Jump to content
Tomak

Everyone should make a global warming 1AC

Recommended Posts

Warming debates are my favorite impact debates, and I think warming is going to be one of *the* impacts next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be making a big assumption that warming is hard to answer, but it's so generic that it's easy to get answers to. And turning those geoengineering arguments takes maybe 5 minutes of googling. While I do enjoy warming as an advantage, by itself you'll lose so quickly on a proper da from with warranted timeframe arguments.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Debaters often hastily dismiss the idea of a straight-up global warming case as boring. But they have big impacts, they're very easy to build, and they're hard for the negative to research because there are sooo many of them. I've seen so many negs just give up and try to run a Warming Good turn.
 
 

I spent this year developing Global warming aff and cutting/finding global warming K and no war cards.  Bring it on.

 

The biggest thing this kind of aff is susceptible too is adv. CPs.  Just as the range of affs is diverse, so are CPs.  So be prepared 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent this year developing Global warming aff and cutting/finding global warming K and no war cards.  Bring it on.

 

The biggest thing this kind of aff is susceptible too is adv. CPs.  Just as the range of affs is diverse, so are CPs.  So be prepared 

*Quickly runs to check wiki to rip cards*

>No wiki

:sob:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron seeding/fertilizing. I ran as an adv cp but it totally applies to this topic for a warming aff

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/iron-sulfate-slow-global-warming.htm

I could of sworn there was this turn I had but now I can't find it. At any rate I'm pretty sure there's a lot of evidence about how that's a really, really, bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent this year developing Global warming aff and cutting/finding global warming K and no war cards.  Bring it on.

 

The biggest thing this kind of aff is susceptible too is adv. CPs.  Just as the range of affs is diverse, so are CPs.  So be prepared 

Yep, I don't know how this would beat an obscure warming counterplan.  As you yourself have pointed out, there are many possibilities especially if your not restricted to oceans.

 

 

You seem to be making a big assumption that warming is hard to answer, but it's so generic that it's easy to get answers to. And turning those geoengineering arguments takes maybe 5 minutes of googling. While I do enjoy warming as an advantage, by itself you'll lose so quickly on a proper da from with warranted timeframe arguments.

This too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could of sworn there was this turn I had but now I can't find it. At any rate I'm pretty sure there's a lot of evidence about how that's a really, really, bad idea.

Ocean Iron Fertilization backfires – contributes to warming

Romm 13

“Yet Another Geoengineering Scheme, Ocean Iron Fertilization, Could Backfire†JOE ROMM JULY 10, 2013 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/10/2150931/another-geoengineering-scheme-ocean-iron-fertilization-could-backfire/

Can we save the planet by ruining it (even more)? Argonne National Laboratory reports that “A new study on the feeding habits of ocean microbes calls into question the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and offset rising global levels.†Four years ago, the journal Nature published a piece arguing that “fertilizing the oceans with iron to stimulate phytoplankton blooms, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and export carbon to the deep sea — should be abandoned.†Now Argonne Lab reports so-called iron fertilization “may have only a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap.†The more you know about geo-engineering, the less sense it makes (see Science: “Optimism about a geoengineered ‘easy way out’ should be tempered by examination of currently observed climate changesâ€). The most “plausible†approach, massive aerosol injection, has potentially catastrophic impacts of its own and can’t possibly substitute for the most aggressive mitigation — see here. And for the deniers, geo-engineering is mostly just a ploy — see British coal industry flack pushes geo-engineering “ploy†to give politicians “viable reason to do nothing†about global warming. Geoengineering is a problem in search of a problem. As the NY Times reported in 2011: At the influential blog Climate Progress, Joe Romm, a fellow at the Center for American Progress, has made a similar point, likening geo-engineering to a dangerous course of chemotherapy and radiation to treat a condition curable through diet and exercise — or, in this case, emissions reduction. You can find my previous writings on geo-engineering here. See in particular Martin Bunzl on “the definitive killer objection to geoengineering as even a temporary fix.†Geo-engineering is a “smoke and mirrors solution,†though most people understand that the “mirrors†strategy is prohibitively expensive and impractical. One of the few remaining non-aerosol strategies still taken seriously by some is ocean fertilization. But it is no better than the rest As the 2009 Nature piece explained: The intended effect of ocean iron fertilization for geoengineering is to significantly disrupt marine ecosystems. The explicit goal is to stimulate blooms of relatively large phytoplankton that are usually not abundant, because carbon produced by such species is more likely to sink eventually to the deep ocean. This shift at the base of the food web would propagate throughout the ocean ecosystem in unpredictable ways. Moreover, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus would sink along with the carbon, altering biogeochemical and ecological relationships throughout the system. Some models predict that ocean fertilization on a global scale would result in large regions of the ocean being starved of oxygen, dramatically affecting marine organisms from microbes to fish. Ecological disruption is the very mechanism by which iron fertilization would sequester carbon. Argonne’s study finds another problem — ocean iron fertilization may have no positive climate impact and might even make things worse: These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that absorb C02 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide nutrients for marine life. But one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the extra in its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of phytoplankton conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to support the carbon-eating plankton…. Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal blooms, the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take up even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, they sink to the ocean floor, sequestering the iron and starving off the diatom’s plankton peers. Over time, this reduction in the amount of iron in surface waters could trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less iron for nutrients, reducing the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in CO2 and to feed marine life.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest thing this kind of aff is susceptible too is adv. CPs.  Just as the range of affs is diverse, so are CPs.  So be prepared 

