Jump to content
scottsdebate

Superstorm Impact ?

Recommended Posts

I am writing a data collecting aff (IOOS) and I figured few people would be prepared to answer a weather advantage. Does anyone know a good Impact for Superstorms or Increasing extreme weather ? (I am hopping for a Economic or Death cost). I would appreciate any help .

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there are cards that talk about the structural impacts of weather (i.e poc being affected more/poor being affected more)-maybe SDI's tsunami warning stuff has some cards for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a Hurricane impact card I can give you. It has a few million dying annual, but they are in developing countries, so you could also do a critical impact.

Controlling disasters key to save millions of lives

SID-AHMED 05 Managing Editor for Al-Ahali [Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, “The post-earthquake world”, Issue #724, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm]

 

The year 2005 began with a calamity, resulting not from conflicts between people but from an unprecedented natural disaster that has so far claimed over 155,000 lives, a figure that is expected to rise still more over the coming period. Is this Nature's reaction to the abuse it is suffering at the hands of the human race, its revenge on us for challenging its laws beyond acceptable limits?

The earthquake that struck deep under the Indian Ocean was the strongest in over a century. What is still more critical is that what we have witnessed so far is only the beginning of the catastrophe. According to a spokesman from the World Health organisation, "there is certainly a chance that we could have as many dying from communicable diseases as from the tsunamis". The logistics of providing the survivors with clean water, vaccines and medicines are formidable, and, with many thousands of bodies lying unburied, epidemics spread by waterborne diseases are expected to claim many thousands of victims. There is also the possibility of seismic activity elsewhere in the world because disturbances in the inner structure of the earth's crust have occurred and there are no means to foresee how they will unfold. Will they build up into still broader disarray and eventually move our planet out of its orbit around the sun? Moreover, even if we can avoid the worse possible scenario, how can we contain the earthquake's effects ecologically, meteorologically, economically and socially?

The contradiction between Man and Nature has reached unprecedented heights, forcing us to re-examine our understanding of the existing world system. US President George W Bush has announced the creation of an international alliance between the US, Japan, India, Australia and any other nation wishing to join that will work to help the stricken region overcome the huge problems it is facing in the wake of the tsunamis. Actually, the implications of the disaster are not only regional but global, not to say cosmic. Is it possible to mobilise all the inhabitants of our planet to the extent and at the speed necessary to avert similar disasters in future? How to engender the required state of emergency, that is, a different type of inter-human relations which rise to the level of the challenge before contradictions between the various sections of the world community make that collective effort unrealisable?

The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life.

Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between Man and Nature. At least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human species than any harm it can inflict on itself.

Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed following the devastating earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26 December.

This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and shaken the sanguine belief that the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any way. We are now forced to live with the possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.

Hurricane damage large & growing

DAVLASHERIDZE 12 PhD Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology and Education, Penn State [Meri Davlasheridze, The Effects of Adaptation Measures on Hurricane Induced Property Losses, http://aese.psu.edu/directory/mzd169/job-market-paper

 

Hurricanes represent one of the costliest natural catastrophes in the United States. At the beginning of the 20th century, decadal total number of hurricane fatalities was 8,734 with the corresponding damage cost of $1.45 billion (in year 2000 dollars) (Sheets and Williams, 2001). The last decade figures show that deaths have decreased by a factor of 35 whereas costs have risen by a factor of 39 (Figures 1 and 2). Over time, hurricane fatalities have become less of a concern, partially attributed to improved warning and weather forecasting systems in coastal counties (Sadowski and Sutter, 2005). This declining trend in loss of human life, however, has not been accompanied by a decrease in property damage. Increased intensity and frequency of Atlantic basin hurricanes is considered to be partially responsible for direct as well as indirect economic losses. Much property loss has also been inflicted because of increased population, rising standards of living and the consequent accumulation of wealth in these coastal areas (Pielke, et al., 2008). If recent socio-economic developments persist (rising coastal population and increase in wealth level) coupled with geophysical trends of hurricane intensities, damage figures will likely grow astronomically. Pielke et al. (2008) find that the normalized damages of hurricanes provides an important “warning” message for policy makers: “Potential damage from storms is growing at a rate that may place severe burdens on society. Avoiding huge losses will require either a change in the rate of population growth in coastal areas, major improvements in construction standards, or other mitigation actions. Unless such action is taken to address the growing concentration of people and properties in coastal areas where hurricanes strike, damage will increase, and by a great deal, as more and wealthier people increasingly inhibit these coastal locations”. An obvious agenda for researchers and policy makers involves decisions on loss mitigation strategies and plans to lessen these economic impacts. The domain of potential public and private coping and adaptation options is large. It goes beyond measures designed to mandate and enforce stringent regulatory policies such as building codes, hazard planning, land zoning and development regulation. Often, these measures are immensely costly and involve providing public protection via implementing and investing in major retrofitting and/or structural projects such as dams, levees, acquisition of private property, etc. In addition to these proactive measures, devastating natural disasters elicit post-disaster recovery and assistance programs primarily aimed to provide immediate relief to impacted communities. Federal government spends millions of dollars annually to help communities recover from severe disasters. Since 1989 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has spent more than 13 billion dollars to help communities implement long term hazard mitigation projects. Approximately 76% of total mitigation grant funding have been allocated for hurricane, storm and flood related disasters. Even more was spent for public assistance projects. Around 45 billion dollars (in 2005$) was given to impacted communities, since 1999, in the form of immediate assistance to help with disaster recovery.1 Approximately eighty percent of these funds were given in response to hurricane, flood or severe storm related events (Figures 3 and 4). Furthermore, these figures are higher when accounting for non-disaster governmental transfers, which are likely to increase substantially after major disasters (Deryugina, 2011).2 These numbers are striking and certainly raise public concern especially as the frequency and severity of hurricanes are projected to increase in the future.

