management of high level waste.
These factors are as follows: Future generations within the next few hundred years would have a
much larger amount of high level waste to manage than that accumulated in this generation and
thus would have a powerful incentive to find the optimum solution. The continued use of nuclear
power would ensure that rigorous regulation of the whole of the nuclear industry would be
maintained. The stock of plutonium from the operation of existing power stations would provide
a valuable energy source for future generations (for example, if used as the initial charges for a
programme of fast breeder reactors, it could provide a fully sustainable source of energy) and
thus could, at least in part, satisfy the requirement for equity between generations.
Champion Briefs
340
NEG: Deontology NC
Terrorist attacks of facilities are unlikely in the future.

The strong likelihood that the plutonium would be required in the relatively near future would
render continuous reprocessing of irradiated fuel, using the existing capacity, the most economic
way of providing this resource for future generations. At the same time, it would simplify the
management of high level waste, as the half-lives of nearly all the other isotopes present in the
waste would be much less than that of plutonium. Storage of the accumulated plutonium in a
single, high security facility should, in UK conditions, avoid the possibility of any of the material
being acquired by terrorists; the non-plutonium bearing high level waste would be an
unattractive target for terrorists.
Champion Briefs
341
NEG: Deontology NC
Deontology has been weaponized against nuclear power.

Nuclear Engineering International. . Nuclear Engineering International. 10-30-2001. Web.
August 14, 2016. <http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-deontologicalsolution-to-the-waste-problem/>.
Since the time of Aristotle and Plato, there have been many different schools of ethics, often with
a conflict of views between contemporary schools. The present generation is no exception. There
are two main schools: the deontological school, which considers the rights of the individual, both
in the present and future generations, to be paramount and the utilitarian, which is more
concerned with the greater good of the greatest number, both in this and subsequent generations.
Looking back over three decades, it appears that the opponents of nuclear power, notably in the
USA, realised that the ideas of the deontological school could be used to provide an ethical basis
for their opposition. Moreover, because of its concern for future generations and the extremely
long term problems presented by high level waste, the views of the deontological school
provided an ideal means for demanding extremely rigourous requirements and then
demonstrating that it was unlikely that they could be met, leading to the conclusion that the use
of nuclear power should cease as soon as possible.
Champion Briefs
342
NEG: Deontology NC
Ignoring nuclear power as an option is a deontological

violation.
A major weakness in the position of the deontological school, which undermines the moral high
ground claimed by the opponents of nuclear power, is its failure to consider the right of the
underpriveleged members of this generation compared with (by inference) the average members
of future generations.
Champion Briefs
343
NEG: Deontology NC
Without a viable alternative nuclear is the only ethical

choice.
<http://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-deontological-solution-to-the-wasteproblem/]>.
A further weakness of the arguments of the opponents of nuclear power in this respect is the very
clear precept of the deontological school that, if this generation depletes a scarce resource (such
as fossil fuel), it should provide a replacement for future generations. Thus, in the absence of
proof that non-nuclear renewable energy sources would be able to replace fossil fuels in a way
that will be acceptable economically and environmentally, there should be no objection on
ethical grounds to the continuation of the use of nuclear power, reprocessing the fuel (both
proven technologies) and stockpiling the plutonium as a future energy source. It should be noted
that, on ethical grounds, the replacement energy sources should have as low a cost as possible
consistent with other constraints, until such time as there is no scarcity of resources for
improving the lot of the least priveleged members of society.
Champion Briefs
344
NEG: Deontology NC
Status quo deontological ethecists have succeeded in framing

public debates against nuclear power.
In spite of these deficiencies in the ethical arguments, it seems that the purveyors of
deontological ethics have been successful in persuading the general public in most countries that
high level waste presents a more serious hazard than the nuclear power stations which produce it;
as a corollary, in several countries, the further use of nuclear power is now uncertain. This is
possibly due to the emphasis on the longevity of the high level waste, although paradoxically,
opinion polls show that in general, members of the public take little interest in possible events
much more than 100 years ahead.
Champion Briefs
345
NEG: Deontology NC
There is a scarcity of resources for global poverty

alleviation.
The deontological school of ethics, although very concerned about the welfare of future
generations, has little to say about how scarce resources should be used to benefit the poorer
sections of the present generation, possibly to the detriment of future ones. The scarcity of
resources for such purposes is shown by the inability of most of the developed countries to
contibute the promised 0.7% of the GNPs to UN aid programmes; the average is less than 0.3%.
The utilitarian school, however, would in principle seek to use scarce resources to provide an
optimum distribution of benefits between the present and future generations, taking into account
the current disparities in factors such as the provision of health care and opportunities for
education within the present generation, on a world-wide basis.
Champion Briefs
346
NEG: Deontology NC
Perm: We need both deontological and utilitarian

approaches to nuclear power.
NuclearEngineeringInternational. A Deontological Solution To The Waste Problem. Nuclear
There should be an acceptable compromise between the deontological and the utilitarian schools
of thought. There is a need to reconsider the ethical basis for high level waste management. In an
era where there are great differences between living standards in the developed and developing
countries, but resources to reduce the differences are scarce, it should be generally acceptable, on
ethical grounds, to allocate a higher proportion of those resources to the certain needs of the
under-priveleged in the present generation and less to the possible needs of future generations.
This view has previously been put forward, notably to the NEA Radioactive Waste Management
Committee, but the Committee excluded the intergenerational and intragenerational equity
aspects, as it believed that these were too dependent on national political factors. Nonetheless,
there was some debate in discussion sessions. The Committee stated: When considering
resource allocation, risks from radioactive wastes must be kept in perspective with competing
projects in the area of human health and environmental protection, but did not pursue the matter
further.
Champion Briefs
347
NEG: Deontology NC
Nuclear meltdown is an ethical concern.

df>.
Nuclear plants are considered an ethical issue because of this possibility of a nuclear meltdown.
A nuclear meltdown can occur if fission creates too much energy and overheats, causing damage
to the surrounding structures and releasing radiation into the environment. It can also occur if the
structures surrounding the nuclear reactor themselves suffer a malfunction, allowing radiation
leaks. Finally, it can occur if cooling systems, such as the pressurized water moderator,
malfunctions, damage the structures surrounding the nuclear reactor, and release radiation into
the environment. Accidents at Three-Mile Island in the United States (1979) and Chernobyl in
Ukraine (1986) have prompted the public to raise serious questions about nuclear safety (OECD,
2005).
Champion Briefs
348
NEG: Deontology NC
An outright ban on nuclear power is morally bankrupt

under any system.
and Pacific Project. 11-xx-2009. Web. August 14, 2016. <Ethics of Nuclear Energy
Technology
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.538.8674&rep=rep1&type=pd
f>.
It may be difficult to argue that nuclear energy should be absolutely prohibited simply because
accidents can occur. It is equally difficult to argue that such accidents should be downplayed and
are rare. Utilitarianism may consider a simple multiplication product. The magnitude of the
harm is multiplied by the probability of its occurrence. In the case of nuclear meltdowns, the
magnitude of the harm can be enormous. While Three-Mile Island did not produce any direct
recorded deaths from radiation, the indirect health and environmental damage was inconclusive.
Chernobyl, however, resulted in over 50 confirmed deaths due to radiation burns or developing
cancer after the accident (WNA, 2009). The number of unconfirmed deaths or health effects
could be very large (WNA, 2009). The probability of an accident, however, can be very slim.
Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island are the only major accidents of nuclear meltdown (WNA,
2009). Moreover, safety systems have evolved, and are now considered very comprehensive,
embracing defense-in-depth, multiply redundant safety systems, and inherent and passive safety
systems (WNA, 2009). Moreover, many ethical documents and guidelines exist, such as those
from the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) and the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA). However, perhaps more comprehensive, integrated, and measurable safety
cultures can to be implemented through mechanisms ranging from safety guidelines to employee
performance appraisals.
Champion Briefs
349
NEG: Deontology NC
Low level radiation leeks need to be weighed against GHG

emission reductions to calculate the net environmental effect
of nuclear power.
and Pacific Project. 11-xx-2009. Web. August 14, 2016. <Ethics of Nuclear Energy
Technology
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.538.8674&rep=rep1&type=pd
f>.
A second issue arising from nuclear plants is the low level radiation leaks into the environment.
There have been studies showing that there are such possible leaks, but the overall results have
been inconclusive. For instance, a recent German study found that children under the age of five
living less than five kilometres from nuclear plant exhaust stacks had twice the risk for
contracting leukemia as those residing more than five kilometres (Nussbaum, 2009). However,
such studies are contracted by the conclusions of other studies, as the report admits (Nussbaum,
2009). The scientific issue may revolve around study methodologies and what statistically
significant really means. As to the scientific cause, this may be from the water being used to
drive the turbines in the secondary loop may contain low levels of radiation which are carried
away into the environment or the waste produced by the plant which may inadvertently be leaked
into the surroundings. These are also subject to an ethical calculation, but the information for
magnitudes and probabilities are inconclusive. Nuclear fallout from accidents decades ago may
have also resulted in low level radiation, although this would be at a reduced level today. For
instance, strontium-90, which is considered hazardous, was dispersed from Chernobyl (EPA,
2009). The above issues should, however, be considered in light of zero GHG emissions of
nuclear plants. The environmental benefits of nuclear energy can be seen clearly in France. In the
1980s, because of concerns over imported oil, France more than tripled its nuclear energy
production. During the same period, total pollution from the French electric power system
dropped by 80-90 percent (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2009).
Champion Briefs
350
NEG: Deontology NC
Current waste management strategies fail to incorporate

social uncertainties.
df>.
If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, it must be stored. This raises several ethical issues, which
include the inadequacies of current waste management decision-making, underutilized ethical
principles including intergenerational equity concerns, and the perceived lack of information by
the public. First, current waste management decisions5 are often criticized because they do not
incorporate social uncertainties. Current radiation waste risk modeling is based on probabilities
of equipment and structural failures, natural disasters, and other physical variables. They often
do not consider constantly changing attitudes and ethical opinions, and when they do, it is often
subjective. For instance, a detailed study of three different participative decision-making
processes employed by France, U.K. and Korea for their longterm radiation waste management
showed that current methods of determining social risk perceptions are predominantly subjective
(Rao, 2008).
Champion Briefs
351
NEG: Deontology NC
The Uranium supply is highly concentrated.

df>.
Most of the worlds uranium is obtained from Canada (20.5%), Kazakhstan (19.4%) and
Australia (19.2%) (WNA, 2009). The current supply of uranium is therefore stable, as these
countries tend to have lower political and economic risk. For instance, the UN Conference on
Trade and Development Index (TDI) in 2007 ranked Canada as 10th and Australia as 16th (data
on Kazakhstan was not available) (WNA, 2009d). However, there will be significant political
differences in the manner in which such resources are controlled. For instance, some states, such
as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brazil which are suspicious of their potential suppliers (Richter,
2008). The GNEP and Nuclear Suppliers group, present complex issues because is it fair that
the GNEP supplier nations are the only states to supply? In the same way, is it fair that the
Nuclear Suppliers Group is fair?
Champion Briefs
352
NEG: Deontology NC
Restrictive trade measures that are used to ensure

compliance with nuclear safety standards are ethically
costly.
df>.
The use of export controls and technical verifications here may also reduce any risks of
proliferation, chiefly directed at non-state actors such as terrorists. Advancements in
proliferation-resistant technologies may also help. While Nunn (2008) and others have proposed
steps to curtail nuclear terrorism, such risks and prevention measures as well as technological
investments may be costly, and the risk still is non-zero. It may be beneficial to take a more
integrated approach to countering this threat. For instance, tactics may need to shift from a
predominantly technology and fissile material stock monitoring approach to targeting terror
financing and social capital.
Champion Briefs
353
NEG: Deontology NC
Individual actions influence the natural environment, the

consequences of which shape our perception of nuclear
safety policy making.
Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, describes the relationship between nuclear energy use
policies and ethical thought by noting that actions performed by individuals, as consumers and
citizens have aggregate negative consequences on the natural environment. (Carson, 1962, p. 5)
Carsons description states that this relationship stems from various actions done by the general
public and by political nuclear energy use policies. These actions can either directly or gradually
contribute to a series of negative consequences over time. This means that historical issues play a
role in the relationship between nuclear energy use policies and ethics. The primary historical
issue is the change in the public perception of nuclear accidents as distinct from the
organizational perception of nuclear accidents. This relationship needs to be explored.
Champion Briefs
354
NEG: Deontology NC
Ethical questions are useful in policy making because they

catalyze public empathy towards complex environments.
Drawing from the comparison of the two case studies, the question of whether the shift in public
concern is beneficial has yet to be answered. On the one hand, one could argue that this ethical
and historical analysis is a cornerstone in evaluating long-term nuclear energy use policies, as it
will make people think twice before abusing such a complex energy source. It could also cause
states to consider alternative energy sources that are safer and ethical. On the other hand, one
could argue that the public concern about the release of nuclear materials into the natural
environment is inevitable, but nothing can be done to solve this issue because nuclear energy is a
necessary evil that is cost-effective and has a powerful lobby. What both sides of the issue
neglect, however, is that there is a middle ground, and that is that the ethical shift in public
concern is for the better because it causes people to not only think twice about nuclear energy,
but also help governments to realize what their priorities ought to be, i.e., to the citizens whom
they serve. This means that serving citizens is more important than nuclear power.
Champion Briefs
355
NEG: Deontology NC
Nuclear power is vulnerable to weaponization.

Problem. Energy Policy . 11-17-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
At the meso scale, fossil fuels are prone to depletion, nuclear power is expensive, and
hydroelectric dams can disrupt ecosystems and damage livelihoods. Looking at current reserve to
production ratios for proven fossil fuel reserves and identified uranium resources, with a zero
increase in production the world has 137 years of coal left, 60 years of natural gas, 43 years of
petroleum, and 85 years of uranium (Brown and Sovacool, 2011). Given the projected growing
consumption levels, at least in fossil fuels, depletion is likely to happen much sooner. One
unique governance challenge to nuclear power is the connection between reactors and weapons
of mass destruction, and the average construction time for all 376 nuclear power plants built
from 1976 to 2007 was greater than 7 years and some have loomed on for more than 20 years.
Hydroelectric dams can drastically disrupt the movement of species and change upstream and
downstream habitats, and require the forcible relocation of tens of thousands of people.
Champion Briefs
356
NEG: Deontology NC
Deontologists have traditionally argued against nuclear

deterrence.
McMahan, Jeff. Deterrence And Deontology. Ethics. 04-xx-1985. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://jeffersonmcmahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Deterrence-andDeontology.pdf>.
The most familiar and probably the most widely accepted moral objection to the policy of
nuclear deterrence is that it involves a conditional intention to use nuclear weapons in ways that
would be immoral. Because it requires this intention, which is itself held to be wrongful, nuclear
deterrence is deemed to be immoral, even if it is successful and nuclear weapons are never used.
This Deontologists Argument is one which makes many of those who are skeptical about the
morality of nuclear deterrence uncomfortable. For, obviously, one can (as I do) believe both that
there are strong moral arguments against nuclear deterrence and that this particular argument is
not among them. Yet in rejecting the argument one not only risks giving the impression that it is
fine to intend to commit mass murder but also risks losing important allies in the antinuclear
movement (particularly in theological circles) whose faith in this particular argument is the sole
basis of their opposition to nuclear deterrence.
Champion Briefs
357
NEG: Deontology NC
It is deontologically valid for a democratic citizenry to

support and insist on a policy of deterrence.
Should I pursue a policy of deterrence? Pursuing the policy would probably have the effect of
preventing my country from being attacked with nuclear weapons. It would thus save the lives of
millions of innocent people. Moreover, the pursuit of the policy would not entail a risk that the
weapons would actually be used. (Assume that, for whatever reason, whether or not I follow the
policy will have no effect on the voting in the later referendum.) In spite of all this, the
Deontologists Argument implies that it would be wrong for me to pursue a policy of deterrence.
For the people in the military chain of command would have the conditional intention to fire the
nuclear weapons on receiving the command from me. Thus, according to this argument, the
policy would inevitably involve the transgression of an absolute prohibition. Again this
conclusion seems absurd. For not only does it not seem wrong for me to pursue a policy of
nuclear deterrence in these circumstances, but it would also seem to be my duty to do so. It might
be objected here that the Deontologists Argument does not in fact condemn my adopting a
policy of nuclear deterrence since I would be bluffing and would not, therefore, be doing
anything which is absolutely forbidden. The argument would of course condemn the persons in
the military chain of command for having the conditional intention to use nuclear weapons, but
that is another matter. They are free and autonomous agents, and hence my action cannot be
condemned because of what they do. Notice, however, that my position in this example vis-a-vis
the persons in the military chain of command is exactly analogous to that of the citizens in a
democracy vis-a-vis their elected leaders. If it is not wrong for me to cause military
commanders to have the conditional intention to use nuclear weapons, then it is also not wrong
for the citizens in a democracy to demand a policy of deterrence, thereby requiring their leaders
to have the offending intention. In short, unless the Deontologists Argument rules out my
implementing a deterrent strategy in our hypothetical example, it will then permit the citizens in
a democracy to support, indeed, insist on, a policy of nuclear deterrence- though it will of course
condemn the action of their leaders who will be required, in implementing the policy, to form the
conditional intention to use nuclear weapons.
Champion Briefs
358
NEG: Deontology NC
Ethics can only be determined based on likely events.

In both cases some further principle may be necessary to bridge the gap between the wrongdoing
of those who have the conditional intention and the wrongdoing of those who cause the others to
have the intention. Such a principle would condemn as wrong the causing of another to do wrong
or to intend to do wrong- though the precise nature and scope of the principle need not detain us
here.20 We do not, for example, need to determine whether such a principle would absolutely
forbid causing another to do what would be absolutely forbidden. In the hypothetical case
sketched above, even if what I do in implementing the policy is not absolutely ruled out, the
policy itself is since it cannot be implemented without the violation of an absolute prohibition.
This example brings out quite vividly the way in which the Deontologists Argument has gone
wrong. It shows, I think, that it is a mistake to locate the wrongness of deterrence in the supposed
intrinsic wrongness of the conditional intention rather than in the fact that following a policy of
deterrence normally entails a risk of deliberately using nuclear weapons. Thus the argument
implies that nuclear deterrence is wrong in cases, such as the present one, in which there is no
possibility that possessing nuclear weapons for purposes of deterrence will lead to their being
used, while it does not imply that the policy is wrong in other cases, such as that of Incertia, even
though in those cases the policy carries a substantial risk that the weapons will be deliberately
used.
Champion Briefs
359
NEG: Deontology NC
Deterrence is hard to justify deontologically.

While the Deontologists Argument seems clearly mistaken, the foregoing critique suggests that
it may be possible to construct a more powerful argument against nuclear deterrence within a
deontological framework. This argument would retain the claim that it would be wrong to use
nuclear weapons in the ways that have to be threatened to maintain deterrence but would have as
its second premise a principle similar to the bridge principle suggested in the last section. This
similar principle is that it is wrong, other things being equal, to risk doing that which it would be
wrong to do2 and wrong to support a policy which carries a risk of wrongdoing-in particular a
policy which makes it possible for wrong to be done in ones name or with ones authorization.
The arguments third premise would then be that any policy of nuclear deterrence which it would
be possible for citizens in a democracy to support would involve a risk that nuclear weapons
would be used with their authorization. It follows from these three claims that it would be wrong
for citizens in a democracy to support a policy of nuclear deterrence. This is a powerful
argument. It is not in the least implausible to suppose that it is wrong to risk having the
horrendous crime of genocide perpetrated by ones representatives, on ones behalf, and with
ones authorization-even if the aim is to protect ones own life and liberty. Can we really in good
conscience defend our lives and liberty by taking a calculated risk that millions of innocent
people will be murdered in our name?
Champion Briefs
360
NEG: Deontology NC
In popular discourse sustainability is synonymous with

socially and politically desirable.
Many of the analyses regarding the desirability of nuclear power seem to revolve around this
notion of sustainable development and the specific interpretations made by different scholars and
organizations (Elliott, 2007; IAEA, 2006; Turkenburg, 2004). The implicit assumption seems to
be that sustainability is synonymous with social and political desirability. Proponents find
nuclear energy sustainable as it can produce clean, secure and reliable electricity that does not
put the earths climate in jeopardy (Bonser, 2002); other enthusiasts have more reservations but
maintain that nuclear power can contribute to sustainable development in a transitional role
towards establishing sustainable [renewable] energy systems(Bruggink & Van der Zwaan,
2002, p.151). The latter endorse the popular opinion that we are facing an energy gap in the
coming decades which can only be filled with nuclear power (Connor, 2005; Pagnamenta, 2009).
The detractors, on the other hand, are utterly resolute in their view that nuclear power is
inherently unsustainable, uneconomic, dirty and dangerous (GreenPeace, 2006).
Champion Briefs
361
NEG: Deontology NC
Sustainability is founded on principals of social justice.

Debate. Nuclear power- Deployment, Operation and Sustainability . September 09,
2011. Web. August 14, 2016. <http://www.intechopen.com/books/nuclear-powerdeployment-operation-and-sustainability/ethics-of-nuclear-power-how-to-understandsustainability-in-the-nuclear-debate>.
Before getting into detailed discussion about what exactly sustainability should protect, let us
pause for a moment to elaborate on the philosophical roots of the notion of sustainability.
Brundtlands sustainability is founded on principles of social justice viewed from two main
angles: 1) the distribution of wealth among contemporaries or the spatial dimension and 2) the
distribution of burdens and benefits between generations or the temporal dimension.
Sustainability also has a third main theme, namely that of the relationship that human beings
have with their natural environment which, again, has both a spatial and a temporal dimension.
The question of how to value the environment in a moral discussion will be addressed in Section
3.
Champion Briefs
362
NEG: Deontology NC
The production of nuclear power creates a problem of

intergenerational justice.
Let me present and briefly discuss the central claim that underlies my analysis, namely that the
production of nuclear power creates a problem of intergenerational justice. There are two
intergenerational aspects in nuclear power production that support this claim. Firstly, nuclear
energy is produced from a non-renewable resource (uranium) that will eventually be less
available to future generations. Stephen Gardiner (2003, 5) refers to this problem as The Pure
Intergenerational Problem (PIP), which is in fact an exacerbated form of the Tragedy of the
Commons, extended over generations. The Tragedy of the Commons is a situation in which
various rational agents might be inclined to deplete limited resources on the basis of their own
self-interest, while the same action will negatively affects the collective interest. The dilemma
was first illustrated in an article compiled by Garrett Hardin, in which he pictured a pasture open
to many herdsmen (Hardin, 1968). It is in individual interest of each herder to keep as much
cattle as possible on the common ground while in collective terms such a strategy would
culminate in the fast depletion of the common. Gardiner extends this argument to include
different generations. He imagines a world that consists of temporally distinct groups that can
asymmetrically influence each other; earlier groups have nothing to gain from the activities or
attitudes of later groups. Each generation has access to a diversity of temporally diffuse
commodities. It is in the individual interest of each generation to use as many as possible of these
commodities, but it is in the collective interest of all temporally diffused generations if earlier
generations would avoid depletion. Hence, engaging in activity with these goods poses the
problem of justice between generations.
Champion Briefs
363
NEG: Deontology NC
Intergenerational justice has informed multilateral action.

Intergenerational justice has already been an influential notion in discussions related to nuclear
energy, particularly in relation to nuclear waste issues. The International Atomic and Energy
Agency (IAEA) has laid down several principles on Radioactive Waste Management, in which
concerns about the future were expressed in terms of the achievement of intergenerational
equity[1] - (IAEA, 1995). It was asserted that nuclear waste should be managed in such a way
that it will not impose undue burdens on future generations (IAEA, 1995, Pr. 5). Many nations
agree that this undue burdens clause must be taken to mean that nuclear waste should be
disposed of in geological repositories which, it is believed, will guarantee the long-term safety of
future generations (NEA-OECD, 1995). I will defer further discussion on this issue to Section 6.
Champion Briefs
364
NEG: Deontology NC
Civilian energy production is easily weaponized.

A similar analysis could be presented for the security concerns. Security relates to both sabotage
and proliferation and it could be linked to the following steps in any open fuel cycle: 1) uranium
enrichment, 2) reactor operation and the decommissioning period, 3) spent fuel storage and 4)
the final disposal of spent fuel. All four issues have to do with the risk of sabotage. Issue number
1 has, in addition, a proliferation aspect as well. The naturally occurring uranium contains
different isotopes. Since the isotope that is deployable in the conventional reactors (235U) is
present in less than 1%, that uranium is enriched in order to make sure that more of that isotope
will be present in the fuel. Enriched uranium to 3 (up to 10) percent is usually used for civil
energy production purposes. However, the further enriching of uranium (up to 70% and higher)
makes it a suitable material for weapon production. The Hiroshima bomb contained about 65
kilogram of 80% enriched uranium. If we now assess the security concerns of the closed fuel
cycle, one important issue will appear in relation to proliferation, namely the issue of the
separation of plutonium during reprocessing. In addition to highly enriched uranium, plutonium
is also deployable in nuclear weapons; the Nagasaki bomb contained 8 kilograms of weapongrade plutonium. Plutonium, which usually emanates from civil reactors, is usually of a much
lower quality for weapon production, but it does carry serious proliferation risks.[4] -
Champion Briefs
365
NEG: Deontology NC
In a moral discussion on what we ought to do for future

generations, it is important to first be aware of what we can
do.
The ranking of these values with regard to their moral relevance requires thorough public and
political discourse. This is particularly relevant when assessing the desirability of new
technology. Even though technology has no inherent moral relevance, it does help improve other
values. In a moral discussion on what we ought to do for future generations, it is important to
first be aware of what we can do, technologically speaking. This is the added value of this type
of applied ethics in which solutions can be proposed within the realm of technological realities
and in the light of technological progress. Indeed, the impacts of these new technologies should
then be assessed in the ethical field of tension of sustainability, as has been proposed here. It is
then worthwhile considering how other values will be affected by the introduction of this
technology?
Champion Briefs
366
NEG: Deontology NC
Policies regarding nuclear power should undergo extensive

moral analysis.
When it comes to policy-making for nuclear power deployment, we need to address several
ethical issues regarding our relationship with posterity and the intergenerational distribution of
benefits and burdens. Therefore, policies on nuclear power should be accompanied by thorough
moral analysis. One possible conclusion arising from such analysis could be that we, the present
generations who are enjoying the lions share of the benefits of nuclear power, should remain
responsible for dealing with its waste. This supports the application of P&T that reduces the
waste lifetime and therefore also the potential future burdens. Before P&T can be introduced,
decades of research and development still need to take place. Several technological challenges,
both in the development of reprocessing technologies and in the development of fast reactors still
have to be surmounted and the development and ultimate deployment of P&T will create
considerable burdens (including certain economic burdens) for contemporaries. So, if the result
of the moral discussion is that we want to be able to apply P&T, then this technology should be
high on the research agenda so that it can become a serious alternative in the near future; one that
is both technically feasible and economically affordable. The decision-maker should be aware of
the technological state-of-the-art and of the cost that the development of a certain technology,
desirable or not, creates for the present generation. This paper aims to contribute to that
awareness.
Champion Briefs
367
NEG: Libertarianism NC
Libertarianism NC
The thesis of this negative case is that the government ought to be as minimal as possible, so
they shouldnt pass any new laws prohibiting nuclear power as it would allow for too much
overreach by state.
The framework should be the largest part of this short negative case. This should include a few
main justifications.
1. The first argument you have to make is that the government ought to be as minimalistic
as possible. There are a few types of libertarianism, but for this case, you should focus in
on the far-right libertarianism, which advocates for complete protection of rights of the
individuals. Mainly, the far right libertarians believe that things such as nuclear power are
individuals rights to own and possess.
2. The next good thing to justify would be property rights and how the state has no right to
take away individual liberties.
The contention level of this case should be short just a card or two. This means that youd have
a piece of offense saying that nuclear power is key to property rights. This is going to be a harder
card to find simply because its a less plausible argument.
A common response to this case will be something like how the rights of citizens is hurt more by
waste and runoff from these power plants, so be sure to prepare frontlines for that!
Champion Briefs
368
There are conflicting obligations with nuclear power.

