Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So, I hit some affs at a tournament this weekend that I am not sure what to run against, would someone mind sharing what they have run against these so that I can prep for state. The OTEC one is what I need the most help with because we screwed up that round. If anyone has files on these affs I would gladly trade some files I have, pm me if you do. 

 

MHK's

 

1. Warming w/ six scenarios, didn't save the 1AC but I remember denialism and slavery were two of them.

 

(We did not hit them, our other team did, they ran Cap - Russia - Oceans T <I think they lost>)

 

NOPP

 

1. Marine Science Leadership - k2 warming

 

2. Maritime Conflicts  - Japan v China in South China Sea

 

3. Stem  - Econ collapse

 

(We ran Security w/ China other link, POX, & "it's non-military" T) (picked up on K)

 

SSD

 

1. Natives

 

2. Framing (Util Bad)

 

(We met framing and read T on increase, and T on substantial, and anthro K)

 

OTEC

 

1. Warming

 

2. No war

 

(We ran Security w/ apocalyptic rhetoric link, Anthro, and T on development) 

 

*Also, if anyone has a unique aff that is this year specific that they cannot use anymore because their season is over, if you want to trade I am willing. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On SSD was there a specific scenario such as Yucca Mountain or was it just general?

 

Since their only advantage was natives: Run GBTL, although they probably prep for 1 off GBTL strats it's sounds solid and the solvency should guarantee you get the only AFF advantage.

 

T is good here. Oceans != Seabed is 99% responsive in most cases.

 

And honestly, a reprocessing/dry-cask CP can be decent as well in terms of policy strictly.

Edited by Rigbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against OTEC a common, but good strategy is Japan CP, Ptx DA and Cap K

 

You need to make sure you answer that no war stuff or youll get swamped on the DA.

 

If you look on openev there is good case ev answering OTEC as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On SSD was there a specific scenario such as Yucca Mountain or was it just general?

 

Since their only advantage was natives: Run GBTL, although they probably prep for 1 off GBTL strats it's sounds solid and the solvency should guarantee you get the only AFF advantage.

 

T is good here. Oceans != Seabed is 99% responsive in most cases.

 

And honestly, a reprocessing/dry-cask CP can be decent as well in terms of policy strictly.

It was just general, as in natives.

 

We picked up on anthro twice, so I doubt they will be prepped for anything lol... and cool, we will definitely run T. What is GBTL?

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against OTEC a common, but good strategy is Japan CP, Ptx DA and Cap K

 

You need to make sure you answer that no war stuff or youll get swamped on the DA.

 

If you look on openev there is good case ev answering OTEC as well.

If they only run warming a cap k doesn't seem to link too well, I can take more critical stuff, so is there any (better) k that would link? Also for SSD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cap links to clean energy are actually quite good.

Id just look on openev for better links

 

You could also run Luke or Heiddeger, OTEC is definitely pretty managerial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cap links to clean energy are actually quite good.

Id just look on openev for better links

 

You could also run Luke or Heiddeger, OTEC is definitely pretty managerial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cap links to clean energy are actually quite good.

Id just look on openev for better links

 

You could also run Luke or Heiddeger, OTEC is definitely pretty managerial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was just general, as in natives.

 

We picked up on anthro twice, so I doubt they will be prepped for anything lol... and cool, we will definitely run T. What is GBTL?

GBTL=Give Back the Land.  It just says the only way to actually help the indigenous is to reject the state and give the stolen land we took back to the natives

 

If they only run warming a cap k doesn't seem to link too well, I can take more critical stuff, so is there any (better) k that would link? Also for SSD?

Cap links hard anyway.  Plus, you can win the root cause debate very easily because it's almost definitely true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GBTL=Give Back the Land.  It just says the only way to actually help the indigenous is to reject the state and give the stolen land we took back to the natives

 

Cap links hard anyway.  Plus, you can win the root cause debate very easily because it's almost definitely true

On OTEC, I don't really understand the link story, Cap links to econ/human based affs, but when their only impact is to prevent bioD collapse/save all things living on the earth, as I believe their tag line for their impact relayed, I am not sure it links all too well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cap links to clean energy are actually quite good.

Id just look on openev for better links

 

You could also run Luke or Heiddeger, OTEC is definitely pretty managerial

I was thinking about running Heidegger, my circuit is k friendly but nobody understands them except like 2 teams, including us. So I was thinking something like that would have been good to run. 

Edited by kylerbuckner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On OTEC, I don't really understand the link story, Cap links to econ/human based affs, but when their only impact is to prevent bioD collapse/save all things living on the earth, as I believe their tag line for their impact relayed, I am not sure it links all too well.

“Sustainable development” has been commodified and greenwashed by the corporate elite whose main concern is profits – we control the root cause of environmental degradation, the quickest route to extinction, and a loss of value to life

Cock, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, 13

[Jacklyn, 6/20, Helen Suzman Foundation, “‘Green Capitalism’ or Environmental Justice? A Critique of the Sustainability Discourse,” http://hsf.org.za/resource-centre/focus/focus-63/Jacklyn%20Cock.pdf, 7/7/14, BS]

The sustainability discourse has been appropriated by neo-liberal capitalism. It is driving a key feature of capitals response to the ecological crisis: the commodification of nature. This involves the transformation of nature and all social relations into economic relations, subordinated to the logic of the market and the imperatives of profit. The immediate outcome is the deepening of both social and environmental injustice.

Green capitalism

The ecological crisis is not some future and indeterminate event. It is now generally acknowledged that we are in the first stages of ecological collapse. Capital’s response to the ecological crisis is that the system can continue to expand by creating a new ‘sustainable’ or ‘green capitalism’, bringing the efficiency of the market to bear on nature and its reproduction.

These visions amount to little more than “a renewed strategy for profiting from planetary destruction”1. The business of ‘sustainability’, in this view, is simply “a new frontier for accumulation in which carbon trading is the model scheme” 2.

The two pillars on which ‘green capitalism’ rests are technological innovation and expanding markets while keeping the existing institutions of capitalism intact. This is Thomas Friedman’s ‘green revolution’ which relies on linking the two. As he insists, green technology represents “the mother of all markets”3.