Yeah, this seems to be a major strategic weakness: warming affs defend one, broad impact, so thousands of potential advantage counterplans can take it out.

 

I would advise against the one advantage warming aff - unless your aff defends a very specific internal link chain that only you access, it's advisable to spread advantages across a few issue areas to insulate your internal links from potential advantage counterplans.

 

Unless you're really prepped out (and I suppose, given that you have one advantage, you probably should be... still, massive research burden, given the CP ground), I'd worry about being too vulnerable to advantage counterplans. There'd need to be some "trick" to the aff (like, reducing emissions is impossible/warming inevitable, only iron fertilization stops terminal impact... I know nothing about warming so don't call me on this) - some way of nuancing the impact debate so that the counterplan doesn't solve your specific warming scenario. Either that or be prepared to defend some good addons (which there... probably are for most of these affs?).

 

Also, I don't think warming is difficult to answer, as OP seems to imply. I think that the single-adv warming aff is workable, but I don't understand why it's so strategically appealing. Warming and heg are probably the two most common aff impacts year-to-year. Everyone will have a huge amount of up-to-date impact defense, turns, solvency deficits, etc. against these advantages - the only difference is that heg is more easily leveraged against negative offense, whereas warming affs have to work with more impact-specific defense (e.g. it'll be harder to win warming turns whatever war impact to the politics disad comes up next year than to win heg turns the DA).

 

That heg good digression aside, my point is that warming, as an advantage, doesn't have an incredible amount of strategic utility. It's not insulated from impact turns (like most relations scenarios), it's not something few people write defense to (like European centralization), it doesn't give case a huge amount of freedom in turning the DA (like heg), and it's not well insulated from negative counterplans (like a very specific war scenario - the China ASAT scenario from the space topic, for example). I'd worry that my warming-only aff would be hard-pressed to deal with a huge amount of negative case defense+turns (which'd constantly be updated, assuming you're hitting a good team) and spread out dealing with the remainder of the disads (can't leverage case against them) and advantage counterplans. The fatal flaw of the warming aff is that it's pidgeonholed into a very narrow position that can be taken out by a well-evidenced CP. I'm not saying it's an awful idea or that it can't be done very well, but I think it's a large research burden that would require a lot of in-round maneuvering, especially against new arguments.

Edited by Stirner
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stirner, while all the criticisms you leverage were legitimate, seeing as i ran a warming only aff i feel obligated to defend it

 

 

I would advise against the one advantage warming aff - unless your aff defends a very specific internal link chain that only you access, it's advisable to spread advantages across a few issue areas to insulate your internal links from potential advantage counterplans.

 

Unless you're really prepped out (and I suppose, given that you have one advantage, you probably should be... still, massive research burden, given the CP ground), I'd worry about being too vulnerable to advantage counterplans. There'd need to be some "trick" to the aff (like, reducing emissions is impossible/warming inevitable, only iron fertilization stops terminal impact... I know nothing about warming so don't call me on this) - some way of nuancing the impact debate so that the counterplan doesn't solve your specific warming scenario. Either that or be prepared to defend some good addons (which there... probably are for most of these affs?).

 

 

The advantage to running a warming aff is that there is plenty of 1ac time for framing an pre-empts.  Any decent team will have really good reason why only their plan solves warming, gets modeled, e.g.  When you run an somewhat unorthodox aff like i did it becomes very hard to answer the specific internal link chains.  Partway through the year, my partner and i added some wonky stuff to onto our aff that killed most adv cps (tho we did end up dropping a round at Berk b/c of an adv CP)

 

 

 

Also, I don't think warming is difficult to answer, as OP seems to imply. I think that the single-adv warming aff is workable, but I don't understand why it's so strategically appealing. Warming and heg are probably the two most common aff impacts year-to-year. Everyone will have a huge amount of up-to-date impact defense, turns, solvency deficits, etc. against these advantages - the only difference is that heg is more easily leveraged against negative offense, whereas warming affs have to work with more impact-specific defense (e.g. it'll be harder to win warming turns whatever war impact to the politics disad comes up next year than to win heg turns the DA).