Sovacool, Benjamin. Deconstructing Facts And Frames In Energy Research: Maxims For
Evaluating Contentious Problems. 2015. Web. August 14, 2016.
Conflicts in the domain of energy and climate are not primarily due to lack of scientific facts or
objective truth. Instead, they are more due to a clash of priorities, interests, and normative
assumptions which create a number of subjective truths. At times such contention can be the
result of incomplete or confusing data. In other cases, they may arise from the vested interests a
particular actor has in a given energy system. In still other cases, fundamentally divergent values
may be the culprit.
Champion Briefs
369
Three major examples of issues within the power sector and

individual autonomy.
Consider three examples. In 2009, at the Fifteenth Session of the Conference of Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15), where global lawmakers
met to hammer out an international climate change treaty, they rented 1200 limousines,
Copenhagen's Kastrup airport saw 140 extra private jets, and menus at the conference featured
fish, scallops, caviar, and foie gras. By the end of the eleven day conference, more than 41,000 t
of carbon dioxide equivalent had been emitted (Gilligan, 2009). A few years later in 2012, when
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency withheld permits for coal mines, tightened pollution
controls for coal-fired power plants, and backed legislation that would place a price on
greenhouse gas emissions, ten counties voiced their disapproval for President Obama, who they
blamed for the decision, by voting for Keith Judd, a convict serving a 17 year sentence for
extortion in the Correctional Institution in Texarkana. This, in essence, meant that to many West
Virginians President Obama had become so unpopular due to his actions phasing out coal that a
convicted felon seemed a better choice to them for president (The Economist, 2012). A third
example concerns the Yasun-ITT initiative in Ecuador. That initiative, promoted by President
Rafael Vicente Correa in 2007, would have left almost one billion barrels of crude oil in the
ground beneath the Ishpingo Tambococha Tiputini (ITT) oilfield within the country's Parque
Nacional Yasun, or Yasun National Forest, one of the most treasured biological hotspots on the
planet. The proposal would have brought $32.8 billion in benefits, including displaced
greenhouse gas emissions, prevented deforestation, the protection of indigenous communities
residing in the forest, and investments in a clean energy and social development fund ( Sovacool,
2013). In exchange for not developing the ITT oilfield, President Correa asked the international
community only for fair compensation of $3.6 billion. After raising a mere $11 million over
five yearsless than one percent of the needed fundsthe President was forced to cancel the
Champion Briefs
370
Three major examples of issues within the power sector and individual autonomy. (Continued)
project in August 2013 and proceeded to develop the ITT oilfield within weeks. (Amazon
Watch, 2013) As the President tearfully stated when he made his announcement in Quito, we
have waited long enough the world has failed us. (Martinez-Alier et al., 2013)
These three sobering examples indicate that we do not always make energy decisions based on
facts; instead we base them on values. In the first instance the values of luxury and expediency
were given greater priority at COP15 than sustainability and frugality. In the second instance
local employment was valued more than protection of the environment and the earth's climate. In
the third example the lure of economic development and revenue were deemed more important
than the protection of indigenous people and maintenance of a national wilderness area.
Champion Briefs
371
Libertarians face different decisions.

Evaluating Contentious Problems. 2015 . Web. August 15, 2016.
Moreover, decision-makers may hold differing conceptions of risk as they deliberate about what
is prudent. Consider two competing framesfree market libertarians and environmental
preservationistsand their disagreement over a technological option such as carbon capture and
sequestration. Those embracing free market libertarianism perceive extreme risk in abandoning
the status quo (fossil fuel dependence). To them, the riskiest course of action is to transition
away from conventional energy because it will erode corporate profits and alter control over the
global energy system. At risk, for them, are millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of
infrastructure. Conversely, the environmental preservationists perceive the greatest risk to lie in
continuing to support a technology that degrades the environment. To them, doing nothing sires
future crises, and technical fixes represent unknown risks that can never be fully predicted or
controlled. They argue that applying technology at a global environmental scale is suicidal it
should be avoided as a matter of precaution.
Champion Briefs
372
Libertarianism faces conflicts with the concept of nuclear

power.
Nuclear power offers an exemplary example of how even frames can be in conflict surrounding a
particular technology. Justice advocates might point to the risks of not having energy at allofsocieties in the developing world left literally in the dark, with the extreme injustices and
health impacts of energy poverty. To these individuals, nuclear power is a necessary evil a tool
which can expand access to modern electricity networks and minimize the amount of lifeendangering soot and smoke choked down by mothers and young children. Other justice
advocates might oppose nuclear energy due to the risks involved with its fuel cycle (such as
contamination from uranium tailings on indigenous lands), its connection to weapons of mass
destruction, or the massive consequences of a serious accident (which typically affect
underprivileged and/or minority populations the most). Both groups agree that the risks are huge,
but view them in opposite ways with opposing courses of recommended action. This
heterogeneity or poly-semiotic nature of risk is why one needs to accommodate and promote all
six maxims, rather than one or only a few in isolation.
Champion Briefs
373
Respecting the right to property is necessary.

Lacewing, Michael. Rawls And Nozick On Justice. no date. Web. August 15, 2016.
<http://documents.routledgeinteractive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Political/JusticeRawlsNozick.pdf>.
Justice, Nozick argues, is about respecting peoples (natural) rights, in particular, their rights to
property and their rights to self-ownership. We must allow people the freedom to decide what
they want to do with what they own. Each person is separate, an individual, and we must respect
their autonomy. People are ends-in-themselves, and we cannot use them in ways they do not
agree to, even if that would lead to some supposed greater good (e.g. other people getting what
they need). This has a radical conclusion: to take property away from people in order to
redistribute it according to some pattern violates their rights. But this is exactly what taxation
(for the purpose of redistribution) does. To tax Ronaldos extra earnings and return the money to
the poorer fans violates his right to the money. Nozick thinks property rights are important
because they derive from self-ownership. A person has a right to what they produce, because
they own their own labour, which they invest in creating the product. Justice in acquisition
places constraints on exactly when and how this occurs, but this is the basic idea. And once
something is (justly) owned, then justice is all about justice in transfer.
Champion Briefs
374
Recognizing and respecting property rights is necessary for

morality to exist because it defines the moral space that
makes us unique agents.
Machan, Tibor. Private Rights And Public Illusions. August 18, 1995. Web. August 15, 2016.
<https://fee.org/articles/private-rights-and-public-illusions/>.
Justice, Nozick argues, is about respecting peoples (natural) rights, in particular, their rights to
property and their rights to self-ownership. We must allow people the freedom to decide what
they want to do with what they own. Each person is separate, an individual, and we must respect
their autonomy. People are ends-in-themselves, and we cannot use them in ways they do not
agree to, even if that would lead to some supposed greater good (e.g. other people getting what
they need). This has a radical conclusion: to take property away from people in order to
redistribute it according to some pattern violates their rights. But this is exactly what taxation
(for the purpose of redistribution) does. To tax Ronaldos extra earnings and return the money to
the poorer fans violates his right to the money. Nozick thinks property rights are important
because they derive from self-ownership. A person has a right to what they produce, because
they own their own labour, which they invest in creating the product. Justice in acquisition
places constraints on exactly when and how this occurs, but this is the basic idea. And once
something is (justly) owned, then justice is all about justice in transfer.
Champion Briefs
375
Different concepts of libertarianism have different views of

rights to natural resources.
Vallentyne, Peter. Libertarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. January 07, 2014.
Web. August 16, 2016. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/>.
The maximally strong version of a constraint on original appropriation holds that initially no one
has any liberty right to use, or any moral power to appropriate, natural resources. A radical
version of joint-ownership left-libertarianism, for example, holds that individuals may use
natural resources only with the collective consent (e.g., majority or unanimous) of the members
of society. Given that all action requires the use of some natural resources (land, air, etc.), this
leaves agents no freedom of action (except with the permission of others), and this is clearly
implausible. A less radical version of joint-ownership left-libertarianism allows that agents may
use natural resources, but holds that they have no moral power to appropriate natural resources
without the collective consent of the members of society (e.g., Grunebaum 1987). Although this
leaves agents a significant range of freedom of action, it leaves them little security in their plans
of action. They have the security that others are not permitted to use their person (e.g., assault
them) without their consent, but they have only limited security in their possessions of external
things (except with the consent of others). Agents are permitted to cultivate and gather apples,
but others are permitted to take them when this violates no rights of self-ownership (e.g., when
they can simply take them from the collected pile).
Champion Briefs
376
Right libertarianism says that agents have a right to natural

resources.
Consider, then, the maximally permissive view of original appropriation. Radical right
libertarianismadvocated, for example, by Rothbard (1978, 1982), Narveson (1988: ch. 7;
1999), and Feser (2005)holds that that there are no fair share constraints on use or
appropriation.[1] Agents may appropriate, use, or even destroy whatever natural resources they
want (as long as they violate no one's self-ownership). On this view, natural resources are
initially not merely unprotected by a property rule (i.e., permissible use does not require anyone
else's permission); they are also unprotected by a compensation liability rule (i.e., no
compensation is owed if one uses). A main objection to this view is that no human agent created
natural resources, and there is no reason that the person who first claims rights over a natural
resource should reap an unfairly large or unequal share of the benefits that the resource provides.
Another objection points out that appropriation without restrictions makes it possible that one
person could own the entire world, thereby effectively putting the remaining propertyless
persons in the problematic condition of requiring the owner's permission to do anything. Nor is
there any reason to think the individuals are morally permitted to ruin natural resources as they
please. Some sort of fair share condition restricts use and appropriation.
Champion Briefs
377
Self-ownership is a necessary part of libertarianism.

So far, we have addressed the core libertarian rights of full self-ownership and the right to
appropriate natural resources. A complete libertarian theory must also specify what enforcement
rights individuals have when others violate their rights. The idea of full self-ownership does not
include a full specification of enforcement rights. This is because the relevant idea
is universal full self-ownership (i.e., every agent being a full self-owner), and this notion is
indeterminate with respect to enforcement rights (as well as compensation rights). For a given
individual, a maximal set of self-ownership rights would include both a full immunity against
loss even if the agent violates the rights of others (and hence others would not be permitted to
use non-consensual force against her ever) and maximal enforcement rights against others
(which would permit the agent to use force against others in order to prevent their violation of
her rights). This set of rights, however, is not universalizable. If one agent has the strong
immunity to loss of rights, then other agents cannot have the strong enforcement rights (which
require the offending agent to have lost some of her rights of self-ownership). Thus, full
(universalizable) self-ownership can include no enforcement rights (but a full immunity to loss),
or full enforcement rights (but no immunity to loss for rights violations), or anything in between
(on the issue of indeterminacy, see Fried [2004, 2005] and Vallentyne, Steiner, and Otsuka
[2005]).
Champion Briefs
378
Libertarianism requires a minimalist state and would thus

not regulate nuclear power.
Libertarianism requires that states, like all agents, respect the moral rights of individuals,
including their rights over their persons and their legitimate possessions. All modern states,
including the welfare state, fail to meet this standard. Thus, many of the powers of the modern
state are deemed morally illegitimate.
The main reason for the illegitimacy of modern states is that they employ forceful means in cases
where such force is impermissible. Agents of the state violate the rights of citizens when they
punish, or threaten to punish, a person for riding a motorcycle without a helmet, for taking drugs,
for refusing to purchase health insurance or serve in the military, for engaging in consensual
sexual relations in private, or for gambling. Furthermore, agents of the state violate the rights of
citizens when they force, or threaten to force, individuals to transfer their legitimately held
wealth to the state in order to bail out large companies, provide for pensions, to help the needy,
or to pay for public goods (e.g., parks or roads). (All libertarians object to such transfers to the
extent that these are in excess of what is owed for the appropriation of natural resources.) Some
libertarian-leaning theoristssuch as Hayek (1960)argue that it is legitimate to force people to
pay their fair share of the costs of providing basic police services(i.e., protection of the
libertarian rights and prosecution of those who violate them), but it's hard to see how this could
be legitimate on libertarian grounds. If one does not voluntarily agree to share one's wealth in
this way, the mere fact that one reaps a benefit from the services does not, on libertarian grounds,
generate an enforceable duty to pay one's fair share.[6]
Champion Briefs
379
NEG: Regulations Counter Plan
Regulations Counter Plan

The regulations counterplan is an effective weapon in the negative arsenal. It really
pressures the affirmative to articulate exactly why the problems of nuclear power necessitate a
ban on its production. If the affirmative doesnt have a solid reason why a ban is key, you win
the debate. To make this counterplan effective, though, you cant just say regulate nuclear
power and talk about these hypothetical regulations that could wish away all of the issues with
nuclear waste/accidents while avoiding your energy DA. You need specifics.
To get the specifics you need, find a card that explicitly outlines how we should go about
regulating nuclear power. Cards that talk about regulation generally can help you, but you need
to have a detailed blueprint for how nuclear plants should be monitored/regulated if you want a
good solvency story. Remember, though, that every counterplan needs a good external net
benefit (solves better is not a net benefit, because if the aff solves too, and theres no proactive
reason the aff is bad, the aff wins). Make sure you couple this counterplan with a good NC or
DA; the story is that the CP preserves the benefits of nuclear power (the NC or DA) while
avoiding its costs (the affirmatives impacts).
One thing to remember with this CP is that the permutation is essentially impossible. The
CP is logically contingent on nuclear power being legal, not prohibited. The aff should still say
perm, do both to force the neg to waste time on that in the 2NR.
The best affirmative response to this CP is to argue that regulations are insufficient in the
context of aff offense. Tailor your contention-level arguments to be specific enough that even the
best regulations CP couldnt solve them. That way, you have a really nuanced solvency deficit.
Another option is to read an add-on in the 1AR, on the counterplan page; this is essentially a new
contention that the counterplan cant solve (because it establishes an inherent flaw with nuclear
power). The add-on isnt new in the sense of what debaters mean by new argument, but is
rather a response to the counterplan that also happens to be more offense for you.
Champion Briefs
380
The nuclear energy industry has an impressive safety

record, but regulations should be reformed to maximize
safety.
Nuclear Energy Institute. Improving Accountability, Efficiency In Nuclear Energy Regulation.
NEI Policy Briefs. January 01, 2015. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Policy-Briefs/ImprovingAccountability-Efficiency-in-Nuclear-Ene>.
The nuclear energy industry has a venerable safety record. For example, in the most recent 15
years of reporting to Congress on operations at NRC-licensed facilities, the agency has identified
only four incidents deemed significant enough to mention as abnormal occurrences. Yet
nuclear energy facilities face an increasing number of regulatory requirements, some of which
have little safety benefit and cost up to 19 times more to implement than federal regulators
estimate. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has some 60 regulatory actions under way,
and industry regulatory-related expenditures have more than doubled since 2005.
Champion Briefs
381
The nuclear industry is committed to safety, but NRC

requirements could be improved in order to maximize safety
benefits.
The nuclear energy industry and the NRC have the same top priority: the safety of the public,
plant employees and the environment. This commitment to safety is embodied in industrys
nuclear plant operating procedures and physical upgrades and defines the mission of the NRC,
whose responsibilities include establishing and enforcing safety regulations governing nuclear
energy facilities. The agencys Principles of Good Regulation emphasize that regulatory
activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they achieve and that, when
there are several effective alternatives, the option which minimizes the use of resources should
be adopted. However, it is not clear that new NRC requirements meet these principles. Over the
years, the number of regulatory requirements has increasedincluding some 60 agency
proposals now under consideration. The companies that operate nuclear plants must devote more
resources to comply with these requirementssome of which do little to enhance safety. As in
any other business, managers at nuclear energy facilities have finite resources and must make
decisions about what activities to perform. Regulatory activities traditionally have been given top
priority in scheduling. That means other work has to be deferredeven if the work being
deferred has greater safety benefit. The industry believes that activities with the greatest safety
benefit should be scheduled first, regardless of who initiated them.
Champion Briefs
382
NRC regulations are currently going astray.

The industry also faces situations in which the NRCs regulatory process seems to go astrayfor
example, requirements to enhance the debris screens on reactor containment sumps so they
cannot clog and interfere with cooling. The issue presented a tangible safety impact and was
quickly addressed by all affected plants. However, the focus shifted from the original issue to
related concerns. The process now has spanned more than a decade. Facility operators have been
required to propose a series of options for resolving the issues, each of which has led to more
questions from the NRC. The agency initially estimated the compliance cost to be $2 million to
$3 million per reactor. Some companies have spent more than 10 times that amount and yet the
issue remains unresolved.
Champion Briefs
383
A new approach to regulation, based on accurate costbenefit analysis, improves the safety of nuclear plants.
A more coordinated approach to regulationinformed by safety insights with accurate costbenefit analysiswould help ensure that high-priority actions are taken before those that would
have less of an impact on safety and that there are no conflicting requirements or regulatory
gaps. In 2013, the commission approved NRC staff recommendations to improve nuclear safety
and regulatory efficiency in the rulemaking process. However, the commissioners called for a
holistic evaluation that encompasses the significant compounding effects of the NRCs
actions. The commission called for case studies on how regulations have affected individual
nuclear energy facilities and an assessment of the accuracy of NRCs timetables and cost
estimates.
Champion Briefs
384
The NRC should coordinate its regulations to avoid overlap

and contradictions.
Industry Urges Regulator to Prioritize Internally The industry encourages the NRC staff to
identify ways to apply the prioritization process internally to all types of regulatory requirements
the agency is contemplating, not just rulemaking. For example, in fiscal 2013, the agency issued
fewer than 15 rules, but there were more than 50 generic communications, including notices,
advisories and other regulatory actions. The NRC also should coordinate its regulatory activities
to avoid overlaps or contradictions between proposed and existing regulations. Evaluation of
regulations by the NRC should result in one of the following: --accelerated implementation of
actions that have high safety significance or are associated with protecting public health --normal
implementation consistent with the importance when compared with other tasks required of
nuclear power plant operators --deferment because of the need for additional information to
define the desired outcome of the regulation --deferment because the proposed action has lower
safety significance than other industry and regulatory actions.
Champion Briefs
385
There should be a binding agreement requiring

international oversight of all nuclear reactors--thats key to
solving proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
Buckley, Adele. Urgent Need For New Thinking On Regulating Nuclear Energy. Peace
Magazine. July-September 2007. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v23n3p08.htm>.
Every nuclear reactor has a global presence, but there is no binding agreement requiring
international oversight of all nuclear reactors. The IAEA Additional Protocol for Application of
Safeguards is directed solely at verifying that there are no activities leading to nuclear
proliferation. About 16 percent of the worlds electricity supply comes from 442 nuclear reactors
in 32 countries. Many of these are at least 15 years old and will soon require a massive
refurbishment program. Nuclear electricity plants are extremely expensive, and the complete
cost, including waste storage in perpetuity, is rarely fully accounted. Safety overall has been
adequate, but there have been near and actual accidents (specifically at Chernobyl and Three
Mile Island) that have made the public mistrust the technology. And for good reason: Radiation
releases from operating plants are circulating around the globe. Many nuclear reactors are aging,
making rigorous oversight vital, but change in existing procedures is slow or nonexistent. Nuclear power plants produce fissile material that, if illegitimately transferred to
terrorists or states, could produce nuclear weapons. Long lived radioactive waste has
accumulated, and is stored mainly on-site, where it could be catastrophic if released into the
environment by, say, a terrorist nuclear bombing at a power plant.
Champion Briefs
386
There needs to be a binding agreement requiring

international oversight of all nuclear reactors that
mitigates the risk of proliferation and nuclear terrorism.
Every nuclear reactor has a global presence, but there is no binding agreement requiring
international oversight of all nuclear reactors. The IAEA Additional Protocol for Application of
Safeguards is directed solely at verifying that there are no activities leading to nuclear
proliferation. About 16 percent of the worlds electricity supply comes from 442 nuclear reactors
in 32 countries. Many of these are at least 15 years old and will soon require a massive
refurbishment program. Nuclear electricity plants are extremely expensive, and the complete
cost, including waste storage in perpetuity, is rarely fully accounted. Safety overall has been
adequate, but there have been near and actual accidents (specifically at Chernobyl and Three
Mile Island) that have made the public mistrust the technology. And for good reason: Radiation
releases from operating plants are circulating around the globe. Many nuclear reactors are aging,
making rigorous oversight vital, but change in existing procedures is slow or nonexistent. Nuclear power plants produce fissile material that, if illegitimately transferred to
terrorists or states, could produce nuclear weapons. Long lived radioactive waste has
accumulated, and is stored mainly on-site, where it could be catastrophic if released into the
environment by, say, a terrorist nuclear bombing at a power plant.
Champion Briefs
387
The IAEA isnt currently equipped to regulate nuclear

safety or provide protection against nuclear terrorism--the
IAEAs role should be expanded accordingly.
IAEAS POTENTIAL ROLE AS A VERIFYING AGENCY AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
The IAEAs mandate says that all states that are members of the United Nations can be members
of the Agency, providing that they fulfill their obligations. This is a useful foundation for
building an international regulatory system. Where nuclear energy is concerned, the IAEAs role
is provider of expert guidance, developer of safety and security standards, sponsor of
international conventions, and supporter of new science and technology. It is the international
inspection agency whose inspectors verify that safeguarded nuclear material and activities are
not used for weapons purposes. From time to time it reports non-compliance to the Security
Council. However, IAEA has no comparable operational role where nuclear safety is concerned,
nor physical protection against terrorism. Therein lies the weakness of the international
system. It is common in industrial settings for individual plants to conform to ISO (International
Standards Organization) standards for quality or environmental management. Holding such
certification gives a corporate owner a competitive edge. It is a working practice globally for
regulatory agencies to inspect facilities regularly, and to require conformance. For inspection of
nuclear power plants IAEA could be the lead agency. It will need the absolute confidence of all
members of the international community. For this, the inspection team must be a third party -not the owners, the managers, the subcontractors, or the government where any nuclear power
plant is located. Especially, the inspection team should have no link to the government of the
country, for the government is the regulator, and often also the owner. It would be in a conflict of
interest as the inspecting agency. This demand is not required for other types of electricity
generators (e.g. coal-fired plants) but it is vital to the international credibility of the system
proposed here. A periodic inspection of every plant and every nuclear reactor is a massive task,
and could not be carried out by the IAEA staff alone with its own resources. Therefore, the
IAEA would be obliged to train and authorize others to carry out its protocols of inspection.
Implementing such an inspection system would require expansion of IAEA.
Champion Briefs
388
A universal regulatory regime is key - it should be paid for

through a user-pay system.
MEETING THE COSTS Power utilities today operate under national regulatory systems.
Compliance with regulations and frequent interaction with the regulatory agency are part of the
cost of doing business. Where nuclear power is concerned, the regulatory system must include
every nation, binding all to the same regime. A viable means of meeting the costs would be a
user-pay system, where the user is the individual nuclear power plant. In essence, the cost per
kwH of electricity would include the cost of inspection. The countries that generate the most
nuclear power would pay the largest costs of the inspection system. Thus if North America and
Europe chose not to build new nuclear power, they would not be paying for the regulatory
compliance cost of Asias electricity production. The key point is that the inspection system must
be self-funding, and without subsidy. All nations, powerful or weak, must acknowledge that a
universal regulatory regime is in their self-interest and that it affects all citizens of the world. It
would be a particularly big jump for nuclear weapons states (NWS) to accept routine third party
inspection of power plants because they are not subject to any international inspection at present,
whereas the Non-Nuclear Weapons States that have ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty are
already obliged to agree to international inspection. Non-signatories to the NPT do not receive
inspections. With gradual introduction over a period of a few years, there could be universal
inspections under national regulations (identical in scope for all countries, adapted to the specific
technology at hand) and carried out by national and third party international inspectors .
Champion Briefs
389
Expanding IAEA regulation is feasible and desirable--itll

hedge against proliferation and spur long-term transition
toward non-nuclear energy.
As use of alternative, renewable sources of energy increases, the technologies will improve, and
the cost to implement will go down. All governments should be encouraged to adopt them, so
that use of nuclear energy is minimized. A strict, enforced nuclear energy regulatory system
could drive nations toward non-nuclear energy technologies, and thus reduce the growth of
nuclear energy. The known and projected supply of uranium ore will last only 60 years, unless
more efficient new-technology reactors are used. However, ominously for proliferation
avoidance, reprocessed plutonium can be used. If reprocessing could be under a regulatory
regime, safety and security would be greatly enhanced. Fast nuclear reactor designs extract thirty
times more energy from uranium, with less waste and less radiotoxicity. Some parts of the
technical community like the thorium fuel cycle, which is stated by IAEA to have intrinsic
proliferation resistance. Every nuclear reactor has a dangerous global presence. Since nations
will not choose to avoid nuclear energy, then it is in the self-interest of every nation that a
universal inspection and verification system be adopted by all. This goal, while difficult, is
feasible over the long term. However, this expensive regime is beyond the resources that would
be available to the IAEA, unless a full user-pay system becomes a normal part of the business
of nuclear energy generation.
Champion Briefs
390
The counterplan represents an adaptation approach to

nuclear power--that addresses safety risks with the requisite
political will [CP avoids the politics DA].
To consider the future use of nuclear energy, there are two optional paths - mitigation or
adaptation (borrowing a terminology from climate change issues). In the mitigation approach,
we would oppose nuclear power and undertake a program of shutdown, decommissioning and
cleanup for existing plants worldwide -- but the political will is absent. An alternative approach
is adaptation -- which requires that we address factors besides non-proliferation, and provide
for physical plant safety, waste transport and waste storage, political/legal issues, and prevention
of terrorism. For the good of all, every nuclear power plant, worldwide, should guarantee:
Nuclear safety - accident-free by engineering design and safety practice Physical protection
against terrorism; Safeguards for security against proliferation - zero probability of access to
materials for the production of nuclear weapons. Dr. ElBaradei has said that civil society and
public at large are increasingly recognized as important stakeholders in the work of the
regulatory body. We who wish to foster peace and security should urge governments to begin
negotiating a new agreement on nuclear energy regulations before the world faces a full-blown
nuclear renaissance.
Champion Briefs
391
NEG: Reprocessing Counter Plan
Reprocessing Counter Plan

The reprocessing counterplan will be most effective against affirmatives that are
primarily focused on nuclear waste, although would also be useful against affirmatives that are
concerned with uranium shortages, proliferation, and terrorism. The crux of the counterplan
would be to legalize and regulate the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. This mechanism is
already employed in France and Japan, and could be implemented with relative ease. Your best
solvency advocate within the evidence provided is Jack Spencer, who is the Vice President of the
Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity and an ardent defender of the reprocessing
movement.
The first piece of Spencer evidence lays out some possible wording for the counterplan,
including submitting a license application for the Yucca Mountain repository and reanalyzing the
cap that was primarily motivated by political reasons, in addition to a market based approach to
spent nuclear fuel. The primary net benefits to the counterplan would be the reduction of nuclear
waste through reprocessing. This would allow nuclear plants to operate on a longer timeframe, as
well as reduce the amount of uranium mined for the purpose of nuclear power. With less
uranium mining, less carbon based fuels will be required to operate plants, and that has
implications for emissions and climate change. Much of the opposition to reprocessing is
directed towards the feasibility of large scale reprocessing as well as the possibility that rogue
actors could acquire the spent fuel and convert it to weapons grade material. The Spencer cards
answer most of the technical feasibility concerns, and the last Spencer card provided can answer
arguments directed at proliferation and terrorist attacks. Basically, with reprocessing the volume
of material available is reduced, and therefore decreases the chance that the current nuclear waste
could be repurpose for military applications. Another argument that might be presented against
the counterplan is that the location of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear repository is based on antiNative prejudice or capitalist excesses. Your best argument against these sorts of claims, and for
the counterplan in general, will be that nuclear waste already exists and is going to pollute these
areas. With reprocessing, that already existent spent fuel can be repurposed and reduced such
that it does not harm vulnerable communities.
Champion Briefs
392
Possible Counterplan planks.