*Open Ev (Emory Debate OSW AFF)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am writing a data collecting aff (IOOS) and I figured few people would be prepared to answer a weather advantage. Does anyone know a good Impact for Superstorms or Increasing extreme weather ? (I am hopping for a Economic or Death cost). I would appreciate any help .

 

Oh my god I am so screen capping this for like 10 different K's. 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept06/Giroux01.htm Giroux's Politics of Disposability are largely based off of the racist way the government handled Katrina, and I'm sure someone else has made a similar argument for Sandy. This article is a good place to start for a Kritikal !, but the book itself will most likely be a lot more helpful. Frankly, warming will almost always control any kind of weather !, so i'd be hesitant to run a weather advantage at all, but a kritikal framing will get you a lot further than an econ/death toll impact imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigger storms coming

Kirby 13 (David Kirby- staff writer for Takepart.com June 11th 2013

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/06/11/climate-change-extreme-weather)

Climate change is not a particularly hot topic among residents of Midland Beach, a seaside enclave of middle-class families in New York’s politically conservative Staten Island.Cunsolo, a 52-year-old retired carpenter, needs no convincing that human-caused climate change contributed to the lethal fury of Sandy. “Any person who really thinks about it honestly has to know the proof is in the pudding,” he says. “Katrina was the first big eye-opener.”If Katrina was a once-in-a-lifetime storm, Cunsolo asks, “Then how do you explain Sandy? Something’s going on to get these storms to this magnitude. Do we all believe in it yet? Publicly, people aren’t talking about reducing emissions…but they know it’s a big issue that we need to start talking about.”Experts and scientists overwhelmingly agree.“I don’t think anybody would try to correlate one event to global warming,” says Tim Barnett, a research marine physicist at Scripps Institute of Oceanography. “But it does make things worse. “With Katrina, Gulf temperatures were the highest on record,” he notes. “That’s what gave Katrina its kick.” Barnett also estimates that half of Sandy’s force can be attributed to global warming.The probability of bigger storms, meanwhile, “shifted in one direction: the 100-year storm is now a 20-year storm. There’s an increasing probability it will happen again.”On the morning of October 29, 2012, Cunsolo, his wife Karen, his sister, two sons, daughter, and 18-month-old grandson were at home. And though Sandy loomed on the southern horizon amid talk of evacuations, they weren’t particularly concerned.In one report, 420 of 690 households surveyed had visible mold; remediation attempts failed in more than a third.***It’s worth noting that while rising global temperatures warm the oceans, giving rise to more extreme weather events, they also cause the ocean levels themselves to rise, which adds to the destructive effects of Hurricane Sandy and other storms.In April, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report stating that, “Sea level is rising, and at an accelerating rate, especially along the U.S. East Coast and Gulf of Mexico.”Average levels rose about eight inches from 1880 to 2009, with the rate increasing from 1993 to 2008, at 65 to 90 percent above 20th-century averages.“Global warming is the primary cause of current sea level rise,” the UCS warns. “Human activities, such as burning coal and oil and cutting down tropical forests, have increased atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases and caused the planet to warm by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.Global warming, of course, unleashes far more than superstorms and coastal devastation. The grueling impact of climate change has been well documented, and it will only get worse. Heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, floods, tornadoes, rainstorms and blizzards seem to grow more severe each year.The debate that hasn’t yet hit the shores of Staten Island continues to rage in the political and scientific community. Despite the evidence, a very small minority of scientists and their political allies argue that climate change is not caused by human activity.

