The Aff was a plan to study carbon sequestration with an environment advantage. The Neg went for midterms with science diplomacy as an impact.
I voted Neg. I thought that the DA was weak, but the solvency argument that Aff read against themselves was quite problematic. Absent that argument, a pretty easy Aff win.
In the 2AC, in response to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) counterplan, the Aff argued three things that got them into trouble(a) an EIS is an inherent part of the plan, (b) EIS takes 2-3 years, and, (c) delay kills solvency.
These are the three cards that the 2AC read and the tags.
* And the aff is the EIS
Bracmort and Lattanzio 13 (Kelsi Bracmort – Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy and Richard K. Lattanzio – Analyst in Environmental Policy, “Geoengineering: Governance and Technology Policy,” 26 November 2013, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41371.pdf//AL)
/As a new and emerging set of technologies potentially able to address climate change, geoengineering possesses many risk factors that must be taken into policy considerations. From a research perspective, the risk of geoengineering activities most often rests in the uncertainties of the new technology (i.e., the risk of failure, accident, or unintended consequences). However, many observers believe that the greater risk in geoengineering activities may lie in the social, ethical, legal, and political uncertainties associated with deployment. Given these risks, there is an argument that appropriate mechanisms for government oversight should be established before the federal government and its agencies take steps to promote geoengineering technologies and before new geoengineering projects are commenced. Yet, the uncertainty behind the technologies makes it unclear which methods, if any, may ever mature to the point of being deemed sufficiently effective, affordable, safe, and timely as to warrant potential deployment.13 Some of the more significant risks factors associated with geoengineering are as follows:14¶ • Technology Control Dilemma. An analytical impasse inherent in all emerging technologies is that potential risks may be foreseen in the design phase but can only be proven and resolved through actual research, development, and demonstration. Ideally, appropriate safeguards are put in place during the early stages of conceptualization and development, but anticipating the evolution of a new technology can be difficult. By the time a technology is widely deployed, it may be impossible to build desirable oversight and risk management provisions without major disruptions to established interests. Flexibility is often required to both support investigative research and constrain potentially harmful deployment.¶ • Reversibility. Risk mitigation relies on the ability to cease a technology program and terminate its adverse effects in a short period of time. In principle, all geoengineering options could be abandoned on short notice, with either an instant cessation of direct climate effects or a small time lag after abandonment. However, the issue of reversibility applies to more than just the technologies themselves. Given the importance of internal adjustments and feedbacks in the climate system—still imperfectly understood—it is unlikely that all secondary effects from large-scale deployment would end immediately. Also, choices made regarding geoengineering methods may influence other social, economic, and technological choices regarding climate science. Advancing geoengineering options in lieu of effectively mitigating GHG emissions, for example, could result in a number of adverse effects, including ocean acidification, stresses on biodiversity, climate sensitivity shocks, and other irreversible consequences. Further, investing financially in the physical infrastructure to support geoengineering may create a strong economic resistance to reversing research and deployment activities.¶ • Encapsulation. Risk mitigation also relies on whether a technology program is modular and contained or whether it involves the release of materials into the wider environment. The issue can be framed in the context of pollution (i.e., encapsulated technologies are often viewed as more “ethical” in that they are seen as non-polluting). Several geoengineering technologies are demonstrably non-encapsulated, and their release and deployment into the wider environment may lead to technical uncertainties, impacts on non-participants, and complex policy choices. But encapsulated technologies may still have localized environmental impacts, depending on the nature, size, and location of the application. The need for regulatory action may arise as much from the indirect impacts of activities on agro-forestry, species, and habitat as from the direct impacts of released materials in atmospheric or oceanic ecosystems.¶ • Commercial Involvement. The role of private-sector engagement in the development and promotion of geoengineering may be debated. Commercial involvement, including competition, may be positive in that it mobilizes innovation and capital investment, which could lead to the development of more effective and less costly technologies at a faster rate than in the public sector. However, commercial involvement could bypass or neglect social, economic, and environmental risk assessments in favor of what one commentator refers to as “irresponsible entrepreneurial behavior.”15 Private-sector engagement would likely require some form of public subsidies or GHG emission pricing to encourage investment, as well as additional considerations including ownership models, intellectual property rights, and trade and transfer mechanisms for the dissemination of the technologies. Public Engagement. The consequences of geoengineering—including both benefits and risks discussed above—could affect people and communities across the world. Public attitudes toward geoengineering, and public engagement in the formation, development, and execution of proposed governance, could have a critical bearing on the future of the technologies. Perceptions of risks, levels of trust, transparency of actions, provisions for liabilities and compensation, and economies of investment could play a significant role in the political feasibility of geoengineering. Public acceptance may require a wider dialogue between scientists, policymakers, and the public.