Spencer, Jack. Yucca Mountain Remains Critical To Spent Nuclear Fuel Management. The
Heritage Foundation. January 05, 2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/05/yucca-mountain-remains-critical-tospent-nuclear-fuel-management >.
To meet the growing demand for electricity and to satisfy public desires for clean, safe, and
affordable energy, the U.S. government should establish a practical, comprehensive, and sensible
regime to manage spent nuclear fuel. Specifically: The U.S. Department of Energy should submit
a license application for the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission by mid-2008. Congress should replace the artificial 70,000-ton cap on Yucca
Mountain with a more scientifically calculated cap. Congress should acknowledge that the
current regime for managing spent nuclear fuel is broken and engage in a process to develop a
new rational, market-based approach to managing spent nuclear fuel that can support a broad
expansion of nuclear power in the United States.
Champion Briefs
393
Reprocessing works France has been reprocessing for

decades.
Spencer, Jack. Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Cant Oui?. The Heritage
Foundation. 12-28-2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/12/recycling-nuclear-fuel-thefrench-do-it-why-cant-oui>.
To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable
uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this spent fuel generally retains
about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled. Over the past
four decades, Americas reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That waste
contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And its just sitting
there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste! The sad thing is, the United
States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial
use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since. Other countries have not taken
such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its
electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the
1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling
used fuel central to their program. Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in
containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy
producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made
into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the
French.
Champion Briefs
394
Reprocessing solves CO2 emissions and energy dependence,

and Yucca.
If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious
about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel. A viable reprocessing capability not
only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of
material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill
Yuccas legal limit of 70,000 metric tons--subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is
about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater. It would also put the United
States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not.
Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of Americas nuclear energy
program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a
daily basis. The question is: Why cant oui?
Champion Briefs
395
Reprocessing technologies exist now and better ones are on

the horizon.
Spencer, Jack. Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act Of 2008: Modernizing Spent Fuel
Management In The U.S. The Heritage Foundation. June 03, 2008. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/03/nuclear-waste-policyamendments-act-of-2008-modernizing-spent-fuel-management-in-the-us>.
Securing a Future Resource. The current U.S. policy is to dispose of all spent fuel permanently.
This is a monumental waste of resources. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3 percent to
5 per-cent enriched fissionable uranium (uranium-235). Once the enriched uranium falls below
that level, the fuel must be replaced. Yet this spent fuel generally retains about 95 percent of
its original content, and that uranium, along with other byproducts in the spent fuel, can be
recovered and recycled. Many technologies exist to recover and recycle different parts of the
spent fuel. The French have most successfully commercialized a process. They remove the
uranium and plutonium and fabricate new fuel. Using that method, Americas 56,000 tons of
used fuel stored across the nation contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S.
house-hold for 12 years.[4] Other technologies show even more promise. Indeed, most of them,
including the process used in France, were developed in the United States. Some recycling
technologies would leave almost no high-level waste at all and lead to the recovery of an almost
endless source of fuel. However, none of these processes has been successfully commercial-ized
in the United States, and they will take time to develop. Until the future of nuclear power in the
U.S. becomes clearer, it will be impossible to know which technologies will be most appropriate
to pur-sue in this market. Ultimately, these are decisions that the private sector should make in
consultation with govern-ment regulators. Valuing spent nuclear fuel against the costs of
permanent burial is a calcula-tion best done by the companies that provide fuel management
services. The Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act would give all of the involved parties the
time needed to evaluate the market and the state of technology and to make the best deci-sions
accordingly.
Champion Briefs
396
Reprocessing current spent fuel could power every US

household for 12 years, and adoption would result in a
nearly endless supply of energy.
Spencer, Jack. Yucca Mountain Remains Critical To Spent Nuclear Fuel Management. The
Heritage Foundation. January 05, 2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/05/yucca-mountain-remains-critical-tospent-nuclear-fuel-management >.
The current U.S. policy is to dispose of all spent fuel permanently. This is a monumental waste
of resources. To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3 percent to 5 percent enriched
fissionable uranium (U-235). Once the enriched fuel falls below that level, the fuel must be
replaced. Yet this spent fuel generally retains about 95 percent of its original content, and that
uranium, along with other byproducts in the spent fuel, can be recovered and recycled. Many
technologies exist to recover and recycle different parts of the spent fuel. The French have been
successful in commercializing a process. They remove the uranium and plutonium and fabricate
new fuel. Using this method, Americas 56,000 tons of spent fuel contains roughly enough fuel
to power every U.S. household for 12 years. Other technologies show even more promise.
Indeed, most of them, including the process used in France, were developed in the United States.
Some recycling technologies would leave almost no high-level waste at all and would lead to the
recovery of an almost endless source of fuel. However, none of these processes has been
successfully commercialized in the United States, and they will take time to develop. Until the
future of nuclear power in the U.S. becomes clearer, it will be impossible to know which
technologies will be most appropriate to pursue in this market. Ultimately, the private sector
should make these decisions in consultation with government regulators. Valuing spent nuclear
fuel against the costs of permanent burial is a calculation best done by the companies that
provide fuel management services.
Champion Briefs
397
Opening Yucca Mountain and recycling the spent fuel boosts

the economy and solves emissions.
Spencer, Jack. Road To Clean Air Runs Through Yucca Mountain. The Heritage Foundation.
September 06, 2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/06/road-to-clean-air-runs-throughyucca-mountain>.
The debate needs to shift to the potential that Yucca provides Nevada. Its a valuable resource
that could be leveraged to attract high-paying, long-term jobs. The reality is that a nuclear
resurgence will require a broad industrial and technological expansion. It is about enriching
uranium, fabricating fuel, recovering valuable resources from spent fuel and recycling it and
researching and developing new technologies. All of this can be done safely and in Nevada. The
state could become the Simi Valley of the nuclear renaissance. By opposing the Yucca project,
Nevada lawmakers not only deny Nevadans the economic benefit of a robust nuclear industry,
but they deny the rest of the country the clean-air benefits of nuclear power. Without nuclear
construction, demand will be met with more coal- and gas-fired power plants -- and electricity
rationing. Nuclear power also would help locales meet stringent state and federal clean-air
mandates, with which many struggle. Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, simply
cannot affordably meet the 40 percent increase in electricity demand that America will face over
the next 25 years. No politician seriously can oppose nuclear power while advancing a clean-air
agenda and expect the lights to stay on. Ultimately, the road to cleaner air must run through
Yucca Mountain. The choice, then, is clear. Nuclear energy, carbon dioxide or the lights go out.
Whats it gonna be?
Champion Briefs
398
Nuclear Reprocessing solves future energy shortages.

Department of Energy. Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative: The Future Path For Advanced Spent
Fuel Treatment And Transmutation Research. Report to Congress. January 01, 2003.
<http://www.precaution.org/lib/doe_report_on_advanced_fuel_cycle.030101.pdf>.
Finally, in the long-term future, the world will find that uranium, like oil or natural gas, is not an
infinite resource. Expert organizations such as the World Nuclear Association project that
between 2050 and 2080, nuclear power plants worldwide will encounter a serious shortage in the
uranium needed to produce nuclear fuel. A very recent, highly-detailed analysis performed by
the industry consultancy, Energy Resources International (ERI), indicates that this vulnerability
could appear even sooner under certain scenarios. As shown in Figure I-3, ERI projects that
currently-known world uranium resources (including both miner and government stockpiles such
as Russian highly enriched uranium) may be depleted in the coming decades to a level that could
only provide about half of the annual requirements projected for 2030, assuming that nuclear fuel
demand does not grow during the next few decades. This assumes that most of the already-mined
uranium (excess HEU and government inventories) is largely consumed by about 2030.
However, if world nuclear power grows by only 50 percent by 2030, then uranium production
would have to almost triple to meet requirements. While it is generally expected that some new
production resources will be found over the coming decades, this analysis demonstrates that
nuclear fuel from mined uranium could become a serious restraint on the growth potential of
nuclear power in the not-too-distant future. If the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative announced by
the Secretary of Energy is successful, the United States will have nuclear plants in operation until
at least 2070. As a result, research into technologies that can make the most efficient use of our
nuclear fuel resources will support the Nations long-term energy independence. Moreover, the
44,000 Mt of spent nuclear fuel currently stored at nuclear power plant sites across the country
contain the energy equivalent to more than 6 billion barrels of oil or about two full years of U.S.
oil imports.
Champion Briefs
399
Recycling of nuclear waste is the safest form of disposal.

France and Britain prove.
Miller, William. Swords To Plowshares: Nuclear Bombs To Electricity. St. Louis PostDispatch. 06-29-2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-33035905/nuclear-sword-or-electricplowshare>.
Fifty percent of the fuel used in U.S. nuclear plants to generate electricity comes from Russian
nuclear warheads. Use of this converted fuel has extended available uranium supplies and
reduced the need to open new uranium mines. As a result, it has made nuclear power more
competitive economically and helped to ensure its long-term viability. This raises an important
question: If nuclear fuel can be produced safely from bomb-grade uranium, why not make use of
spent fuel being stored at nuclear plants throughout the United States? The spent fuel - more than
55,000 metric tons of it - contains valuable uranium and plutonium that can be reprocessed
chemically to produce a mixed-oxide fuel for use in generating more electricity. Such recycling
was done in the United States until the mid-1970s, when President Jimmy Carter banned its use
on grounds that the process posed a risk of nuclear proliferation. France and Great Britain,
however, have continued to recycle spent fuel. France obtains 80 percent of its electricity from
nuclear power and sells surplus electricity to neighboring countries. Great Britain is gearing up
to build more nuclear plants. The United States finally is reawakening to the value of spent-fuel
recycling. The U.S. Department of Energys Global Nuclear Energy Partnership calls for the
resumption of recycling in the United States by 2020. Research on improved recycling
technologies is under way.
Champion Briefs
400
Reprocessing fuel reduces the amount of weapons grade

material available thereby reducing the amount of nuclear
material available for weapons.
Miller, William. Swords To Plowshares: Nuclear Bombs To Electricity. St. Louis PostDispatch. 06-29-2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.questia.com/newspaper/1P2-33035905/nuclear-sword-or-electricplowshare>.
Nuclear powers resurgence in the United States is tied to a surprisingly effective program that is
helping to make the world a safer place from nuclear weapons. Known as the megatons to
megawatts program, it has led to the elimination of huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons
materials, thus making it much more difficult for rogue countries and terrorist groups to obtain
them. Established 15 years ago by the United States and Russia, the megatons to megawatts
accord has a single goal: It calls for the conversion of 500 metric tons of highly enriched, bombgrade uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched uranium to be used
at U.S. nuclear power plants to produce electricity. The program has succeeded beyond all
expectations. To date, 327 metric tons of Russias highly enriched uranium has been turned into
nuclear fuel for use in U.S. commercial reactors, according to USEC Inc., the publicly traded
company originally created by the U.S. Department of Energy. USEC is the U.S. governments
exclusive agent for the program. The conversion of that bomb-grade uranium is equivalent to the
destruction of nearly 13,100 Russian nuclear warheads aimed at U.S. cities. By 2013, when the
program is scheduled to be completed, the equivalent of 20,000 Russian warheads will have been
recycled into fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants.
Champion Briefs
401
Reprocessing stops a nuclear holocaust by providing energy

security.
Cohen, Bernard. The Nuclear Energy Option. Plenum Press. 08-31-1990. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html>.
If one attempts to develop scenarios that might lead to a major nuclear holocaust, fights over
energy resources such as Middle East oil must be at or near the top of the list. Anything that can
give all of the major nations secure energy sources must therefore be viewed as a major deterrent
to nuclear war. Reprocessing of power reactor fuel can provide this energy security, and
therefore has an important role in averting a nuclear holocaust. That positive role of reprocessing
is, to most observers, more important than any negative role it might play in causing such a war
through proliferation of nuclear weapons. After all of this discussion of proliferation, it is
important to recognize that the use of nuclear power in the United States has no connection to
that issue. If we stopped our domestic use of nuclear power, this would not deter a Third World
nation from obtaining nuclear weapons, or conversely, use of nuclear power in the United States
in no way aids such a nation in obtaining them. The only possible problems occur in transfer of
our technology to those countries.
Champion Briefs
402
Reprocessing solves nuclear waste issues.

Cohen, Bernard. The Nuclear Energy Option. Plenum Press. 08-31-1990. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html>.
Aside from the idealistic considerations of providing energy for future generations, an additional
driving force behind getting reprocessing plants into operation is their contribution to waste
management. Power plants are having difficulty in storing all of the spent fuel they are
discharging; reprocessing gives them an outlet for it. Furthermore, the amount of material to be
buried is very much reduced if the uranium is removed in reprocessing. There is also
considerably more security in burying high-level waste converted to glass and sealed inside a
corrosion-resistant casing, than in burying unreprocessed spent fuel encased in asphalt or some
similar material.
Champion Briefs
403
A2 Terrorist Attacks: Reprocessing produces lower volumes

of nuclear waste which could have be repurposed for an
attack.
Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30
years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward
nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions. France meets all of its recycling
needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La
Hagues capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries spent nuclear fuel. Since
beginning operations, Frances La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used
fuel--enough to power France for fourteen years. Their success has sparked plenty of interest
abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and
is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China. The British, Japanese,
Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing. Of course, there is still waste
involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the
French deal with it effectively--placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing
the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain.
Champion Briefs
404
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing leads to

widespread proliferation.
Levi, Michael. The Wrong Way To Promote Nuclear Power. The Brookings Institute. 11-242003. Web. August 16, 2016. <https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-wrong-way-topromote-nuclear-power/>.
But just because nuclear power can do some good doesnt mean that all nuclear technology is a
godsend. Unfortunately, the energy bills authors seem to disagree: The bill they have written
aims to boost dangerous nuclear technologies that, if commercialized, would leave America less
secure. The risky technologies center around a technique called reprocessing, which extracts
plutonium from used, or spent, nuclear fuel. This technology figures prominently in nuclear
weapons programs, but has long had a civilian application, in which the extracted plutonium is
mixed with fresh uranium and reused to produce more nuclear power. Security analysts have
always worried that states would pursue civilian reprocessing programs and then convert them
to weapons-use with little notice. For decades, the arguments for civilian reprocessing were
threefold. First, proponents noted, nuclear reactors werent extracting all the energy contained in
the uranium they used; by reprocessing rather than disposing of the spent fuel, they could avoid
wasting resources. A related argument was that getting more energy out of every gram of
uranium would create price savings that could be passed on to consumers. Lastly, nuclear
engineers argued that by recycling rather than disposing of spent nuclear fuel, reprocessing
would minimize the need for massive spent-fuel repositories like the one at Yucca Mountain,
which are extremely contentious politically. In time, though, each of these claims has proven to
be shaky. Uranium has turned out to be plentiful, making resource conservation unnecessary. Its
price has also plummeted, while the expense of reprocessing has risenthe cost of extracting
extra energy from spent fuel is now widely agreed to be far higher than the cost of simply using
more fresh uranium. And reprocessing does little to reduce the amount of space required to store
spent fuel: Hot radioactive materials must be insulated using bulky material in order to prevent
them from damaging nearby fuel, and the waste remaining after reprocessing still contains hot
elements. Proponents of the technology reply by pointing to commercial reprocessing programs
Champion Briefs
405
Reprocessing leads to widespread proliferation. (Continued)

in France, Britain, and Japan. But those programs were initiated by governments when our
understanding of reprocessing was immature and future uranium prices were expected to be
extremely high. The programs are not independently profitable, and would not exist without
government subsidies. Today no advanced industrial nation, save perhaps the United States,
appears to be interested in building a new reprocessing plant. (Japan is completing a plant, but
only because it has already invested billions in it.)
Champion Briefs
406
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing generates

massive amounts of weapons usable material.
Feiveson, Harold. The Search For Proliferation-Resistant Nuclear Power. Federation of
American Scientists. January 10, 2001. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n5/nuclear.htm>.
No plutonium recycling - continued reliance on once-through fuel cycles. Let us assume that
uranium sufficient to sustain a nuclear capacity of 3500 GWe can be extracted from seawater or
otherwise at a cost that has tolerable impact on the cost of nuclear power. It is uncertain if this
can be done, but even if so,19 how proliferation-resistant would such a world be? For sake of
specificity, lets assume a pebble-bed reactor of 100 MWe. The uranium fuel for this reactor is
about 8% U-235 and the projected burn-up is about 80,000 MWd/t. A nuclear capacity of 3500
GWe will require 35,000 such reactors, and an enrichment capacity worldwide of about 450
million SWUs per year.20 If one takes 2 million SWUs per year as a nominal capacity of one
enrichment plant - about the size of a URENCO plant - 225 such plants would be required. A 2million SWU plant could make about 600 bombs per year starting with natural uranium. It could
make 3500 bombs per year starting with 8% uranium, the fuel enrichment of the gas-reactor
fuel.21
Champion Briefs
407
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Preventing Proliferation is

impossible with nuclear reprocessing.
Waterman, Shaun. Report Urges Tough Safeguards For Global Nuclear Power Expansion.
United Press International. September 07, 2008. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2008/07/09/Report_urges_tough_safeguards_fo
r_global_nuclear_power_expansion/UPI-56651215613600/>.
To make nuclear technology and fuels available on the basis of political pledges not to misuse
them, he said of the reports recommendations, when several countries have a track record of
doing exactly that, is putting the nuclear energy cart in front of the nuclear safeguards horse.
Sokolski is particularly critical of the reports recommendation that the United States abandon its
30-year-old abjuration of reprocessing spent fuel into plutonium -- and work with other supplier
nations to increase global reprocessing capacity. Even when reprocessing plants are in allied
countries like Japan, ensuring there is no leakage or diversion is almost impossible, he said,
because of the volumes of material involved and the very small amount -- about 22 pounds -- of
material needed to make a bomb.
Champion Briefs
408
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing leads to

proliferation.
Proponents also contend that new technology will allow reprocessing to be more proliferationresistant. In a narrow sense, theyre right. New reprocessing technology would be less vulnerable
to would-be-weaponeers than current reprocessing technology if it were designed to produce
slightly contaminated plutoniumuseful for power generation, but not for nuclear weapons. But
it would still be far more dangerous than having no reprocessing at all, because the technology
could be quickly modified to produce clean, weapons-useable, plutonium. To move from our
current approach to new reprocessing technology on nonproliferation grounds would be like
trading in a Ferrari for a Honda because the latter now has leather seats. Of course at least two
statesNorth Korea and Iranare interested in reprocessing for more nefarious reasons. They
exemplify the core problem with plutonium reprocessing: It offers excellent civilian cover for
nuclear weapons development. Indeed, the Ford administration halted American reprocessing
programs on the grounds that the United States could more effectively argue that states pursuit
of reprocessing was illegitimate if it was not pursuing reprocessing itself. Image a world where
the United States actively developed plutonium reprocessing. Many states might conclude that,
in the interest of their own economic development, they should pursue plutonium reprocessing as
well. Only a few of those states would be using their programs to develop nuclear weapons, but
how would the United States (and the rest of the world) know who they were until it was too
late? Now imagine a world where plutonium reprocessing has been recognized as uneconomical
and is being phased out by the major industrial powers. States without nuclear weapons
ambitions would likely look to the industrial powers and conclude that reprocessing is
uneconomical and should not be pursued. It wouldnt be a stretch from there to conclude that any
state building new reprocessing facilities was pursuing nuclear weapons in violation of the NonProliferation Treaty, and should be dealt with accordingly. Such clarity would have forced the
Champion Briefs
409
Reprocessing leads to proliferation. (Continued)

world confront North Korea 15 years ago, before it had extracted enough plutonium for one or
two nuclear weapons. It would also clear away much of the confusion surrounding Irans nuclear
program. President Gerald Ford was a strong backer of nuclear power, just as the Bush
administration is. But in announcing his policy on reprocessing 27 years ago, Ford concluded
that the reprocessing and recycling of plutonium should not proceed unless there is sound
reason to conclude that the world community can effectively overcome the associated risks of
proliferation. As the news each day reminds us, weve got a long way to go.
Champion Briefs
410
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing would cause

far more proliferation and nuclear terrorism than it could
reduce- it will spread reprocessing tech globally, and its
safeguards will utterly fail.
Lyman, Edwin. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: Will It Advance Nonproliferation Or
Undermine It?. Union of Concerned Scientists. January 01, 2003. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.npolicy.org/files/20060700-Lyman-GNEP.pdf>.
Nonetheless, GNEPs promoters paint the program as a nonproliferation initiative. They argue
that GNEP will dramatically reduce the threat of proliferation worldwide by (1) instituting a
global twotier fuel cycle regime in which only fully trustworthy states will be able to operate
enrichment and reprocessing facilities, and all other countries will be guaranteed access to
nuclear fuel and reactors in exchange for their commitment not to pursue development of fuel
cycle facilities of their own; and (2) developing proliferation-resistant reprocessing and fuel
recycle technologies that, unlike the conventional PUREX process, do not produce separated
plutonium. However, there is a fundamental contradiction between these two objectives. If
reprocessing facilities are only going to be located in fully trustworthy states that pose no
proliferation concerns, then why is it necessary to develop proliferation-resistant recycle
technologies? And conversely, if the proliferation-resistant technologies that are under study
have such potential to reduce proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks, then why are they too
dangerous to be widely exported? Countries like South Korea that are already pursuing similar
technologies are not likely to understand why they would be asked to give them up under the
GNEP regime. The only consistent way to resolve these contradictions is to conclude that no one
really believes that the proliferation-resistance of these systems is going to be effective. In fact, it
appears that DOE is using the proliferation-resistance moniker merely to brand GNEP for
sale to the public, just like the other banal and oversimplifying adjectives like clean, safe and
secure which appear in DOEs GNEP promotional materials and may well be the outcome of
focus-group message testing conducted by the GNEP programs PR firm, Potomac
Champion Briefs
411
Reprocessing would cause far more proliferation and nuclear terrorism than it could reduce- it
will spread reprocessing tech globally, and its safeguards will utterly fail. (Continued)
Lyman, Edwin. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: Will It Advance Nonproliferation Or
Undermine It?. Union of Concerned Scientists. January 01, 2003. Web. August 16,
2016. <http://www.npolicy.org/files/20060700-Lyman-GNEP.pdf>.
Communications. But in its zeal to create the dangerous and false notion that there are effective
technical fixes to the proliferation and terrorism risks posed by conventional reprocessing, DOE
is undermining the Bush administrations nonproliferation policy goal of stopping the spread of
sensitive fuel cycle technologies. In fact, the damage to the nonproliferation regime caused by
the enthusiastic promotion of reprocessing and plutonium use by the United States is likely to
overwhelm any of the minor benefits to nonproliferation touted by GNEP supporters. The mixed
messages that DOE is putting out only serve to strengthen the notion that reprocessing is highly
desirable, worthy of huge government infrastructure investments, and can be employed in a fully
proliferation-resistant manner. No self-respecting nation would be receptive to a message that
reprocessing and plutonium recycling are essential technologies for fully realizing the benefits of
nuclear power, yet must remain off limits to all but a few privileged countries. The consolation
prize highly dubious guarantees of fresh fuel supply and spent fuel return is not likely to be
sufficiently enticing to attract participants willing to give up their right to pursue a domestic
reprocessing capability. Iran is the test case whether this approach will succeed with regard to
uranium enrichment, yet the U.S. and other nations have already abandoned the principle that
Iran should not receive Western nuclear assistance and other incentives unless it permanently
renounces its right to possess enrichment technology. No other nation is likely to accept a deal
less favorable to them than the one Iran ultimately receives. The case of Iran has already made
clear that the grand bargain at the heart of GNEP is a failure in practice.
Champion Briefs
412
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: New nuclear reprocessing

undermines the NPT.
Squassoni, Sharon. Risks And Realities: The New Nuclear Energy Revival. Arms Control
Association. July 05, 2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_05/squassoni>.
More broadly, will a nuclear renaissance that succeeds in limiting the number of states with
uranium-enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing capabilities ultimately further erode the NPT by
extending the existence of haves and have-nots from nuclear weapons into the nuclear fuel
cycle? In the short term, efforts to limit expansion could slow some states implementation of the
safeguards-strengthening measures in the 1997 Model Additional Protocol. In the long term,
other decisions to strengthen the NPT could be jeopardized.
Champion Briefs
413
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Meltdowns cause extinction.

Wasserman, Harvey. Americas Terrorist Nuclear Threat To Itself. Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation. January 10, 2001. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.wagingpeace.org/americas-terrorist-nuclear-threat-to-itself/>.
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
Champion Briefs
414
Meltdowns cause extinction. (Continued)

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 Chernobyls
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 worlds 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
Champion Briefs
415
Meltdowns cause extinction. (Continued)

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 Americas 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 nations second-most efficient state---cut further into
its electric consumption by some 15%. Within a year the US could cheaply replace virtually 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.
Champion Briefs
416
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing would increase

the need for storage and disposal of nuclear materialstechnology is centuries away from efficient reprocessing and
the volume of waste is increased by a factor of at least 20.
UnionofConcernedScientists, . Nuclear Reprocessing: Dangerous, Dirty, And Expensive Why
Extracting Plutonium From Spent Nuclear Reactor Fuel Is A Bad Idea. Union of
Concerned Scientists. January 01, 2006. Web. August 16, 2016. <
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/nuclear
-reprocessing-factsheet.pdf>.
Second, reprocessing does not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste, and
a geologic repository would still be required. Plutonium constitutes only about one percent of the
spent fuel from U.S. reactors. After reprocessing, the remaining material will be in several
different waste forms, and the total volume of nuclear waste will have been increased by a factor
of twenty or more, including low-level waste and plutonium-contaminated waste. The largest
component of the remaining material is uranium, which is also a waste product because it is
contaminated and undesirable for reuse in reactors. Even if the uranium is classified as low-level
waste, new low-level nuclear waste facilities would have to be built to dispose of it. And to make
a significant reduction in the amount of high-level nuclear waste that would require disposal, the
used fuel would need to be reprocessed and reused many times with an extremely high degree of
efficiencyan extremely difficult endeavor that would likely take centuries to accomplish.
Finally, reprocessing would divert focus and resources from a U.S. geologic disposal program
and hurtnot helpthe U.S. nuclear waste management effort. The licensing requirements for
the reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and waste processing plants would dwarf those needed to
license a repository, and provide additional targets for public opposition. What is most needed
today is a renewed focus on secure interim storage of spent fuel and on gaining the scientific and
technical consensus needed to site a geological repository.
Champion Briefs
417
A2 Reprocessing Counter Plan: Reprocessing creates

weapons-grade uranium.
Cochran, Thomas. The Future Role Of Nuclear Power In The United States. The National
Resource Defense Council. 04-15-2004. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://www.scribd.com/document/1032993/The-Near-Term-Economic-Picture-forCommercial-Nuclear-Generation>.
Indeed, terrorism is generally regarded as highest security concern of the United States. If we are
going to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism at home and abroad, we must halt the commercial
use of nuclear weapon-usable materials such as highly enriched uranium and plutonium. The
MIT Study found that reprocessing and recycling plutonium -- which creates weapon-usable
material and some of the most radioactive waste in the world -- is also is uneconomic and likely
to remain so for decades to come. Separating more weapon-usable material at a tremendous
economic loss simply makes no sense. We are not running out of low-cost uranium and
reprocessing offers no nuclear waste management benefits. For existing commercial nuclear
generators (and for any new facilities built in other countries), we should stick to the so-called
once through fuel cycle, with direct disposal of spent fuel, and strongly encourage other
countries to do likewise.
Champion Briefs
418
NEG: Restrictions Counter Plan
Restrictions Counter Plan