 

 

1) Warming can turn a LOT of scenarios.  Just look at the Burke 8 card and it mentions every frickin impact in debate

2) The ability to put a No war contention i your 1ac is a huge boost against DA's.  Lots of teams don't have good answers to them

The Biggest adv of a warming affs is that it is very effective against K's.  Their are a lot of warming discourse good , state key, capitalism key, academic debate key, and warming turns Kritkal impact cards out their.

 

 

 

That heg good digression aside, my point is that warming, as an advantage, doesn't have an incredible amount of strategic utility. It's not insulated from impact turns (like most relations scenarios), it's not something few people write defense to (like European centralization), it doesn't give case a huge amount of freedom in turning the DA (like heg), and it's not well insulated from negative counterplans (like a very specific war scenario - the China ASAT scenario from the space topic, for example). I'd worry that my warming-only aff would be hard-pressed to deal with a huge amount of negative case defense+turns (which'd constantly be updated, assuming you're hitting a good team) and spread out dealing with the remainder of the disads (can't leverage case against them) and advantage counterplans. The fatal flaw of the warming aff is that it's pidgeonholed into a very narrow position that can be taken out by a well-evidenced CP. I'm not saying it's an awful idea or that it can't be done very well, but I think it's a large research burden that would require a lot of in-round maneuvering, especially against new arguments.

To my knowledge, their are only 6  non-case specific args against warming

1) Too late

2) other countries o/w

3) Alt causes

4) Adaptation/no impact

5) warming good C02

6) Ice Age

 

My 1ac contained pre-empts to every single one of these arguments (except Ice Age).  This gives the 2ac a lot of flexibility and makes the debate much easier.

Additionally, the fact that there are at least 4 independent extinction scenarios for warming is very,very helpful

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To my knowledge, their are only 6  non-case specific args against warming

1) Too late

2) other countries o/w

3) Alt causes

4) Adaptation/no impact

5) warming good C02

6) Ice Age

 

7) Not anthropogenic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7) Not anthropogenic 

8) Russian Econony

9) Warming policies cause poverty

10) Feedbacks are negative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stirner, while all the criticisms you leverage were legitimate, seeing as i ran a warming only aff i feel obligated to defend it

 

The advantage to running a warming aff is that there is plenty of 1ac time for framing an pre-empts.  Any decent team will have really good reason why only their plan solves warming, gets modeled, e.g.  When you run an somewhat unorthodox aff like i did it becomes very hard to answer the specific internal link chains.  Partway through the year, my partner and i added some wonky stuff to onto our aff that killed most adv cps (tho we did end up dropping a round at Berk b/c of an adv CP)

 

Yup. If you have a robust defense of your solvency mechanism that somehow kills counterplan solvency then, by all means, go ahead. I'd just caution this route if you don't

 

 

1) Warming can turn a LOT of scenarios.  Just look at the Burke 8 card and it mentions every frickin impact in debate

2) The ability to put a No war contention i your 1ac is a huge boost against DA's.  Lots of teams don't have good answers to them

The Biggest adv of a warming affs is that it is very effective against K's.  Their are a lot of warming discourse good , state key, capitalism key, academic debate key, and warming turns Kritkal impact cards out their.

1) Right, but these are long-term scenarios, and it is more of a case of warming "subsuming" than "turning" the impact.

Take, for example, a heg aff that hits a Ukrainian dipcap disad (impact is a Ukrainian civil war). The aff (assuming we "get" the benefits of heg prior to the DA's link being triggered) can use heg to effectively mitigate the neg's offense. The US could leverage its various sources of influence to deescalate a DA, and military heg raises the cost of going to war through deterrence which solves the terminal impact to the DA (I'm not really in hegemony's batting corner, here, I'm just saying that it has a lot of utility in this regard).

 

Whereas, a big laundry list warming impact (like the Takacks 96 environment impact) mentions a lot of impact scenarios that result from warming, but there's no reverse causal relationship that the aff can wield against the neg's offense. While a Ukrainian civil war might be a long-term consequence of warming, solving warming does not prevent that scenario from occuring as a result of the DA.

