Download Offshore Wind Updates – Nuclear Power

Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice, JV, and Varsity
Offshore Wind and Economy Updates
Topic – Resolved: The United States federal government
should substantially increase its non-military exploration
and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.
More at atlantadebate.org
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
2/60
Table of Contents
2014 Topic -- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.
How To Use This File ................................................................................................................................3
***Offshore Wind Updates – Nuclear Power*** ......................................................................................4
Negative Article: “Obama Carbon Plan Could Give Much-Needed Boost to Troubled US Nuclear
Industry”.....................................................................................................................................................5
Negative Article: “US Power Grid at the Limit” .......................................................................................6
Negative Article: “To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power” ..........7
Affirmative Article: “Former NRC Chairman Says U.S. Nuclear Industry is 'Going Away'” ...................8
Affirmative Article: “Don't Trade Global Warming For Nuclear Meltdowns” ..........................................9
***Offshore Wind Updates – Economy Disadvantage*** ......................................................................10
Affirmative Article: “Global Signs of Slowdown Ripple Across Markets” ............................................ 11
Affirmative Article: “Oil Will Be Gone in 50 Years” ..............................................................................12
Affirmative Article: “One Big Factor in the Economic Uptick: Government Spending” .......................13
Negative Article: “G20 Optimistic On Global Economy” .......................................................................14
Negative Article: “We Will Not Run Out of Fossil Fuels” ......................................................................15
Negative Article: “Cutting the U.S. Budget Would Help the Economy” .................................................16
***Glossary*** .......................................................................................................................................18
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................19
2/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
3/60
How To Use This File
This file contains two kinds of articles: articles for a new nuclear power disadvantage, and articles that
update the economy disadvantage from the starter packet.
Nuclear Power
The nuclear power disadvantage argues that, right now, the amount of energy produced by nuclear
power will increase. However, because the amount of energy that the U.S. requires is limited, investing
in alternative energy – such as offshore wind – will undermine investment in nuclear power: we can't
have both offshore wind and nuclear power at the same time. The impact to the disadvantage is that
nuclear power, and not offshore wind, is the best way to address global warming.
An important part of this debate is the relative benefits of nuclear power and offshore wind. One
affirmative article (“Don't Trade Global Warming For Nuclear Power”) and one negative article (“To
Those Influencing Environmental Policy But Opposed to Nuclear Power”) make claims on both sides
of this debate. Reading these articles, and being able to explain their arguments in debates, is a good
way to prepare for debates on this disadvantage. The affirmative can also answer the disadvantage's
uniqueness (whether or not nuclear power investment will happen now) and link (whether there's
actually a tradeoff between nuclear power investment and offshore wind investment).
Economy Disadvantage Updates
There are three updates for the economy disadvantage:
1. Uniqueness updates – one article on each side speaks to the current state of the global economy: is it
doing well, or doing poorly? If the affirmative can show that the global economy is currently doing
poorly, it proves that the plan doesn't cause a unique economic decline.
2. The availability of fossil fuels – fossil fuels are sources of energy, such as coal, oil, and natural gas,
which are the remains of animals that died millions years ago. Because fossil fuels are a limited
resource, they'll eventually run out. Offshore wind, by contrast, is a renewable source of energy: in
theory, the wind will never stop blowing.
One open question is how long we have until we've run out of fossil fuels. If the time span is relatively
short – for instance, 50 years – it means that we need to find alternative sources of energy quickly, and
doing the affirmative is probably good for the economy. If there are hundreds of years of fossil fuels
remaining, though, there's probably less of an economic need to switch to alternatives.
Link updates – these articles speak to the economic effects of government spending: does government
spending help, or hurt, the economy? Often, liberals will argue that government spending helps the
economy by giving people more money to spend and creating jobs, while conservatives often argue that
spending money hurts the economy by raising taxes and preventing the more efficient use of money
elsewhere.