More specifically, ‘green capitalism’ involves:

•                appeals to nature (and even the crisis) as a marketing tool;

•                developing largely untested clean coal technology through Carbon Capture and Storage, which involves installing equipment that captures carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and then pumping the gas underground;

•                the development of new sources of energy such as solar, nuclear and wind, thereby creating new markets;

•                the massive development of biofuels, which involves diverting land from food production;

•                the carbon trading regime enshrined in the Kyoto Protocols.

Many of these strategies put the onus of solving climate change on changing individual life styles. This individualizing is illustrated by Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth and relies heavily on manipulative advertising - ‘greenwash’ - to persuade us of the efficacy of these strategies.

Greenwash is also evident in much corporate sustainability reporting as part of their presentation of a benign image of themselves.

‘Sustainability’: the ideological anchor of green capitalism.

In South Africa, as elsewhere, there has been a steep growth in the number of companies producing sustainability reports, and in the emergence of various corporate indicators and guidelines. Media coverage is growing with, in 2010 alone, a Financial Times Special Report on Sustainability, the publication of the quarterly Trialogue Sustainability Review as a supplement to the Financial Mail, and the Earth supplement to the daily newspaper, Business Day.

The current emphasis is on how sustainability can increase profitability or, in the sanitized language of capital, “can add value to a company”.

In 2004, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange introduced the Socially Responsible Investment Index (SRI) to “help crystallize good triple-bottom line and governance policy and practices”. Companies apply to be listed - in 2008, 61 companies made it onto the index, from 105 companies that were reviewed for inclusion4. According to an asset manager, “Very important is that [social responsibility] should not mean lower returns. In fact it should sometimes mean higher returns as the profile of some of these investments can be higher risk and lower liquidity”5.

Chris Laszio’s Sustainable Value: How the world’s leading companies are doing well by doing good emphasizes the importance of a company’s reputation, goodwill and stakeholder relationships. Based on this assumption, Laszio develops a strong business case for taking a systematic approach to building stakeholder value, including shareholder value, through the integration of sustainability in all aspects of a business6.

The cynicism involved is also illustrated by a statement from a Santam executive, “Even if you don’t believe in climate change, it makes financial sense”. In similar terms it has been claimed that the climate crisis represents “a lucrative entrepreneurial opportunity”7.This is congruent with the treatment of disasters (often ecological) as exciting market opportunities, described by Klein as ‘disaster capitalism’8.

Similarly, for the JSE, “nvesting in sustainability makes sense”9. From July 2010 all companies listed on the JSE are required to publish an integrated sustainability report. Thus the worst corporate polluters in South Africa all now produce lengthy sustainability reports.

ArcelorMittal SA’s 2009 sustainability report claims that “[o]ver the last year, we made an even greater commitment to engagement with all stakeholder groups by accelerating interactions with communities, employees, regulators, government and advocacy groups”. This claim, however, is hotly disputed by Phineas Malapela, the chair of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance10.

Other major polluters show a total neglect of environmental factors in their definition of sustainable development. For example, BHP Billiton, “the world’s leading diversified natural resources company,” describes “the company’s vision of Sustainable Development” as follows: “to be the company of choice - creating sustainable value for shareholders, employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, business partners and host communities.”11

The main concern of the corporations remains profitability: the awareness that shrinking natural resources could damage it, while measures such as energy efficiency could reduce costs, reduce risks and enhance a company’s public image. The former CEO of Walmart recently described sustainability as “the single biggest business opportunity of the 21st century and the next main source of competitive advantage”12. Hence the opening claim: the sustainability discourse has been appropriated by neo-liberal capitalism.

Joel Kovel stresses that the cause of the ecological crisis is the expansionist logic of the capitalist system, and in similar terms, Vandana Shiva stresses, “the same corporate interests that have created the crisis try to offer the disease as the cure - more fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers15.”

If capitalism continues, the future looks grim. If capitalism remains the dominant social order we can expect unbearable climate conditions, an intensification of social and ecological crises and, as Ian Angus writes, “the spread of the most barbaric forms of class rule, as the imperialist powers fight among themselves and with the global south for continued control of the world’s diminishing resources. At worst human life may not survive16.”

But - at least in the short run - as ecological breakdown accelerates, the dominant classes will survive, living in protected enclaves in what Foster calls a fortress world.

“Fortress World is a planetary apartheid system, gated and maintained by force, in which the gap between global rich and global poor constantly widens and the differential access to environmental resources and amenities increases sharply. It consists of bubbles of privilege amidst oceans of misery17.” This retreat into fortified enclaves already exists in South Africa - now the most unequal society in the world - as the powerful and the privileged move into the growing number of gated communities and golf estates.

However, the argument that the discourse of sustainability is the ideological anchor of green capitalism does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater: the immediate challenge is to reclaim the notion of sustainability by linking it to considerations of justice.

Critique of the concept of sustainable development

When the concept of sustainable development was launched at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, 1992, it held out great potential. By the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, the concept had become vacuous and was largely about sustaining economic growth at virtually any ecological cost.

The concept of sustainable development says nothing about justice and has been extensively criticised for the vagueness which has enabled it to be incorporated into neo-liberal approaches. It allows environmentalism to be voided of political content and “be defined as a public concern with environmental deterioration - a concern, not necessarily the object of a social struggle, a cause without conflict18.” Giddens writes, “‘Sustainable development’ is more of a slogan than an analytical concept”19 and dismisses it as “something of an oxymoron”20.

The discourse of sustainable development is, of course, an advance on earlier protectionist models of environmentalism in that it is concerned with ‘human needs’. But it is generally marked by technicist, pragmatic and reformist attempts to bring environmental externalities into the marketplace through ecological modernisation. The discourse of environmental justice provides a radical alternative. As the leading US anti-toxics activist, Louis Gibbs, has argued, “the growing environmental justice movement asks the question, ‘What is morally correct?’ instead of ‘What is legally, scientifically and pragmatically possible?’”

This is very relevant for us in South Africa. During the apartheid regime, environmentalism effectively operated as a conservation strategy that neglected social needs. The notion of environmental justice represents an important shift away from this traditional authoritarian concept of environmentalism which was mainly concerned with the conservation of threatened plants, animals and wilderness areas, to include urban, health, labour and development issues21. Environmental justice is linked to social justice as an all-encompassing notion that affirms the value of life - all forms of life - against the interests of wealth, power and technology.

