Jump to content
EasleyTheBest

Geo-engineering and Fiat

Recommended Posts

So the Iron Fertilization Affirmative proposes the USFG to perform cutting-edge research in order to have a Geo-Engineering ban lifted that was put in place by the UN. Furthermore, allowing the USFG to fertilize the ocean with iron. There is literature that states that the UN will lift the ban when research is provided, consequently allowing iron fertilization to be a normal process in subduing the effects of climate change. Now, I find the solvency a little poopy with this plan text due to the fact that there is no "gaurantee" that the UN will lift the ban, or that the research will suffice for the UN to do so. My question being; Could I change the plan text to include the actual implementation of Iron Fertilization which would include the needed research? I was wondering if i could use Fiat to do so and claim in the second plank of my plan that "All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void".   I was just curious if it is possible to fiat the UN and say that the international laws are declared null and void. If I could do this, the Aff would be more than decent and would suffice to the scenarios that I have cut. Please leave your opinions and answers, thank you!

 

-Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Iron Fertilization Affirmative proposes the USFG to perform cutting-edge research in order to have a Geo-Engineering ban lifted that was put in place by the UN. Furthermore, allowing the USFG to fertilize the ocean with iron. There is literature that states that the UN will lift the ban when research is provided, consequently allowing iron fertilization to be a normal process in subduing the effects of climate change. Now, I find the solvency a little poopy with this plan text due to the fact that there is no "gaurantee" that the UN will lift the ban, or that the research will suffice for the UN to do so. My question being; Could I change the plan text to include the actual implementation of Iron Fertilization which would include the needed research? I was wondering if i could use Fiat to do so and claim in the second plank of my plan that "All laws in conflict with this legislation are hereby declared null and void".   I was just curious if it is possible to fiat the UN and say that the international laws are declared null and void. If I could do this, the Aff would be more than decent and would suffice to the scenarios that I have cut. Please leave your opinions and answers, thank you!

 

-Allen

Fiating an international actor is extremely illegitimate for an affirmative.

 

However a UN ban is not necessarily a structural barrier to the aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when has the US actually listened to the UN anyway?

 

If you want to do the research and the implementation you could have a multi-plank plan text I guess, so long as you stay away from international fiat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't fiat the UN. You can fiat the US ignoring the UN, and then defend against subsequent international law turns.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, what would the sanctions be on ignoring the UN on a plan of this basis?

Edited by MrFudgeFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not much, this first article just mentions "legal actions"

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering

 

Problem is that it's probably different for governments and private actors.

 

Here's another article I found that just has some background http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1684020/

 

 

Looking at completely different circumstances but still at violations of UN charters/rules whatever the hell you want to call them, the US has violated the stuff set down by the UN before, and arguably in a more serious way:

"From the Russian point of view, the Russians could certainly point out that the United States has used force without the approval of the UN Security Council against another nation, as well. And this is one of the reasons that many people, including me, argued at the time [that] if we were going to go into Iraq we had to go into Iraq with the UN's approval. One of the reasons is what looks like sauce for the goose can be sauce for the gander."

http://www.rferl.mobi/a/Russia_In_Violation_Of_UN_Charter/1192835.html

 

Basically the idea is that unless you're some resource rich African country in turmoil or similar, the UN won't get involved, at least from everything I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other than a sketchy warming advantage what would there be?... and yeah, can't fiat UN

Warming (I don't think its so sketchy) and Ocean acidifcation found some cards saying that fertilization solves acid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warming (I don't think its so sketchy) and Ocean acidifcation found some cards saying that fertilization solves acid

I say its sketch cuz there was a study done by ucla (maybe?) and a few other schools that say that ocean fertilization is one of the worst strategies that's out there to solve warming... and ok thats cool for the other

 

Also, do u know why the UN has a ban? That's probably some big DA ground right there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say its sketch cuz there was a study done by ucla (maybe?) and a few other schools that say that ocean fertilization is one of the worst strategies that's out there to solve warming... and ok thats cool for the other

 

Also, do u know why the UN has a ban? That's probably some big DA ground right there

Said it's too risky, basically they want to wait to see what the consequences could be first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that I've read about iron fertilization is proof that it causes massive algal blooms. And while algal blooms may help climate change as they suck in tons of CO2 and put out over half the world's oxygen, they also block sunlight and suck gasses out of the water, suffocating fish and killing other photosynthetic oceanic fauna. Bio-D loss is easily run against it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, what would the sanctions be on ignoring the UN on a plan of this basis?

In debate, international law good would be a solid set of impact turns (as well as any credibility arguments that followed from it).

 

In real world, fucking nothing; the US has 25 nukes for every single country there is in the world.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In debate, international law good would be a solid set of impact turns (as well as any credibility arguments that followed from it).

 

In real world, fucking nothing; the US has 25 nukes for every single country there is in the world.

Not quite nothing. Most likely other nations would be less likely to cooperate with the U.S. at the UN. Of course, how much do they cooperate now? The US would have difficulty enforcing other environmental treaties as well. There are ways to respond to breaches of international agreements short of war, after all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple way to fix this.

 

Don't mention the UN ban,

 

If a team is prepared and brings it up? Write a block with cut evidence showing the U.S' prior violations of U.N policy caused jack shit to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...