The thing that scares me the most about this topic is how much counterplan ground there
is this counterplan isnt just one counterplan in a traditional sense there are so many
different advantage counterplans that all solve for the same area that the negative needs to only
choose a couple to extensively prep, not all of them. This also puts a crazy burden on the
affirmatives to prep out all these counterplans, which the negative should take advantage of.
How to prepare/read these arguments
You should compile 2-3 counterplans that all solve for the same harm area i.e.
proliferation or nuclear waste, and read them all as a multi-plank counterplan. You should
extensively prep each plank because more likely than not affirmative debaters havent prepped
each counterplan as well as you should have. The affirmative harms fall into very distinct
categories you should prepare at least 2-3 planks for each harm area, for example, there are many
different terrorism-based affirmative so you should prepare the enrichment, HEU, and pledge of
eight counterplans and you have multiple options to solve the affirmatives and can pick and
choose. You should do the same for environment, accident, and war based affirmatives.
Specific CPs
The enrichment counterplan has a lot of potential against terrorism affirmatives theres
a certain isotope of uranium necessary in order to weaponize it to make a nuclear weapon. The
enrichment counterplan would limit countries to only having the isotope of uranium that allows
you to derive energy from it, but not weaponize it. The net benefit would be reasons why nuclear
energy is good. For the affirmative, a potential 1AR strategy would just be to read nuclear energy
bad against the counterplan, and that functions as offense in case you didnt have a reason energy
was bad in the 1AC.
The private sector liability counterplan is a good way to solve for environment/accident
affirmatives in the status quo a lot of them lack liability due to a litany of loopholes in the legal
system. This counterplan would place all the liability on private companies that then incentivize
them to improve operational practices that prevent things like waste dumping and accidents
because they then can be held accountable for those by both citizens and the government.
Champion Briefs
419
Demand for nuclear energy makes development inevitable

which means your impacts will either happen now or the
near future no matter what creating strict international
standards for production prior to nuclear expansion is key
to solving your impacts.
Decker, Debra. The Quest For Nuclear Security Standards. Stanley Foundation. 02--00--2016.
Web. August 17, 2016. <http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/publications/pab/DeckerRauhutPAB216.pdf>.
Despite setbacks to nuclear energy after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, demand for
nuclear energy is strong, both as a base-load source of power in the electricity-starved
developing world and as a way to limit climate change. Currently, 66 power reactors are under
construction to replace older plants and expand capacity, while countries from Jordan to Vietnam
plan for their longer term energy needs and possible nuclear new builds. Many countries with
limited or no experience are also making plans to develop research reactors.4 This expansion,
and a related increase in commerce in nuclear materials, raises the potential for incidents and
highlights the need for nuclear security. Concerns are heightened because countries that are
geographically and politically vulnerable to terrorist sabotage and attack such as Pakistan and
Turkey are building new reactors. Indeed, recent terrorist attacks in Europe and the United States
remind us of the vulnerability of all countries to terrorist threats, including the possibility that a
terrorist might obtain radioactive materials for malicious use. The system of international
security and safety to avoid or manage such incidents relies on a complex set of international
instruments framed by states and enforced by domestic regulators.5 Valuable assistance is
provided to states and operators through training and support from WINS, the World Association
of Nuclear Operators (WANO), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and others.6
The IAEA develops voluntary security guidelines with input from member states and invited
experts, but much is left up to state regulatory authorities who have varying levels of experience
and are constrained by varying economic resources as well as differing cultural norms. This is in
Champion Briefs
420
Demand for nuclear energy makes development inevitable which means your impacts will either
happen now or the near future no matter what creating strict international standards for
production prior to nuclear expansion is key to solving your impacts. (Continued)
contrast to the aviation and maritime areas, in which states as contracting parties to treaties must
comply with standards and have regular, mandatory audits. In nuclear safety, there are some
independent assessments against good practices beyond regulators and the IAEA. Good nuclear
operator safety practices have been effectively promulgated in the United States, which, after the
1979 Three Mile Island accident, established the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)
with peer reviews of agreed-on good practices. Reputation and financial incentives are associated
with good INPO ratingsthat is, a rating indicating the quality of a plants operations. It took
the 1986 Chernobyl disaster for the industry to establish WANO with similar although lesscompelling audits against good practices at nuclear facilities worldwide. This brings up the
interesting sociological and behavioral question of why we wait for a disaster to do the right
thing when we know that better practices reduce risk. Can industry deliberately get ahead of the
curve and proactively improve self-governance over security instead of responding to disaster?
Those responsible for developing WINS hope that it will be able to stop a security disaster before
it happens. Unlike safety, where the security risks have long been analyzed, nuclear security
risks are less well explored. A consensus on nuclear security threats is slow to materialize
because of resistance to information sharing, partly due to history. The limits to political and
diplomatic solutions to the internationalization of nuclear security have their roots in the initial
development of nuclear energy for weapons. The pursuit of peaceful uses for nuclear energy was
deferred until after World War II. The viability of nuclear technology as a safe, secure, and
peaceful source of energy requires balancing its simultaneous potential for civilian and military
applications. States have historically been resistant to cede control by agreeing to binding nuclear
standards. Limited treaty support is found, for example, in UN Security Council Resolution 1540
(2004), which requires states to prevent proliferation through appropriate effective measures.7
Champion Briefs
421
Demand for nuclear energy makes development inevitable which means your impacts will either
happen now or the near future no matter what creating strict international standards for
production prior to nuclear expansion is key to solving your impacts. (Continued)
More specifically, the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material, when it comes into force, will require states to protect their nuclear facilities and
materials and establishes fundamental principles such as, All organizations involved in
implementing physical protection should give due priority to the security culture, to its
development and maintenance necessary to ensure its effective implementation in the entire
organization.8 This and other principles detailed in the amendment, such as on quality
assurance, will make security more of a management imperative. Seeking more than such
general requirements, some have called for various solutions, including the Nuclear Security
Governance Experts Groups call for an international convention on nuclear security that would
clear define standards and assess compliance.9 Additionally, an amendment to the IAEA statute
or its broader interpretation might allow some broader IAEA authorities. However, the likelihood
of this or of the development of another convention with specific binding nuclear standards
appears small. Thus, in the short term, voluntary consensus standards appear the most promising
avenue for development. If standards are agreed on by multiple stakeholders, then accompanying
incentives could be developed that motivate their voluntary adoption. The benefits would justify
the costs of compliance with the standardized security measures.
Champion Briefs
422
Forcing executive liability is the best way to solve for

accidents compliance with standards is key to getting
companies to adopting voluntary security standards.
The lesson here is that those with sufficient purchasing power can define contract terms, but
verification of compliance with those terms still has its flaws. Ultimately, executive personal and
corporate accountability could have the greatest impact in assuring compliance. The potential for
liability for security incidents needs to be explored and may be a key factor in motivating
adoption of voluntary security measures. Tragedies such as Fukushima and the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 have led to increased citizen and government
efforts to hold corporations and individuals accountable for both civil and criminal negligence.
Compliance with a standard could provide more predictability with determinations of
reasonableness and negligence; this could be especially important, as the trend is to increase
liability limits for nuclear damage.
Champion Briefs
423
International actors should prevent the enrichment process

to weaponize the nuclear material allows them to access
energy benefits while avoiding prolif.
Ferguson, Charles. Proliferation Risks of Nuclear Power Programs.. 12--01--2007. Web.
August 17, 2016. <http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/risks-nuclear-power-programs>.
While Iran does not at this time appear willing to give up its uranium enrichment program, the
dilemma this program poses to international security has renewed interest in political and
financial incentives that would try to dissuade countries from engaging in enrichment and
reprocessing. One option is to offer fuel services contracts that are very economically
competitive. Under this scheme, a country or group of countries would guarantee that a state in
need of nuclear fuel would always have that fuel provided as long as that state did not enrich
uranium or reprocess plutonium. The fuel services could also include spent fuel management in
which the service providers would agree to remove the spent fuel and safely and securely store it.
Such action would remove the material the state would need to extract plutonium for a weapons
program. To assuage the states concerns about its sovereign rights, the service contract could be
worded to ensure that the state would not forego its right to enrich or reprocess but would choose
not to do these activities as long as it is under the contract.
The state might decide that it still wants to enrich and reprocess especially because it is planning
for a large nuclear power program. Generally, unless a state does not have more than eight large
nuclear power reactors, it does not make economic sense for the state to invest in making its own
nuclear fuel. In this case, a related proposal would come into play. That is, a group of countries
could offer to form a multinational partnership with the state to make fuel. Thus, nuclear-fuelmaking activities would take place in that state, but more than one country would be involved in
those activities. Added proliferation risk reduction enters into this scheme because there would
be more than one state involved in the operation of the fuel facility. This extra monitoring would
increase the likelihood of catching clandestine nuclear weapons activities in the state of concern.
Champion Briefs
424
Altering the isotope can prevent countries from enriching it

so it doesnt pose an immediate threat.
Ferguson, Charles. Proliferation Risks of Nuclear Power Programs.. 12--01--2007. Web.
August 17, 2016. <http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/risks-nuclear-power-programs/>.
As with the fuel services proposal, states can accept or reject multinational ownership and
control of fuel making facilities. The challenge is to make the incentives great enough. But an
unintended consequence of too great an incentive could be stimulation of large nuclear power
programs in countries where other energy sources could offer similar benefits of electricity
production without the added risk of possible nuclear proliferation. For example, the situation
could emerge in which a state expresses interest in nuclear power and is offered fuel services.
For many years, it could dutifully avail itself of these services, but then it could decide that its
nuclear program had grown so large that economics favor construction of fuel facilities on its
territory. It also decides that it does not want to have multinational control of these facilities.
Thus, this state could, partly as a result of the stimulus of the fuel services offer, reach a place in
its development in which it would eventually make its own fuel and consequently have a latent
nuclear weapons capability.
Recognizing that certain countries will enrich or reprocess, technical proposals aim to increase
the proliferation-resistance of these activities. For instance, there is ongoing research into
reprocessing methods that would not completely separate plutonium from fission products or
other radioactive materials such as transuranics. However, enough of the highly radioactive
isotopes would be removed such that the mixture of plutonium and the remaining isotopes would
not pose an immediately lethal barrier to theft. Also, there is the risk that a proliferant state could
take this mixture and use it as input to a clandestine PUREX reprocessing facility. In sum,
although proliferation-resistance technologies can offer added barriers to use of fissile material in
weapons programs, they are not proliferation-proof. Thus, there would be a continuing need for
safeguards and monitoring of peaceful nuclear programs that use proliferation-resistance
technologies.
Champion Briefs
425
Fulfilling the pledges from the group of eight helps provide

sufficient resources to accelerate the program to prevent
terrorism.
May, Michael. Stronger Measures Needed to Prevent Proliferation.. 2004. Web. August 17,
2016. <http://issues.org/20-3/may-2/>.
Fulfill the pledges of the Group of Eight. At the groups 2002 summit, seven of its member
nations pledged to provide Russia (the remaining member) with $20 billion over 10 years to help
prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. The United States pledged to
provide $10 billion of the total. Surplus nuclear weapons materials (several hundred tons of
plutonium and HEU, mainly but not solely in the former Soviet Union and the United States) are
probably the most urgent problem. This program has moved very slowly. Only a tiny fraction
has been spent or even allocated, according to a recent report from the Nuclear Threat Initiative,
a private group that monitors various global threats. No general mechanism has yet been
developed for either the distribution or receipt of the money pledged. Individual countries now
work out their own bilateral programs. The main program, that of the United States, currently is
mired in a dispute regarding the extent to which U.S. corporations and scientists will be shielded
from liability in the case of accidents occurring as a result of the program in Russia. According
to Sam Nunn, a former U.S. senator from Georgia and one of the programs earliest leaders, at
the present rate of progress it will be 20 years before these materials are adequately secured.
Champion Briefs
426
Phasing out HEU use in research reactors prevents

weaponizing nuclear material making the program a
higher priority incentivizes the use of low-enriched uranium.
Phase out the use of HEU in research reactors. Worldwide, 650 research reactors are known to
have been built. Of these, 283 remain operational in 58 countries (with 85 operating in 40
developing countries), 258 are shut down, and 109 have been decommissioned. Approximately
135 of the operating reactors (in 40 countries) use HEU, which is defined as uranium that has
been enriched so that at least 20 percent of its composition is U235, the isotopic form of uranium
that can be induced to fission and hence is suited not only for use in nuclear reactors but as a
material in nuclear weapons. Of the reactors that use HEU, about 60 either obtained their
uranium from the United States or had their fuel enriched in the United States. For a number of
years, the United States has been conducting a program to convert the U.S.-supplied reactors to
low-enriched uranium (LEU), which cannot be used to make weapons. Through this Reduced
Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors (RERTR) program, about half of the reactors have
been so converted, with the United States generally taking back the HEU. To speed up progress,
the RERTR program needs higher priority. In addition, other countries, such as Russia and
France, have not been so diligent to date, and some countries where the reactors are located have
not been as cooperative as others.
Champion Briefs
427
Implementing protocols to improve physical security of

weaponizable material puts in safeguards that prevents theft
and acquisition by terrorists.
Implement a protocol to improve the physical security of weapons-usable material. There are no
IAEA safeguards standards in force for the physical protection of nuclear materials. George
Bunn, former general counsel of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and now a
consulting professor at Stanford University, notes that IAEA safeguards deter the country where
the material is located from diverting it because the diversion will be discovered by accounting
and inspection, but they are only marginally relevant to thieves or terrorists. The relevant treaty,
the Convention on Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, applies to such material only in
international transport, not to its use or storage in the territory of its home country. Attempts to
amend this treaty to make it more effective have been under way since 1998, with partial
agreement being reached in 2003 on substantial portions of text. However, the draft does not
establish specific standards for protection because the negotiators are afraid to make the
standards known to terrorists and because the negotiators dont want a treaty to govern internal
security measures, Bunn says. The pertinent IAEA standards are only recommendations
adopted in 1999before September 11. Lack of progress in this area is due, in large measure, to
different approaches to implementing physical security in different countries. For example,
armed guards are routinely used in some countries, including the United States, but are banned in
other countries; and advanced electronic barriers are not available everywhere. Physical security
is a sensitive area in most countries, so that the protocol will not move forward rapidly without
(and perhaps even with) effective U.S. leadership.
Champion Briefs
428
Implementing additional protocols of the IAEA allows for

international regulation by member states to prevent prolif.
Make implementing the Additional Protocol of the IAEA a high priority and allow sensitive
exports only to states complying with it. This protocol provides for more rigorous monitoring of
facilities. It has been worked out among the state members of the IAEA over the past decade or
more, and it is being implemented on a trial basis in a few of these states. Most recently, Iran has
agreed to its implementation. But implementation remains far from ideal. Still, there is
considerable backing for the protocol, and it may be that with U.S. leadership, most countries
will agree to implementation, though perhaps slowly, at best. Although not the last word in
facilities monitoring, the protocol nevertheless represents a significant improvement over past
practices. In particular, it provides for two key measures. One measure gives the IAEA a right to
request complementary access, on two hours notice, to additional facilities not originally
included in routine inspections. The other permits environmental monitoring near an inspection
site and, with the permission of the country involved, anywhere else. This latter provision makes
it easier for IAEA inspectors to justify asking for environmental inspections anywhere and puts
pressure on the inspected country to justify any refusal. These provisions would make
concealment of a clandestine nuclear program much harder to maintain. Proving a negative is
always difficult, however. As David Donohue of the IAEA Safeguards Analytical Laboratory has
noted, Solving the problem of verifying the absence of undeclared nuclear facilities requires
tools that can give high evidence of detecting the presence of such facilities. These tools would
include sensors, such as cameras and radiochemical detectors, both on and off site; secure
communication of sensor data in real time; and prompt no-notice inspections. Such tools would
be in addition to measures that theoretically could be taken under the present protocols but have
not been fully developed or installed, such as the use of portal monitors, emission sensors to
provide facility data from operating reactors, electrical power monitors, and specialized monitors
to indicate reactor performance between inspections. The technical requirements are thus quite
high, and significant ongoing investments are needed by reactor operators and by the IAEA.
Champion Briefs
429
Minimizing weapons-usable material via buying a new fuel

cycle creates a secure energy source that increases security
while the research is unclear the status quo is not an option.
May, Michael. Stronger Measures Needed To Prevent Proliferation. 2004. Web. August 17,
Minimize accumulation of weapons-usable material, if necessary by using a new fuel cycle.
Several tons of separated plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle now exist in Japan, Russia, and
Western Europe, and hundreds of tons of excess plutonium and highly enriched uranium have
been generated as part of the production of nuclear weapons. Reducing the HEU is technically
straightforward: HEU can be blended down into LEU and the product then used as fuel in
operating nuclear power plants. In practice, however, this effort has been held up several times
by disagreements among the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), which is responsible for the
job, the U.S. Department of Energy, Congress, and private interests, and has been proceeding
slowly. The root causes are that the demand for nuclear fuel is limited, and the USEC, as a
supplier to U.S. users, has an interest in minimizing the flow of foreign uranium into the United
States. Reducing the stock of plutonium is more complex. Plutonium can be partially burned by
combining it with uranium and introducing the mixed uranium-plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel into
existing reactors. The leftover plutonium, now changed chemically and mixed in with highly
radioactive spent fuel, is less available and desirable for weapons use. This method already is
used in France, and a preliminary MOX program is under way in the United States. Plutonium
could be burned more completely in a new generation of fast neutron spectrum reactors, but this
approach would take longer and cost more, given the development, licensing, and construction
time needed to install such reactors. Indeed, both of these methods entail higher costs than the
present methods of fueling nuclear reactors, and therefore they will have to be subsidized by the
government. Still another method for disposing of plutonium is to immobilize it in a stable
matrix and then bury that material underground. Work on this approach is under way, but again it
is going slowly because of costs, perceived environmental problems, and questions about the
procedures effectiveness in providing a barrier against later plutonium separation. The actual
Champion Briefs
430
Minimizing weapons-usable material via buying a new fuel cycle creates a secure energy source
that increases security while the research is unclear the status quo is not an option. (Continued)
degree of security that this method provides and the economic consequences of moving to
production-scale activities remain significant unknowns. Answering such questions may take
decades. In addition, permanent disposal is unattractive to some individuals and governments,
particularly in Russia, who see excess plutonium as a resource for the future. If nuclear reactors
and fuel-cycle activities spread more broadly in the world, then a fuel cycle that minimizes the
accumulation of weapons-usable material will increasingly be viewed as necessary for security.
This effort is held hostage to the debate, almost theological in nature, between adherents of the
once-through cycle and those of reprocessing. Each side quotes economic and environmental
arguments. In fact, the economic differences are well within the uncertainties of the estimates, as
are the environmental differences. Thus, a clear choice remains elusive. It is clear, however, that
secure fuel cycles, with and without reprocessing, need to be developed. Preliminary work has
been done on such cycles, notably by Argonne National Laboratory.
Champion Briefs
431
Creating international sites for nuclear material allows for

the necessary monitoring that would solve for 99% of
concerns.
Establish internationally available storage sites for nuclear materials. Since Eisenhowers initial
proposal, many suggestions have been made for putting nuclear materials not actually being
used, whatever the source and composition, under international monitoring or control. The
proposals have variously been driven by security, safety, and environmental considerations, and
they have floundered owing too economic, political, and siting concerns. Such recommendations
may now receive more attention, for security as well as political reasons. In several countries, the
storage of spent fuel at utility sites (probably not the most secure form of storage) cannot be
increased without incurring costs that utilities are unwilling to bear. Recently, the IAEAs
director general said, We should consider multinational approaches to the management and
disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste Considerable advantagesin cost, safety, security,
and nonproliferationwould be gained from international cooperation in these stages of the fuel
cycle. This message has been expanded by a member of Japans Nuclear Safety Commission
and professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Tokyo, Atsuyuki Suzuki, who said,
What I believe is more acceptable globally is to establish a multinational system where spent
fuel is managed with more centralized and intensive international safeguards It would
generate a tremendous amount of benefits for many nations which intend to use nuclear energy
for peaceful purposes only, because it would provide the most economical and flexible option for
managing spent fuel not merely in terms of direct cost but also taking into account indirect cost
associated with such externalities as security and environmental concern.
Champion Briefs
432
Placing enrichment facilities develops transparency that

creates the necessary cooperation to check proliferation and
independent countries from acting by themselves.
May, Michael. Stronger Measures Needed To Prevent Proliferation.. 2004. Web. August 17,
Place enrichment and separation facilities under international authority. This proposal, made
most recently along with other measures along the lines suggested in this paper, by IAEA
Director General Mohammed ElBaradei in the fall of 2003 and again in 2004, is the most
controversial, and arguably the most important. It also is the one on which the least progress has
been made. Enrichment and separation facilities already exist in at least a dozen countries. They
involve both commercial and military secrets. Vested interests, including the owners of these
facilities and the managers of other facilities who want assured fuel supplies at market prices, are
considerable and not reconciled. The recent disagreement between Iran and the United States and
other nations about Irans need for enrichment facilities is a case in point. The problem must be
tackled, because these are the most sensitive facilities in the nuclear enterprise, aside from
storage sites for weapons-usable materials. Control over enrichment facilities or plutonium
separation facilities gives a state a capability to take the most time-consuming step toward
nuclear weapons, yet remain within their Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) rights under Article IV
of the NPT. A host of possibilities can be envisioned for dealing with this problem as nuclear
power expands worldwide. Among the suggestions to date are international monitoring of
national facilities or some form of international authority over these facilities (perhaps including
international ownership). The latter obviously brings up governance questions that are far from
settled. In a February 12, 2004, speech at the National Defense University, President Bush
proposed several initiatives along the lines discussed here and in general accordance with
measures also proposed by ElBaradei. A major difference was that President Bush proposed that,
Enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes. The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell
enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already
Champion Briefs
433
Placing enrichment facilities develops transparency that creates the necessary cooperation to
check proliferation and independent countries from acting by themselves. (Continued)
May, Michael. Stronger Measures Needed To Prevent Proliferation.. 2004. Web. August 17,
possess full-scale, functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants. The Bush plan would create
an international cartel, albeit the president also said: The worlds leading nuclear exporters
should ensure that states have reliable access at reasonable cost to fuel for civilian reactors, so
long as those states renounce enrichment and reprocessing. The plan nevertheless would almost
surely be considered by some, perhaps most, NPT parties to violate Article IV of the NPT. On
the other hand, it would bypass the need for international agreement and enforcement and could
be put into practice progressively as supplier states agreed. Possibly a combination of the Bush
and the ElBaradei proposals could evolve if most states agreed to the substance of the two, but
considerable negotiation would be required. The current difficulties over Irans and North
Koreas capabilities and the proliferation network centered on Pakistan are only an early
indication of what may come to pass as nuclear-related capabilities and demand for electricity
worldwide increase. The leaders of the primary countries with nuclear capabilities should
establish an international working group charged with developing a technical, administrative,
and legal framework that will lay the groundwork for resolving the questions noted (and others
like them) in a way that puts security first while safeguarding commercial and military interests.
Technically, this is feasible. Politically, it is another matter. President Bush, in his February
speech, took a step in that direction by proposing the creation of a special committee of the
IAEA Board which will focus intensively on safeguards and verification and that No state
under investigation for proliferation violations should be allowed to serve on the IAEA Board of
Governorsor on the new special committee.
Champion Briefs
434
The vague nature of the NPT allows for countries to get

away with violations and develop their nuclear capabilities
improving the definition of what constitutes a violation
solves terrorism and proliferation.
Improved definition of what constitutes a violation of the NPT and what justifies inspections.
The NPT is not a solution to all nuclear ills, but it remains the only widely accepted basis for
evaluating international programs of cooperation in nuclear matters, whether involving
assistance with civilian technologies or security against misuse of these technologies. An
essential step in making the treaty adequate to a world in which nuclear weapons technologies
are more widely available is to agree on a definition of what constitutes a violation. Today,
countries that want an option to produce nuclear weapons can build facilities to make the
necessary materials and come right up to the design and testing of the actual weapons, all
without violating the NPT. Placing enrichment and separation facilities under international
authority, in conjunction with tightening physical protection and improving accounting and
inspection practices, would go a long way toward remedying that situation. If such authority is in
place, then a refusal to abide by the authoritys standards or an attempt to evade its oversight
should be defined as a violation of the NPT. That will not be agreed to easily. But important
leverage can be provided if the countries that have or readily could have nuclear power can reach
broad agreement that nuclear terrorism must be prevented.
Champion Briefs
435
Extending and clarifying security assurances and the basis

for extending them solves the current lack of regulation that
allowed for the aff harms.
Extend and clarify security assurances and the basis for extending them. The NPT, it can be
argued, has been successful because of two factors: the past technological difficulty of making
nuclear weapons and the discipline imposed by the Cold War on most nuclear-capable states.
Both factors are now gone. With respect to nuclear proliferation, the bipolar order is gone and a
unipolar order has not been established; indeed, the idea of a unipolar order is opposed by many
of the states that would be natural partners in restoring effective nuclear nonproliferation
measures. These measures on the demand side include security assurances and economic benefits
for the states that adhere to the NPT, and enforcement threats (political, economic, and, if
necessary, military) against those that do not. The assurances given by the nuclear weapons
states to the effect that they will not attack the nonnuclear weapons states with nuclear weapons
are clearly insufficient: states such as Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are concerned not just
about U.S. actions but also about the possible actions of their neighbors. The assurances thus
must be broad-based, contingent on good international behavior, and, in essence, parallel to those
of the UN Charter, under which the UN Security Council will consider action in case of attack by
one state against another. Such broad assurances now exist only on paper, and the record does
not support confidence in them. It will be extremely difficult to bring such confidence about. The
obstacles standing in the way of bringing about such an international order have their roots both
in the states that would provide the assurances and the states that need them. Coherent, consistent
actions by the major powers may bring about some progress over the long term.
Champion Briefs
436
Developing U.S. leadership in nuclear deterrence capabilities

helps solve the challenge of new threats to the future
prevention is good but having the necessary offensive
capabilities to address these threats is also key.
Exercise U.S. leadership in reducing both nuclear weapons and reliance on them. Although most
of the current and previous U.S. strategies and policies place high priority on limiting or ending
the proliferation of nuclear weapons and preventing nuclear terrorism, one aspect of policy now
goes in the opposite direction: the new emphasis on nuclear weapons spelled out by the U.S.
Department of Defense in its recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). According to the NPR,
U.S. nuclear forces still require the capability to hold at risk a wide range of target types. This
capability is key to the role of nuclear forces in supporting an effective deterrence strategy
relative to a broad spectrum of potential opponents under a variety of contingencies. Nuclear
attack options that vary in scale, scope, and purpose will complement other military capabilities.
The NPR further states that new nuclear capabilities must be developed to defeat emerging
threats such as hard and deeply buried targets, to find and attack mobile and relocatable targets,
to defeat chemical or biological agents, and to improve accuracy and limit collateral damage.
Development of these capabilities, to include extensive research and timely fielding of new
systems to address these challenges, is imperative. However, a number of countries, including
some key U.S. allies, maintain that these developments would violate U.S. obligations under the
NPT, as well as the nations obligations undertaken in connection with the 2000 NPT Review
Conference. Representatives of these countries, along with many people within and outside of
the United States, such as the IAEAs ElBaradei, believe that the nuclear weapons states must
adhere to their obligations under the NPT if the treaty is to remain effective. The development of
new nuclear weapons capabilities by current nuclear states can provide incentives for the
development of nuclear weapons by other states and make the attainment of a unified and
effective international stance against nuclear proliferation even more difficult.
Champion Briefs
437
Encoring analysis of non-nuclear alternatives incentivizes

greater investment that prevents the need for nuclear
energy.
Sokolski, Henry. Nuclear Power, Energy Markets, And Proliferation. 06--02--2010. Web.
August 17, 2016. <http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=81&tid=5>.
1. Encouraging more complete, routine comparisons of civilian nuclear energys costs with its
nonnuclear alternatives. The starting point for any rational commercial energy investment
decision is a proper evaluation of the costs of selecting one option over another. Here, as already
detailed, governments have a weak track record.
Account for Nuclear Powers Full Costs: One way they could improve their performance
is to take what few economic energy assessments they must do more seriously and conduct them
routinely. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), for example, must score the public
costs of guaranteeing commercial energy loans, including the nuclear industry in the U.S. The
CBO has been asked to do this by Congress several times in the last decade. Yet, the last time the
CBO made the assessment for proposed loan guarantees in 2008, it failed to give a figure for the
probable rate of default on nuclear projects. The CBOs director claims that without proprietary
information, the CBO has no way to make such estimates. The last time CBO attempted such
projections was in 2003, when it pegged the likely default rate under proposed loan guarantee
legislation at the time at 50 percent.[51] The Department of Energy, meanwhile, announced that
essentially it viewed such information to be proprietary. It would be useful for the CBO to get
the information it needs to update and qualify such projections. At a minimum, the CBO should
tackle this question every time it estimates what any commercial energy loan guarantees will
cost. Congress, meanwhile, should demand that DoE make all of its own estimates relating to
these issue public. Also, every time the CBO or DoE make such projections they should be
reviewed in public hearings before Congress.
Champion Briefs
438
Encoring analysis of non-nuclear alternatives incentivizes greater investment that prevents the
need for nuclear energy. (Continued)
Compare Nuclear with Nonnuclear: Yet another way the U.S. government could improve
its commercial energy cost comparisons is by finally implementing Title V of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Act of 1978, which calls on the Executive Branch to conduct energy
assessments in cooperation with, and on behalf of, key developing states. The focus of this
cooperation was to be on nonnuclear, nonfossil-fueled alternative sources of energy. Yet, for
these cost assessments to have any currency, they would have to be compared with the full lifecycle costs of nuclear power and traditional energy sources estimates. This work also should be
supported by the United Nations newly proposed International Renewable Energy Agency
(IRENA).[52] Finally, in order for any of these efforts to produce sound cost comparisons,
though, more accurate tallies of what government energy subsidies are worth for each energy
type will be required.
Increase the Number of Energy Subsidy Economists: The number of full-time energy
subsidy economists is currently measured in the scores rather than in the hundreds. Government
and privately funded fellowships, full-time positions and the like may be called for to increase
these numbers.
Champion Briefs
439
Dis-incentivizing government finance of nuclear projects