Linking this broadened notion of justice to sustainability means that we have to rethink the notion of economic growth. Growth has come to mean “primarily growth in profits and wealth for a relative few”22. A transition to sustainability poses profound challenges to capital. There are simply not enough resources for all to enjoy the intensely consumerist and waste-creating lifestyles of the advanced industrial nations. As George Monbiot writes, “The continuous growth prescribed by modern economics, whether informed by Marx or Keynes or Hayek, depends on the notion that the planet has an infinite capacity to supply us with wealth and absorb our pollution. In a finite world this is impossible. Pull this rug from under the dominant economic theories and the whole system of thought collapses”23.

The key concern of ecological sustainability is not only to protect limited resources but to ensure that resources are used for the benefit of all, not the privileged few. This means linking sustainability to justice. However, the post-apartheid state’s overall commitment to neo-liberal principles means the prioritizing of sustainability and efficiency over justice, and a preoccupation with cost-recovery over high levels of cross-subsidisation and equity.

Water

Domestic consumption makes up about 12% of South Africa’s water usage. More than half of this goes to the largely white, affluent suburbs with their gardens, swimming pools and golf courses.

Meanwhile, in the name of sustainability and cost recovery, pre-paid water meters have been installed in many South African townships. The logic of these technological tools is to restrain use in the context of scarcity. The basic need for water (a right in terms of our post-apartheid constitution) becomes a commodity to be bought and sold. They have had devastating impacts on the poor.

The basic allocation of 6,000 litres of free water monthly works out at 25 litres per person per day in an 8 person household, enough to flush the toilet twice. The amount should be compared to the average household consumption of45 - 60,000 litres in the predominantly white suburbs24.

The growing numbers of golf courses use an average of one million litres of water a day. For example, the Pecanwood Golf Estate near Johannesburg uses the average amount of 1.5 million litres of water a day25. A sight visit in 2009 confirmed that some of the Pecanwood workers, who live in a nearby informal settlement, have to walk 5 km to buy water at R3 for 20 litres. The township residents with pre-paid water meters are fortunate by comparison. 

Linking justice and sustainability would involve a higher free component funded through a sharply rising block tariff - in other words, a much higher level of cross-subsidisation from the wealthy to the poor.

Energy

In South Africa almost a quarter of households lack adequate access to electricity, either due to the lack of infrastructure or unaffordable pre-paid meters. They have to rely on dangerous paraffin stoves and candles, or the time consuming collection of firewood. The outcome is shack fires that sweep through informal settlements in South Africa almost every weekend. These are fires in which the poorest of the poor lose all their possessions and sometimes even their lives.

Justice demands the provision of affordable energy for all. Instead, the post-apartheid state is prioritising corporate interests: thus the revelation the parastatal, Eskom, has been supplying electricity to multinationals such as BHP Billiton at 12c a kilowatt hour - below the cost of electricity production. Meanwhile, the free allowance of 70 kilowatt hours per household per month is grossly inadequate. Linking justice and sustainability demands that energy takes the form of not only affordable but clean and safe energy - which means renewable energy.

Access to both energy and water should involve linking sustainability and justice. The problem is the logic of commodification in the form of the cost recovery policies that constitute the foundation of neo-liberal capitalism. The outcome for the poor is deprivation either in the form of the harsh restrictions imposed by pre-paid meters or the service disconnections for the many households that have fallen into arrears. 

Conclusion

We are living in a period when our relationship to nature is being dramatically transformed through this process of commodification. More and more of nature is being framed in terms of exchange value and mediated through the market. According to Burawoy this commodification of nature is the “central feature” of the contemporary period of “third wave marketisation” or neo-liberal capitalism26.

The outcome is a world in which billions are chronically malnourished, lacking access to clean water and electricity. This is surely not a world we want to sustain. For all these reasons, Joel Kovel prefers the term sufficiency.

Sufficiency makes more sense, building a world where nobody is hungry or cold or lacks health care or succor in old age... Sufficiency is a better term than... sustainability, as the latter leaves ambiguous the question of whether what is to be sustained is the existing system or not.27”

The threat of ecological collapse means that there is an urgent need for debate and, at least, a questioning of the appropriation of the sustainability discourse by capital, as well as the economistic bias which ignores how the emphasis on growth furthers negative distributional and environmental impacts. This involves challenging what Jane Goodall has termed the ‘dark forces’, particularly the vested interests involved in the fossil fuel industry28.

The paradigmatic ‘dark force’ at the moment is BP. This is what the ‘prince of darkness’, the CEO of BP, had to say recently about the transition to a low carbon economy:

“.we have before us a period of economic transition as great as, if not greater than, the Industrial Revolution”29.

Our survival depends on how we act now.

Sustainable development is a technique used by the elite to promote their own interests and further harm the ocean

Steinberg, Professor of Political Geography, 99

[Philip, August 1999, “Navigating to Multiple Horizons: Toward a Geography of Ocean-Space,” The Professional Geographer, Volume: 51 Issue 3, page 370-371, BS]

Much of the analytical geographic research on the sea specifically concerns the human-environment interface. This includes both research on the impact of human intervention on the physical environment (e.g. the impact of overfishing on a certain fish population) and research on the impact of physical phenomena on a social activity (e.g. the impact ofshoreline geomorphology on a place’s attractiveness as a port or tourism destination). This tendency for environmental research is not surprising, considering that human interactions with the sea invariably involve attempts to subdue the inhospitable aspects of its nature and gain proceeds from its beneficial aspects. As humans and the marine environment interact, the nature of the sea not only limits (and attracts) human intervention, but is itself transformed. This continuing (and ever intensifying) process of human-environment interactions presents a plethora of opportunities for scholars wishing to interpret and/or regulate the nature-society relationship.