3/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
4/60
***Offshore Wind Updates – Nuclear Power***
4/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
5/60
Negative Article: “Obama Carbon Plan Could Give Much-Needed Boost
to Troubled US Nuclear Industry”
By Maria Galluci, energy and environment reporter at the International Business Times. Published June 5, 2014. Available
at http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-carbon-plan-could-give-much-needed-boost-troubled-us-nuclear-industry-1595068
The Obama administration's new rules aimed at reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases appear
likely to boost a beleaguered yet enormous industry: nuclear power.
As experts sifted through the details of the regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency and announced earlier this week, they anticipated that some states could lean more heavily on
nuclear power plants as they are forced to diminish their reliance on coal-fired electricity.
States that had planned to mothball aging and expensive nuclear plants might choose to continue
operating these facilities under the emissions plan. The nuclear industry— still grappling with fears
spawned by the disaster in Fukushima, Japan, alongside competition from cheap natural gas—has
effectively been handed an opportunity to push ahead, say experts.
Investing in nuclear “may be more attractive now with this rule,” said Doug Vine, a senior energy
fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a policy organization. “We think it changes the
[economic] equation.”
The EPA's proposal, unveiled Monday, aims to slash carbon dioxide emissions to 30 percent below
2005 levels by 2030, in large part by shifting the nation’s energy mix away from carbon-intensive coal
plants and toward cleaner sources like natural gas, renewable energy and nuclear power. Reductions
will also come through energy-efficiency measures such as retrofitting older buildings or installing
“smart” appliances that use less energy.
In that context, nuclear offers a relatively straightforward way for states to achieve reductions in their
carbon emissions: Since nuclear plants emit no carbon when they operate, states have an incentive to
keep existing plants running or to build new ones in order to meet their individual targets.
Without an emissions mandate, aging or unprofitable plants would likely be retired and replaced mainly
by coal or natural-gas fired electricity, Vine said. But under the regulations, such a swap would increase
carbon emissions and make it harder for states to comply.
State lawmakers and regulators “are going to be seriously considering what their generation mix has to
be, and it may be very cost-effective to find a solution that keeps the nuclear power plant open”—
including extending power contracts with plant operators or potentially offering subsidies, he said.
The U.S. nuclear sector has struggled in recent years as cheap natural gas made it difficult for nuclear
power to compete in certain electricity markets. The high costs of repairing damaged plants or
upgrading older facilities—about half of the nearly 100 U.S. reactors are over 30 years old—is also
economically unviable in some cases. Four nuclear reactors recently retired early in California, Florida,
Vermont and Wisconsin for a mix of these reasons.
5/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
6/60
Negative Article: “US Power Grid at the Limit”
by Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, an organization which advocates
against the existence of human-caused global warming. Published on The Hill, U.S. Politics news organization, on April 25,
2014. Available at http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/204194-us-power-grid-at-the-limit
Nuclear generating facilities are also under attack. Many of the 100 nuclear power plants that provided
20 percent of U.S. electricity for decades can no longer be operated profitably. Exelon’s six nuclear
power plants in Illinois have operated at a loss for the last six years and are now candidates for closure.
What industry pays customers to take its product? The answer is the U.S. wind industry. Windgenerated electricity is typically bid in electrical wholesale markets at negative prices. But how can
wind systems operate at negative prices?
The answer is that the vast majority of U.S. wind systems receive a federal production tax credit (PTC)
of up to 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for produced electricity. Some states add an addition credit, such as
Iowa, which provides a corporate tax credit of 1.5 cents per kw-hr. So wind operators can supply
electricity at a pre-tax price of a negative 3 or 4 cents per kw-hr and still make an after-tax profit from
subsidies, courtesy of the taxpayer.
As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When
demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the
past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output.
But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting
wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have
pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again
extend the destructive PTC subsidy.
Capacity shortages are beginning to appear. A reserve margin deficit of two gigawatts is projected for
the summer of 2016 for the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), serving the Northern
Plains states. Reserve shortages are also projected for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) by as early as this summer.
The United States has the finest electricity system in the world, with prices one-half those of Europe.