 

So warming might be a very "big" impact (in that it will subsume the negative's offense), but it doesn't "turn" the neg's scenarios because it doesn't mitigate the risk of the DA's terminal impact.

 

 

2) Yeah, this is a definitely a strategic benefit of the 1 adv warming aff. If you're good at defending no war and you have up-to-date evidence, then go for it.

But this has diminishing utility when not hitting novices. A good team will have yes war prepped decently well (with answers to specific warrants - i.e., nuclear deterrence fails, liberal ir wrong, etc.), and they won't have to win a tremendous risk of the DA in order to justify voting for the advantage counterplan (again, if you have adv cps figured out, it's another story - warming+no war suddenly becomes way more of a downhill debate).

 

And idk about Ks. I always impact turned ks with imperialism good when I was the 2a, so I guess this is a consideration if you don't want to, lol.

 

 

To my knowledge, their are only 6  non-case specific args against warming

1) Too late

2) other countries o/w

3) Alt causes

4) Adaptation/no impact

5) warming good C02

6) Ice Age

 

My 1ac contained pre-empts to every single one of these arguments (except Ice Age).  This gives the 2ac a lot of flexibility and makes the debate much easier.

Additionally, the fact that there are at least 4 independent extinction scenarios for warming is very,very helpful

7) squo solves (natural gas)

8) Negative feedbacks check

9) No warming (modelling fails, cooling now, no tipping point,etc.)

10) Not anthro

11) Effect distribution

12) Resiliency/Decreased sensitivity

13) You covered this with "warming good", but remember just how many impact turn scenarios there are

(ice age, russia econ, canada econ, arctic resources good, desertification/greening, agriculture, etc. etc.)

Probably other no warming args, but I can't science

 

 

I'm sure every warming debater is prepped against all of those (well... probably not, but most of them), but that's not the point. The point is that, contrary to what OP would lead us to believe, negs don't just roll over when they hit warming advantages. There are a variety of arguments to be read against warming - that doesn't make it a weak impact, but my point is that there's nothing special about warming that makes it a particularly strong impact.

 

Relations scenarios, for example, are not easily impact turnable (credible authors generally don't write things like "Russia relations bad" or "EU relations bad"). As I explained in the previous section, there's not a huge amount of offensive utility against DAs for warming (you can inflate your impact all you want - e.g. warming subsumes Arctic war et al -, but that doesn't mitigate the risk of the DA very much. You don't get to really "turn" the disad by taking out the internal link chain escalation to war). And it's not something 'surprising' that negs won't know how to answer (I read a European centralization scenario this year - European economic decline causes political integration, leads to hegemonic security competition in Eurasia, intercivilizational nuclear war. Good teams obviously don't just give up against this, but they don't really have the evidence to attack this advantage on the terminal impact level. The point being, this advantage had strategic utility because it was something nobody had any substantive defense to - warming doesn't have that utility).

 

The point is not that warming's a garbage impact and everyone should be running heg (but, seriously though, you all should be running heg). The point is that there's no overwhelming strategic benefit to warming as an impact. The real benefit is the ability to "no war" all the neg's offense away, but that doesn't pay off when you

A) hit a good team

B) hit an advantage CP you aren't prepared for

 

 

Now, if you can competently beat every conceivable advantage counterplan (then you've found a good aff...) and you are very good on the no war debate, then you get to reap the benefits of the 1 advantage warming aff (you get to lazily disregard the technics of the disad debate and basically win rounds based on impact-heavy overviews... not a bad thing at all: also the main benefit of the heg adv!).

 

I'd just caution against this route if you don't think this is the case of your aff, because then you leave yourself open to a few critical vulnerabilities.

 

It's not so simple as OP suggests: "Just pick a technology that is developed in the ocean and reduces or reverses global warming. Cut a few cards saying the technology works, attach your favorite GW cards from camp. Boom, you have a throwaway 1AC for quarterfinals against that team that sucks at warming debates."

 

The fact that, as OP reminds us, "There are dozens of reasonable cases to choose" is probably reason to be very concerned with these vulnerabilities - there are dozens upon dozens of advantage counterplans you're susceptible to.

 

Rambling done, I'd basically sum up my objections to the warming aff with:

1) Advantage counterplan problems

2) Disutility against DAs

 

If you're prepped for these, then you're good to go.

Edited by Stirner
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fwiw UNT MQ was in elims at the NDT last year and I think they read nothing but an SMRs aff w/ a big warming advantage and a lot of impact framing all year. This year they've continued to just read a warming/impact framing aff and have had some success.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Side note: I actually think biodiversity/other environmental impact scenarios will be way better on this topic than warming.