*CP causes delays
Dill 5 – PhD in Urban Studies
Jennifer, “What Influences the Length of Time to Complete NEPA Reviews? An Examination of Highway Projects in Oregon and the Potential for Streamlining,” http://dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/desenviron/assets/pdf/resources/nepareviewtime.pdf
How long does the environmental review process take? The Louis Berger Group sampled 100 EISs from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, to help FHWA obtain a baseline for measuring performance (2). They estimated the length of time taken to complete the NEPA process based on the information in the EIS. The end date was the date on the final EIS. The start date varied. In Phase II of the project, the Louis Berger Group collected data on 244 projects from 1995 to 2001 and calculated the length of the NEPA process using the Notice of Intent (NOI) as the start date and the Record of Decision (ROD) as the end date. In addition, for the past five years, FHWA has tracked the length of time to complete the NEPA process, also using the NOI and ROD dates (7). The data from these three sources is shown in FIGURE 1. The two studies by the Louis Berger Group noted that the time to complete NEPA was not normally distributed, and that a handful of very lengthy projects often skewed the data. In such cases, the median may be a better indication of central tendency. For example, the median time to complete NEPA for the projects from the 1970s through 1990s was 3.0 years, compared to a mean of 3.6 years for all three decades. FIGURE 2 shows the medians from the same three data sources. In addition, in 1994 the General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed 76 projects with EISs completed between 1988 and 1993 (5). The average time from NOI to ROD was about 4.5 years.
This figure is consistent with the Berger Group data. At the request of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in 2003 TransTech Management, Inc. surveyed 31 state departments of transportation about their most recent final EIS document (8). They found a median time taken from NOI to ROD of 3.7 years, ranging from just over two years to almost 12 years. The difference from the FHWA/Berger Group data was not explained
*Immediacy is key
Caldeira & Keith 13 (Ken Caldeira ([email protected]) is a senior scientist in the Department of Global Ecology at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California. David W. Keith ([email protected]) is director of the Energy and Environmental Systems Group at the Institute for Sustainable Energy. “The Need for Climate Engineering Research,” November 27, 2013, http://issues.org/27-1/caldeira/)
Like it or not, a climate emergency is a possibility, and geoengineering could be the only affordable and fast-acting option to avoid a global catastrophe. Climate change triggered by the accumulation of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere has the potential of causing serious and lasting damage to human and natural systems. At today’s atmospheric concentrations, the risk of catastrophic damage is slight—though not zero. The risk will probably rise in coming years if atmospheric concentrations continue to increase. Although not everyone agrees with this assessment, it is supported by the bulk of the scientific evidence. For the moment, the United States and other nations are trying to address this risk by controlling emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, with mixed success at best. The time may well come, however, when nations judge the risk of climate change to be sufficiently large and immediate that they must “do something” to prevent further warming. But since “doing something” will probably involve intervening in Earth’s climate system on a grand scale, the potential for doing harm is great. The United States needs to mount a coordinated research program to study various options for mitigating climate change in order to ensure that damaging options are not deployed in haste. The United Kingdom and Germany have initiated research programs on such climate intervention technologies, and many U.S. scientists are already engaged in this topic, funded by a hodgepodge of private funds and the redirection of federal research grants. Some senior managers at federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration would like to initiate research funding, but they cannot act without political cover, given the understandably controversial nature of the technology. Given the rapid pace at which the research debate about governance is moving in the United States and abroad, delay in establishing a federal program will make it progressively harder for the U.S. government to guide these efforts in the public interest. There is, therefore, a need to establish a coordinated program with deliberate speed. Making an objective analysis of the economics of CDR systems is one area where cross-cutting research is needed. Of course, it remains critically important that the United States and other nations continue efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Indeed, much deeper cuts are needed. Reducing emissions will require, first and foremost, the development and deployment of low-carbon–emission energy systems. But even with improved technology, reducing emissions might not be enough to sufficiently reduce the risk of climate change. Scientists have identified a range of engineering options, collectively called geoengineering, to address the control of greenhouse gases and reduce the risks of climate change.