Human-environment interactions in ocean- space are particularly intense in coastal waters, areas that are adjacent to inhabited terrestrial space and that tend to be exceptionally rich in living and non-living resources (Viles and Spencer 1995). Thus, a large portion of the applied marine research of the past decades, both within and outside of geography, has specifically concerned coastal zone management (Salm and Clark 1984; Sorenson and McCreary 1990; Beatley et al. 1994; Clark 1998). In her article in this focus section, Nichols analyzes the latest trend in coastal zone policy and planning, Integrated Coastal Management. Like Trist in her study of Caribbean tourism, Nichols utilizes (and contributes to) insights from political ecology and discourse analysis as she interprets the strategies and mechanisms by which politically powerful interest groups use the language of environmentalism, sustainability, integration, and participation to implement a management system that systematically disenfranchises indigenous users of coastal zone resources. Nichols’ concern with marine resource management conflicts amidst the commercialization and development of ocean-space reflects a broader trend within the marine geography subdiscipline, represented by papers delivered at a series of recent AAG annual meeting sessions co-sponsored by the Coastal and Marine, Political, and Socialist Geography Specialty Groups on the political economy ofmarine space and the political ecology of marine resources (Nichols 1997, 1998; Trist 1997, 1998; Walker 1997, 1998; Davis 1998; Foran 1998; Glaesel 1998; Mansfield 1998; see also St. Martin 1997; Thor- burn 1997; Leddy 1998).

The movement for studying human interactions with the marine environment has been accelerated by the realization that, like the rest of the planet, the world-ocean is not endlessly resilient. The social mandate of continual economic growth (or “development”) may not be compatible with the goal of environmental preservation. To this end, Agenda 21, the document that emerged from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, devotes a chapter specifically to the sustainable development of the oceans. In his contribution to this focus section, Vallega considers the world-ocean as a site of global policymaking, as he discusses the International Geographical Union’s attempt to implement a scientific infrastructure for marine development within environmental limits. While Vallega’s interpretation of the global movement for “sustainable development” differs sharply from Nichols’, both authors’ articles fall within the broad field of environment-development studies, a major research subfield within geography as a whole and one that analyzes processes and conflicts both on land and at sea.

As the various uses of the sea—notably fishing, mineral extraction, recreation, and transportation—intensify, they are also extensifying. This has led to a situation in which marine development planners are attempting to regulate portions of the sea ever distant from the coast (Zacher and McConnell 1990; Ball 1996). Amidst this increase in interaction between society and the sea, the capacity of humans to transform the physical geography of ocean- space has grown, and so the negative impacts of both landward and seaward activities on the marine environment have attracted consider-able attention in the popular media (Carson 1951; Earle 1995; Berrill 1997; Safina 1998). In this focus section, Dow integrates this concern regarding marine pollution with the geographic tradition of risk and hazard analysis (Burton et al. 1993; Cutter 1994; Kasperson et al. 1995), including marine and coastal hazards (Finkl 1994; Argent and O’Riordan 1995). Dow uses this perspective to examine marine pollution risk in the context of global environmental change.

 

 

The Transition to Green Energy is Both Unfeasible and Just Reentrenches Green Capitalism

Harris, Professor of History, 2011

Jerry, 01-01-11, Brill Publishing, “Going Green to Stay in the Black: Transnational Capitalism and Renewable Energy”, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d05a9f02-57a8-4c1e-884d-f17c672c9a2a%40sessionmgr114&vid=10&hid=126, 07-09-14, TCT]

 

But significant restraints exist. With short-term focus among neo-liberal speculators, feeble efforts of neo-Keynesian reformers and sabotage by fossil fuel lobbyists the capitalist system may be unable to respond within the limits of ecological time. Chained to the constraints of its economic dogma, impor- tant sectors of the capitalist class are unable to react with long-term planning and the investments needed to build a sustainable economy. A few examples tell the story. Out of a total of 2,810 climate-change lobbyists in Washington, only 138 support renewable energy (Goodell 2010). And from the total of $250-$300 billion in global energy subsidies, $200 billion go to fossil fuels and only $16 billion for renewables (United Nations Environment Programme 2008). It is clear that neither the neo-liberal nor neo-Keynesian wing of the transnational capitalist class can meet the challenge. What needs to emerge is a new green hegemonic bloc providing political leadership with a dominant culture and ideology. Such a change is possible, but even so green capitalism faces another set of historic problems.

Renewable energy fuels capitalist development

Harris, Professor of History, 2011

Jerry, 01-01-11, Brill Publishing, “Going Green to Stay in the Black: Transnational Capitalism and Renewable Energy”, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d05a9f02-57a8-4c1e-884d-f17c672c9a2a%40sessionmgr114&vid=10&hid=126, 07-12-14, TCT]

 

Is the future of capitalism green? And will the country that leads in green technology dominate the global economy?  That is certainly the outlook of important sectors of the capitalist class, both among long established corporations as well as new entrepreneurs. But the green economy, particularly the energy sector, is already taking a globalized path of development under the control of the transnational capitalist class (TCC). While innovative corporations may emerge as dominant players, it will be as transnational corporations (TNS), not as national champions of nation-states.

In the U.S. the green revolution is promoted as the way to maintain world economic supremacy. In President Obama’s state of the union speech he said, “the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.” (1) Environmentalist Hunter Lovins calls on the U.S. to lead the world in green innovation because

“they’ll rule the world, economically, politically, and probably militarily.” (2) Thomas Friedman wraps green technology in red, white and blue calling it the new currency of power. “It’s all about national power…what could be more patriotic, capitalistic and geostrategic than that?” (3).

But these dreams of national greatest are already outdated. Green energy can indeed extend the life of capitalism, but not within the confines of nation-centric logic and power. Major wind and solar corporations already operate on a global scale, with innovations and research ongoing in Europe, India, Japan, China and the U.S. Furthermore, the scale of the environmental crisis is beyond any one country to solve. It calls for a global response and advanced sectors of the TCC understand these world dimensions.

The environmental crisis actually offers an opportunity for capitalism to begin a new cycle of accumulation. A way to end the repeating failures of financial speculation with a renewal of productive capital. As Muller and Passadakis explain, “the point about the ecological crisis…is that it is neither solved nor ignored in a green capitalist regime, but rather placed at the heart of its growth strategy.”(4) By creating  new systems of energy, transportation, architectural design  and reengineering productive processes, capitalism can greatly reduce its abuse of the environment. This would free capital from environmentally harmful industries for new areas of investment and create profitable opportunities in dynamic new markets. Such a strategic shift will not only solve the current crisis but legitimize a new political regime and lay the foundation for a hegemonic bloc with a global social base. Nonetheless, this transformation will not solve the contradiction between capital and labor, and the TCC may lack the political resolve to move fast and far enough to avoid major environmental disasters. But if the transformation does occur over the coming decades, it may solve the most pressing problems between finite environmental resources and the need of capitalism to grow and profit.