But this system is under attack from foolish energy policies. Coal-fired power plants are closing,
unable to meet EPA environmental guidelines. Nuclear plants are aging and beset by mounting losses,
driven by negative pricing from subsidized wind systems. Without a return to sensible energy policies,
prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures.
6/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
7/60
Negative Article: “To Those Influencing Environmental Policy But
Opposed to Nuclear Power”
By Dr. Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution; Dr. Kerry Emanuel,
Atmospheric Scientist, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Dr. James Hansen, Climate Scientist, Columbia University
Earth Institute; and Dr. Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, University of East Anglia and the National Center for Atmospheric
Research. Published November 3, 2013. Available at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/to-those-influencingenvironmental-policy-but-opposed-to-nuclear-power/
To those influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power:
As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to
advocate the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems. We appreciate your
organization's concern about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued
opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change.
We call on your organization to support the development and deployment of safer nuclear power
systems as a practical means of addressing the climate change problem. Global demand for energy is
growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies. At the same
time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only
increase energy supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants
turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but
those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the
global economy requires. While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear
power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a
substantial role for nuclear power.
We understand that today's nuclear plants are far from perfect. Fortunately, passive safety systems and
other advances can make new plants much safer. And modern nuclear technology can reduce
proliferation risks and solve the waste disposal problem by burning current waste and using fuel more
efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing
plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged based on its societal benefits.
Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of nuclear energy are orders
of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system is without
downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and biases
that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology.
While there will be no single technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the
threat of global warming seriously to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power
systems as one among several technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an
energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
7/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
8/60
Affirmative Article: “Former NRC Chairman Says U.S. Nuclear
Industry is 'Going Away'”
By the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, citing Gregory Jaczko, former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. Published October 10, 2013. Available at http://spectrum.ieee.org/techtalk/energy/nuclear/former-nrc-chairman-says-us-nuclear-industry-is-going-away
Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the
Fukushima Daiichi accident, didn't mince words in an interview with IEEE Spectrum. The United
States is turning away from nuclear power, he said, and he expects the rest of the world to eventually
do the same.
"I’ve never seen a movie that’s set 200 years in the future and the planet is being powered by fission
reactors—that’s nobody’s vision of the future," he said. "This is not a future technology. It’s an old
technology, and it serves a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course."
Jaczko bases his assessment of the U.S. nuclear industry on a simple reading of the calendar. The 104
commercial nuclear reactors in the United States are aging, and he thinks that even those nuclear power
stations that have received 20 year license extensions, allowing them to operate until they're 60 years
old, may not see out that term. Jaczko said the economics of nuclear reactors are increasingly difficult,
as the expense of repairs and upgrades makes nuclear power less competitive than cheap natural gas.
He added that Entergy's recent decision to close the Vermont Yankee plant was a case in point.
"The industry is going away," he said bluntly. "Four reactors are being built, but there’s absolutely no
money and no desire to finance more plants than that. So in 20 or 30 years we’re going to have very
few nuclear power plants in this country—that’s just a fact."
8/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
9/60
Affirmative Article: “Don't Trade Global Warming For Nuclear
Meltdowns”
by Linda Pentz Gunter (nuclear power researcher, founder of the anti-nuclear power organization Beyond Nuclear) and
Kevin Kamps (nuclear waste expert at Beyond Nuclear). Published November 7, 2013, to CNN Opinion. Available at
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/07/opinion/pandora-nuclear-gunter-kamps/
The climate change crisis is upon us. The world's leading climate scientists agree that time is rapidly
running out and that urgent steps are needed in the next 10 years to dramatically reduce our carbon
emissions. But exchanging global warming for nuclear meltdown is not the answer.
From a purely practical standpoint — and ignoring for a moment nuclear power's other showstoppers
such as cost, unmanaged nuclear waste, atomic weapons proliferation and catastrophic accident —
there simply isn't time to choose nuclear power. There are faster, affordable alternatives, including
energy efficiency and renewable energy installations such as wind farms and solar arrays that can be
completed in months to a few years.