 

At least, better than the 1 advantage warming aff. A 1 advantage biodiversity aff can probably defend a specific internal link chain (that X plan is the only way to ensure environmental stability in the Indian Ocean, Caribbean, etc.) that advantage counterplans don't take out. It might be a 'smaller' impact than warming (oceans bio-d probably only accesses a couple internal links to extinction - maybe you can access some fishing/resource war scenarios?), but that shouldn't be a problem, because it's insulated enough from advantage counterplans that your no war contention should be enough to beat the DA/'any risk' framing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warming turns every impact

Burke 8 (Sharon, sr fellow and dir of the energy security project at the Center for a New American Security, Chapter 6 of Climatic Cataclysm: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Climate Change, edited by Kurt Campbell, p 157-165)

 

At the same time, however, the implications of both trends for human society and survival raise the stakes; it is crucial to try to understand what the future might look like in one hundred years in order to act accordingly today. This scenario, therefore, builds a picture of the plausible effects of catastrophic climate change, and the implications for national security, on the basis of what we know about the past and the present. The purpose is not to "one up" the previous scenarios in awfulness, but rather to attempt to imagine the unimaginable future that is, after all, entirely plausible. Assumed Climate Effects of the Catastrophic Scenario. In the catastrophic scenario, the year 2040 marks an important tipping point. Large-scale, singular events of abrupt climate change will start occurring, greatly exacerbated by the collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (MOC), which is believed to play and important role in regulating global climate, particularly in Europe.8 There will be a rapid loss of polar ice, a sudden rise in sea levels, totaling 2 meters (6.6 feet), and a temperature increase of almost 5.6°C (10.1°F) by 2095. Developing countries, particularly those at low latitudes and those reliant on subsistence, rain-fed farming, will be hardest and earliest hit. All nations, however, will find it difficult to deal with the unpredictable, abrupt, and severe nature of climate change after 2040. These changes will be difficult to anticipate, and equally difficult to mitigate or recover from, particularly as they will recur, possibly on a frequent basis. First, the rise in temperatures alone will present a fundamental challenge for human health. Indeed, even now, about 250 people die of heatstroke every year in the United States. In a prolonged heat wave in 1980, more than 10,000 people died of heat-related illnesses, and between 5,000 and 10,00 in 1988.9 In 2003, record heat waves in Europe, with temperatures in Paris hitting 40.4°C (104.7°F) and 47.3°C (116.3°F) in parts of Portugal, are estimated to have cost more than 37,000 lives; in the same summer there were at least 2,000 heat-related deaths in India. Average temperatures will increase in most regions, and the western United States, southern Europe, and southern Australia will be particularly vulnerable to prolonged heat spells. The rise in temperatures will complicated daily life around the world. In Washington, D.C., the average summer temperature is in the low 30s C (high 80s F), getting as high as 40°C (104°F). With a 5.6°C (10.1°F) increase, that could mean temperatures as high as 45.6°C (114.5°F). In New Delhi, summer temperatures can reach 45°C (113°F) already, opening the possibility of new highs approaching sO.sOC (123°F). In general, the level of safe exposure is considered to be about 38°C (lOO°F); at hotter temperatures, activity has to be limited and the very old and the very young are especially vulnerable to heat-related ill­ness and mortality. Sudden shifts in temperature, which are expected in this scenario, are particularly lethal. As a result of higher temperatures and lower, unpredictable precipitation, severe and persistent wildfires will become more common, freshwater will be more scarce, and agricultural productivity will fall, particularly in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean, and the western United States. The World Health Organization estimates that water scarcity already affects two- fifths of the world population-s-some 2.6 billion people. In this scenario, half the world population will experience persistent water scarcity. Regions that depend on annual snowfall and glaciers for water lose their supply; hardest hit will be Central Asia, the Andes, Europe, and western North America. Some regions may become uninhabitable due to lack of water: the Mediter­ranean, much of Central Asia, northern Mexico, and South America. The southwestern United States will lose its current sources of fresh water, but that may be mitigated by an increase in precipitation due to the MOC col­lapse, though precipitation patterns may be irregular. Regional water scarcity will also be mitigated by increases in precipitation in East Africa and East and Southeast Asia, though the risk of floods will increase. The lack of rainfall will also threaten tropical forests and their dependent species with extinction. Declining agricultural productivity will be an acute challenge. The heat, together with shifting and unpredictable precipitation patterns and melting glaciers, will dry out many areas, including today's grain-exporting regions. The largest decreases in precipitation will be in North Africa, the Middle East, Cen tral America, the Caribbean, and northeastern South America, including Amazonia. The World Food Program estimates that nearly 1 billion people suffer from chronic hunger today, almost 15 million of them refugees from conflict and natural disasters. According to the World Food Program, "More than nine out of ten of those who die I of chronic hunger] are simply trapped by poverty in remote rural areas or urban slums. They do not make the news. They just die." Mortality rates from hunger and lack of water will skyrocket over the next century, and given all that wiII be happening, that will probably not make the news, either--people will just die. Over the next one hundred years, the "breadbasket" regions of the world will shift northward. Consequently, formerly subarctic regions will be able to support farming, but these regions' traditionally small human populations and lack of infrastructure, including roads and utilities, will make the dra­matic expansion of agriculture a challenge. Moreover, extreme year-to-year climate variability may make sustainable agriculture unlikely, at least on the scale needed. Northwestern Europe, too, will see shorter growing seasons and declining crop yields because it will actually experience colder winters, due to the collapse of