puts it on the private sector which lowers security risks.
3. Discouraging the use of government financial incentives to promote commercial nuclear
power. This recommendation was made by the Congressional Commission on the Prevention of
Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism.[54] It would clearly include
discouraging new, additional federal loan guarantees for nuclear fuel or power plant construction
of the type now being proposed by President Obama and the nuclear industry. Although this
stricture should also be applied against other types of energy (e.g., coal, renewables, natural gas,
etc.) as well, the security risks associated with the further spread of civilian nuclear energy make
it especially salient in the case of nuclear. This same prohibition should also be applied against
U.S. support for developmental bank loans (i.e., subsidized loans) for commercial nuclear
development and against other states (e.g., France, Japan, Germany, Russia, China, and South
Korea) use of subsidized government financing to secure civilian nuclear exports. In some cases,
these foreign export loan credits are being used in the US in conjunction with US federal loan
guarantees and local state tax incentives to all but eliminate the risks of investing in new nuclear
power plant construction. This should be discouraged. In the case of every large civilian nuclear
project, domestic or foreign, every effort should be made to place as much private capital at risk
as possible in order to assure due diligence in these projects execution. Even under the existing
U.S. federal loan guarantee program, 20 percent of each nuclear project must be financed
without federal protection. For purposes of implementing this law, this nominal figure should be
covered entirely with private investment; not by resort to rate hikes for ratepayers.[55]
Champion Briefs
440
The U.S. government should end federal funding of certain

nuclear projects outline by Sokolski this alters the dynamic
in the private sector placing the burden of funding and
investment on them that drastically increases security.
Managing Nuclear Waste: Today, the lowest cost interim solution to storing spent fuel
(good for 50 to several hundred years) is dry cask storage above ground at reactor sites.
Recycling spent fuel, on the other hand, is not only more expensive, but runs much greater
proliferation, terrorism and nuclear theft risks. For these reasons, President Bush in 2004, the
IAEA in 2005, and the bipartisan U.S. Congressional Commission on the Prevention of Weapons
of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism in 2008 all called for the imposition of a
moratorium on commercial reprocessing.[56] This reflects economic commonsense.
Unfortunately, in many advanced states that operate nuclear power reactors, the governments
own and operate the power plants. As a result, full employment, development of nuclear
weapons options, and other political or military concerns often override straightforward cost
benefit analysis.[57] In the United States, this tendency can be avoided by having the nuclear
utilities themselves assume a significant portion of the costs of nuclear waste management and
reactor site decommissioning. This would require changing U.S. law, which currently stipulates
that all of the costs of final spent fuel storage are to be paid for by off budget federal user fees.
Making Nuclear Fuel: As for the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle, firm nuclear fuel
contracts in hand, rather than government funding or loan guarantees secured should dictate any
new construction of nuclear fuel making facilities or their expansion. With such contracts in
hand, it should be possible to secure private financing for such projects. There currently is
substantial interest in creating international fuel banks to assure reliable supply of fresh nuclear
fuel and of reprocessing services to states that foreswear making their own nuclear fuel. If any
such banks are created, though, they should charge whatever the prevailing market price might
Champion Briefs
441
The U.S. government should end federal funding of certain nuclear projects outline by Sokolski
this alters the dynamic in the private sector placing the burden of funding and investment on
them that drastically increases security. (Continued)
be for the nuclear products and services they provide. The rationale for this is simple:
Subsidizing the price risks creating a false demand for risky near weapons usable fuels, such as
mixed oxide and other plutonium-based fuels. Currently, states can satisfy their demand for fresh
fuel without having to resort to any international bank and no state has a need to reprocess for
any reason. Subsidizing these fuel services has been proposed as a way to induce states to
eschew making their own nuclear fuels. This proposal however, seems unsound. First, it is
unclear who the customers are. India and Canada already make their own natural uranium fuels,
which require no enrichment. Several others France, Russia, Japan, Brazil, and China --enrich
their own fuel and the remaining nuclear fuel consuming states seem content to buy their fuels
from U.S. providers, Russia, URENCO, or Eurodif. Second, it is unlikely that nuclear fuel
subsidies would be sufficient to block determined proliferators: After all, only a small percent of
any nuclear power plants life cycle costs are associated with its fueling requirements. Again,
given the dangers of propping up dangerous reprocessing activities and the dubious requirement
to provide enriched fuel, the world can well afford to depend more on market mechanisms to
determine when and how these services are provided.
Use of Weapons Grade Uranium Fuels: Finally, the use of nuclear weapons usable highly
enriched uranium is a nuclear fuel cycle option that is no longer necessary for the production of
power or of medical, agricultural or industrial isotopes. There are fewer and fewer research
reactors that use highly enriched uranium (HEU), but what few operators there are are more than
willing to pay to continue to use this fuel rather than to pay the costs of converting to low
enriched uranium alternatives. Given the direct usability of HEU to make nuclear weapons,
however, the elimination and blending down of these fuels are imperative to avoid nuclear
proliferation and terrorism risks. In the U.S., the handful of remaining HEU-fueled plants receive
government funding. This should end by establishing a date certain for these few remaining
reactors to be converted to use LEU-based fuels.[58]
Champion Briefs
442
Countries circumvent official facilities will agree to

regulations but will set up equipment to nuclearize
elsewhere.
WNA. Safeguards To Prevent Nuclear Proliferation. World Nuclear Association. 04--00-2016. Web. August 17, 2016. <http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safetyand-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx>.
Iraq, Iran and North Korea illustrate both the strengths and weaknesses of international
safeguards. While accepting safeguards at declared facilities, Iraq and Iran had set up elaborate
equipment elsewhere in an attempt to enrich uranium, in Iraqs case, to weapons grade. North
Korea used research reactors (not commercial electricity-generating reactors) and a reprocessing
plant to produce some weapons-grade plutonium
Champion Briefs
443
NEG: Eco-Feminism Movements DA
Eco-Feminism Movements Disadvantage

Ecofeminism is a radical movement and philosophy which seeks to problematize the
relationship between masculinity and ecological destruction. In general these movements began
in the 70s and gained traction in 80s and 90s as both environmentalism and feminism gained
more mainstream appeal. Many eco-feminist scholars write about nuclear power and
technological management strategies as a whole. The most prolific writer in this literature is
generally regarded as Vandana Shiva, an Indian scholar who fights against patriarchalneoliberalism in several fields. Writing an affirmative from an eco-feminist lens would be
relatively simple given the cards provided, but the more interesting approach is to use these
arguments on the neg. This can happen in two ways: the movements DA and the ecofem K. If a
negative chooses to run these arguments as a DA, the first task will be to prove that SQ trends
are challenging the human growth model and breaking down gendered environmental violence.
Fortunately Shiva is pretty optimistic this is happening and even impacts out the success of this
trend to the avoidance of human and environmental extinction. The next task will be to prove
that challenges to nuclear power miss the larger ecological problem of an obsession with growth.
One possible argument is that nuclear disasters are good because they make obvious humans
impact on the environment. This is the place you will also include any generic movements links
you might have. Ive included the Dilts card as an example of excellent supplemental link
analysis. From here spinning an internal link and impact story should be a matter of semantics.
The second option would be to ignore the Uniqueness question and simply make this position a
K. Included in the file are several different alternatives. If someone were to seek a more policy
based counter proposal, gender mainstreaming would be a good term of art to start with for a
CP in the same literature.
Champion Briefs
444
The relationship between gender and nuclear politics is

dynamic and heavily influenced by contemporary hegemonic
social structures.
Woodworth, Jamie. The Gender Of Renewable Energy: Theory On The Politics Of Sustainable
Energy Development In Iceland. Honors Thesis for the University of Colorado at
Boulder. 05-xx-2016. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=honr_theses>.
On the whole, the rhetoric of gender in energy politics is subject to constant change. In modern
contexts of energy politics, masculinity is characterized and maintained in financial power as
well as persisting norms of physical control. So, how might femininity be characterized in the
dialectics of resource extraction? Lynnette Zelezny, in her article, Elaborating on Gender
Differences in Environmentalism, posits that women express pro-environmental behavior
contrastingly with men because of a propensity to account for harmful consequences of poor
environmental conditions for their community, themselves, and the ecosystem, in congruence
with one another (Zelezny, 2000, 446). For example, examination of gender differences in
attitudes toward nuclear power shows that women are more concerned [than men] about safety
issues of nuclear power (Stern, 1993, p.330). Moreover, a 1990s Scandanavian study on
attitudes on nuclear power reveals that 60% of men showed support for nuclear power because of
its benefit to the economy. However, 80% of women showed dissenting opinions because of long
term health ramifications (Clancy, 2003, p.47). Similarly, research in the U.S. reveals that the
preponderance of women express disapproval for nuclear power for its negative environmental
externalities even in the event of job losses (Clancy, 2003, p.47). This gendered discrepancy in
value expression hearkens to the three primary interests of sustainability: ecology, society, and
economy. Contemporary forms of hegemonic masculinities and femininities in environmental
discourse seem to broadly correlate with different legs of sustainable development. Within the
purview of natural resource politics, hegemonic masculinity often draws power from economic
dominance, where-as mainstream femininity draws on more social diligence.
Champion Briefs
445
Environmental values are not heterogeneous and are

extremely variant across spatial and temporal levels.
Woodworth, Jamie. The Gender Of Renewable Energy: Theory On The Politics Of Sustainable
Energy Development In Iceland. Honors Thesis for the University of Colorado at
Boulder. 05-xx-2016. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://scholar.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=honr_theses>.
However, I follow in saying that the presentation of environmental values, in language and
activism, is not heterogenous (Schahn, 1990, 770). This holds true across several planes. For one,
men and women dont consistently represent the same ideologies throughout their lifetimes, nor
are these ideologies necessarily parceled out according to sex. Secondly, environmental values
are extremely variant on both spatial and temporal levels: environmental values in Iceland, for
instance, may differ greatly from the United States, especially in the context of natural resource
masculinity, which is differently scripted in Icelands overwhelming landscape of renewable
energy technologies. Further, environmental values change on vectors of evolving environmental
problems, as well as the dynamic social vistas in which they are placed. Despite the seeming
incalculability of these constellating factors, dominant themes emerge across these planes that
narrativize how masculinity and femininity discursively preside in contemporary sustainable
energy development. Namely, that masculine traits: aggressiveness, dominance, competitiveness
(Holt, 1998, p.394) are deployed through economic decision-making; and feminine traits:
compassion, gentility, and sensitivity (Holt, 1998, p.394), are geared towards higher social
consciousness in decision-making.
Champion Briefs
446
A change in consciousness is already taking place

challenging the dominant logic of the Anthropocene .
Shiva, Vandana. Ecofeminism. Zed Books. xx-xx-2014. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://www.worldcat.org/title/ecofeminism/oclc/879984251>.
The destructive Anthropocene is not the only future. We can undergo a paradigm shift. A
change in consciousness is already taking place across the world. We can look at the destructive
impact our species has had on the planets biodiversity, ecosystems and climate systems and
prevent it. The ecological shift involves not seeing ourselves as outside the ecological web of
life, as masters, conquerors and owners of the Earths resources. It means seeing ourselves as
members of the Earth family, with responsibility* to care for other species and life on Earth in all
its diversity, from the tiniest microbe to the largest mammal. It creates the imperative to live,
produce and consume within ecological limits and within our share of ecological space, without
encroaching on the rights of other species and other people. It is a shift that recognizes that
science has already made a change in paradigm from separation to non-separability and
interconnectedness, from the mechanistic and reductionist to the relational and holistic. At the
economic level it involves going beyond the artificial and even false categories of perpetual
economic growth, so- called free trade, consumerism and competitiveness. It means shifting to a
focus on planetary and human well-being, to living economies, to living well, to not having
more, to valuing cooperation rather than competitiveness. These are the shifts being made by
indigenous communities, peasants, women and young people in new movements such as the
Indignants in Europe and Occupy Wall Street in the USA. This involves working as co-creators
and co-producers with the Earth. This demands using our intelligence to conserve and heal, not
conquer and wound. This is the creative and constructive Anthropocene of Earth Democracy,
based on ecological humility in place of arrogance, and ecological responsibility in place of
careless and blind exercise of power, control and violence. For humans to protect life on Earth
and their own future we need to become deeply conscious of the rights of Mother Earth, our
duties towards her and our compassion for all her beings. Our world has been structured by
capitalist patriarchy around fictions and abstractions like capital, corporations and growth,
which have allowed the unleashing of the negative forces of the destructive Anthropocene. We
need to get grounded again - in the Earth, her diversity, and her living processes - and unleash
the positive forces of a creative Anthropocene. We will either make peace with the Earth or face
extinction as humans, even as we push millions of other species to extinction. Continuing the
war against the Earth is not an intelligent option.
Champion Briefs
447
The growth model is being challenged in the Status Quo.

Across the world, people are questioning the growth model. Limitless growth on a limited
planet is an ecological impossibility. In any case, growth measured as GNP and GDP result in
ecological and social destruction. The more the economy grows, the faster our ecosystems,
species and communities are destroyed. The more the economy grows, the fewer the creative
opportunities for people, especially young people. That is why people around the world are
questioning growth and instruments that falsely measure destruction as growth.
Champion Briefs
448
Uranium mining uniquely impacts children and mothers.

Richardson, Jill. Vandana Shiva: A Condemnation of Nuclear Power & The Kyoto Protocol.
Organic Consumers Association. August 11, 2008. Web. August 13, 2016.
<https://www.organicconsumers.org/news/vandana-shiva-condemnation-nuclear-powerkyoto-protocol>.
This crushed rock, or uranium tailings, contains more than a dozen radioactive materials,
including thorium-230, radium-226, and the gas radon-222. If the tailings are allowed to remain
on the surface and dry out, they can be carried by wind onto faraway vegetation, entering the
radioactive material into the food chain, or be washed into rivers and lakes, contaminating the
water supply. At the Jaduguda mine the coarse tailings are dumped back into the mine and the
fine tailings are mixed with water and pumped via a pipeline to the tailing dams near Jaduguda
village. A study of people living within 1 kilometer of the tailing dams showed that 42 percent
of women had developed menstrual problems, 18 percent had suffered miscarriages or had given
birth to stillborn babies, and 30 percent had other fertility problems. Children born in the area are
born with deformities, skeletal distortions, partly deformed skulls and organs. The more than
7000 mine workers are also continuously exposed to radiation hazards.
Champion Briefs
449
There is a global challenge to nuclear power now.

Shiva, Vandana. Nuclear Insanity. Centre for Research on Globalization. 05-25-2011. Web.
August 13, 2016. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-insanity/24963>.
Following the Fukushima disaster, China, Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Malaysia, Thailand and
the Philippines are reviewing their nuclear power programmers. As Alexander Glaser, assistant
professor in the department of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University,
observes, It will take time to grasp the full impact of the unimaginable human tragedy unfolding
after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, but it is already clear that the proposition of a global
nuclear renaissance ended on that day. Across India, movements are growing against old and
new nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plants are proposed at Haripur (West Bengal), Mithi
Virdi (Gujarat), Madban (Maharashtra), Pitti Sonapur (Orissa), Chutka (Madhya Pradesh) and
Kavada (Andhra Pradesh).
Champion Briefs
450
Alternative: Engage in abolitionist politics which is the

productive refusal to reproduce the rule of capital in all
instances. This solves best for targeting and breaking down
intersecting webs of oppression.
Dilts, Andrew. To Build A World That Is Otherwise: Andrew Dilts On Abolition. The
Abolition Journal. February 07, 2015. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://abolitionjournal.org/andrew-dilts-abolition-statement/>.
Abolition is the collective practice of productive refusal. It is an immoderate rejection of white
supremacy (and whiteness itself), patriarchy, hetero-normativity, ableism, settler-colonialism,
border imperialism, political hierarchy, and the rule of capital. It is a politics of discomfort,
constant reflection, continuous analysis, and what Alisa Bierria has eloquently named, a practice
of subversive proposition. It is a demand that those at the center take on what the late Iris
Marion Young calls the fearless practice of respectful listening to those relegated to the
margins (which also means starting from a serious skepticism about anything said about
abolition by folks like myself). It is an insistence to actively support and center those most
targeted by intersecting axes of oppression and domination.
Champion Briefs
451
Generic Link: Targeted attempts to challenge the logic of

capital through policies just gives the illusion of solvency.
Dilts, Andrew. To Build A World That Is Otherwise: Andrew Dilts On Abolition. The
Abolition Journal. February 07, 2015. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://abolitionjournal.org/andrew-dilts-abolition-statement/>.
It must be all of these things, not in spite of, but because abolitionist projects necessarily focus
on specific institutions and practices in order to be concrete and meaningful material projects. Of
course, by focusing narrowly (on prisons, police, the death penalty, etc.) we also run the risk of
abolishing institutions and practices but allowing their functions to thrive in a new and more
deeply entrenched form. As Angela Davis reminds us, invoking W.E.B. Du Bois, the current
state of incarceration in the United States is a direct result of the abolition of chattel slavery.
Having only negatively abolished slavery without positively enacting the social, political, and
economic institutions promoting black liberation, hetero-patriarchal white supremacy was easily
retrenched in convict leasing, lynch law, and the entire criminal punishment system. This is to
remember, as Joy James reminds us, that chattel slavery was abolished in the United States not
just with an explicit exception as punishment for crime, but through this exception in law. We
have not simply failed to achieve Du Bois abolition-democracy, but we have seen abolitionist
projects fail through their own success, shoring up the wages of whiteness, colonialism, and
masculinity. This implies internal refusals as well: a refusal to grant the premise that we can
abolish the prison without abolishing white supremacy, a refusal to believe that we can end white
supremacy without the death of hetero-patriarchy, a refusal to accept that we can destroy heteropatriarchy without rejecting colonialism, and imperialism, and capitalism, and ableism, and so
on, and so on In this way, we realize that the particular narrow foci of abolitionist projects are
in fact always already broadly focused if they are truly to be transformative and not reformist.
We must think and live abolition broadly, always recognizing that our targets are produced and
maintained by interlocking and intersecting conditions that must themselves be refused, rejected,
and abolished. These are both the strategic and substantive locations to do the work, to think
reflectively about the freedom of others, and to build a world that is otherwise.
Champion Briefs
452
Alternative: Nuclear power should be analyzed through the

lens of political ecology to better understand the uneven
distribution of its benefits and harms.
Political ecology has rarely been utilized in analyzing the nuclear sector, even though it holds
great promise for explaining the complex socio-environmental processes involved. Work done
tends to focus on the military dimension (e.g. Mathur, 2001; Masco, 2006), even as a growing
literature examines other ills of the risk society (e.g. Harrison, 2008; Little, 2013). In the
process, political ecology analysis of civil nuclear power tends to be neglected. This is
unfortunate, because political ecology has much to offer here. First, it provides a useful
framework for understanding the uneven distribution of the costs and benefits of nuclear power.
Studies of anti-nuclear movements have certainly analyzed them in relation to the emergence of
new social movements in the developed economies from the 1960s (Welsh, 2013; Touraine et
al., 1983; Rudig, 1990; Joppke, 1993). However, this literature emphasizes movement
strategizing in relation to organized politics, while paying less attention to issues of
environmental justice and global inequality in the shaping of nuclear politics. But these latter
issues are immensely important, with nuclear power long embedded in colonial-type
relationships within and across borders. The disproportionate burden borne by indigenous
communities is particularly clear here, notably in relation to uranium mining and nuclear waste
disposal (Ishiyama, 2003). Even the location of nuclear plants is concentrated in indigenous
areas (Fan, 2006), as well as other disadvantaged communities (Alldred and Shrader-Frechette,
2009). Unequal power relations associated with the nuclear industry also requires global analysis
today insofar as nuclear firms (usually from the global North) aggressively promote nuclear
energy exports to the global South. At multiple scales, therefore, political ecology is well placed
to analyze who benefits and who loses in a globalizing nuclear industry.
Champion Briefs
453
Alt Solvency: Political ecology illuminates the power

relationships involved in shifting nuclear discourses and
practices.
Second, political ecology can document how the expansion of nuclear energy is intricately linked
to how it has been discursively framed. Thus, from images of peaceful atomic power use after
the Second World War to its recent framing as a low-carbon energy solution to climate change,
how nuclear power is presented has been vital to industry fortunes (Bickerstaff et al., 2008).
Here, political ecologys attention to struggles over the meaning attached to resources would
help illuminate the power relationships involved in shifting nuclear discourses and practices.
Champion Briefs
454
Political ecology is the most neutral analytic tool for placing

nuclear accidents in the context of larger social structures.
Third, political ecology is well placed to assess the perennial threat of nuclear accidents, given
its long focus on disasters. Nuclear accidents are certainly not limited to the big accidents in
Three Mile Island (in 1979), Chernobyl (in 1986) and Fukushima (in 2011), since there have
been more than 30 significant accidents since the 1950s (Rogers, 2011). Now, while political
ecology has analyzed disasters ranging from soil erosion (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987) to
industrial accidents (Rajan, 2001), nuclear ones are rather neglected. Instead, analyses of nuclear
disasters tend to portray the latter as a single, abnormal and isolated event as with Fukushima,
which was caused by an unprecedented tsunami rather than industry-related problems. Here,
the historical and structural analyses found in political ecology would be a useful antidote to
such work in that they could highlight how disasters are not freak events but are rather embedded
in larger social structures and historical trajectories.
Champion Briefs
455
Alt: Engage in a feminist analysis of nuclear power. This

approach offers a rich understanding of the politics of
nuclear energy.
Additionally, feminist analysis of nuclear power offers an even richer understanding of the
politics of nuclear energy. Research certainly shows that nuclear power involves complicated
gender relations. First, studies suggest that women face a greater vulnerability to ionizing
radiation than do men (Olson et al., 2012). Female scientists have been pivotal in the analysis of
the differentiated health impacts of ionizing radiation. Epidemiologist Alice Stewart, for
instance, established in the 1950s that X-rays conducted on pregnant women would result in a
much greater likelihood of childhood cancers (Greene, 1999). Female scientists have also led in
resisting the nuclear safety myth spread by the establishment. For example, Australian
pediatrician Helen Caldicott was prominent in international anti-nuclear campaigning, founding
Physicians for Social Responsibility in the 1970s (Caldicott, 1997; Anonymous, 2014). Second,
there are well-documented gendered differences in attitudes to nuclear power and radiation
impacts (Brody, 1984). Women are more likely than men to be wary of, or downright opposed
to, nuclear power. Not surprisingly, social mobilization has long involved many women, with
activists often adopting an ecofeminist theme based on the argument that a masculine logic of
domination in the nuclear sector was inherently destructive and anti-women (Salleh, 2011).
Feminists also identify masculine bias shaping the development of nuclear power and weapons,
even as the analysis of nuclear discourses and media representations reveals patriarchal values
underpinning them (Caputi, 2004). Third, and paradoxically, scholars have shown how the
notion of feminism itself was appropriated by pro-nuclear factions that argued that womens
liberation necessitated widespread uptake of nuclear energy to free them from domestic
Champion Briefs
456
Engage in a feminist analysis of nuclear power. This approach offers a rich understanding of the
politics of nuclear energy. (Continued)
drudgery. Indeed, the industry targeted women as a key partner in its public relations (Nelkin,
1981). For instance, the US industrys Atomic Industrial Forum created a linked organization
called Nuclear Energy Women (NEW), whose slogan was newer than NOW [the National
Organization for Women] to foster a pro-nuclear feminism that would mobilize women in
favor of nuclear power (Nelson, 1984). Lastly, nuclear disasters (as with all disasters) merit
analyses that explicitly incorporate gender dimensions. Impacts of disasters are always stratified,
particularly along class, race and gender lines. The gendered effects of disasters are increasingly
known today, even as gender mainstreaming is now a common feature of international disaster
and risk reduction platforms (e.g. UNISDR, UNDP and IUCN, 2009). And yet, nuclear disasters
are rarely analyzed in this way despite the insights that await such an analysis, especially from
a feminist political ecology perspective.
Champion Briefs
457
Gendered communication techniques are weaponized by

governments to maintain growth.
If masculinity was seen as a helpful quality in crisis management, femininity was typically
understood as being emotional, irrational and unhelpful. In post-3.11 Japan, consumer panic over
contaminated food was understood in this gendered manner. In relation to those consumers who
were avoiding food from the affected region, the government as well as the mainstream media
spoke of harmful rumors (fhyhigai): a concept referring to the economic damage caused by
the precipitous decline in the sale of products popularly regarded as contaminated by radiation.
Yet this officially promoted term implies that there is no scientific basis for such concern thus
in effect chastising consumers for not purchasing Fukushima produce or even for expressing
concerns about contamination. The stakes were said to be very high: government and mainstream
media portrayals claimed that fhyhigai was causing enormous economic damage even as
unjustified concern about food safety was tantamount to being anti-farmer and anti-Fukushima
while jeopardizing national reconstruction efforts.
Champion Briefs
458
A gendered analysis of nuclear power problematizes

masculine discourses which promote patriotism and
environmental degradation.
Feminist scholars have long pointed out that womens environmental concerns are often
described as hysterical and emotional responses, drawing on the traditional marking of women as
irrational and weak on techno-scientific issues (Blum, 2008; Brown, 2007; Murphy, 2006;
Newman, 2001). The fhyhigai discourse reflected such a description. In Japanese society,
women still shoulder a disproportionate amount of the burden of purchasing food and cooking
meals. Indeed, longstanding national policy discourses on food have always tended to hold
women responsible for this domestic issue (Kimura, 2011). Therefore, when the discourse of
fhyhigai chastised irrational consumers, it implicitly blamed women for their harmful
behavior. The blunt criticism of one food safety expert, Kazuki Matsunaga, of womens
perceived ignorance about food safety risks was perhaps typical here: after the Fukushima No. 1
reactor accident, it was women, particularly mothers, who were concerned and confused about
food contamination (Matsunaga, 2012; italics added). In this view, it is women who are to
blame for sowing the seeds of societal anxiety about food and, thus, also to blame for
hampering national recovery and hurting farmers. In short, the farmers problems noted earlier
were not merely a local matter, but reflected larger political and economic forces. Thus the
government did not provide critical data on personal and land safety from excessive radiation
exposure, even as it combined with other stakeholders (such as pro-nuclear scientific experts and
the mainstream media) to promote a masculine discourse of control and patriotism in times of
crisis while condemning feminine concerns over food safety as irrational and unscientific.
Champion Briefs
459
Uranium mining effects temporal and spacial equity.

df>.
Aside from the human health and environmental effects of uranium mining, there are also equity
issues. Although many formulations of equity exist, one divides intragenerational equity from
intergenerational equity (see for example Okrent, 1999). Intergenerational equity, a concept
popularized by the Brundtland Commission Report (WCED, 1987), can be formulated as being
equivalent to the rejection of a time preference that would allow the living to take advantage
of their position and strength (Agius, 2006) over future generations. If uranium mines are not
remediated, a cost is imposed on future generations. In terms of intragenerational equity, which
is similar to the concept of economic equity, it may not be fair or just for those who benefitted
from nuclear power, who are in one part of the world (e.g. certain parts of the US, Japan, and
France) and who benefit from the relatively clean generation of nuclear power, to be exempt
from the relatively dirty, and sometimes dangerous, effects of uranium mining. This is a problem
which is shared with other power sources. For instance, wind turbines (in wind power) are
generated on land close to those who must endure the noise and obstruction to their visual
scenery. However, the effects are particularly acute for uranium mining due to radiological
effects. A counter consideration, however, is that mining villages and towns may benefit
economically from mining activities.
Champion Briefs
460
Energy is the central challenge facing humanity.