The average construction time for a new nuclear power reactor is close to 10 years. A 2003
Massachusetts Institute of Technology study concluded that more than two new reactors would have to
start operating somewhere in the world every month over the next 50 years to displace a significant
amount of carbon-emitting fossil-fuel generation.
Such a fantasy does not pass the reality check in corporate boardrooms or on Wall Street where nuclear
power has been soundly rejected. The exorbitant costs and unpredictably long completion time -- a
reactor at Watts Bar in Tennessee, for example, was "under construction" for 23 years and may be
connected to the grid by 2015 -- make nuclear power an unappealing, even reckless, business choice for
corporations and shareholders.
Construction costs for a new reactor are predicted to top at least $15 billion, assuming the project
remains on budget, which those under way in France and Finland have demonstrably failed to do.
Meanwhile, since 2008, the world market cost of solar photovoltaic modules has fallen by 80%.
In the U.S., the four reactors currently under already-behind-schedule construction in Georgia and
South Carolina would never have begun without fleecing ratepayers in advance through a surcharge on
their electricity bills. This cost is shouldered by ratepayers even if the reactor they are paying for is
never completed.
Government support does not sweeten the pill. Constellation Energy abandoned its application for a
new reactor in Maryland after being offered a federal loan of just under $8 billion, a burden that would
likely have been shouldered at least in part by taxpayers. Constellation pulled out because it was
unwilling to risk $880 million of its own money in federal financing charges.
9/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
10/60
***Offshore Wind Updates – Economy Disadvantage***
10/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
11/60
Affirmative Article: “Global Signs of Slowdown Ripple Across Markets”
From the Wall Street Journal. Published October 12, 2014. Available at http://online.wsj.com/articles/globalsigns-of-slowdown-ripple-across-markets-vex-policy-makers-1413148874
Gathering signs of a slowdown across many parts of the world are roiling financial markets and
confounding policy makers, who after years of battling anemic economic growth have limited tools left
to jump-start a recovery.
Slumping exports in Germany are adding fuel to worries about a third recession in the eurozone in six
years. China is slowing in the wake of its credit boom, weighing on countries throughout the region.
Japan’s economy has recently contracted despite a policy offensive to lift it from years of stagnation.
Other onetime powerhouses, from Brazil to South Africa, also are struggling.
The pullback is sending tremors through global markets, hammering equities after years of steady gains
and knocking down commodity prices. The Dow Jones Industrial Average on Friday turned negative
for the year. A recent drop in oil prices—a decline of about 20% in four months—reflects the
downward pressure on global growth.
The U.S. remains a relative bright spot in an otherwise gloomy picture, particularly its job market,
which is gaining traction after years of fitful growth. But doubts are building over the U.S. economy’s
ability to accelerate as some of its biggest trading partners struggle.
Top Federal Reserve officials are already voicing concern about sagging growth overseas and its drag
on the world’s largest economy. Fed officials in recent days noted they are watching how weakness
abroad has boosted the dollar, which could keep inflation below the Fed’s target and hurt U.S. growth
by restraining its exports.
That could mean a longer wait to start raising interest rates. “If foreign growth is weaker than
anticipated, the consequences for the U.S. economy could lead the Fed to [begin increasing rates] more
slowly than otherwise,” Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer said during weekend meetings of the
International Monetary Fund, which drew urgent pleas for action from top policy makers.
In the meetings, which ended Sunday, the world’s finance ministers and central bankers issued some of
their sharpest warnings in years about the consequences of an economic slowdown joining other
threats—from the Russia-Ukraine standoff to West Africa’s Ebola crisis to turmoil in the Middle East.
“A sudden shift in sentiment could easily cascade across the entire globe,” IMF Managing Director
Christine Lagarde told the fund’s governing board. “There is too little economic risk-taking, and too
much financial risk-taking.”
The IMF sounded the alarm last week by cutting its forecast for global growth, adding another
downgrade to four years of what it called “serial disappointments.”