The Neg conceded all of these arguments and said the Aff couldn’t solve, at least not for a long time.
1AR tries to back-track on the claim that the “Aff is the EIS”, arguing that an EIS being part of the plan is “implicit,” but it’s still a part of the plan. 2AR makes a new argument that it’s not the Aff – the Aff is different/never been done before – but this is a brand new argument and it contradicts the 2AC argument. And, the 1AR argument contracts the 2AC argument as I understood it in the 2AC AND as tagged in the speech doc.
It is the case, as the 2AR points out, that the Aff can solve in 3-5 years (the time frame identified in their delay card), but this is a long time.
Anyhow, I think the Aff can otherwise solve, but it will take a very long time.
On to evaluating the DA.
Uniqueness – it’s obviously difficult to definitively conclude that Dems or Reps will win control now for sure…Neg certainly wins the have a chance to win now and there are no link turns.
The Link – Aff minimizes the link – it’s just one (“smaller”) policy, but Neg wins any unpopular policy gets pegged on Dems and the policy is unpopular….Really, Aff has no strategy than to reduce the SIZE of the link (which is ok), but my point is more that there is some chance of the link. There is a link, not a large one, but a link.
The Impact – Neg argues that science diplomacy is needed to solve multiple environmental problems and some security issues.
*Extinction is inevitable without scientific exchange – and it’s key to solving all other impacts
Sackett 10– former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in theoretical physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU) Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories (2002 – 07) [August 10, 2010, Penny Sackett, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,” published in the Forum for Australian-European Science and Technology cooperation magazine, http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2010/08/science-diplomacy-collaboration-for-solutions/]Imagine for a moment that the globe is inhabited by a single individual who roams free across outback plains, through rainforests, across pure white beaches — living off the resources available. Picture the immensity of the world surrounding this one person and ask yourself, what possible impact could this single person have on the planet? Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7 billion people inhabit the planet and this number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year. That’s about 2 more mouths to feed every second. Dothese7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, willcertainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to natural ecosystems.Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true.A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants.Wicked problems such as climate change, over-population, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide collaborationto find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are required between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends mother tongue and borders.For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices.Furthermore, given the long-established global trade of scientific information and results, many important international links are already in place at a scientific level.These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when supported at a political level, can provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security. Many countries have recognised the value of science diplomacy.