the MOC. At the same time that the resource base to support humanity is shrinking, there will be less inhabitable land. Ten percent of the world population now lives in low-elevation coastal zones (all land contiguous with the coast that is 10 meters or less in elevation) that will experience sea level rises of 6.6 feet (2 meters) in this scenario and 9.8 feet (3 meters) in the North Atlantic, given the loss of the MOC. Most major cities at or near sea level have some kind of flood protection, so high tides alone will not lead to the inundation of these cities. Consider, however, that the combined effects of more frequent and severe weather events and higher sea levels could well lead to increased flood­ing from coastal storms and coastal erosion. In any case, there will be saltwa­ter intrusion into coastal water supplies, rising water tables, and the loss of coastal and upstream wetlands, with impacts on fisheries. The rise could well occur in several quick pulses, with relatively stable peri­ods in between, which will complicate planning and adaptation and make any kind of orderly or managed evacuation unlikely. Inundation plus the combined effects of higher sea levels and more frequent tropical storms may leave many large coastal cities uninhabitable, including the largest American cities, New York City and Los Angeles, focal points for the national economy with a combined total of almost 33 million people in their metropolitan areas today. Resettling coastal populations will be a crippling challenge, even for the United States. Sea level rises also will affect food security. Significant fertile deltas will become largely uncultivable because of inundation and more frequent and higher storm surges that reach farther inland. Fisheries and marine eco­systems, particularly in the North Atlantic, will collapse. Locally devastating weather events will be the new norm for coastal and mid-latitude locations-wind and flood damage will be much more intense. There will be frequent losses of life, property, and infrastructure-and this will happen every year. Although water scarcity and food security will dis­proportionately affect poor countries-they already do-extreme weather events will be more or less evenly distributed around the world. Regions affected by tropical storms, including typhoons and hurricanes, will include all three coasts of the United States; all of Mexico and Central America; the Caribbean islands; East, Southeast and South Asia; and many South Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Recent isolated events when coastal storms made landfall in the South Atlantic, Europe, and the Arabian Sea in the last few years suggest that these regions will also experience a rise in the incidence of extreme storms. In these circumstances, there will be an across-the-board decline in human development indicators. Life spans will shorten, incomes will drop, health will deteriorate-including as a result of proliferating diseases-infant mortality will rise, and there will be a decline in personal freedoms as states fall to anocracy (a situation where central authority in a state is weak or non­existent and power has devolved to more regional or local actors, such as tribes) and autocracy. The Age of Survival: Imagining the Unimaginable Future If New Orleans is one harbinger of the future, Somalia is another. With a weak and barely functional central government that does not enjoy the trust and confidence of the public, the nation has descended into clan warfare. Mortality rates for combatants and noncombatants are high. Neighboring Ethiopia has intervened, with troops on the ground in Mogadishu and else­where, a small African Union peacekeeping force is present in the country, and the United States has conducted military missions in Somalia within the last year, including air strikes aimed at terrorist groups that the United States government has said are finding safe haven in the chaos." In a July 2007 report, the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia reported that the nation is "lit­erally awash in arms" and factional groups are targeting not only all combat­ants in the country but also noncombatants, including aid groups. Drought is a regular feature of life in Somalia that even in the best of times has been difficult to deal with. These are bad times, indeed, for Somalia, and the mutually reinforcing cycle of drought, famine, and conflict has left some 750,000 Somalis internally displaced and about 1.5 million people-17 per­cent of the population-in dire need of humanitarian relief. The relief is dif­ficult to provide, however, given the lawlessness and violence consuming the country. For example, nearly all food assistance to Somalia is shipped by sea, but with the rise of piracy, the number of vessels willing to carry food to the country fell by 50 percent in 2007.u Life expectancy is forty-eight years, infant mortality has skyrocketed, and annual per capita GDP is estimated to be about six hundred dollars. The conflict has also had a negative effect on the stability of surrounding nations. In the catastrophic climate change scenario, situations like that in Soma­lia will be commonplace: there will be a sharp rise in failing and failed states and therefore in intrastate war. According to International Alert, there are forty-six countries, home to 2,7 billion people, at a high risk of violent con­flict as a result of climate change. The group lists an additional fifty-six nations, accounting for another 1.2 billion people, that will have difficulty dealing with climate change, given other challenges. 12 Over the next hundred years, in a catastrophic future, that means there are likely to be at least 102 failing and failed states, consumed by internal conflict, spewing desperate refugees, and harboring and spawning violent extremist movements. More­over, nations all over the world will be destabilized as a result, either by the crisis on their borders or the significant numbers of refugees and in some cases armed or extremist groups migrating into their territories. Over the course of the century, this will mean a collapse of globalization and transnational institutions and an increase in all types of conflict-most dramatically, intrastate and asymmetric. The global nature of the conflicts and the abruptness of the climate effects will challenge the ability of govern­ments all over the world to respond to the disasters, mitigate the effects, or to contain the violence along their borders. There will be civil unrest in every nation as a result of popular anger toward governments, scapegoating of migrant and minority populations, and a rise in charismatic end-of-days cults, which will deepen a sense of hopelessness as these cults tend to see no end to misery other than extinction followed by divine salvation. Given that the failing nations account for half of the global population, this