11/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
12/60
Affirmative Article: “Oil Will Be Gone in 50 Years”
By Patrick Allen, reporter with CNBC. Published March 23, 2011. Available at
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42224813
There could be less than 49 years of oil supplies left, even if demand were to remain flat according to
HSBC’s senior global economist Karen Ward.
"Energy resources are scarce," Ward said in a research note. "Even if demand doesn’t increase, there
could be as little as 49 years of oil left."
"Gas is less of a constraint, but transporting it and using it to meet transport demand is a major issue,"
she said. "Coal is the most abundant with 176 years left, but this is the worst carbon culprit."
If supplies were not constrained, the world would see a 110 percent jump in demand by 2050,
equivalent to 190 million barrels a day, to fuel growth in the emerging world, Ward said.
But unless someone finds major new reserves this will not be possible and other sources of energy will
need to be found.
"Energy security – defined in this instance as domestic energy production per head of population – will
be an increasing concern," she said. "Diversifying to natural gas to ease the pressure on the oil market
won’t overcome it since its supply is as geographically dense as oil."
Ward said she believes the most "energy insecure" regions are Europe, Latin America and India and
predicts Europe in particular will find its energy situation getting worse.
12/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
13/60
Affirmative Article: “One Big Factor in the Economic Uptick:
Government Spending”
From the Wall Street Journal. Published June 30, 2014. Available at
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/07/30/one-big-factor-in-the-economic-uptick-government-spending/
The U.S. economy rebounded strongly in the second quarter and a big contribution to that growth was
renewed strength from the government, especially at the state and local level. Government spending
climbed by 1.6% at an annual rate, its strongest three months since the third quarter of 2012.
State and local government spending was the biggest driver, climbing 3.1% from the prior quarter, the
largest such increase since 2009, according to the Department of Commerce.
The long decline of government spending in GDP is no surprise. Since the recession, state and local
governments have been forced to slash spending and raise taxes to make ends meet and the federal
government has been shrinking in order to meet targets imposed in deals over the federal budget. The
decline in federal spending was especially sharp in 2013 as the budget cuts known as sequestration
went into effect.
Like it or not, the government comprises about one-fifth of the U.S. economy and so shrinking budgets
directly translate to cuts in GDP. In recent years, what little growth the economy mustered came from
the private sector.
On its face, the second quarter of 2014 does not appear as strong as the third quarter of 2012 for the
government. But in fact the third quarter of 2012 owed its boost almost entirely to a one-off surge in
federal defense spending that was entirely reversed the next quarter. The increase reported today was
driven by state and local governments with no reason to expect that the rise will be entirely reversed.
The federal government shrank by 0.8%, a decline, but the second smallest one since the sequestration
kicked in.
This report may be a sign that governments at all levels — federal, state and local — are groping
toward a new balance and that most of the budget cutting that characterized recent years is now in the
rear-view mirror. That could help set the stage for more stable growth in the future.
13/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
14/60
Negative Article: “G20 Optimistic On Global Economy”
From the Agence France Presse, an international news organization – the oldest in the world – located in Paris,
France. Published October 13, 2014. Available at http://www.arabnews.com/economy/news/643406
Finance chiefs of the Group of 20 economic powers said they remained confident about the global
economy, despite renewed weakness in areas like the eurozone.
Meeting in Washington, G20 finance ministers and central bank governors reiterated their commitment
to undertake reforms that will boost the global economy by $2 trillion more over the next five years
than otherwise expected.
Despite the malaise that has many worried that the eurozone will sink back into recession, the G20 said
they still expect to achieve that goal, after talks on the side of the International Monetary Fund-World
Bank annual meetings.
“We have spoken a lot about economic challenges. While some key economies are recovering, others
face renewed weakness,” said Australian Treasurer Joe Hockey, whose country holds the G20
presidency.
“But we have emerged with optimism. We are determined to achieve outcomes that will strengthen the
recovery,” Hockey said.