 

EDIT: yeah the formatting got all weird, but this is all openev stuff, so you get the gist

Edited by MartyP
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Sustainable development” has been commodified and greenwashed by the corporate elite whose main concern is profits – we control the root cause of environmental degradation, the quickest route to extinction, and a loss of value to life

Cock, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, 13

[Jacklyn, 6/20, Helen Suzman Foundation, “‘Green Capitalism’ or Environmental Justice? A Critique of the Sustainability Discourse,” http://hsf.org.za/resource-centre/focus/focus-63/Jacklyn%20Cock.pdf, 7/7/14, BS]

The sustainability discourse has been appropriated by neo-liberal capitalism. It is driving a key feature of capitals response to the ecological crisis: the commodification of nature. This involves the transformation of nature and all social relations into economic relations, subordinated to the logic of the market and the imperatives of profit. The immediate outcome is the deepening of both social and environmental injustice.

Green capitalism

The ecological crisis is not some future and indeterminate event. It is now generally acknowledged that we are in the first stages of ecological collapse. Capital’s response to the ecological crisis is that the system can continue to expand by creating a new ‘sustainable’ or ‘green capitalism’, bringing the efficiency of the market to bear on nature and its reproduction.

These visions amount to little more than “a renewed strategy for profiting from planetary destruction”1. The business of ‘sustainability’, in this view, is simply “a new frontier for accumulation in which carbon trading is the model scheme” 2.

The two pillars on which ‘green capitalism’ rests are technological innovation and expanding markets while keeping the existing institutions of capitalism intact. This is Thomas Friedman’s ‘green revolution’ which relies on linking the two. As he insists, green technology represents “the mother of all markets”3.

More specifically, ‘green capitalism’ involves:

•                appeals to nature (and even the crisis) as a marketing tool;

•                developing largely untested clean coal technology through Carbon Capture and Storage, which involves installing equipment that captures carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and then pumping the gas underground;

•                the development of new sources of energy such as solar, nuclear and wind, thereby creating new markets;

•                the massive development of biofuels, which involves diverting land from food production;

•                the carbon trading regime enshrined in the Kyoto Protocols.

Many of these strategies put the onus of solving climate change on changing individual life styles. This individualizing is illustrated by Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth and relies heavily on manipulative advertising - ‘greenwash’ - to persuade us of the efficacy of these strategies.

Greenwash is also evident in much corporate sustainability reporting as part of their presentation of a benign image of themselves.

‘Sustainability’: the ideological anchor of green capitalism.

In South Africa, as elsewhere, there has been a steep growth in the number of companies producing sustainability reports, and in the emergence of various corporate indicators and guidelines. Media coverage is growing with, in 2010 alone, a Financial Times Special Report on Sustainability, the publication of the quarterly Trialogue Sustainability Review as a supplement to the Financial Mail, and the Earth supplement to the daily newspaper, Business Day.

The current emphasis is on how sustainability can increase profitability or, in the sanitized language of capital, “can add value to a company”.

In 2004, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange introduced the Socially Responsible Investment Index (SRI) to “help crystallize good triple-bottom line and governance policy and practices”. Companies apply to be listed - in 2008, 61 companies made it onto the index, from 105 companies that were reviewed for inclusion4. According to an asset manager, “Very important is that [social responsibility] should not mean lower returns. In fact it should sometimes mean higher returns as the profile of some of these investments can be higher risk and lower liquidity”5.

Chris Laszio’s Sustainable Value: How the world’s leading companies are doing well by doing good emphasizes the importance of a company’s reputation, goodwill and stakeholder relationships. Based on this assumption, Laszio develops a strong business case for taking a systematic approach to building stakeholder value, including shareholder value, through the integration of sustainability in all aspects of a business6.

The cynicism involved is also illustrated by a statement from a Santam executive, “Even if you don’t believe in climate change, it makes financial sense”. In similar terms it has been claimed that the climate crisis represents “a lucrative entrepreneurial opportunity”7.This is congruent with the treatment of disasters (often ecological) as exciting market opportunities, described by Klein as ‘disaster capitalism’8.

Similarly, for the JSE, “nvesting in sustainability makes sense”9. From July 2010 all companies listed on the JSE are required to publish an integrated sustainability report. Thus the worst corporate polluters in South Africa all now produce lengthy sustainability reports.

ArcelorMittal SA’s 2009 sustainability report claims that “[o]ver the last year, we made an even greater commitment to engagement with all stakeholder groups by accelerating interactions with communities, employees, regulators, government and advocacy groups”. This claim, however, is hotly disputed by Phineas Malapela, the chair of the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance10.

Other major polluters show a total neglect of environmental factors in their definition of sustainable development. For example, BHP Billiton, “the world’s leading diversified natural resources company,” describes “the company’s vision of Sustainable Development” as follows: “to be the company of choice - creating sustainable value for shareholders, employees, contractors, suppliers, customers, business partners and host communities.”11

The main concern of the corporations remains profitability: the awareness that shrinking natural resources could damage it, while measures such as energy efficiency could reduce costs, reduce risks and enhance a company’s public image. The former CEO of Walmart recently described sustainability as “the single biggest business opportunity of the 21st century and the next main source of competitive advantage”12. Hence the opening claim: the sustainability discourse has been appropriated by neo-liberal capitalism.

Joel Kovel stresses that the cause of the ecological crisis is the expansionist logic of the capitalist system, and in similar terms, Vandana Shiva stresses, “the same corporate interests that have created the crisis try to offer the disease as the cure - more fossil fuel based chemical fertilizers15.”

If capitalism continues, the future looks grim. If capitalism remains the dominant social order we can expect unbearable climate conditions, an intensification of social and ecological crises and, as Ian Angus writes, “the spread of the most barbaric forms of class rule, as the imperialist powers fight among themselves and with the global south for continued control of the world’s diminishing resources. At worst human life may not survive16.”

But - at least in the short run - as ecological breakdown accelerates, the dominant classes will survive, living in protected enclaves in what Foster calls a fortress world.