Problem. Energy Policy. 11-17-2011. Web. August 14, 2016.
The world faces a daunting number of interconnected social, environmental, and political
problems, from emerging infectious diseases and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction to a widening gap between rich and poor and rising levels of corruption. Yet while all
of these issues deserve attention, energy is more than a sector, policy, or field; it is instead a
cross cutting issue area that envelops a distinct set of governance challenges. As E.F.
Schumacher put it, energy is not just another commodity, but the precondition of all
commodities, a basic factor equal with air, water, and earth (Schumacher and Kirk, 1977, pp.
12). In a nutshell: energy is the lifeblood of the economy and human existence, in that, energy
is deeply embedded in other sectoral and policy contexts. It is something that one group of
governance scholars recently called a mega-issue (Lesage et al., 2010). But energy is even
more. As we shall argue in this article, energy is, among all policy fields exhibiting externalities
of a global scale, by far the most complex, path dependent, and embedded one.
Champion Briefs
461
A2 Dumping.
Indigenous peoples from around the world, victims of uranium mining, nuclear testing, and
nuclear dumping, issued a global ban on uranium mining on native lands.
The declaration, signed during the Indigenous World Uranium Summit, held Nov. 30-Dec. 2,
2006 on the Navajo Nation in Window Rock, Arizona, brought together Australian aboriginals
and villagers from India and Africa. Pacific islanders joined with indigenous peoples from the
Americas to take action and halt the cancer, birth defects, and death from uranium and nuclear
industries on native lands.
Champion Briefs
462
NEG: Electricity DA
Electricity DA
The central argument of this DA is that electricity demand is accelerating now, and that
nuclear power is the only way to effectively meet it. If we prohibited nuclear power, thered be
such a huge gap between demand and supply that the electric grid would be in over its head. That
would surely have negative economic consequences.
This DA should be read with a utilitarian framework (first off is the utilitarian
framework, next off is the DA). Argue that US economic decline causes global economic
meltdown, and extinction from nuclear war. You should read a regulations CP with this as well,
and argue that the DA turns the case. That way, if youre losing the framework debate (which
you shouldnt be in most cases, because utilitarian is an awesome framework and anyone who
underestimates that is deeply wrongbut assume you are), you can kick framework and go
simply for the CP and DA (because the CP solves the case and the DA turns the caseboth of
which link to the affirmatives framework).
The best affirmative response to this DA is that other renewables, like wind and solar, are
far more effective than nuclear power. To make this argument viable, you have to argue that the
transition to wind and solar is gaining steam now, and that thats sufficient to solve future
electricity demand. To make this new offense in the 1AR, read evidence that says that reliance on
nuclear power is delaying the transition to wind and solar, so the affirmative actually makes that
transition happen sooner.
You should also argue, as the affirmative, that nuclear power faces a lot of
inefficiencies/economic barriers that are insurmountable, hence that nuclear power wont be able
to meet the challenge of rising electricity demand. Another affirmative argument against a lot of
negative evidence would be that it comes straight from the industry itself, making it extremely
biased. The best negative response to industry cards biased is to say that they cite qualified,
independent sources. To win this DA, or win against it, you always need solid cards. Your best
bet isnt to just answer the utilitarian framework and move on, because someone can pull off a
2NR pivot.
Champion Briefs
463
NEG: Electricity DA
Nuclear power is necessary to meet rising electricity

demand--that provides lasting economic benefits.
Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energys Economic Benefits Current and Future. White
Paper. April 01, 2014. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://www.nei.org/corporatesite/media/filefolder/policy/papers/jobs.pdf>.
The nuclear energy industry plays an important role in job creation and economic growth,
providing both nearterm and lasting employment and economic benefits. The 100 nuclear
reactors in the U.S. generate substantial domestic economic value in electricity sales $40-$50
billion each year with over 100,000 workers contributing to production. Worldwide, over 170
new nuclear plant projects are in the licensing and advanced planning stage, with 72 plants
currently under construction. As a result, the years ahead will see a surge in demand for
materials, components and services for the global nuclear industry. The Department of
Commerce estimates the global market for nuclear products, services and fuel at $500-$740
billion over the next 10 years. The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity
demand will rise 28 percent by 2040 a conservative estimate of less than one percent each
year, below historical levels of growth. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power
plants to provide electricity to meet rising demand and replace aging infrastructure. Nuclear
energy is the only proven technology that can provide emission-free, affordable baseload
electricity.
Champion Briefs
464
NEG: Electricity DA
Electricity sales from nuclear plants generate hundreds of

millions in economic output.
Each year, the average 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant generates approximately $470 million in
economic output or value. This includes over $35 million in total labor income.1 These figures
include both direct output and secondary effects. The direct output reflects the plants annual
electricity sales approximately $453 million. The secondary effects at the local level
approximately $17 million include indirect and induced spending attributable to the presence
of the plant and its employees as plant expenditures filter through the local economy. There are
also secondary effects outside the local area, at the state and national level. For a nominal 1,000megawatt nuclear plant, these secondary effects are $80 million and $393 million, respectively.
Champion Briefs
465
NEG: Electricity DA
Studies prove--every dollar spent by a nuclear plant creates

a positive return for the US economy--the industry also
contributes millions in tax dollars, benefitting schools and
infrastructure.
Nuclear Energy Institute. Nuclear Energys Economic Benefits Current And Future. White
Analyses of 23 U.S. nuclear power stations representing 41 reactors show that every dollar spent
by the average reactor results in the creation of $1.04 in the local community, $1.18 in the state
economy and $1.87 in the U.S. economy.2 The average nuclear plant pays about $16 million in
state and local taxes annually. These tax dollars benefit schools, roads and other state and local
infrastructure. The average nuclear plant also pays federal taxes of $67 million annually.
Champion Briefs
466
NEG: Electricity DA
Study proves that nuclear power generates larger economic

benefits than other electric-generating technologies.
Workforce Income Impacts A recent analysis found that nuclear plants create some of the largest
economic benefits compared to other electric generating technologies due to their size and the
number of workers needed to operate the plants. Operation of a nuclear plant requires 400 to 700
direct permanent jobs. These jobs pay 36 percent more than average salaries in the local area.
There are opportunities for new workers in the nuclear business since 39 percent of the nuclear
workforce will be eligible to retire by 2016 (about 25,000 employees).
Champion Briefs
467
NEG: Electricity DA
Electricity sales from nuclear reactors generate billions in

value every year.
Americas 100 nuclear reactors generate substantial domestic economic value in electricity sales
$40-$50 billion each year. From this revenue, nuclear companies procure over $14 billion
each year in materials, fuel and services from domestic suppliers.4 Nuclear procurement takes
place in all 50 states (31 states have nuclear power plants). The average procurement per state
each year is over $270 million. Materials, fuel and services are procured from over 22,500
different vendors across the country.
Champion Briefs
468
NEG: Electricity DA
US manufacturers provide a variety of products and services

for nuclear facilities--the aff undermines manufacturing
growth.
U.S. suppliers provide a full range of products and services for the complete lifecycle of nuclear
facilities. During the construction phase, U.S. suppliers provide design, engineering,
procurement, construction and consulting services for the reactor, the turbine generator and other
plant systems. In addition, major components, subcomponents, fuel, commodities and
consumables are purchased from U.S.-based manufacturers for safety-related and general
commercial applications. These components include turbines, polar cranes, pumps, valves,
piping, and instrumentation and control systems, safety-related batteries and reactor control rod
drive mechanisms.
Champion Briefs
469
NEG: Electricity DA
Maintaining nuclear plants provides substantial economic

benefits for US manufacturers.
During the operational life of the plant, U.S. vendors provide operations, maintenance, repair and
inspection services. They also supply replacement components and perform plant modifications
and upgrades. Ongoing maintenance of existing nuclear power plants provides substantial
economic benefits for American manufacturers. Over 30 million man-hours are worked by
supplemental craft labor each year at the nations 100 reactors, translating to over 14,000 fulltime equivalent jobs.6
Champion Briefs
470
NEG: Electricity DA
Construction of new nuclear plants requires billions for

investment--that generates huge demand for skilled labor.
A new nuclear plant represents an investment of $6-8 billion (depending on plant size), including
interest during construction. New plant construction creates demand for skilled labor such as
welders, pipefitters, masons, carpenters, millwrights, sheet metal workers, electricians,
ironworkers, heavy equipment operators and insulators, as well as engineers, project managers
and construction supervisors.
Champion Briefs
471
NEG: Electricity DA
Nuclear plants have generated tens of thousands of jobs in

engineering and manufacturing.
In anticipation of new nuclear plant construction, U.S. companies have created in excess of
15,000 new U.S. jobs since 2005. Manufacturing and technical service jobs for new plants have
been created in Virginia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Louisiana and
Indiana. These jobs include engineering services and the manufacture of components including
pumps, valves, piping, tubing, insulation, reactor pressure vessels, pressurizers, heat exchangers
and moisture separators.
Champion Briefs
472
NEG: Electricity DA
Constructing new nuclear plants gives a substantial boost to

concrete and steel suppliers.
Construction of a new nuclear power plant requires up to 3,500 workers at peak construction.
Construction will also provide a substantial boost to suppliers of commodities like concrete and
steel, and manufacturers of hundreds of plant components. A single new nuclear power plant
requires approximately 400,000 cubic yards of concrete, 66,000 tons of steel, 44 miles of piping,
300 miles of electric wiring, and 130,000 electrical components.
Champion Briefs
473
NEG: Electricity DA
The US has a unique opportunity to revive its nuclear sector.

Since 1980, the U.S. nuclear supply chain has contracted because of the lack of new nuclear
plant construction in the U.S. and abroad. Thanks to nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. and
around the world, the U.S. has a unique opportunity to rejuvenate its nuclear manufacturing
sector through investment in state-of-the-art factories and processes to supply the high-precision,
highquality components necessary for nuclear technologies. The demand for these commodities,
components and services provides an export opportunity for U.S. manufacturers.
Champion Briefs
474
NEG: Electricity DA
Nuclear power is a reliable source of cheap and carbonneutral electricity.

Moniz, Ernest. Why We Still Need Nuclear Power. Foreign Affairs, republished by MIT.
November/December 2011. Web. August 13, 2016. <http://energy.mit.edu/news/why-westill-need-nuclear-power/>.
It would be a mistake, however, to let Fukushima cause governments to abandon nuclear power
and its benefits. Electricity generation emits more carbon dioxide in the United States than does
transportation or industry, and nuclear power is the largest source of carbon-free electricity in the
country. Nuclear power generation is also relatively cheap, costing less than two cents per
kilowatt-hour for operations, maintenance, and fuel. Even after the Fukushima disaster, China,
which accounts for about 40 percent of current nuclear power plant construction, and India,
Russia, and South Korea, which together account for another 40 percent, shows no signs of
backing away from their pushes for nuclear power.
Champion Briefs
475
NEG: Electricity DA
Nuclear power is preferable to alternative sources for

electricity generation.
Moniz, Ernest. Why We Still Need Nuclear Power. Foreign Affairs, republished by MIT.
November/December 2011. Web. August 13, 2016. <http://energy.mit.edu/news/why-westill-need-nuclear-power/>.
Nuclear powers track record of providing clean and reliable electricity compares favorably with
other energy sources. Low natural gas prices, mostly the result of newly accessible shale gas,
have brightened the prospects that efficient gas-burning power plants could cut emissions of
carbon dioxide and other pollutants relatively quickly by displacing old, inefficient coal plants,
but the historical volatility of natural gas prices has made utility companies wary of putting all
their eggs in that basket. Besides, in the long run, burning natural gas would still release too
much carbon dioxide. Wind and solar power are becoming increasingly widespread, but their
intermittent and variable supply make them poorly suited for large-scale use in the absence of an
affordable way to store electricity. Hydropower, meanwhile, has very limited prospects for
expansion in the United States because of environmental concerns and the small number of
potential sites.
Champion Briefs
476
NEG: Electricity DA
A2 Electricity DA: Nuclear power is economically

inefficient--alternatives are far better.
Cooper, Mark. Why The Economics Dont Favor Nuclear Power In America. Forbes. 02-202014. Web. August 13, 2016.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2014/02/20/why-the-economics-dont-favornuclear-power-in-america/#40e70ce16562>.
The fifty year failure of nuclear power to be economically competitive compels nuclear
advocates to label every pro-consumer analysis as anti-nuclear. The anti-nuclear label is used to
avoid the inconvenient truth about nuclear: it is and has been unable to compete economically
with the alternatives available. More importantly, it is not likely to be able to compete for the
foreseeable future.
The economic reality is that efficiency and natural gas can keep the lights on and computers
running at a fraction of the cost of nuclear power and the cost of wind and solar have been
declining dramatically. Utility scale solar with storage is entering the market, as is utility scale
battery storage. The decision to give them a boost, is paying off. These alternatives have
exhibited the one characteristic that has always eluded nuclear, declining costs driven by
innovation, learning, and economies of scale.
Champion Briefs
477
NEG: Electricity DA
A2 Electricity DA: The nuclear industry is in dire straits-costs have increased five-fold.
In contrast to the success of the alternatives, the projected cost of nuclear power has increased
five-fold since technology vendors and academic boosters declared the Nuclear Renaissance in
the mid-2000s. If the industry had been able to deliver on the hype of a decade ago, it would not
be in such dire straits. Having failed miserably a second time, the industry is demanding another
round of massive subsidies, relaxed oversight, and pampered treatment for a third bite at the
apple.
Champion Briefs
478
NEG: Electricity DA
A2 Electricity DA: Small modular reactors will not attract

customers.
Cooper, Mark. Why The Economics Don. Forbes. 02-20-2014. Web. August 13, 2016.
The buzz surrounding small modular reactors among nuclear advocates over the past couple of
years is another example of the nuclear hype cycle. The industry is demanding massive subsidies
and further relaxation of licensing and safety requirements. Independent analysts think the cost
per kilowatt hour will not be less than the cost for the current crop of large reactors and is likely
to be more for a significant period. The economic traits that are supposed to make small reactors
attractivesmall size, short construction periods, flexible deploymentare exhibited by many
of the other alternatives. Westinghouse, one of the leading U.S. vendors, has recently nixed
further investment in small reactors, even though its partner in Missouri, Ameren, had extracted
$40 million in support from the state. The reason Westinghouse gave no customers was a
quintessential real world market answer.
Champion Briefs
479
NEG: Electricity DA
A2 Electricity DA: Committing to nuclear power crowds out

alternatives, preventing a transition to a 21st century
industrial structure.
The most important impact of the nuclear hypocrisy lies in the fact that nuclear utilities are
wedded to the mid-20th century concept of massive base load facilities that require huge
investments on which they can earn large profits. While they build and maintain electricity grids
to serve the needs of those facilities, the decentralized, smaller scale generation technologies that
have become less costly require a different approach, using intensive information and control
technologies to manage the grid. Given the expense of nuclear power, a commitment to nuclear
crowds out the alternatives. In the current context, it will slow or prevent that transition to a
21st century industrial structure.
Champion Briefs
480
NEG: Electricity DA
A2 Electricity DA: Other forms of renewable energy are far

more viable--prioritizing nuclear power would be a serious
policy mistake.
Unable to compete today and unready to even attempt to compete for a decade or more, nuclear
advocates would like to have a hundred year debate, declaring that the alternatives will be unable
to achieve the decarbonization goal set for the end of the century, a claim that is hotly contested.
Given the history of failed nuclear promises, the recent dramatic success of the alternatives, and
the fact that currently available renewable technologies and efficiency can meet the demand for
low carbon electricity for the foreseeable future, the path that a prudent decision maker would
take is to maximize their contribution. The biggest mistake policy makers could make is to allow
the search for yet another nuclear holy grail to delay the transition to a 21st century electricity
grid.
Champion Briefs
481
NEG: Electricity DA
The US is too dependent on natural gas for electricity--that

risks major price volatility--nuclear power is a more reliable
source of electricity.
Perry, Mark. To Balance Energy Demand, We Need Nuclear Power. American Enterprise
Institute. 01-16-2014. Web. August 13, 2016. <https://www.aei.org/publication/tobalance-energy-demand-we-need-nuclear-power/>.
Should Americas new growing dependence on natural gas for electricity production be a cause
for concern? Despite Americas abundance of natural gas from shale production, some parts of
the country have already had warnings that over-dependence on gas for electricity generation
exposes consumers to soaring prices for electricity. The problem is the declining use of coal and
nuclear power, the two sources of electricity that provide the greatest price stability and serve as
a hedge against wide fluctuations in gas prices. For the power industry to become increasingly
dependent on a fuel with a history of price volatility could be problematic.
Champion Briefs
482
NEG: Electricity DA
Electricity demand is increasing, but so is natural gas

consumption--that risks huge price spikes--nuclear power is
more reliable.
Take PJM, the regional grid operator that covers the mid-Atlantic and parts of the Midwest.
When plunging temperatures in the recent cold snap drove up demand for gas, spot prices for
electric power in New Jersey, Delaware and large parts of Pennsylvania skyrocketed to $1,500
per megawatt-hour, well above the typical price of $40 or $50. And in Texas, where natural gas
accounts for more than 50% of electricity production, wholesale power prices recently topped
$5,000 per megawatt-hour. Several other major markets are also vulnerable to price spikes.
Today Florida relies on natural gas for 70% of its electricity supply, up from 18% in 2000, and
its use of gas is likely to increase further with the shutdown of the Crystal River nuclear plant.
New Yorks gas-fired generation has climbed from 29% of electricity supply in 2000 to 44% in
2012. Natural gas accounts for more than 50% of power production in New England and 61% in
California. Nationally, since 1995, the United States has built 342,000 megawatts of gas-fired
power capacity, approximately 75% of all capacity additions. But coal and nuclear power
account for only 6% of the total. Looking forward, at least 50,000 megawatts of gas capacity is
expected to be added by 2020. But less than 10,000 megawatts of new coal and nuclear capacity
is expected to be added by 2020, a negligible amount, because approximately 100,000 megawatts
of generating capacity much of it coal will be retired this decade. Long-term energy
fundamentals support continued reliance on and expansion of nuclear power.
Champion Briefs
483
NEG: Electricity DA
Nuclear plants provide reliable, carbon-free energy--theyre

also key to tech diversity which is essential to a resilient
electricity sector.
Nuclear plants supply large amounts of carbon-free energy around the clock, safely and reliably.
Nuclear plants provide forward price stability and are not subject to the volatility of natural gas
prices. And they contribute to the fuel and technology diversity that is the bedrock of a resilient
electric sector.
Champion Briefs
484
NEG: Electricity DA
Energy diversity is essential to meet rising electricity

demand--nuclear power is an essential part of that.
We need to ensure a mix of energy sources, so that we are not overly reliant on a single fuel. The
Energy Information Administration forecasts a 28% increase in demand for electricity through
2040. To accommodate that increase, the U.S. would need 339,000 megawatts of new capacity to
meet rising demand and to replace generating capacity that is past its prime. Thats about 15,000
megawatts annually every year between now and 2040. Will we just keep ramping up gas-fired
capacity while nuclear slips away? Or will policymakers and political leaders address defects in
market structure that threaten our nations energy security?
Champion Briefs
485
NEG: Electricity DA
Natural gas is not a clean energy solution.

For the better part of a half-century, America has benefitted from a balanced energy program that
has included nuclear power. Today our energy system is the worlds best, but that doesnt mean
we can let up. In a nation rightfully concerned about economic and environmental health, natural
gas is not the only answer. It is not a substitute for a diverse mix of clean energy sources, since
natural gas plants account for 25% of greenhouse-gas emissions from electricity production. For
clean base-load power, we will need nuclear energy. And thats why its important to craft
policies that open up private investment in new nuclear plants.
Champion Briefs
486
NEG: Electricity DA
A2 Electricity DA: Nuclear power faces multiple economic

challenges.
Vine, Doug. Climate Solutions: The Role Of Nuclear Power . C2ES. 04-28-2014. Web.
August 13, 2016. <http://www.c2es.org/publications/climate-solutions-role-nuclearpower>.
Many factors pose economic challenges to nuclear power, including plummeting natural gas
prices, renewable energy policy, decelerating load growth, power market structures, and the
absence of a price on carbon. Additionally, life-extending capital investments, mandated postFukushima safety enhancements and other maintenance activities are adding to plant cost
structures.
Champion Briefs
487
NEG: Electricity DA
Electricity must be reliable all day, every day--wind and

solar fail because they are not reliable.
Vine, Doug. Climate Solutions: The Role Of Nuclear Power. C2ES. 04-28-2014. Web. August
13, 2016. <http://www.c2es.org/publications/climate-solutions-role-nuclear-power>.
Electricity service must be reliablein other words, it must be available all day, every day. To
this end, electricity system coordinators make use of three power plant categories to manage the
minute-to-minute variability in demand. First, baseload power plants run 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, to meet the continuous, minimum level of energy demand. Next, operators use
load-following power plants, which are also known as intermediate or mid-merit power.
These plants, typically fueled by natural gas, are able to increase or decrease electricity
production more quickly than nuclear or coal plants, and typically supply power during the day
as demand increases. Some intermediate plants may operate as baseload units, particularly during
the summer, when the continuous minimum demand is likely to be higher than average for all
hours of the day. Lastly, peaking capacity power plants, or peakers, run for just a few hours
each day when demand peaks The defining characteristics of baseload power plants are low
operating costs and the ability to be run at nearly full power around-the-clock for extended
periods. Historically, most baseload plants have been nuclear and coal-fired, as they both meet
these criteria. Additionally, these plants are not designed to be efficiently powered up and down,
so once they are running it makes sense to keep them operating at full load as long as possible.
While baseload plants like nuclear units have lower marginal costs, they also have higher fixed
costs than gas-fueled units, for example. It is economically efficient for these plants to operate at
full power as long as the revenues they are receiving are greater than their marginal costs.
Recently, in some regions, when natural gas prices have been exceptionally low, combined cycle
gas turbine (CCGT) plants have also run as baseload units, dispatching at a lower cost than coal
units.1 Among zero-emission sources, certain hydropower, biomass, and geothermal power can
also provide reliable baseload power. However, other zero-emission energy sources, such as
wind and solar, are intermittentin other words, their output is variable across a given time
period depending on local weather conditions. Since utility-scale electricity storage is not yet
Champion Briefs
488
NEG: Electricity DA
Electricity must be reliable all day, every day--wind and solar fail because they are not reliable.
(Continued)
Vine, Doug. Climate Solutions: The Role Of Nuclear Power. C2ES. 04-28-2014. Web. August
13, 2016. <http://www.c2es.org/publications/climate-solutions-role-nuclear-power>.
commercially available, they cannot be reliably used as baseload power. An example of this
challenge came during the first week of August 2011 in Texas. At the time, more than 10,000
megawatts (MW) of wind capacity was installed, but the maximum generation output achieved
was only around 5,700 MW. This occurred at night (when the wind often blows harder), and thus
coincided with a period of lower demand. During the peak daytime hours of this same hot
summer week, however, when demand for electricity was highest and winds tends to be calmer,
wind generation was consistently less than 2,000 MW, or just 20 percent of capacity.11 (While
this example highlights the negative effect of relying on an intermittent source to meet demand,
it should be noted that there are situations where having a diverse electrical supply, including
wind generation, is beneficial for the grid.)
Champion Briefs
489
NEG: Global Warming DA
Global Warming DA
The thesis of this case is that the affirmatives ban on nuclear power would allow for a
fill-in of coal to take over for the nuclear energy that is currently being released. Heres how
your case should break down.
Uniqueness: This argument should be saying that in the status quo, climate change is
happening and will continue, but nuclear power is preventing it from reaching the brink. You
want to make sure to say that nuclear power is the key to preventing serious global warming
impacts. Also, remember to make sure that this card is a recent card!
Link: The link is that the affirmative world there will be a prohibition on nuclear power
AND that will lead to a switch to coal energy. You need to make sure to have a card that
explicitly explains that the prohibition of nuclear power would lead to an increase in coal energy.
This is important to ensure that you will be able to reach the brink of the disadvantage.
Internal Link: This internal link states that the increase in coal is going to lead to the increase in
global warming. This piece of evidence should have some sort of statistical proof saying that
with this increase in coal production there will be an increase in the temperature levels in the
globe. This makes sure that you have a more legitimate link chain towards the big extinction
impacts that you are going to want to have. Additionally, you can have another piece of evidence
talking about how global warming might hurt global food production or migration or something
to that extent.
Impact: This impact should be extinction and make sure that this card has a warrant! The
most common problem that people have in their impacts is that they just decide that it is ok to
not warrant their impact evidence. This is one of the more probable impact scenarios.
Champion Briefs
490
Nuclear power can stop global warming.

Kharecha, Pushker. Prevented Mortality And Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Historical And
Projected Nuclear Power. Environmental Science & Technology. 2013. Web. August
14, 2016. <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197>.
In conclusion, it is clear that nuclear power has provided a large contribution to the reduction of
global mortality and GHG emissions due to fossil fuel use. If the role of nuclear power
significantly declines in the next few decades, the International Energy Agency asserts that
achieving a target atmospheric GHG level of 450 ppm CO2-eq would require heroic
achievements in the deployment of emerging low-carbon technologies, which have yet to be
proven. Countries that rely heavily on nuclear power would find it particularly challenging and
significantly more costly to meet their targeted levels of emissions.(2) Our analysis herein and a
prior one(7) strongly support this conclusion. Indeed, on the basis of combined evidence from
paleoclimate data, observed ongoing climate impacts, and the measured planetary energy
imbalance, it appears increasingly clear that the commonly discussed targets of 450 ppm and 2
C global temperature rise (above preindustrial levels) are insufficient to avoid devastating
climate impacts; we have suggested elsewhere that more appropriate targets are less than 350
ppm and 1 C (refs 3 and 3133). Aiming for these targets emphasizes the importance of
retaining and expanding the role of nuclear power, as well as energy efficiency improvements
and renewables, in the near-term global energy supply.
Champion Briefs
491
Global warming is true.

Powell, James. Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is
True. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society. 2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://bst.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/04/25/0270467616634958.abstract>.
The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the
potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly
to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific
consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is
the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed
articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on
AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of
Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors
of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against
AGW.
Champion Briefs
492
Historically, global warming has impacted economies.

Powell, James. Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is
True. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society. 2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://bst.sagepub.com/content/early/2016/04/25/0270467616634958.abstract>.
Global warming has had an important effect on the geography of economic activity already in
the past. During the Medieval Warm Period, roughly between the ninth and fourteenth centuries,
the world experienced temperature rises of up to 2 Celsius that, according to Fagan (2008),
brought bounty to some areas, but to others, prolonged droughts that shook established
societies to their foundations.1 Northern Europeans and Inuits benefitted enormously, while
Mongols, native Americans, and other Mesoamerican societies suffered losses that went from
limiting their expansion to bringing them to the brink of extinction. The world as we know it
today was shaped by these changes, not because warming led to less available land or resources
in the world as a whole, but because of the changes in the location of the suitable areas for
production and growth. As we emphasize here for the case of future anthropogenic global
warming, during the Medieval Warm Period Fagan (2008) concludes that The only protection
against such disasters was movement.2 Moving goods and people is restricted and costly, and
the economic effect of temperature change will depend crucially on the magnitude of these
frictions.
Champion Briefs
493
Temperature changes impact migration patterns.