Besides reforms, the G20 has backed a new Global Infrastructure Initiative, aimed at supporting
infrastructure development around the world as a way to boost economies and create jobs.
Hockey said developing and emerging economies need some $8 trillion in infrastructure development
over the next 10 years.
He said the G20 was confident Europe could rebound, but only if the troubled countries of the eurozone
implement needed reforms.
The European Central Bank, which is straining against deflationary pressures and slowing
consumption.
14/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
15/60
Negative Article: “We Will Not Run Out of Fossil Fuels”
By Jeffrey Rissman, policy analyst at Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology, former Research Fellow at the
University of North Carolina Institute for the Environment. Published June 14, 2013. Available at
http://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.html
Fossil fuels are formed from the remains of plants and animals that died hundreds of millions of years
ago, buried and transformed by heat and pressure. Since these fuels require millions of years to form,
for human purposes, the supply of fossil fuels on Earth is effectively fixed. This has led to predictions
— such as those based on the "peak oil" theory first proposed by geologist M. King Hubbert in 1956 —
that the world will experience an economically damaging scarcity of fossil fuels, particularly oil.
However, new technologies for oil and gas exploration and extraction have upended the notion of fossil
fuel scarcity: The limiting factor on humans' fossil fuel use will not be the exhaustion of economically
recoverable fossil fuels, but the exhaustion of the Earth's capacity to withstand the harmful byproducts
of fossil fuel combustion .
For decades, energy producers have continually identified new fossil fuel reserves and developed
technologies that enable people to economically recover oil and gas from deposits previously deemed
too difficult to access. That has enabled cumulative fuel production to greatly exceed previous
estimates of reserves.
For example, the Energy Information Administration reports that in 1977, the United States had just 32
billion barrels of proven oil reserves and 207 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Between
1977 and 2010, the U.S. extracted 84 billion barrels of oil (2.6 times the 1977 reserve estimate) and 610
trillion cubic feet of gas (2.9 times the reserve estimate). And, large reserves remain. In fact, in recent
years, the size of U.S. reserves has actually grown (by more than a third since 2011), primarily as a
result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technologies that enable economical
access to oil and gas deposits trapped in underground rock formations.
Oil companies, gas companies and the federal government collectively invest billions of dollars each
year in research and development to create new fossil fuel technologies. The state of the art will
continue to advance, enabling economical access to new reserves well into or beyond the 21st century.
There is even the potential for a major breakthrough that enables access to new types of reserves. For
example, Japan recently announced that they were able to extract methane from undersea hydrate
deposits, a world first. Methane hydrates may contain more than twice as much carbon as in all of
Earth's fossil fuels combined.
15/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
16/60
Negative Article: “Cutting the U.S. Budget Would Help the Economy”
by Romina Boccia, Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs
Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Published November 20, 2013. Available at
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/cutting-the-us-budget-would-help-the-economy-grow
“As the House and Senate budget conference meets to decide the fiscal course of the United States,
lawmakers should focus on reducing federal spending. Federal spending is growing rapidly and will
accelerate outside the 10-year budget window. Even though tax revenues are projected to grow faster
than spending over the next decade, the nation faces chronic and increasing deficits. Research finds that
high spending, high debt, and tax increases are harming economic growth and prosperity. Putting the
budget on a path to balance with spending cuts would spur economic growth by reducing uncertainty
and freeing up resources for investment and job creation. As the European crisis demonstrates, the
option of making gradual changes will expire, and Americans and the U.S. economy will suffer a selfinflicted wound from unavoidable austerity measures if lawmakers continue to procrastinate the
inevitable.
Austerity is the result of countries’ democratic decisions to wait until the last minute before acting,
under the pressure of the markets, mainly by raising taxes rather than implementing long-waited
reforms.”
—Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, former member of the executive board of the European Central Bank.[1]
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives have convened the first budget conference in
four years. With the deadline of December 13 for the conference report, lawmakers have little time to
agree on a budget plan for fiscal year 2014 and beyond, and yet so much depends on their succeeding.