“Fortress World is a planetary apartheid system, gated and maintained by force, in which the gap between global rich and global poor constantly widens and the differential access to environmental resources and amenities increases sharply. It consists of bubbles of privilege amidst oceans of misery17.” This retreat into fortified enclaves already exists in South Africa - now the most unequal society in the world - as the powerful and the privileged move into the growing number of gated communities and golf estates.

However, the argument that the discourse of sustainability is the ideological anchor of green capitalism does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater: the immediate challenge is to reclaim the notion of sustainability by linking it to considerations of justice.

Critique of the concept of sustainable development

When the concept of sustainable development was launched at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, 1992, it held out great potential. By the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, the concept had become vacuous and was largely about sustaining economic growth at virtually any ecological cost.

The concept of sustainable development says nothing about justice and has been extensively criticised for the vagueness which has enabled it to be incorporated into neo-liberal approaches. It allows environmentalism to be voided of political content and “be defined as a public concern with environmental deterioration - a concern, not necessarily the object of a social struggle, a cause without conflict18.” Giddens writes, “‘Sustainable development’ is more of a slogan than an analytical concept”19 and dismisses it as “something of an oxymoron”20.

The discourse of sustainable development is, of course, an advance on earlier protectionist models of environmentalism in that it is concerned with ‘human needs’. But it is generally marked by technicist, pragmatic and reformist attempts to bring environmental externalities into the marketplace through ecological modernisation. The discourse of environmental justice provides a radical alternative. As the leading US anti-toxics activist, Louis Gibbs, has argued, “the growing environmental justice movement asks the question, ‘What is morally correct?’ instead of ‘What is legally, scientifically and pragmatically possible?’”

This is very relevant for us in South Africa. During the apartheid regime, environmentalism effectively operated as a conservation strategy that neglected social needs. The notion of environmental justice represents an important shift away from this traditional authoritarian concept of environmentalism which was mainly concerned with the conservation of threatened plants, animals and wilderness areas, to include urban, health, labour and development issues21. Environmental justice is linked to social justice as an all-encompassing notion that affirms the value of life - all forms of life - against the interests of wealth, power and technology.

Linking this broadened notion of justice to sustainability means that we have to rethink the notion of economic growth. Growth has come to mean “primarily growth in profits and wealth for a relative few”22. A transition to sustainability poses profound challenges to capital. There are simply not enough resources for all to enjoy the intensely consumerist and waste-creating lifestyles of the advanced industrial nations. As George Monbiot writes, “The continuous growth prescribed by modern economics, whether informed by Marx or Keynes or Hayek, depends on the notion that the planet has an infinite capacity to supply us with wealth and absorb our pollution. In a finite world this is impossible. Pull this rug from under the dominant economic theories and the whole system of thought collapses”23.

The key concern of ecological sustainability is not only to protect limited resources but to ensure that resources are used for the benefit of all, not the privileged few. This means linking sustainability to justice. However, the post-apartheid state’s overall commitment to neo-liberal principles means the prioritizing of sustainability and efficiency over justice, and a preoccupation with cost-recovery over high levels of cross-subsidisation and equity.

Water

Domestic consumption makes up about 12% of South Africa’s water usage. More than half of this goes to the largely white, affluent suburbs with their gardens, swimming pools and golf courses.

Meanwhile, in the name of sustainability and cost recovery, pre-paid water meters have been installed in many South African townships. The logic of these technological tools is to restrain use in the context of scarcity. The basic need for water (a right in terms of our post-apartheid constitution) becomes a commodity to be bought and sold. They have had devastating impacts on the poor.

The basic allocation of 6,000 litres of free water monthly works out at 25 litres per person per day in an 8 person household, enough to flush the toilet twice. The amount should be compared to the average household consumption of45 - 60,000 litres in the predominantly white suburbs24.

The growing numbers of golf courses use an average of one million litres of water a day. For example, the Pecanwood Golf Estate near Johannesburg uses the average amount of 1.5 million litres of water a day25. A sight visit in 2009 confirmed that some of the Pecanwood workers, who live in a nearby informal settlement, have to walk 5 km to buy water at R3 for 20 litres. The township residents with pre-paid water meters are fortunate by comparison. 

Linking justice and sustainability would involve a higher free component funded through a sharply rising block tariff - in other words, a much higher level of cross-subsidisation from the wealthy to the poor.

Energy

In South Africa almost a quarter of households lack adequate access to electricity, either due to the lack of infrastructure or unaffordable pre-paid meters. They have to rely on dangerous paraffin stoves and candles, or the time consuming collection of firewood. The outcome is shack fires that sweep through informal settlements in South Africa almost every weekend. These are fires in which the poorest of the poor lose all their possessions and sometimes even their lives.

Justice demands the provision of affordable energy for all. Instead, the post-apartheid state is prioritising corporate interests: thus the revelation the parastatal, Eskom, has been supplying electricity to multinationals such as BHP Billiton at 12c a kilowatt hour - below the cost of electricity production. Meanwhile, the free allowance of 70 kilowatt hours per household per month is grossly inadequate. Linking justice and sustainability demands that energy takes the form of not only affordable but clean and safe energy - which means renewable energy.

Access to both energy and water should involve linking sustainability and justice. The problem is the logic of commodification in the form of the cost recovery policies that constitute the foundation of neo-liberal capitalism. The outcome for the poor is deprivation either in the form of the harsh restrictions imposed by pre-paid meters or the service disconnections for the many households that have fallen into arrears. 

Conclusion

We are living in a period when our relationship to nature is being dramatically transformed through this process of commodification. More and more of nature is being framed in terms of exchange value and mediated through the market. According to Burawoy this commodification of nature is the “central feature” of the contemporary period of “third wave marketisation” or neo-liberal capitalism26.

The outcome is a world in which billions are chronically malnourished, lacking access to clean water and electricity. This is surely not a world we want to sustain. For all these reasons, Joel Kovel prefers the term sufficiency.

Sufficiency makes more sense, building a world where nobody is hungry or cold or lacks health care or succor in old age... Sufficiency is a better term than... sustainability, as the latter leaves ambiguous the question of whether what is to be sustained is the existing system or not.27”

The threat of ecological collapse means that there is an urgent need for debate and, at least, a questioning of the appropriation of the sustainability discourse by capital, as well as the economistic bias which ignores how the emphasis on growth furthers negative distributional and environmental impacts. This involves challenging what Jane Goodall has termed the ‘dark forces’, particularly the vested interests involved in the fossil fuel industry28.