Desmet, Klaus. On The Spatial Economic Impact Of Global Warming. Journal of Urban
Economics. 2015. Web. August 14, 2016.
<https://www.princeton.edu/~erossi/SEIGW.pdf>.
Temperature change has two main effects on spatial production patterns. First, the gradual
increase in average temperatures makes the ideal location to produce in both industries move to
the north over time. The literature suggests that the impact of temperature on productivity is
more pronounced in agriculture than in manufacturing. Nevertheless, general equilibrium effects
imply that the specialization areas in manufacturing change as well. These changes in
specialization lead to changes in technology innovation in the different locations, thus
amplifying the effects. The second implication of temperature change is that locations closer to
the North Pole experience larger changes in temperatures, which enhances their comparative
advantage in agriculture. Hence, temperature changes tend to favor specialization of the north in
agriculture and the south in manufacturing. This is balanced by the fact that technologies in
manufacturing are initially better in the northern latitudes, which leads to more innovation in the
north. In calibrated examples, we observe that when the effect of pollution on temperature is
small, the south specializes in agriculture and the north in manufacturing, as is roughly the case
in the world today. In contrast, when the effect of CO2 on temperature is large, the south
increasingly specializes in manufacturing and produces in this sector using backward
technologies with low total factor productivity. Eventually, if the effect is very large or if we
study a very long period, locations closer to the North Pole end up specializing in agriculture.
The effects outlined above lead to large migrations of agents across locations, and so the
consequences of global warming are mediated by the ability of agents and goods to move across
space. To get a better sense of the role of moving frictions, we analyze three scenarios for labor
mobility: one where labor is freely mobile across locations and therefore welfare in the world is
equalized; another where labor is freely mobile within a southern region and within a northern
region (modeled as intervals of latitudes) but not across them; and a third where labor cannot
move at all. Three results stand out from our analysis of these different scenarios. First, when
Champion Briefs
494

Temperature changes impact migration patterns. (Continued)
comparing the average welfare effect of global warming, we find virtually no impact under free
mobility, but a very substantial negative impact if people cannot move. Second, mobility
frictions do not only affect average welfare, they also lead to spatial inequities. In the scenario
with no migration between south and north, we find substantial welfare gains in the north, with
corresponding losses in the south. Third, the impact of migration restrictions becomes more
pronounced when temperature is more sensitive to pollution. Overall, these quantitative exercises
show that global warming is particularly problematic in the presence of moving frictions.
Migration policy should therefore become an integral part of the debate on how to limit the
negative economic impact of climate change.
Champion Briefs
495
Migration has negative impacts.

Migration restrictions benefit the north, and more so when the effect of pollution on temperature
is large. The reason is straightforward. As temperature rises, the north becomes a relatively better
place to produce. When there is free mobility, this attracts southern migrants, and wages drop.
Now no migrants from the south can enter, and so agents in the north maintain their higher
wages. In contrast, agents in the south lose from global warming. The loss is minimal when m1
is small, but the effect grows as m1 increases. There are two countervailing effects. On the one
hand, by not allowing migration, the concentration of people in the south is larger, making them
innovate more. This leads to faster growth and higher welfare for southern agents. On the other
hand, agents cannot move out of the south, resulting in welfare losses.30 When pollution has no
effect on temperature (m1 0), both effects balance out, making the migration restrictions
almost welfare neutral (a 0:24% decline in welfare or in aggregate consumption given that utility
is linear). The total effect could very well have been positive. Because diffusion is an externality,
the equilibrium in this economy is not Pareto optimal, and so migration restrictions could
potentially enhance welfare. When we increase m1 and the effect of pollution on temperature
becomes larger, the negative effects of global warming in the south start dominating the positive
agglomeration effects. For example, in the case of m1 0:0009, southern agents obtain 5%
lower welfare than if pollution and temperature were unrelated, and 5.2% less welfare than in the
case of free mobility.
Champion Briefs
496
Global warming hurts crop production.

Lesk, Corey. Influence Of Extreme Weather Disasters On Global Crop Production. Nature.
2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16467.html>.
Overall, there are four main conclusions from our study. First, over the period 19642007,
drought and extreme heat substantially damaged national agricultural production across the
globe. Within the framework of this study, no effect on agriculture was identified from floods
and extreme cold. Second, drought reduced cereal yield and completely damaged crops, whereas
extreme heat only affected yield, reflecting clear differences in the processes leading to overall
production effects. Third, this study highlights an important temporal dimension to these
impacts. While the damage to cereal production is considerable, this effect is only short term, as
agricultural output rebounds and continues its growth trend after the disaster. Furthermore, we
show that recent droughts had a larger effect on cereal production than earlier ones. Finally, our
regional and crop-specific analysis finds that developed nations suffer most from these EWDs.
Present climate projections suggest that extreme heat events will be increasingly common and
severe in the future1 . Droughts are likely to become more frequent in some regions, although
considerable uncertainty persists in the projections6 . This study, by highlighting the important
historical effects of EWDs on agriculture, emphasizes the urgency with which the global cereal
production system must adapt to extremes in a changing climate. Understanding the key
processes leading to such crop losses enables an informed prioritization of disaster risk reduction
and adaptation interventions to better protect the most vulnerable farming systems and the
populations dependent on them.
Champion Briefs
497
Global warming hurts crop production.

Lesk, Corey. Influence Of Extreme Weather Disasters On Global Crop Production. Nature.
2016. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16467.html>.
Overall, there are four main conclusions from our study. First, over the period 19642007,
drought and extreme heat substantially damaged national agricultural production across the
globe. Within the framework of this study, no effect on agriculture was identified from floods
and extreme cold. Second, drought reduced cereal yield and completely damaged crops, whereas
extreme heat only affected yield, reflecting clear differences in the processes leading to overall
production effects. Third, this study highlights an important temporal dimension to these
impacts. While the damage to cereal production is considerable, this effect is only short term, as
agricultural output rebounds and continues its growth trend after the disaster. Furthermore, we
show that recent droughts had a larger effect on cereal production than earlier ones. Finally, our
regional and crop-specific analysis finds that developed nations suffer most from these EWDs.
Present climate projections suggest that extreme heat events will be increasingly common and
severe in the future1 . Droughts are likely to become more frequent in some regions, although
considerable uncertainty persists in the projections6 . This study, by highlighting the important
historical effects of EWDs on agriculture, emphasizes the urgency with which the global cereal
production system must adapt to extremes in a changing climate. Understanding the key
processes leading to such crop losses enables an informed prioritization of disaster risk reduction
and adaptation interventions to better protect the most vulnerable farming systems and the
populations dependent on them.
Champion Briefs
498
Global warming hurts the agriculture industry.

Silanikove, Nissim. Impact Of Climate Change On The Dairy Industry In Temperate Zones:
Predications On The Overall Negative Impact And On The Positive Role Of Dairy Goats
In Adaptation To Earth Warming. Small Ruminant Research. 2015. Web. August 14,
2016. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448814003150>.
The environment within which domesticated livestock production, agricultural crops and related
management practices developed over the past 10,000 years is rapidly changing due to humaninduced climate change (CC). Nowadays, even countries located within the temperate zone are
affected by changes in global warming. These changes are associated with unprecedented events
of extreme high ambient temperature (above 40 C) and seasonal changes. The number of days
with temperature humidity index (THI) above a specific comfort threshold (>68) has noticeably
increased in recent years in European countries located within the temperate zone. The rate of
global warming, including in the temperate zone, is expected to continue to vulnerable in coming
years. Agricultural production from crops and livestock, and thus global food security, is already
affected by CC and will continue to be influenced by global warming. Thus, these changes will
continue to affect the dairy industry directly and indirectly. The most significant indirect effect is
expected to result from cruel reduction in worldwide grains (concentrate feedstuffs) production.
This change will impose need to tradeoff between the diminished food sources: using higher
proportions of grains production for human nutrition, instead of feeding it to livestock. Similar
conflict is expected to be relevant in using high-quality forages that can be used as edible food
for humans. Heat stress imposed by high ambient temperature in temperate zones, such as in
Germany, northern Italy and the US was identified in recent years as a major factor that affect
negatively milk production, reproduction, and the health of dairy cows. Heat stress also has
shown to increase appreciably cows mortality in those areas. On the other hand, there is no
evidence that dairy goat production in temperate zones is affected so far; though, evidence for
such an effect was notice in desert and Mediterranean (e.g., Turkey) countries. The major aim of
this critical review is to analyze the literature in order to predict how the current trend in
harshening of the impact of climatic changes affect dairy industry and to forecast how CC will
Champion Briefs
499

Global warming hurts the agriculture industry. (Continued)
Silanikove, Nissim. Impact Of Climate Change On The Dairy Industry In Temperate Zones:
Predications On The Overall Negative Impact And On The Positive Role Of Dairy Goats
In Adaptation To Earth Warming. Small Ruminant Research. 2015. Web. August 14,
2016. <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921448814003150>.
affect the dairy cows and goat industry in countries located within the temperate zone?
Particularly, the direct effects of heat stress on milk production are emphasized. Among
domestic ruminants, goats are the most adapted species to imposed heat stress in terms of
production, reproduction and resistance to diseases. The main conclusion that can be made is that
uttermost scenarios of climatic change will negatively affect the dairy industry and that the
importance of goats to the dairy industry will increase in proportion to the severances of changes
in environmental temperature.
Champion Briefs
500
Nuclear power prevents deaths that mining would have

caused.
Schrope, Mark. Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes. Chemical and
Engineering News. February 04, 2013. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-DeathsCauses.html>.
Working with Goddards James E. Hansen, Kharecha set out to explore the benefits of nuclear
power. The pair specifically wanted to look at nuclear powers advantages over fossil fuels in
terms of reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Kharecha was surprised to find no broad studies on preventable deaths that could be attributed to
nuclear powers pollution savings. But he did find data from a 2007 study on the average number
of deaths per unit of energy generated with fossil fuels and nuclear power
(Lancet, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61253-7). These estimates include deaths related to all
aspects of each energy source from mining the necessary natural resources to power generation.
For example, the data took into account chronic bronchitis among coal miners and air pollutionrelated conditions among the public, including lung cancer.
The NASA researchers combined this information with historical energy generation data to
estimate how many deaths would have been caused if fossil-fuel burning was used instead of
nuclear power generation from 1971 to 2009. They similarly estimated that the use of nuclear
power over that time caused 5,000 or so deaths, such as cancer deaths from radiation fallout and
worker accidents. Comparing those two estimates, Kharecha and Hansen came up with the 1.8
million figure.
Champion Briefs
501
Carbon emissions are lowered through the use of nuclear

power.
Schrope, Mark. Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes. Chemical and
Engineering News. February 04, 2013. Web. August 14, 2016.
<http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/Nuclear-Power-Prevents-DeathsCauses.html>.
Finally the pair compared carbon emissions from nuclear power to fossil fuel sources. They
calculated that if coal or natural gas power had replaced nuclear energy from 1971 to 2009, the
equivalent of an additional 64 gigatons of carbon would have reached the atmosphere. Looking
forward, switching out nuclear for coal or natural gas power would lead to the release of 80 to
240 gigatons of additional carbon by 2050. By comparison, previous climate studies suggest that
the total allowable emissions between now and 2050 are about 500 gigatons of carbon. This level
of emissions would keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 350 ppm, which would avoid
detrimental warming. Because large-scale implementation of renewable energy options, such as
wind or solar, faces significant challenges, the researchers say their results strongly support the
case for nuclear as a critical energy source to help stabilize or reduce greenhouse gas
concentrations.
Champion Briefs
502
Using nuclear power will prevent thousands of future

deaths.
Shrope, Mark. Nuclear Power Prevents More Deaths Than It Causes. Chemic. February 04,
2013. Web. August 14, 2016. <http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/web/2013/04/NuclearPower-Prevents-Deaths-Causes.html>.
They next estimated the total number of deaths that could be prevented through nuclear power
over the next four decades using available estimates of future nuclear use. Replacing all
forecasted nuclear power use until 2050 with natural gas would cause an additional 420,000
deaths, whereas swapping it with coal, which produces significantly more pollution than gas,
would mean about 7 million additional deaths. The study focused strictly on deaths, not longterm health issues that might shorten lives, and the authors did not attempt to estimate potential
deaths tied to climate change.
Champion Briefs
503
Uranium is abundant but people dont understand it, so they

dont use it.
Domingos, D.B. NUCLEAR ENERGY SUCH AS AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCE.
2013 International Nuclear Atlantic Conference. 2013. Web. August 15, 2016.
<http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/46/006/46006729.pdf?
r=1>.
Brazil has the 5th largest uranium reserves in the world and now dominates almost the entire
cycle of nuclear fuel1. The thermonuclear plants represent today only 2.2% of the energy
produced in the country, the package of nuclear power pretends to build four nuclear power
plants until 2030. Other investments in alternative energy sources such as biomass (bagasse) and
ethanol are the development package of the current government, but surely the most certain is
nuclear energy due to the immense technological mastery over this source inexhaustible of
energy [2]. Nuclear power is still a subject unknown to many and therefore ends up being left out
when it comes to alternative energy sources and environmental preservation. The unknowing and
the information is not always correct publicized by the media, not just to show the general public
the true risks and benefits of this energy source. The resistance of public opinion has become the
barrier main to the nuclear technologies advancement.
Champion Briefs
504
Nuclear power is not the new and safe future technology to

stop global warming.
Robock, Alan. Nuclear Energy Is Not A Solution For Global Warming. Huffington Post.
December 05, 2014. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alanrobock/nuclear-energy-is-not-a-solution_b_5305594.html>.
Proponents of nuclear power, recognizing these dangers, propose new safe future generation
technology (which does not now exist), assembly line production of standard designs, and
continued operation of existing plants that are already beyond their 40-year design lifetime in the
United States. I certainly agree we need research into new nuclear technologies, to see if they are
a real potential solution sometime in the future. But solar and wind energy is here now. In the
meantime we need a rapid move away from coal and into solar and wind sources of green
energy.
Proponents assert that wind and solar are not viable because of cost, but with the plummeting
price of solar panels, and the global potential of wind power to provide all the energy needed on
the planet, they are wrong. We will need electrical grids that will combine wind and solar over
large areas to compensate for local intermittency, along with other backup sources and new
electricity storage options. The planet has safer, cheaper options for energy that do not emit
greenhouse gases and do not present the same dangers as nuclear power.
Champion Briefs
505
More nuclear power plants need to be built to stop

greenhouse gas emissions.
Biello, David. How Much Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming?. Scientific American.
Indeed, he has evidence: the speediest drop in greenhouse gas pollution on record occurred in
France in the 1970s and 80s, when that country transitioned from burning fossil fuels to nuclear
fission for electricity, lowering its greenhouse emissions by roughly 2 percent per year. The
world needs to drop its global warming pollution by 6 percent annually to avoid dangerous
climate change in the estimation of Hansen and his co-authors in a recent paper in PLoS One.
On a global scale, it's hard to see how we could conceivably accomplish this without nuclear,
added economist and co-author Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia
University, where Hansen works.
The only problem: the world is not building so many nuclear reactors.
Champion Briefs
506
Many more nuclear reactors need to be built to prevent

global warming.
Biello, David. How Much Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming?. Scientific American.
China leads the world in new nuclear reactors, with 29 currently under construction and another
59 proposed, according to the World Nuclear Association. And China has not confined itself
solely to the typical reactors that employ water and uranium fuel rods; it has built everything
from heavy-water reactors originally designed in Canada to a small test fast-reactor.
Yet, even if every planned reactor in China was to be built, the country would still rely on
burning coal for more than 50 percent of its electric powerand the Chinese nuclear
reactors would provide at best roughly the same amount of energy to the developing nation as
does the existing U.S. fleet. Plus, nuclear requires emissions of greenhouse gases for
construction, including steel and cement as well as the enrichment of uranium ore required to
make nuclear fuel (or the downblending of uranium from nuclear weapons as in the case of the
Megatons to Megawatts program). Over the full lifetime of a nuclear power plant, that means
greenhouse gas emissions of roughly 12 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour of electricity
produced, the same as windturbines (which also require steel, plastics, rare earths and the like in
their construction) and less than photovoltaic panels, according to the U.S. Department of
Energys National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Champion Briefs
507
Nuclear power would prevent deaths and prevent GHG

emissions.
Nicholson, Brendan. Nuclear Power 'cheaper, Safer' Than Coal And Gas . The Age. May 06,
2006. Web. August 15, 2016. <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/nuclear-powercheaper-safer-than-coal-and-gas/2006/06/04/1149359609052.html>.
The Chernobyl reactors were not designed to generate electricity but to provide military-grade
plutonium for nuclear weapons. They had been hurriedly designed for that purpose, the report
said.
It said that in proportion to the amount of power produced, power stations fuelled by coal and oil
or driven by hydro power had caused 1000 times as many deaths as nuclear stations, and gasfired stations had caused 15 times as many casualties as nuclear ones.
Substituting one nuclear reactor for a coal-fired power station would save 7 million to 9 million
tonnes of greenhouse-inducing carbon dioxide gas.
Champion Briefs
508
Nuclear power resolves most issues by stopping the

environmental damages of coal.
IAEA. Climate Change And Nuclear Power. IAEA. 2015. Web. August 15, 2016.
<http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP2015Web-78834554.pdf>.
Nuclear power is among the energy sources and technologies available today that could help
meet the climateenergy challenge. GHG emissions from nuclear power plants (NPPs) are
negligible, and nuclear power, together with hydropower and wind based electricity, is among
the lowest GHG emitters when emissions over the entire life cycle are considered (less than 15
grams CO2-equivalent (g CO2-eq) per kWh (kilowatt-hour), median value of 60 reviewed
sources). Across a large number of stringent mitigation scenarios consistent with the
Copenhagen Accord, nuclear electricity is assessed as avoiding approximately 2 3.3 to 9 Gt
CO2/year in 2050, depending on assumptions about the relative costs and performance of low
carbon technologies. Nuclear energy can contribute to resolving other energy supply concerns,
and it has non-climatic environmental benefits. Despite significant decreases in fossil fuel prices
in recent years, fears about their return to high levels in the future and concerns about the
security of supply from politically unstable regions are fundamental considerations in current
energy strategies in many countries. Including nuclear power in the energy supply mix can help
alleviate these concerns because ample uranium resources are available from reliable sources
spread all over the world and the cost of uranium is only a small fraction of the total cost of
nuclear electricity. Beyond the climate change benefits, significant environmental advantages
arise from replacing fossil power sources with NPPs as they emit practically no local and
regional air pollutants. Among the power generation technologies, it has one of the lowest
external costs costs in terms of damage to human health and the environment that are not
accounted for in the price of electricity.
Champion Briefs
509
Climate change is increasing and nuclear energy lowers

GHG emissions.
IAEA. Climate Change And Nuclear Power. IAEA. 2015. Web. August 15, 2016.
<http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/CCANP2015Web-78834554.pdf>.
Considering the fast increasing GHG emissions in recent decades and the emissions pathways
underlying the RCPs, the world faces an enormous mitigation challenge over the next decades in
order to follow RCP2.6. The latest report of the IPCC WG III [10] concludes that mitigation
scenarios consistent with the Copenhagen Accord (reaching GHG concentrations around 450
ppm CO2-eq by 2100) involve large scale reductions of CO2 emissions from the energy supply
sector in order to reach a level of 90% or more below 2010 emissions between 2040 and 2070,
declining to below zero thereafter. These scenarios also feature efficiency improvements and
behavioural changes to reduce energy demand in the transport, buildings and industry sectors and
thereby provide more flexibility for reducing carbon intensity in the energy supply sector and
avoid lock-in to 10 carbon intensive infrastructures. Nevertheless, low carbon energy
technologies such as nuclear power will play a decisive role in reducing the carbon intensity of
global energy supply and addressing the climate change challenge.
Champion Briefs
510
Coal contributes to emissions for climate change.

There are two main sources of air pollution during the coal production process. The first is
methane emissions from the mines. Methane is a powerful heat-trapping gas and is the second
most significant contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide. According to the most
recent official inventory of U.S. global warming emissions, coal mining results in the release of 3
million metric tons of methane per year, which is equivalent to 68 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide. 47 Methane emissions from coal mines make up between 10 and 15 percent of
anthropogenic methane emissions in the United States. All coal contains methane, but the
amount depends on the nature of the coal. Generally speaking, deeper coal seams have higher
methane content. Underground mines therefore are by far the largest source of coal mine
methane emissions, accounting for about 65 to 70 percent of the total. Most of the methane
emitted from underground mines escapes through ventilation systems put in place for safety
measures or through other shafts and portals. The remainder is released during the handling and
processing of the coal after it has been mined.
Champion Briefs
511
Coal emits large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of global warming pollution in the United States.
These plants emitted 1.89 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2004, accounting for more
than 80 percent of the emissions from electric power production and more than 30 percent of
total U.S. CO2 emissions from all sources. While technology exists to capture CO2 from new
coal-fired plants for safe disposal underground, only California has a law requiring plants to do
so. It is very unlikely that conventional coal combustion plants will be retrofitted for CO2
capture due to the high cost and large energy requirements of such add-on controls. Hence, the
existing stock of coal-fired power plants as well as any new conventional plants that are built are
not only a source of current emissions, but represent a commitment to an enormous stream of
emissions over their lifetimes. Existing U.S. coal-fired power plants are expected to generate 90
billion tons of carbon dioxide over their expected remaining lifetimes. 81 The carbon shadow
from coal-fired power plants will grow enormously over the next 25 years if current business-asusual forecasts are realized. More than 100 conventional coal-fired power plants are already in
various stages of development in the United States, and the Department of Energy projects that
more than 150 GW (the equivalent of 300 large plants) of new conventional coal-fired capacity
will be built by 2030.82 The carbon shadow from these plants would be an additional 62 billion
tons of CO2. Under this scenario, the committed emissions just from U.S. coal-fired power
plants would be 150 billion tons of CO2half the total emissions the United States could
produce from 2000 to 2050 within a global effort to prevent dangerous global warming.83
Champion Briefs
512
Nuclear energy is necessary to prevent global warming.

Dattaro, Laura. Nuclear Energy Could Be The Key To Fighting Global Warming. Vice News.
February 02, 2015. Web. August 16, 2016. <https://news.vice.com/article/nuclearenergy-could-be-the-key-to-fighting-global-warming>.
According to a report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the power sector should
more than double the amount of nuclear energy produced in order to keep warming below 2
degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-Industrial Age levels, reaching 930 gigawatts
of nuclear-generated power by 2050. That's a 57 percent increase over the current global
capacity, which would boost nuclear's share of the world's energy production from 11 percent to
17 percent.
Simply speaking, to make the transformation of our energy sector a reality, we will need to use
all low-carbon energy sources available to us, including nuclear energy, IEA Executive Director
Maria van der Hoeven said in a statement accompanying the report's release.
Champion Briefs
513
We need to reduce emissions through the increase of the use

of nuclear power.
Dattaro, Laura. Nuclear Energy Could Be The Key To Fighting Global Warming. Vice News.
February 02, 2015. Web. August 16, 2016. <https://news.vice.com/article/nuclearenergy-could-be-the-key-to-fighting-global-warming>.
The report estimates that nuclear energy currently reduces global carbon dioxide emissions by
between 1.4 billion and 2.8 billion tons every year, about the amount emitted by 165 million
homes every year.
The IEA's last nuclear roadmap was released in 2010, before a major earthquake and tsunami
caused a core meltdown at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant in 2011. Since that accident,
acceptance of nuclear power has shifted, causing some countries to change their policies. Energy
production from nuclear declined 10 percent between 2010 and 2013, largely due to Germany
shutting down eight reactors and Japan taking its reactors offline.
What we've seen in different countries is that people have been scaling back their ambition,
Tam told VICE News.
Reaching the 930-gigawatt goal would require an investment of $4.4 trillion between 2011 and
2050, a quarter of which would come from China. Member countries of the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development would contribute about $2 trillion collectively.
The roadmap calls for countries' investments to increase over the coming decades. The United
States, for example, would invest $90 billion in nuclear through 2020, with that amount growing
to $118 billion between 2041 and 2050.
Champion Briefs
514
1NR Thorium Inherency

Author, No. Could Thorium Make Nuclear Power Safe?. The Week. 03-28-2011. Web. August
16, 2016. <http://theweek.com/articles/486044/could-thorium-make-nuclear-powersafe>.
Japans escalating disaster at its Fukushima reactors is putting a damper on the nuclear power
industry, just as nuclear energy was starting to bask in a post-Chernobyl glow. But instead of
giving up on nuclear power, say an almost cult-like group of nuclear scientists, we should just
switch from uranium-based reactors to ones fueled by cheaper, safer thorium. What is this
miracle metal and could it really bring us safe nuclear power?
What is thorium?
A silvery metal (symbol: Th; atomic number: 90) close to uranium on the periodic table of
elements, with just two fewer protons. It was discovered in 1828, and is named after the Norse
god of thunder. As an added bonus, its almost as common as dirt, says Antonia Zerbisias in
The Toronto Star.
Why are fans so excited about it?
Thorium-fueled reactors are supposed to be much safer than uranium-powered ones, use far less
material (1 metric ton of thorium gets as much bang as 200 metric tons of uranium, or 3.5 million
metric tons of coal), produce waste that is toxic for a shorter period of time (300 years vs.
uraniums tens of thousands of years), and is hard to weaponize. In fact, thorium can even feed
off of toxic plutonium waste to produce energy. And because the biggest cost in nuclear power is
safety, and thorium reactors cant melt down, argues Michael Anissimov in Accelerating Future,
they will eventually be much cheaper, too.