                                      

 

ECON

 

Super-hurricanes hit the East Coast, kills their economies

MPR 13

(minnesota public radio)  “Severe hurricanes may become more common along the East Coast”

9:45 AM, March 21, 2013 references Aslak Grinsted, a climatologist at Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute (he did the the study) http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/03/21/daily-circuit-climate-cast

Superstorm Sandy cost billions of dollars, just in lost economic activity, when it hit the East Coast. It knocked out power to more than 8 million homes. So it's alarming to consider the conclusion of a Danish researcher: that big storms may strike the eastern United States more and more in coming years. On Thursday's Climate Cast, Kerri Miller and MPR News' Chief Meteorologist Paul Huttner talked about those findings and the outlook for the coming tornado season. Here's an edited transcript of their conversation: Kerri Miller: There's interesting research out of Copenhagen that says our warming climate may affect the number of hurricanes we have and the intensity of them. Paul Huttner: The bigger part of the story is the intensity. This is another little piece in the climate puzzle that we start to piece together. I think this is an important paper. The oceans are a little underemphasized, perhaps, as a part of climate change. We always talk about a warmer atmosphere; the oceans are warming as well, and they're probably the biggest factor in determining the intensity of hurricanes, specifically the temperature of the oceans. This study went through 90 years of East Coast storm surge records. When you compare them with global temperatures, that turns out to be the best predictor of hurricane activity. What the study is saying is that Katrina-like storms will become much more frequent, maybe two to seven times more frequent. Instead of every 25 years, every five years we could see a Katrina-sized storm. That could be significant as we go forward. Miller: When we talk about Katrina, let's remember it was the way it built and spread, widened in the days before it hit New Orleans, and then the intensity with which it hit that city. Huttner: Even before that, you may remember, it flared right before it hit the south part of Miami, ripped through there, across the gulf, flared again, a much larger storm by then. One of the things I've noticed, and we saw this with Sandy, it's not just that the oceans are getting warmer, they're getting warmer at higher latitudes. That feeds storms, that keeps storms stronger as they move out of the tropics and into places like New York City and New Jersey. If we keep seeing these ocean temperatures rise, we may have more situations like a Hurricane Sandy that we saw last fall. Miller: Is this because the oceans are trapping carbon that's being emitted through greenhouse gases? Huttner: That could be part of it, but the bigger picture is that the oceans store heat. The oceans heat and cool more slowly than the atmosphere, so once you get a very hot summer, you get a hotter ocean. It takes a much longer time for that heat to dissipate than it does in the atmosphere. That keeps the oceans warmer in the fall, potentially warmer in the late summer, and that can fuel more intense hurricanes.

 

East Coast economies key

Pethokoukis, ’12. “The Sandy Stimulus? No, actually the hurricane will hurt the fragile U.S. economy” by James Pethonkoukis, writer for AEIdeas. October 30, 2012. <http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/10/the-sandy-stimulus-no-actually-the-hurricane-will-hurt-the-fragile-u-s-economy/>

The Sandy Stimulus? No, actually the hurricane will hurt the fragile U.S. economy James Pethokoukis | October 30, 2012, 11:24 am Economic consultancy IHS Global Insight dismisses the idea that Hurricane Sandy is just the Keynesian stimulus the American economy needs: The region affected by Hurricane Sandy will be similar to the one affected by Hurricane Irene in 2011 – a region stretching across 15 states on the East Coast with a gross regional product of around $3 trillion. Assuming the total economic losses are around $30 billion to $50 billion that would represent losses equivalent to 1.0% to 1.7% of gross regional product (GRP) for the states affected. This would be larger than the damages from Hurricane Irene which represented about 0.5% of GRP for the 13 most states affected, but it would be much less than Hurricane Katrina, which caused around $120 billion in damages, amounting to 9.6% of gross regional product for the states most impacted – Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. On a national scale, $30 billion to $50 billion in economics losses would represent about 0.2% to 0.3% of nominal GDP. Part of these losses will eventually be made up by reconstruction activity, but it would be naïve to put forward the view that a hurricane is in some sense a stimulus for the economy. There’s no guarantee that reconstruction activity will be extra activity, on top of what would otherwise have occurred, rather than a substitute for that activity. In the private sector, insurance will cover some of the reconstruction costs, but not all. Other reconstruction may take place at the expense of costs pared elsewhere, or simply may not be done at all. And even the reconstruction covered by insurance is not a “free lunch”, since it comes out of insurers’ profits and perhaps could lead to higher insurance premiums. The effect on growth for the fourth quarter will not be catastrophic but might still be noticeable, especially in an economy with little momentum anyway. Suppose that the affected regions lose just 25% of their overall output for two days that is not recoverable later. That would knock about $25 billion annualized ($6 billion actual) off GDP, and could take as much as 0.6 percentage points off annualized fourth-quarter real GDP growth rate. Many of my readers are well aware of the Broken Windows Fallacy, so need to get into here. But let me add this: The U.S. economy is hovering either at or just above stall speed. The Recession Red Zone. I would not be so quick to dismiss Sandy as a mere economic bump in the road, especially with the fiscal cliff fast approaching.