The paradigmatic ‘dark force’ at the moment is BP. This is what the ‘prince of darkness’, the CEO of BP, had to say recently about the transition to a low carbon economy:

“.we have before us a period of economic transition as great as, if not greater than, the Industrial Revolution”29.

Our survival depends on how we act now.

Sustainable development is a technique used by the elite to promote their own interests and further harm the ocean

Steinberg, Professor of Political Geography, 99

[Philip, August 1999, “Navigating to Multiple Horizons: Toward a Geography of Ocean-Space,” The Professional Geographer, Volume: 51 Issue 3, page 370-371, BS]

Much of the analytical geographic research on the sea specifically concerns the human-environment interface. This includes both research on the impact of human intervention on the physical environment (e.g. the impact of overfishing on a certain fish population) and research on the impact of physical phenomena on a social activity (e.g. the impact ofshoreline geomorphology on a place’s attractiveness as a port or tourism destination). This tendency for environmental research is not surprising, considering that human interactions with the sea invariably involve attempts to subdue the inhospitable aspects of its nature and gain proceeds from its beneficial aspects. As humans and the marine environment interact, the nature of the sea not only limits (and attracts) human intervention, but is itself transformed. This continuing (and ever intensifying) process of human-environment interactions presents a plethora of opportunities for scholars wishing to interpret and/or regulate the nature-society relationship.

Human-environment interactions in ocean- space are particularly intense in coastal waters, areas that are adjacent to inhabited terrestrial space and that tend to be exceptionally rich in living and non-living resources (Viles and Spencer 1995). Thus, a large portion of the applied marine research of the past decades, both within and outside of geography, has specifically concerned coastal zone management (Salm and Clark 1984; Sorenson and McCreary 1990; Beatley et al. 1994; Clark 1998). In her article in this focus section, Nichols analyzes the latest trend in coastal zone policy and planning, Integrated Coastal Management. Like Trist in her study of Caribbean tourism, Nichols utilizes (and contributes to) insights from political ecology and discourse analysis as she interprets the strategies and mechanisms by which politically powerful interest groups use the language of environmentalism, sustainability, integration, and participation to implement a management system that systematically disenfranchises indigenous users of coastal zone resources. Nichols’ concern with marine resource management conflicts amidst the commercialization and development of ocean-space reflects a broader trend within the marine geography subdiscipline, represented by papers delivered at a series of recent AAG annual meeting sessions co-sponsored by the Coastal and Marine, Political, and Socialist Geography Specialty Groups on the political economy ofmarine space and the political ecology of marine resources (Nichols 1997, 1998; Trist 1997, 1998; Walker 1997, 1998; Davis 1998; Foran 1998; Glaesel 1998; Mansfield 1998; see also St. Martin 1997; Thor- burn 1997; Leddy 1998).

The movement for studying human interactions with the marine environment has been accelerated by the realization that, like the rest of the planet, the world-ocean is not endlessly resilient. The social mandate of continual economic growth (or “development”) may not be compatible with the goal of environmental preservation. To this end, Agenda 21, the document that emerged from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, devotes a chapter specifically to the sustainable development of the oceans. In his contribution to this focus section, Vallega considers the world-ocean as a site of global policymaking, as he discusses the International Geographical Union’s attempt to implement a scientific infrastructure for marine development within environmental limits. While Vallega’s interpretation of the global movement for “sustainable development” differs sharply from Nichols’, both authors’ articles fall within the broad field of environment-development studies, a major research subfield within geography as a whole and one that analyzes processes and conflicts both on land and at sea.

As the various uses of the sea—notably fishing, mineral extraction, recreation, and transportation—intensify, they are also extensifying. This has led to a situation in which marine development planners are attempting to regulate portions of the sea ever distant from the coast (Zacher and McConnell 1990; Ball 1996). Amidst this increase in interaction between society and the sea, the capacity of humans to transform the physical geography of ocean- space has grown, and so the negative impacts of both landward and seaward activities on the marine environment have attracted consider-able attention in the popular media (Carson 1951; Earle 1995; Berrill 1997; Safina 1998). In this focus section, Dow integrates this concern regarding marine pollution with the geographic tradition of risk and hazard analysis (Burton et al. 1993; Cutter 1994; Kasperson et al. 1995), including marine and coastal hazards (Finkl 1994; Argent and O’Riordan 1995). Dow uses this perspective to examine marine pollution risk in the context of global environmental change.

 

 

The Transition to Green Energy is Both Unfeasible and Just Reentrenches Green Capitalism

Harris, Professor of History, 2011

Jerry, 01-01-11, Brill Publishing, “Going Green to Stay in the Black: Transnational Capitalism and Renewable Energy”, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d05a9f02-57a8-4c1e-884d-f17c672c9a2a%40sessionmgr114&vid=10&hid=126, 07-09-14, TCT]

 

But significant restraints exist. With short-term focus among neo-liberal speculators, feeble efforts of neo-Keynesian reformers and sabotage by fossil fuel lobbyists the capitalist system may be unable to respond within the limits of ecological time. Chained to the constraints of its economic dogma, impor- tant sectors of the capitalist class are unable to react with long-term planning and the investments needed to build a sustainable economy. A few examples tell the story. Out of a total of 2,810 climate-change lobbyists in Washington, only 138 support renewable energy (Goodell 2010). And from the total of $250-$300 billion in global energy subsidies, $200 billion go to fossil fuels and only $16 billion for renewables (United Nations Environment Programme 2008). It is clear that neither the neo-liberal nor neo-Keynesian wing of the transnational capitalist class can meet the challenge. What needs to emerge is a new green hegemonic bloc providing political leadership with a dominant culture and ideology. Such a change is possible, but even so green capitalism faces another set of historic problems.