Excessive federal spending and high debt slow economic growth. Despite a broad consensus that the
U.S. fiscal path is unsustainable without significant reductions in spending—especially in the growing
spending on entitlements—many policymakers are hesitant to embrace large-scale budget cuts for fear
of slowing the economy. This fear is misplaced because significant budget cuts today would enable
stronger economic growth tomorrow. If lawmakers neglect entitlement reform and further spending
reductions, growing spending and high debt will significantly depress U.S. economic growth.
The Budget Situation
Federal spending is taking an increasing share of the productive resources in the economy. At well
above one-fifth of gross domestic product (GDP), federal spending is too high, and chronic deficits are
quickly driving publicly held debt above three-fourths of GDP.
The federal government has used borrowing to finance much of the spending growth over the past two
decades. For the past four years, low tax revenues due to the recession and temporary government
spending measures—such as the stimulus, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), and assistance
programs—have resulted in consecutive trillion-dollar annual deficits.
Despite expiration of these temporary spending measures, sequestration, and a surge in revenues,
annual deficits remain staggeringly high at $700 billion for fiscal year 2013 and will surge beyond $1
trillion before the end of the decade.[2] Growing federal spending, especially on health care and
16/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
17/60
retirement entitlements, will drive deficits and debt to even higher levels after 2023. Tax revenues are
quickly growing to beyond their historical average of about 18 percent of GDP. With the $3.2 trillion in
tax increases over the decade enacted under President Barack Obama, tax revenues are now growing
faster than spending, but not enough to curb the growth in deficits and debt.[3]
Spending will remain well above the historical average of 20.2 percent in the near term and will
dramatically surge after the end of the decade as entitlement programs, including the Medicaid
expansion and health care subsidies in the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), overwhelm the federal
budget.
17/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
18/60
***Glossary***
18/60
2014 Atlanta Urban Debate League
Novice Evidence Packet (October Nuclear Power and Economy Updates)
19/60
Glossary
Nuclear meltdowns
Nuclear meltdowns refer to the risk that nuclear power plants will catastrophically collapse, causing
nuclear radiation (which causes cancer, birth defects, and other health problems) to spread to nearby
areas. Nuclear meltdowns have previously occurred at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, Chernobyl in
the Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan. The Fukushima meltdown, which occurred in 2011, forced
160,000 to flee their homes and leading to yet-uncertain effects on health. There is significant debate
over whether and how vulnerable nuclear power plants are to future meltdowns.
Nuclear waste
In the process of producing energy, nuclear power plants also produce radioactive waste that is
dangerous to human health. Depending on the type of waste, it may take thousands to millions of years
for this radioactivity to dissipate. Although there are various proposals for dealing nuclear waste, their
effectiveness is controversial.
New technologies for fossil fuel extraction
Many fossil fuels are relatively easy to get to. As more and more fossil fuels get used up, however, the
remaining fossil fuels can be harder and harder to access. This had led oil and natural gas companies to
develop new technologies to extract these hard-to-get fossil fuels. One example of such a technology is
“fracking,” which drills horizontally underground in order to extract natural gas. As with many new
fossil fuel extraction technologies, fracking is controversial due to its uncertain impact on the
environment and possible effects on global warming.
Austerity
Austerity refers to government policies that reduce government spending, with the intended effect of
increasing economic growth. Frequent targets of austerity include government support for healthcare,
education, and social services such as welfare. Austerity is very controversial: critics claim that
austerity doesn't help the economy and hurts working people at the expense of big businesses, while
supporters claim that austerity measures are necessary for economic growth.
Deficits
In the same way that households might charge expenses to a credit card, and pay off that debt later,
countries such as the United States borrow money to spend now with the intention of paying this
money back later. The gap between the money the federal government spends, and the money the
federal government has available, is called the “deficit.” This year, the U.S. deficit was $483 billion,
and the total debt of the U.S. government (the amount that the U.S. government currently owes to
lenders) is $18.7 trillion.
19/60