Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Penquin

Answers To A Warming Turn?

Recommended Posts

What answers do you guys usually use to oil market warming turns? The one that goes something like: Transition to alt energy causes oil prices to go way down, low oil prices cause oil to flood the market for cheap, causes more people to use massive amounts of oil, causes warming more than you solve.

 

I know there are obvious answers like alt energy inevitable and such, but can anyone think of something more original or convincing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first thought is that if this is the case then the system would just go back to equilibrium after the initial change. It works as terminal solvency defense, but not much else. As the affirmative, it's really not too helpful though, to argue that they don't have a DA and only have terminal defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What answers do you guys usually use to oil market warming turns? The one that goes something like: Transition to alt energy causes oil prices to go way down, low oil prices cause oil to flood the market for cheap, causes more people to use massive amounts of oil, causes warming more than you solve.

 

I know there are obvious answers like alt energy inevitable and such, but can anyone think of something more original or convincing?

 

The reason oil prices go down when we build transportation infrastructure is because we start using it less, so much more of it is available to the people who still use cars. If more people start using cars because of low oil prices then they would have large gas prices. Other forms of transit are more stable and less vulnerable to the fluctuation of oil prices.

 

As Chaosdog said, this argument is kind of like the NASA DA that no one read last year. It said that accidents from the plan kill NASA and NASA is good. The problem with that is the plan directly helps NASA, so at most the argument is a solvency takeout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats your aff do?

What advantages do you claim?

 

1. Your alternative energies inevitable--this needs to be incredibly specific (ie the technology or how many people it will be effected--using renewables without the plan) & carded ideally. There is probably an argument around speculators keeping the price high. However, doesn't this claim hege against your advantage????

2. Oil cartels inevitably keep oil prices high. They are a monopoly of sorts--which means they don't respond to demand as much.

3. That assumes your specific renewables get way, way, way more competitive than oil--thats not the case--or there is certainly a long timeframe to that. You probably make them a cent or two more competitive--this evidence is probably talking about 10 to 15 cents more competitive. The link is minimal, the threshold is massive.

4. Try or die on warming

5. Alternative causes for the price fluctutations in the oil market (ie seasonal)

6. Some external benefit to oil prices low

7. Some external way you solve for warming (ie softpower, mulitlateralism, relations, hege, democracy, etc...). Democracy might not be the way, because federalism can access that.

 

Other stuff that probably won't get you very far:

1. Our aff is too small (its just regional, not national)

2. The link assumes renewables across the board, not just one renewable

3. We wouldn't be perceived as renewables or we wouldn't be perceived by those who determine the prices

4. a non-intrinsic that the president add a gas tax to keep prices high--or you could add a gas tax as your funding mechanism.

5. playing around with the election or their politics disad to access the impacts you need (this seems very dangerous in this context--and its a dicey move in general)--because you have to pick to link turn or impact turn

6. plan to kick out of your warming advantage and invest time elsewhere (ie conceding warming takeouts in the 1ar)--although unfortunately this DA functions on so many other levels--such that it can really turn the whole case.

 

watch out...because I think this could be the internal link to a clog scenario too....which takes out much of the aff advantage

 

Alternatively...it may be the case that you could claim an oil shocks scenario--which makes this inevitable in the squo & you solve.

 

You can also probably get to inflation from high oil prices.

 

Think about some of the args I pointed out, focusing on the top list. And then look at what the files on oil prices talk about. I know in the past that similar disads have also been called "backstopping" I believe--I don't think there is any distinction between the two. (the aff stuff on Open Evidence project has 4 files of aff.....3 called oil....one called unsorted oil). The neg probably has some answers as well--not sure how well its sorted.

 

------------

 

I'm not sure how your alt energy/warming advantage is framed currently. I know in the past.....many teams have used renewables inevitable--but that US must develop them--and this is the way they access better USFG solvency as well as accessing hegemony.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...