Renewable energy fuels capitalist development

Harris, Professor of History, 2011

Jerry, 01-01-11, Brill Publishing, “Going Green to Stay in the Black: Transnational Capitalism and Renewable Energy”, http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=d05a9f02-57a8-4c1e-884d-f17c672c9a2a%40sessionmgr114&vid=10&hid=126, 07-12-14, TCT]

 

Is the future of capitalism green? And will the country that leads in green technology dominate the global economy?  That is certainly the outlook of important sectors of the capitalist class, both among long established corporations as well as new entrepreneurs. But the green economy, particularly the energy sector, is already taking a globalized path of development under the control of the transnational capitalist class (TCC). While innovative corporations may emerge as dominant players, it will be as transnational corporations (TNS), not as national champions of nation-states.

In the U.S. the green revolution is promoted as the way to maintain world economic supremacy. In President Obama’s state of the union speech he said, “the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.” (1) Environmentalist Hunter Lovins calls on the U.S. to lead the world in green innovation because

“they’ll rule the world, economically, politically, and probably militarily.” (2) Thomas Friedman wraps green technology in red, white and blue calling it the new currency of power. “It’s all about national power…what could be more patriotic, capitalistic and geostrategic than that?” (3).

But these dreams of national greatest are already outdated. Green energy can indeed extend the life of capitalism, but not within the confines of nation-centric logic and power. Major wind and solar corporations already operate on a global scale, with innovations and research ongoing in Europe, India, Japan, China and the U.S. Furthermore, the scale of the environmental crisis is beyond any one country to solve. It calls for a global response and advanced sectors of the TCC understand these world dimensions.

The environmental crisis actually offers an opportunity for capitalism to begin a new cycle of accumulation. A way to end the repeating failures of financial speculation with a renewal of productive capital. As Muller and Passadakis explain, “the point about the ecological crisis…is that it is neither solved nor ignored in a green capitalist regime, but rather placed at the heart of its growth strategy.”(4) By creating  new systems of energy, transportation, architectural design  and reengineering productive processes, capitalism can greatly reduce its abuse of the environment. This would free capital from environmentally harmful industries for new areas of investment and create profitable opportunities in dynamic new markets. Such a strategic shift will not only solve the current crisis but legitimize a new political regime and lay the foundation for a hegemonic bloc with a global social base. Nonetheless, this transformation will not solve the contradiction between capital and labor, and the TCC may lack the political resolve to move fast and far enough to avoid major environmental disasters. But if the transformation does occur over the coming decades, it may solve the most pressing problems between finite environmental resources and the need of capitalism to grow and profit.

 

EDIT: yeah the formatting got all weird, but this is all openev stuff, so you get the gist

Okay, so do you suggest Cap over Heidegger or Anthro on OTEC? I was thinking of running anthro because that also rc's warming because they explicitly state its anthroprogenic. So if we maybe cared even a little about the non-human others then maybe we would not have abused the environment as we have so vigorously..

 

Also what about MHK (Wave Power) would that fall on the same line of Cap K area?

 

Also, what about Luke K's on that - ecomanagerialism and what not. 

 

And any suggestions on NOPP? We ran security but would there be anything better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so do you suggest Cap over Heidegger or Anthro on OTEC? I was thinking of running anthro because that also rc's warming because they explicitly state its anthroprogenic. So if we maybe cared even a little about the non-human others then maybe we would not have abused the environment as we have so vigorously..

 

Also what about MHK (Wave Power) would that fall on the same line of Cap K area?

 

Also, what about Luke K's on that - ecomanagerialism and what not. 

 

And any suggestions on NOPP? We ran security but would there be anything better?

Anthropogenic≠anthropocentric

 

As far as your other questions, it's really just a question of what you feel most comfortable with.  Cap works on everything, Luke/Heidegger works on everything, Security works with everything.  So just run what you feel most comfortable debating rather than going outside of your comfort zone for no reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a question of me going out of my comfort zone, it is rather me learning something that is outside of my circuits comfort zone. The only K I have heard this year is Cap, and one time Colonialism w/ generic link and they had no clue how to articulate it, and honestly its just boring. I want to read a Non-generic K but I'm Cutting/Saving Foucault for next year. We have only dropped once on a K when we have gone for it, and then it was 2-1 on panel. 

 

And I didn't mean anthroprogenic=anthropocentric. I know the difference, I was just saying the aff relayed that humans caused environmental degredation while trying to solve with a plan that does not adress the rc of environmental destruction so it will never gain long term solvency because we will not effectively change the way we treat the world, we will only try to make up for our mistaken abuse of the environment. That means alt controls rc. 

 

Granted, I am likely wrong that's the argument we made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against SSD, T Oceans=/= Seabed and some form of T-development is good

Also, there are a litany of CP's that solve the aff, the best one of which is probably the "put it in shale CP," and you can run either Bio-D or London Protocol DA as a net-ben

For a good turn to the native waste, there's some good lit about how waste disposal would boost the nuke power industry, and then you can read cards about how mining uranium and other nuclear activities happen on native land, which turns colonialism

Also obama killed Yucca, so make them isolate a specific instance where NUCLEAR waste gets dumped on native land

Anthro would also be good here if you could win a link to BioD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is SSD?

Sub Seabed Disposal.  It's literally just burying nuclear waste under the ocean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when is burying nuclear waste in the ocean a good idea? Like doesn't that kill fish, and whales, and other underwater stuff that are key to preventing extinction :o.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when is burying nuclear waste in the ocean a good idea? Like doesn't that kill fish, and whales, and other underwater stuff that are key to preventing extinction :o.

Don't worry they drill holes 50 miles into the seabed first and dump it there. All environmental precautions are taken. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now when is burying nuclear waste in the ocean a good idea? Like doesn't that kill fish, and whales, and other underwater stuff that are key to preventing extinction :o.

I still can't tell if you're being serious....

 

 

Don't worry they drill holes 50 miles into the seabed first and dump it there. All environmental precautions are taken. 

 

More like 10-50 meters, but who needs to read the literature, when we can all just criticize it and make fun of the idea when we know next to nothing about it!

Edited by feldsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't tell if you're being serious....

 

 
 

More like 10-50 meters, but who needs to read the literature, when we can all just criticize it and make fun of the idea when we know next to nothing about it!

Yo, when we hit it, that's what they said when asked in cx..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kyler - Just go 1 off bifo

 

and for lay judges go 1 off baudrillard

 

JK, but for NOPP I got a good vagueness file for that

 

Also I cut that SSD aff for all my novice so...

Edited by MrFudgeFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×