*Increasing scientific efforts are key – Science diplomacy solves all impacts
Federoff 08 – professor of biology at Penn State University known for her research on biology and life sciences. president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (April 2008. “International Science and Technology Cooperation: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education.” Committee on Science and Technology. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm) mj
Chairman Baird. Ranking Member Ehlers. and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. thank you for this opportunity to discuss science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science and technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of “soft power”–part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal–and a basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy is a central element of the Secretary’s transformational diplomacy initiative. because science and technology are essential to achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and enormous influence on national and global economies. and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation states. nongovernmental organizations. and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and physical capital in science. technology. and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic prosperity. some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order. and influence our social institutions and principles. America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge. and leading the way internationally through science diplomacy and engagement.The Public Diplomacy Role of Science Science by its nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships. embodies powerful ideals. and creates opportunities for all. The global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency. meritocracy. accountability. the objective evaluation of evidence. and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently democratic. respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language. able to bridge deep political and religious divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding. As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system. members of ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century.Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation. or fail to provide economic opportunity. are susceptible to extremist ideologies. autocratic rule. and abuses of human rights. As well. the world faces common threats. among them climate change. energy and water shortages. public health emergencies. environmental degradation. poverty. food insecurity. and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States. both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries. becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation. common standards. and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector. in the U.S. and abroad among our allies. to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. There are also important challenges to the ability of states to supply their populations with sufficient food. The still-growing human population. rising affluence in emerging economies. and other factors have combined to create unprecedented pressures on global prices of staples such as edible oils and grains. Encouraging and promoting the use of contemporary molecular techniques in crop improvement is an essential goal for U.S. science diplomacy. An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally. the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed `brain drain.’ Through cooperative threat reduction activities. former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful. collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition. new global efforts focus on improving biological. chemical. and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security. increase global partnerships. and create sustainability.
Why do I think this outweighs the case.
(a) Democratic victor now, which results in science diplomacy, can solve many environmental impacts. 2AR gives a persuasive “must protect the environment because the loss of any species” can kill us all speech. The plan can’t solve for 3-5 years. The status quo (Democratic control, science diplomacy) can probably work now.
(b) The it’s environment plus security issues
IL – 2AR challenges the IL that Neg ev says “scientists” not “science diplomacy,” but Neg ev does say that more scientists in the US boost science diplomacy (and I think this was new in the 2AR)
Immigration reform is key to science diplomacy
Turekian 12 – The Morning After Grand Challenges, Science Diplomacy, and the 2012 Election By Vaughan C. Turekian – 09.17.2012ABOUT THE AUTHOR Vaughan C. Turekian is the editor-in-chief of Science & Diplomacy. (http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/editorial/2012/morning-after)CM
Scientific discovery and innovation generate products, increase efficiency, and produce other positive outcomes that are central to any nation’s long-term economic health and vitality. Such benefits depend on a nation’s ability to both attract and access the best talent and ideas. While the global competition for the top brains is intensifying, the United States remains the major attractor and producer of the best talent. But this lead is threatened. Over the past two decades the U.S. share of global research and development funding has dropped as more countries (especially those that are rapidly emerging as industrial competitors) are increasing those funds. At the same time, countries are working to compete for top talent within their borders and abroad by investing in university facilities and increasing outreach overseas. The new administration will need to work with the next Congress to take the steps necessary to attract the best global talent. Designing and implementing an immigration policythatwill attract and retain top scientists and engineers will go a long way to meeting the objective. But further steps will also be needed. Continued funding of basic research opportunities will help the nation’s research institutions serve as magnets for the world’s best minds. The United States also needs policies that encourage the free market of ideas and the efficient translation of research from lab bench to market. It is not enough to just attract the best talent to the United States, however; the country needs to develop strategies to increase its access to the best ideas germinating outside its borders. A more coherent strategy for international science engagement will be criticalto fostering both of these goals and encouraging innovations needed to jump-start the economy.
Lifting H1-B visa cap increases science diplomacy:
Pickering et al, 10(THOMAS R. president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science “Science diplomacy aids conflict reduction” http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/20/science-diplomacy-aids-conflict-reduction/)
The U.S. government already has 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements with nations worldwide, and the administration of President Barack Obama is elevating the profile of science engagement. In June, in Cairo , he promised a range of joint science and technology initiatives with Muslim-majority countries. In November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. In addition to providing resources, the government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for foreign doctors, scientists and engineers. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities make critical contributions to human welfare and to our economy, and they often become informal goodwill ambassadors for America overseas.