Champion Briefs
515
NEG: Environmental Catastrophe K
Environmental Catastrophe K
Present in this section is two distinct arguments regarding the representations inherent to
environmental catastrophe claims. While these arguments are intertwined, I would recommend
reading one or the other in any individual round.
The first can be found in the pieces of evidence from Luke, Michaels, and Doremus. It
argues that the state can hijacks environmental causes in the interest of expanding biopolitical
power through population-level managerial policies. In the pursuit of promoting ecologically
sustainable methods, human being is reduced to data points that can be valued and devalued on
the basis of a calculative logic and invariably results in the sort of atrocities endemic to
authoritarian regimes. Insofar as this an argument about the representations of the affirmative,
you can use the Luke and Michaels evidence to supersede their impacts. Because this rhetoric is
grounded in biopolitical maneuvering you can argue that their claims are both false because they
misidentify their harms, and also that their impacts should not be evaluated.
The second argument in this section surrounds the Bookchin evidence. For those that are
not familiar with Murray Bookchin, he was a famous anarchist, and therefore carries some
baggage in some intellectual circles, so be aware that author indicts will probably be frequently
presented in opposition. Nevertheless, Bookchin argues that environmental catastrophe rhetoric
shift our decision making calculus towards a biocentric ethic. Under biocentricism, social
problems are placed under erasure in favor of fostering life generally. This is not to say that the
environment should always be sacrificed for human interests, but that the doomsday alarmists
promote an unbalanced dynamic between the ecological and the human that culminates in antihumanism. This argument is basically the plot to any Hollywood story in which ecoterrorists are
the antagonists. The impact is similar to the first, with the anti-humanist ideology rationalizing
large-scale atrocities in the name of environmentalism. The Coviello evidence can be used for
either argument as its impact.
Champion Briefs
516
The specter of environmental catastrophe justifies state

surveillance and the extension of biopolitics.
Luke, Timothy. The (Un)wise (Ab)use Of Nature: Environmentalism As Globalized
Consumerism?. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political. January 04, 1998. Web. August
16, 2016. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/40644913>.
In conclusion, Foucault is correct about the network of governmentality arrangements in the
modern state. State power is not an entity which was developed above individuals, ignoring
what they are and even their very existence, because its power/knowledge has indeed evolved
as a very sophisticated structure, in which individuals can be integrated, under one condition:
that this individuality would be shaped in a new form, and submitted to a set of very specific
patterns.116 Producing discourses of ecological living, articulating designs of sustainable
development, and propagating definitions of environmental literary for contemporary individuals
simply adds new twists to the very specific patterns by which the state formation constitutes a
modern matrix of individualization.117 The emergent regime of ecologized bio-powers, in turn,
operates through ethical systems of identity as much as it does in the policy machinations of
governmental bureaus within any discretely bordered territory. Ecology merely echoes the
effects from one of the great innovations in the techniques of power in the eighteenth century,
namely, the emergence of population as an economic and political problem.118 Once
demography emerges as a science of statist administration, it is statistical attitudes can diffuse
into the numerical surveillance of Nature, or Earth and its nonhuman inhabitants, as well as the
study of culture, or society and its human members, giving us ecographies written by the
Worldwatchers steering effects exerted from their astropanopticons through every
technoscientific space.119 Government, and now, most importantly, superpowered statist
ecology, preoccupies itself with the conduct of conduct, particularly in consumerisms buying
of buying or purchasing of purchasing. Habitus is habitat, as any good product semanticist or
psychodemographer knows all too well. The ethical concerns of family, community and nation
previously might have guided how conduct was to be conducted; yet, at this juncture, the
environment serves increasingly as the most decisive ground for normalizing each individuals
Champion Briefs
517

The specter of environmental catastrophe justifies state surveillance and the extension of
biopolitics. (Continued)
behavior. Environments are spaces under police supervision, expert management, risk avoidance,
or technocratic control. By bringing environmentalistic agendas into the heart of corporate and
government policy, one finds the ultimate meaning of a police state fulfilled. If police, as they
bound and observed space, were empowered to watch over religion, morals, health, supplies,
roads, town buildings, public safety, liberal arts, trade, factories, labor supplies, and the poor,
then why not add ecology--or the totality of all interactions between organisms and their
surroundings--to the police zones of the state? The conduct of any persons environmental
conduct becomes the initial limit on others ecological enjoyments, so too does the conduct of
the social bodys conduct necessitate that the state always be an effective environmental
protection agency. The ecological domain is the ultimate domain of unifying together all of the
most critical forms of life that states must now produce, protect, and police in eliciting biopower: it is the center of their enviro-discipline, eco-knowledge, geo-power.120 Few sites in the
system of objects unify these forces as thoroughly as the purchase of objects from the system of
purchases. Mobilizing biological power, then, accelerates exponentially after 1970 along with
global fast capitalism. Ecology becomes one more formalized disciplinary mode of paying
systematic attention to the processes of life...to invest life through and through121 in order to
transform all living things into biological populations to develop transnational commerce. The
tremendous explosion of global economic prosperity, albeit in highly skewed spatial
distributions, after the 1973/1974 energy crises would not have been possible without ecology to
guide the controlled insertion of bodies into the machinery of production and the adjustment of
the phenomena of population to economic processes.122 An anantamo-politics for all of Earths
plants and animals now emerges out of ecology as strategic plans for terraformative management
through which environmentalizing resource managerialists acquire the methods of power
capable of optimizing forces, aptitudes, and life in general without at the same time making them
Champion Briefs
518

The specter of environmental catastrophe justifies state surveillance and the extension of
biopolitics. (Continued)
more difficult to govern.123 To move another step past Foucaults vision of human biopower,
these adjustments in the resourcing of Nature as environmentalized plants and animals to that of
transnational capital are helpful to check chaotic systems of unsustainable growth. In becoming
an essential subassembly for transnational economic development, ecological discourses of
power/knowledge rationalize conjoining the growth of human groups to the expansion of
productive forces and the differential allocation of profit inasmuch as population ecology,
environmental science, and range management are now, in part, the exercise of bio-power in its
many forms and modes of application.124 Indeed, a postmodern condition perhaps is reached
when the life of all species are wagered in each one of humanitys market-centered economic
and political strategies. Ecology, which did emerge out of the traditional life sciences, now
circulates within the space for movement thus conquered, and broadening and organizing that
space, methods of power and knowledge as green disciplinary interventions, because the state
has assumed responsibility for the life processes and undertook to control and modify
them.125
Champion Briefs
519
The environmental justice regime results in a reduction of

life into capital.
Lukw, Timothy. The (Un)wise (Ab)use Of Nature: Environmentalism As Globalized
Putting earth first only establishes ecological capital as the ultimate basis of life.
Infrastructuralizing Nature renders everything on Earth, or humanitys home, into capital-land, labor, animals, plants, air, water, genes, ecosystems. And, mainstream environmentalism
often becomes a very special kind of home economics to manage humanitys indoors and
outdoors household accounts. Household consumption is always home consumption, because
human economics rests upon terrestrial ecologics. Here the roots of ecology and economics
intertwine through sustainable development, revealing its truest double significance:
sustainably managing the planet is the same thing as reproducing terrestrial stocks of
infrastructorialized green capital. Whether or not environmentalists prevent the unwise abuse or
promote wise use of natural resources is immaterial; everything they do optimizes the sign value
of green goods and serves to reproduce global capital as environmentalized sites, stocks or
spaces--an outcome that every Worldwatch Institute State of the World report or Club Sierra
ecotour easily confirms. Likewise, the scarcity measures of Nature Conservancy or World
Wildlife Fund scare campaigns show how everything now has a price, including wildlife
preservation or ecological degradation, which global markets will mark and meet in their
(un)wise (ab)use of environmentalized resources. Newer ecological discourses about total cost
accounting, lifecycle management, or environmental justice may simply articulate more refined
efforts to sustainably develop these bigger global processes of universal capitalization by
accepting small correctives against particular capitalist interests. Admitting that poor people have
been treated unjustly in siting decisions for environmental bads lets rich people redistribute these
ecological costs across more sites so that they might benefit from the material and symbolic
goods created by being just so environmental. Environmental justice movements perhaps are not
so much about attaining environmental justice as they are about moving injustices more freely
around in the environment, assuring the birth of new consumerisms for increased efficiency at
risk management and broader participation ecological degradation in our terraformed Nature.
Champion Briefs
520
The biocentric ethic desensitizes us to human agony and

results in state-sanctioned systematic killing.
Bookchin, Murray. Which Way For The Ecology Movement? . AK Press. 10-19-1996. Web.
August 16, 2016. <https://www.akpress.org/whichwayfortheecologymovement.html>.
What is important is that when grizzly bears can be placed on a par with human beings in the
name of biocentricity--and I am surely not trying to make a case for the extermination of
bears--we are witnessing not a greater sensitivity to life in general but a desensitization of the
mind to human agony, consciousness, personality, and the potentiality of human beings to know
and to understand that no other life form can approximate. In an era of sweeping
depersonalization and irrationalism, the value of human personality and human rationality ceases
to count. Reverence for nature, even respect for nonhuman life, provides no guarantee that
humans will be included in the orbit of a life-oriented mythos, the present crop of eco-mystics
and eco-theists to the contrary notwithstanding. The classical example of this is what Robert A.
Pois has called an ingenuous permutation of mysticism in the Nazi movement. Nazism, alas,
was more than ingenuous. Hitlers Mein Kampf registered a stern, indeed cosmic view that
this planet once moved through the ether for millions of years without human beings, and it can
do so again someday if men forget that they owe their higher existence, not to the ideas of a few
crazy ideologists, but to the knowledge and ruthless application of Natures stern and rigid laws.
Alfred Rosenberg, the ideologist par excellence of Nazism, railed against Jewish dualism and
avowed a neopagan pantheism for a bridging of the gap between spirit and matter through
deification of nature, to cite Poiss summary. This kind of language can be found at varying
levels of intensity in the writings of deep ecologists, eco-mystics, and eco-theists today, who
would certainly eschew any association with Nazism and who would avow their innocence in
fostering the cultural legacy they are creating. Heinrich Himmler, who deployed the entire
machinery of the SS in a vast operation to systematically kill millions of people, held this view
with a vengeance. Man, he told his SS leaders in Berlin in June l942, at the height of the
Nazis extermination operations, is nothing special. Ironically, his icy rejection of humanism
found its fervent counterpart in his passionate love of animal life. Thus Himmler complained to a
Champion Briefs
521

The biocentric ethic desensitizes us to human agony and results in state-sanctioned systematic
killing. (Continued)
hunter, one Felix Kersten, How can you find pleasure, Herr Kersten, in shooting from behind
cover at poor creatures browsing on the edge of a wood, innocent, defenseless, and
unsuspecting? Its really pure murder. Nature is so marvelously beautiful and every animal has a
right to live. Such a passion for animal rights is often the opposite side of the misanthropic
coin. Indeed, hatred of humanity has often reinforced adulation of animals, just as hatred of
civilization has often reinforced hypersentimental naturalism. I have adduced the shadowy
world of suprahuman naturism to suggest the perilous ground on which many eco-mystics,
eco-theists, and deep ecologists are walking and the dangers raised when de-sensitizing an
already minimalized public, to use Christopher Laschs term. As the late Edward Abbeys
denunciations of Latin genetic inferiority and even Hebraic superstitions suggest, they are
not immunized from the dangerous brew in its own right. The brew becomes highly explosive
when it is mixed with a mysticism that supplants humanitys potentiality as a rational voice of
nature with an all-presiding Gaia, an eco-theism that denies human beings their special place
in nature. Reverence for nature is no guarantee that the congregant will revere the world of life
generally, and reverence for nonhuman life is no guarantee that human life will receive the
respect it deserves. This is especially true when reverence is rooted in deification--and a supine
reverence--in any form whatever, particularly when it becomes a substitute for social critique and
social action.
Champion Briefs
522
Bioethics culminates in a antihumanist outlook and places

social conflict under erasure.
The ways in which we interact with each other as social beings profoundly influence attitudes we
are likely to have toward the natural world. Any sound ecological perspective rests in great part
on our social perspectives and interrelationships; hence, to draw up an ecological agenda that has
no room for social concerns is as obtuse as to draw up a social agenda that has no room for
ecological concerns. Indeed, any attempt to distinguish one from the other, or to focus on one at
the expense of the other, can and has led to an outright lack of concern for the ways animals we
call human treat one another and concomitantly, to an ugly misanthropic outlook. There is
indeed a great deal to concern us about a biocentric outlook, just as there is about an
anthropocentric outlook. The various forms of antihumanism that are advanced today go well
beyond these allegedly biocentric implications. There can be no doubt that Haitian refugees who
have been denied entry into the United States, or gypsies deported from Germany, for of racist
reasons, not merely the economic reasons adduced by the American and German governments.
The burgeoning nationalism, xenophobia, parochialism, and tribalism that have claimed an
inestimable number of lives in recent times cannot be attributed to Malthusian myths that blame
ways and conflicts on overpopulation or a dwindling food supply. These ills patently have their
roots in traditional folk hatreds, civil conflicts between clan leaders, local imperialistic interests,
and international meddling that reaches back to the armaments that the United States and the
Soviet Union supplied to Third World nations and movements that they regarded as
strategically important in the Cold War. Invoking biolinguistic causes for the worlds abundant
conflicts and dislocations creates an apologistic patina for these profoundly social problems.
Neo-malthusians invoke overpopulation, deep ecologists invoke anthropocentricism,
ecotheologians invoke avarice, ecofeminists invoke male aggressiveness, ecomystics
generally invoke rationality, Jungians appeal to immutable archetypes, Freudians cite states of
human development and inevitably, socio-biologists invoke intractable, even selfish genes.
Champion Briefs
523

Bioethics culminates in a antihumanist outlook and places social conflict under erasure.
(Continued)
What these modern, largely mystical attributions share is that they all regard social dislocations
as the result of a biologically-determined human nature and only rarely, if ever, of social
forces like capitalism, hierarchy, the market imperative of grow or die, or corporate balancesheets. That human beings are far from constituting a unified humanity divided as they are
by gender, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, status, wealth, and vocational privileges, in short,
hierarchy and class, oppressed and oppressor, exploiter and exploited tends to be swept under
the carpet.
Champion Briefs
524
Apocalyptic Rhetoric desensitizes us to Environmental

Collapse.
Michaels, Patrick. Beware Of Environmental Apocalypse Overload. Houston Chronicle.
February 11, 2002. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/apocalypse.html>.
One of the peculiarities of this age of environmental apocalypse is how little we are willing to
check the facts surrounding stories about science and technology. As a result, the good news is
that weve all had a few chuckles, like when major TV networks unflinchingly reported on the
pregnant man in the Philippines, or when sheep in South America, supposedly blinded by
ultraviolet radiation from the ozone hole, were found to be suffering from pinkeye. The bad news
is that environmental reporting has become so bad that no one takes it seriously anymore. When
each passing fancy is played as curtains, and yet the world goes on, people eventually catch on
that something must be wrong with the Armageddon story. Churches used to do a pretty good
job at telling us the end was near, but when they couldnt produce it, we switched to
environmentalists for gloom and doom. The title of Sen. Al Gores bestseller, Earth in the
Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, says volumes about this shift of believers. Ditto for his
recent meeting with religious leaders, imploring them to preach about the new relationship
(whatever that means) between man and the planet. But after about a hundred years or so of this
(very) trying rhetoric, folks are beginning to figure it out. One might call it apocalypse fatigue,
recognizing that the best bet is to go short on apocalypse futures. After all, were here, not dead
from global warming, global cooling, acid rain, deforestation, too much salt in our diet, too little,
or oat bran colic. Further, if an apocalypse is real, whos going to be around to collect bets?
Champion Briefs
525
Environmental rhetoric has lost its position of objectivity.

Killingsworth, Jimmie. Ecospeak: Rhetoric And Environmental Politics In America. Southern
Illinois University Press. 02-19-1991. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://muse.jhu.edu/book/17311>.
Rhetorical analysis presses the question: What is gained and what is lost by fitting the programs
of reform environmentalism, holistic science, and deep ecology into the framework of the
fictional genre? For one thing, environmentalist ideas are no longer presented according to the
strictures of what Walter Fisher has called the rational world paradigm (3), whose purest
manifestation we have seen in the dry analytical format of the environmental impact statement.
Nor are the ideas presented in the agonistic rhetoric of reformist polemics, with the pull and tug
of the text forcing the reader to take sides. Instead, the novel places ideas into the context of a
story and thereby potentially avoids either numbing or alienating the reader. In the form of the
popular (and populist) narrative, environmentalism achieves a broader base of appeal and
potentially opens into a field of communicative action.
Champion Briefs
526
FW: the material benefits supersede the nonmaterial ones,

means that their environmental rhetoric will be hijacked for
commercial interests.
Doremus, Holly. The Rhetoric And Reality Of Nature Protection: Toward A New Discourse.
Washington and Lee Law Review. January 10, 2000. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=wlulr
>.
Combining esthetic and ethical arguments with the material discourse does not automatically
solve this problem. Because material benefits are more readily quantified, they are likely to
outweigh nonmaterial benefits in the cost-benefit comparisons encouraged by the material focus.
The predictable result is that material benefits will be maximized at the cost of nonmaterial ones.
The national parks provide a concrete example. Park proponents first argued that national parks
were important for their esthetic qualities, which could express and strengthen the national
character. But in order to build political support they added that parks would benefit local and
national economies. As a result, park managers felt compelled to promote heavy visitation in
order to realize the economic benefits they had promised, at the expense of maintaining the
parks distinctive esthetic and character-building values. n228
Champion Briefs
527
As the outlook for the environment seems worse,

complacency becomes more normalized.
Buell, Frederick. From Apocalypse To Way Of Life. Routledge. 09-30-2004. Web. August 16,
2016.
<https://books.google.com/books/about/From_Apocalypse_to_Way_of_Life.html?id=0Jb
i1ya_hKEC>.
Yet another pitfall for the full and sustained elaboration of environmental crisis is, though least
discussed, perhaps the most deeply ironic. A problem with deep cultural and psychological as
well as social effects, it is embodied in a startlingly simple proposition: the worse one feels
environmental crisis is, the more one is tempted to turn ones back on the environment. This
means, preeminently, turning ones back on natureon traditions of nature feeling, traditions
of knowledge about nature (ones that range from organic farming techniques to the different
departments of ecological science), and traditions of nature-based activism. If nature is
thoroughly wrecked these days, people need to delink from nature and live in postnaturea
conclusion that, as the next chapter shows, many in U.S. society drew at the end of the
millenium. Explorations of how deeply nature has been wounded and how intensely vulnerable
to and dependent on human actions it is can thus lead, ironically, to further indifference to
nature-based environmental issues, not greater concern with them.
Champion Briefs
528
Visions of apocalypse end in annihilation and genocide.

Coviello, Peter. Queer Frontiers Millennial Geographies, Genders, And Generations. The
University of Wisconsin Press. January 06, 1991. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/0524.htm>.
Perhaps. But to claim that American culture is at present decisively postnuclear is not to say that
the world we inhabit is in any way post-apocalyptic. Apocalypse, as I began by saying, changed
it did not go away. And here I want to hazard my second assertion: if, in the nuclear age of
yesteryear, apocalypse signified an event threatening everyone and everything with (in Jacques
Derridas suitably menacing phrase) remainderless and a-symbolic destruction, then in the
postnuclear world apocalypse is an affair whose parameters are definitively local. In shape and in
substance, apocalypse is defined now by the affliction it brings somewhere else, always to an
other people whose very presence might then be written as a kind of dangerous contagion,
threatening the safety and prosperity of a cherished general population. This fact seems to me
to stand behind Susan Sontags incisive observation, from 1989, that, Apocalypse is now a long
running serial: not Apocalypse Now but Apocalypse from Now On. The decisive point here
in the perpetuation of the threat of apocalypse (the point Sontag goes on, at length, to miss) is
that the apocalypse is ever present because, as an element in a vast economy of power, it is ever
useful. That is, though the perpetual threat of destruction through the constant reproduction of
the figure of the apocalypse the agencies of power ensure their authority to act on and through
the bodies of a particular population. No one turns this point more persuasively than Michel
Foucault, who in the final chapter of his first volume of The History of Sexuality addresses
himself to the problem of a power that is less repressive than productive, less life-threatening
than, in his words, life-administering. Power, he contends, exerts a positive influence on life
[and] endeavors to administer, optimize, and multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and
comprehensive regulations. In his brief comments on what he calls the atomic situation,
however, Foucault insists as well that the productiveness of modern power must not be mistaken
for a uniform repudiation of violent or even lethal means. For as managers of life and survival,
of bodies and the race, agencies of modern power presume to act on the behalf of the existence
Champion Briefs
529

of everyone. Whatsoever might be construed as a threat to life and survival in this way serves to
authorize any expression of force, no matter how invasive, or, indeed, potentially annihilating.
If genocide is indeed the dream of modern power, Foucault writes, this is not because of a
recent return to the ancient right to kill it is because power is situated and exercised at the level
of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population. For a state that would
arm itself not with the power to kill its population, but with a more comprehensive power over
the patters and functioning of its collective life, the threat of an apocalyptic demise, nuclear or
otherwise, seems a civic initiative that can scarcely be done without.
Champion Briefs
530
The presentation of environmental catastrophe with

disparate impacts bridges the gap between the rhetoric of
environmental crises and the rhetoric of national security,
justifying military intervention.
Wolfe, Dylan. Sidestepping Environmental Controversy Through A Rhetoric Of Security:
George W. Bush In Summerhaven, Arizona. Western Journal of Communication.
January 01, 2007. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10570310701199178?journalCode=rwjc2
0>.
In discussing crisis rhetorics connection to situation, Bonnie Dow (1989) argues that crisis
rhetoric is responsive to exegetic situations. Using examples from the speeches of Ronald
Reagan, Dow points out that different crisis situations call for different rhetorical responses (p.
295). There need not be, however, a causal link between the two. In fact, Bushs use of security
rhetoric in Summerhaven may show an inventive linefrom exigency to response to use in
unassociated rhetorical opportunities. Bushs use of security rhetoric in Summerhaven
demonstrates how the exigency of September 11 led to the inventive possibilities of the war on
terror, which were then available for the President to shift into the discourse of forest fire
policy. The lack of material association between September 11 and natural wildfires may
dissolve the direct link between a situational exigency and its response, but it does not remove
the fact that Bush does make use of security rhetoric in his Summerhaven address. The
implications of this rhetorical shift from the war on terror and forest policy discourse include
the suggestion that a rhetor may draw upon an unassociated exigency of crisis to circumvent an
unfavorable public mindset and media frame. I argue that the shift from an adversarially framed
environmental controversy to a rhetoric of security is produced in the Summerhaven address
through tropes of association, spatial control, and urgency. First, to better understand the
rhetorical dynamics of the Summerhaven address, it is helpful to place the speech in the context
of forest fire policy and discourse.
Champion Briefs
531
A2 Environmental Disaster- Apocalyptic rhetoric galvanizes

and interests populations in environmental problems.
Garrard, Greg. Ecocriticism. Routledge. 08-25-2011. Web. August 16, 2016.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=oQ41exMvPCUC>.
Apocalyptic rhetoric seems a necessary component of environmental discourse. It is capable of
galvanising activists, converting the undecided and ultimately, perhaps, of influencing
government and commercial policy. In the United States, in particular, it can draw upon deep
wellsprings of popular and literary apocalyptic sentiment. The news media often report
environmental issues as catastrophes not only because this generates drama and the possibility of
a human interest, but also because news more easily reports events than processes. Apocalypse
provides an emotionally charged frame of reference within which complex, long-term issues are
reduced to monocausal crises involving conflicts between recognisably opposed groups, such as
Greenpeace versus whalers. John Hannigans study of the sociology of environmental conflict
specifies the most common inflection: Employing a series of medical metaphors, our planet is
depicted as facing a debilitating, perhaps terminal, illness (1995:72). Ehrlichs Population Bomb
is an early example of the rhetorical link that is now commonly made between the ancient
apocalyptic trope and the inflection of ecology as a science of planetary health, as discussed
further in Chapter 8.
Champion Briefs
532
A2 Environmental Disaster K: Apocalyptic representations

lead to action by spurring regulation.
Weingart, Peter. Risks Of Communication: Discourses On Climate Change In Science, Politics,
And The Mass Media. Public Understanding of Science. January 07, 2000. Web. August
16, 2016. <http://pus.sagepub.com/content/9/3/261.abstract>.
For more than three decades, concerned scientists have sounded the alarm about global warming
becoming an environmental threat that might seriously alter human life on earth. Governments
worldwide have reacted to this warning, some by developing national policies to reduce domestic
CO2 emissions, others mainly by joining international negotiations about global emissions
reduction. The mass media have influenced national policy responses. Their extensive coverage
of global warming and related issues since the end of the 1980s has created public concern and a
call for political commitment. At first sight, this seems like an excellent example of successful
communication of a serious environmental risk. Human societies appear capable of anticipating
the unintended consequences of their own actions and of undertaking major efforts to prevent
life-threatening outcomes.
Champion Briefs
533
A2 Environmental Disaster K: Appeals to human survival

are key to galvanize people to protect nature.
Regenstein, Lewis. Animal Rights, Endangered Species And Human Survival. Blackwell. 0826-2005. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.animal-rights-library.com/textsm/regenstein01.pdf>.
Fortunately, in connection with the question of whether or not to preserve the worlds wildlife
the morally right consideration happens also to be the one that it is in our own selfish interest to
choose. Cleveland Amory, president of the Fund for Animals, once wrote that humans have an
infinite capacity to rationalize their own cruelty. But while cruelty to animals may be easy for
some to accept, it is far more difficult for policy makers to defend such actions when they clearly
have adverse consequences for humans. Our failure adequately to protect other species and their
natural environment is already having grave consequences for much of humanity. Throughout
Asia, for example, the clear-cutting of forests and the resulting flooding have caused massive
loss of life, homes and farmlands. Such degradation of the environment is helping to condemn
literally millions of people to lives of misery and desperation. We have done more ecological
damage to the world in the last few decades than in the entire preceding period of recorded
history. If we continue at the current rate, or even at a greatly reduced level, our planet will soon
be unfit for habitation by most higher life forms, including our own. In wiping out the natural
heritage over which we were given dominion and stewardship responsibilities, we are engaging
in nothing less than the wholesale destruction of our planet and are endangering most of the
living creatures on it. As Ec-clesiastes points out so wisely: For that which befalleth the sons of
men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they
have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. There
are thus many reasons to preserve threatened wildlife. Most important, animals have a right to
live and fulfil their given roles as nature intended; they add beauty and diversity to the world;
they are interesting to observe and study in the wild; and they have non-consumptive economic
value (as with tourism and photography). But there is one more reason that should not be
overlooked. In taking action to save wildlife we may well be saving ourselves, a fact that animal
Champion Briefs
534

Appeals to human survival are key to galvanize people to protect nature. (Continued)
Regenstein, Lewis. Animal Rights, Endangered Species And Human Survival. Blackwell. 0826-2005. Web. August 16, 2016. <http://www.animal-rights-library.com/textsm/regenstein01.pdf>.
protection advocates should never cease to stress. Few conservationists and animal rights
advocates need to be convinced that an animal species is of value to humans to be persuaded that
it should be protected from destruction. In the last decade a significant evolution in public
sentiment has become apparent as increasingly large numbers of people around the world have
adopted the view that animals themselves have rights wholly apart from any value they may have
for humans. It has become respectable - indeed, common - for people to appreciate that animals
have rights and that they should not be needlessly killed or abused. Fortunately, a significant
proportion of the public has come to view in this light many highly evolved imperilled mammals,
such as primates (monkeys and apes), elephants, wolves, bears, kangaroos, tigers, cheetahs and
leopards and marine mammals (whales, dolphins, porpoises, seals, and sea otters). These
creatures are easy to identify with, and many are seen as highly intelligent, family-oriented
animals with thoughts and emotions not unlike ours, living in social groups comparable with
those of humans. Unfortunately, this strong identification with, and sympathy for, some of the
highest species of wildlife has not yet been adequately extended to the more obscure, less
glamorous species, creatures that also have innate rights and may, ironically, be more important
to us than those with complex brains, large eyes, soft fur and appealing beauty. Moreover, by
stressing the legitimate right of animals to live and survive free of fear and suffering, and thereby
understating the value of such creatures to the ecosystem and therefore to humans, animal rights
advocates sometimes to fail to raise some of the most compelling arguments in favour of wildlife
preservation, ignoring points that may appeal to many otherwise unconcerned people. If our
wildlife is to be saved, every valid argument must be raised in order to ensure this; pointing out a
species value to humanity (as a non-consumptive resource) in no way diminishes its intrinsic
rights. Indeed, as the world becomes more and more overpopulated with humans, crowding out
other creatures and destroying their habitats, human-centred arguments for wildlife and
wilderness preservation may be the only ones that will be effective in some situations. Above all,
we must make people aware of a single, overriding consideration; if we are to succeed in saving
our planet and ourselves - we must make it a safe world for all of the creatures of the earth.
Only then will our own future be secure.
Champion Briefs
535
A2 Contamination Spread.
Biello, David. What You Should And Shouldnt Worry About After The Fukushima Nuclear
Meltdowns. Scientific America. September 01, 2014. Web. August 16, 2016.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-to-worry-about-after-fukushimanuclear-disaster/>.
When it comes to radiation, the nuclear weapons testing conducted from the 1940s to the 1980s
contributed orders of magnitude more radioactivity to the oceans than Fukushima (even when
combined with Chernobyl, a much larger nuclear catastrophe). There is also an estimated 37 x
10^18 becquerels worth of radioactivity in the oceans from naturally dissolved uranium in
seawater anyway, which some view as a future nuclear fuel source but is not generally
considered a health risk. (A becquerel measures the rate of radiation emission.) And there are
other naturally occurring radioactive elements in seawater as well, such as polonium.
That means the tuna caught in the Pacific have always been naturally radioactive (and pose less
risk than dental x-rays, as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution notes). Or as marine
scientist Ken Buesseler of Woods Hole put it in a scientific paper on the subject published in
2012, though [cesium] isotopes are elevated 10 to 1,000 [times] over prior levels in waters off
Japan, radiation risks due to these radionuclides are below those generally considered harmful to
marine animals and human consumers, and even below those from naturally occurring
radionuclides.
Marine scientists have calculated that, based on all the radioactive particles released (or leaking)
from Fukushima, a dose due to this most recent nuclear accident would add up to a total of
roughly one microsievert (a unit of radiation exposure) of extra radiationroughly one tenth the
average daily dose most Americans experience, one fortieth the amount from a crossNorth
America flight and one one-hundredth the exposure from a dental x-ray. This also means that no
one in the U.S. should be taking potassium iodide pills, especially because there has been no
radioactive iodine issuing from Fukushima for several years now. (Radioactive iodine has a halflife of just eight days, meaning that all of it was gone within three months of the March 2011
nuclear accident in Japan.)
Champion Briefs
536

Champion Briefs

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Champion Briefs

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Champion Briefs

Resolved: Countries ought

Copyright 2016 by Champion Briefs, LLC

The Evidence Standard

Evidence for the Negative ................................................................... 338

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Fred Ditzian

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

The Legal Dictionary, Nuclear Power

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Mitali Mathur

About Mitali Mathur

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

"Nuclear Power." Def. 1. Oxford Dictionaries. N.d. Web.

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

a. The Warming Uniqueness Counterplan

Topic Analysis by Felix Tan

Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Alternative Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Nuclear Power Hazard Control Policy, John C. Chicken, 2016

Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Alt. Argumentation by Bailey Rung

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Framework Analysis by Amy Geller

Evidence for the

The elimination of nuclear power is crucial to prevent

The operation of nuclear power plants results in

The waste created by the nuclear industry is a vector for

Nuclear Industry is targeted by terrorists.

Nuclear weapon proliferation is connected to nuclear reactor

The complete nuclear fuel cycle contained in nuclear

Nuclear energy spurs nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear energy causes proliferation.

Nuclear energy increases proliferation- empirically proven.

Nuclear Reactors lead to proliferation- multiple countries