will also be a cataclysmic humanitarian disaster, with hundreds of mil­lions of people dying from climate effects and conflict, totally overwhelming the ability of international institutions and donor nations to respond. This failure of the international relief system will be total after 2040 as donor nations are forced to turn their resources inward. There will be a worldwide economic depression and a reverse in the gains in standards of living made in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. At the same time, the probability of conflict between nations will rise. Although global interstate resource wars are generally unlikely;" simmering conflicts between nations, such as that between India and Pakistan, are likely to boil over, particularly if both nations are failing. Both India and Pakistan, of course, have nuclear weapons, and a nuclear exchange is possible, perhaps likely, either by failing central governments or by extremist and ethnic groups that seize control of nuclear weapons. There will also be competition for the Arctic region, where natural resources, including oil and arable land, will be increasingly accessible and borders are ill defined. It is possible that agreements over Arctic territories will be worked out among Russia, Canada, Norway, the United States, Iceland, and Denmark in the next two decades, before the truly catastrophic climate effects manifest themselves in those nations. If not, there is a strong probability of conflict over the Arctic, pos­sibly even armed conflict. In general, though, nations will be preoccupied with maintaining internal stability and will have difficulty mustering the resources for war. Indeed, the greater danger is that states will fail to muster the resources for interstate cooperation. Finally, all nations are likely to experience violent conflict as a result of migration patterns. There will be increasingly few arable parts of the world, and few nations able to respond to climate change effects, and hundreds of millions of desperate people looking for a safe haven-a volatile mix. This will cause considerable unrest in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Russia, and will likely involve inhumane border control practices. Imagining what this will actually mean at a national level is disheartening. For the United States, coastal cities in hurricane alley along the Gulf Coast will have to be abandoned, possibly as soon as the first half of the century, certainly by the end of the century. New Orleans will obviously be first, but Pascagoula and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, and Houston and Beaumont, Texas, and other cities will be close behind. After the first couple of episodes of flooding and destructive winds, starting with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, the cities will be partially rebuilt; the third major incident will make it clear that the risk of renewed destruction is too high to justify the cost of reconstruction. The abandonment of oil and natural gas production facilities in the Gulf region will push the United States into a severe recession or even depression, probably before the abrupt climate effects take hold in 2040. Mex­ico's economy will be devastated, which will increase illegal immigration into the United States. Other major U.S. cities are likely to become uninhabitable after 2040, including New York City and Los Angeles, with a combined metropolitan population of nearly 33 million people. Resettling these populations will be a massive challenge that will preoccupy the United States, cause tremen­dous popular strife, and absorb all monies, including private donations, which would have previously gone to foreign aid. The United States, Canada, China, Europe, and Japan will have little choice but to become aggressively isolationist, with militarized borders. Given how dependent all these nations are on global trade, this will provoke a deep, persistent eco­nomic crisis. Standards of living across the United States will fall dramatically, which will provoke civil unrest across the country. The imposition of martial law is a possibility. Though the poor and middle class will be hit the hardest, no one will be immune. The fact that wealthier Americans will be able to manage the effects better, however, will certainly provoke resent­ment and probably violence and higher crime rates. Gated communities are likely to be commonplace. Finally, the level of popular anger toward the United States, as the leading historical contributor to climate change, will be astronomical. There will be an increase in asymmetric attacks on the American homeland. India will cease to function as a nation, but before this occurs, Pakistan and Bangladesh will implode and help spur India's demise. This implosion will start with prolonged regional heat waves, which will quietly kill hundreds of thousands of people. It will not immediately be apparent that these are cli­mate change casualties. Massive agricultural losses late in the first half of the century, along with the collapse of fisheries as a result of sea level rise, rising oceanic temperatures, and hypoxic conditions, will put the entire region into a food emergency. At first, the United States, Australia, China, New Zealand, and the Nordic nations will be able to coordinate emergency food aid and work with Indian scientists to introduce drought- and saltwater-resistant plant species. Millions of lives will be saved, and India will be stabilized for a time. But a succession of crippling droughts and heat waves in all of the donor nations and the inundation of several populous coastal cities will force these nations to concentrate on helping their own populations. The World Food Program and other international aid agencies will first have trouble operating in increasingly violent areas, and then, as donations dry up, will cease operations. Existing internal tensions in India will explode in the latter half of the century, as hundreds of millions of starving people begin to move, trying to find a way to survive. As noted above, a nuclear exchange between either the national governments or subnational groups in the region is possi­ble and perhaps even likely. By mid-century, communal genocide will rage unchecked in several African states, most notably Sudan and Senegal, where agriculture will com­pletely collapse and the populations will depend on food imports. Both nations will be covered with ghost towns, where entire populations have either perished or fled; this will increasingly be true across Africa, South Asia, Central Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, South America, and Southeast Asia. Europe will have the oddity of having to deal with far colder winters, given the collapse of the MOC, which will compromise agricultural productivity. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deep-sea sediments solve warming