These were just some of the cards. Just go check the Cuba 'Canes aff from last year. It has to do with hurricane prevention, so im sure you could find more cards there about superstorms, etc. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel obligated to say this; the idea isn't to avoid clash, since that doesn't produce good debate or teach you anything, the idea is to win clash by being a better debater and finding in depth responses to their arguments, not like 2 cards that no one has answers to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel obligated to say this; the idea isn't to avoid clash, since that doesn't produce good debate or teach you anything, the idea is to win clash by being a better debater and finding in depth responses to their arguments, not like 2 cards that no one has answers to.

 

I'm pretty sure that I've won most of my rounds by reading small affs that no one can find good neg to because they don't exist. Avoiding clash = winning rounds. At the end of the day, for most debaters the #1 priority is to win rounds. The only kids I've ever seen that truly prove that they don't give a shit is that team that threw there rounds at the TOC and asked for 30 speaks every round. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that in the interests of debate, it is educational to go in depth on arguments and beat teams on clash. I think that this is important because debate is one of the only activities where we get education based on clash and competition.

 

However, sometimes it can be strategic to break a new small aff. For example, if you break at a tournament and are going aff against a good team the next morning, it becomes almost impossible to win because they have 12 hours to prep against your aff. In these situations, I think it is most strategic to read a new aff or advantages.

 

I also think that even if the aff reads affirmatives or advantages that the neg doesn't have answers to, the debate is still relatively fair for both sides. It's clearly more aff biased than reading predictable affirmatives or advantages, but if it is truly unpredictable, then the neg should be able to win the debate on topicality. If the aff is reading an advantage that the neg has never heard about, then there are probably some structural flaws within the advantage.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that in the interests of debate, it is educational to go in depth on arguments and beat teams on clash. I think that this is important because debate is one of the only activities where we get education based on clash and competition.

 

However, sometimes it can be strategic to break a new small aff. For example, if you break at a tournament and are going aff against a good team the next morning, it becomes almost impossible to win because they have 12 hours to prep against your aff . In these situations, I think it is most strategic to read a new aff or advantages.

 

I also think that even if the aff reads affirmatives or advantages that the neg doesn't have answers to, the debate is still relatively fair for both sides. It's clearly more aff biased than reading predictable affirmatives or advantages, but if it is truly unpredictable, then the neg should be able to win the debate on topicality. If the aff is reading an advantage that the neg has never heard about, then there are probably some structural flaws within the advantage.

If they can smoke your aff with only 12 hours of prep, then your aff sucks. Seriously. Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that avoiding clash is bad for debate. However, my case has plenty of clash with a Biodiversity Adv and plenty on case . Having a obscure advantage isn't that bad in my book.

Edited by scottsdebate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they can smoke your aff with only 12 hours of prep, then your aff sucks. Seriously.

 

You've never debated in lay districts before have you? Where I'm from, reading 4 min of case specific solvency takeouts = winning the round. It's not fair or right, but when you're trying to win you have to pander sometimes. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've never debated in lay districts before have you? Where I'm from, reading 4 min of case specific solvency takeouts = winning the round. It's not fair or right, but when you're trying to win you have to pander sometimes.

 

Actually that's all I did last year. No judge voted on solvency take outs in my lay district.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that avoiding clash is bad for debate. However, my case has plenty of clash with a Biodiversity Adv and plenty on case . Having a obscure advantage isn't that bad in my book.

biodiversity isnt that obscure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

biodiversity isnt that obscure.

I think they were saying they have a Bio-D Advantage as a non-obscure thing, in addition to obscure stuff.

 

I'm not saying that being creative is bad, if you could find really good evidence that made an excellent claim(s) then by all means, use it, what I don't agree with is purposely going out and trying to find stuff that not many people have answers to for the sole purpose of being obscure. At districts it makes sense, but at regular tournaments? Nah.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, thats what I am saying . The case itself also isn't that obscure, NOAA data collection is going to be one of the bigger exploration topic areas this year.

 

biodiversity isnt that obscure.

Edited by scottsdebate

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...

×
×
  • Create New...