House et al 06 (Kurt Zenz House, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Daniel P. Schrag, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Charles F. Harvey, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Klaus S. Lackner, Earth Engineering Center, Columbia University, “Permanent Carbon Dioxide Storage in Deep-Sea Sediments,†Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, August 6, 2006, http://www.pnas.org/content/103/33/12291.abstract)

Stabilizing the concentration of atmospheric CO2 may require storing enormous quantities of captured anthropogenic CO2 in near-permanent geologic reservoirs. Because of the subsurface temperature profile of terrestrial storage sites, CO2 stored in these reservoirs is buoyant. As a result, a portion of the injected CO2can escape if the reservoir is not appropriately sealed. We show that injecting CO2 into deep-sea sediments <3,000-m water depth and a few hundred meters of sediment provides permanent geologic storage even with large geomechanical perturbations. At the high pressures and low temperatures common in deep-sea sediments, CO2 resides in its liquid phase and can be denser than the overlying pore fluid, causing the injected CO2to be gravitationally stable. Additionally, CO2 hydrate formation will impede the flow of CO2 (l) and serve as a second cap on the system. The evolution of the CO2plume is described qualitatively from the injection to the formation of CO2hydrates and finally to the dilution of the CO2(aq) solution by diffusion. If calcareous sediments are chosen, then the dissolution of carbonate host rock by the CO2(aq) solution will slightly increase porosity, which may cause large increases in permeability. Karst formation, however, is unlikely because total dissolution is limited to only a few percent of the rock volume. The total CO2 storage capacity within the 200-mile economic zone of the U.S. coastline is enormous, capable of storing thousands of years of current U.S. CO2emissions.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the aff is space elevators and the adv. is solves warming how would you argue time frame? Would you just have cards saying global warming has permanent effects in x years therefore space elevators beats it to the punchline per say?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the aff is space elevators and the adv. is solves warming how would you argue time frame? Would you just have cards saying global warming has permanent effects in x years therefore space elevators beats it to the punchline per say?

Edit: Do you mean as Aff? That's not so much a timeframe issue (that's impacts) as it is a solvency issue. Basically you have two options. Solves before tipping point, or no tipping point and it's try or die, every step counts. I prefer the second because it's easy to lose on past the tipping point.

 

--------

1) Warming takes decades to have the impacts they describe. Our DAs take ___________.

 

2) Will take X amount of time to get the elevators working, etc.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to all of y'all who are thinking of running this.

 

The new IPCC report will probably concede that warming is inevitable and we can't do anything about it.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/andrewlilico/100026933/climate-change-the-debate-is-about-to-change-radically/

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...