College Policy Debate Forums
November 19, 2017, 11:50:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Energy Topic - Testing The Waters  (Read 23986 times)
lgarrett
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2012, 01:27:43 PM »

How do you judge the intent of a policy? Would the AFF stipulate things like taxes and incentives and tack on "for the purpose of increasing nuclear energy production" and then be topical?
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2012, 01:30:36 PM »

haven't read all of the paper yet, but the aff can definitely require increases in domestic energy production.  one mechanism that probably wouldn't include (as per your T argument) is positive incentives.  They don't mandate an increase in production so would likely not be topical. 
Logged
Paul Elliott Johnson
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2012, 01:45:33 PM »

These arguments, or variants thereof, haven't been that hard to win actually...the last energy topic said "require" I believe, and the result was that some intended to be topical affs (difft versions of cap and trade, CAFE mechs) had to be mangled somewhat via the inclusion of a cap to guarantee the reduction in consumption...which then of course meant the affs didnt exactly reflect the literature base, and changed the game for how they were debated.

#sometimessomangledyougoforthefwordkatthendt
Logged
tcram
Full Member
***
Posts: 165


« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2012, 01:49:28 PM »

I guess I'm having difficulty picturing the policies mechanisms that would REQUIRE MORE production that isn't limited to something like a national fuel portfolio standard that specifies 'x' amount above status quo levels has to be sourced from the US and a specific fuel type.  I can easily picture what mechanisms would look like that would EXPAND private access for domestic fuel development (auctioning leases on currently restricted federal lands being the prime example), but I wonder if either of those are a sufficiently flexible floor for the affirmative that would give sustainable offense to the CP that excludes that portion.  Maybe authors could clarify further.

Two other additional questions I have after a quick read:
1) Is it possible to have a topic that couples 'production' AND a specified theater of use (e.g. transportation or electricity), at least as it concerns oil and gas production?  E&P leases are sold without specifications for where the company can sell their raw product, and I wonder if it makes any sense to craft a topic in a way that seems entirely contrary to how energy markets work.  I can get how the specifying the end-market can make sense for bringing on specific energy-use technologies, but not domestic production in a general sense.

2) While the paper addresses the semi-truth of Obama's claim to have ramped up domestic production by indicating not much of it is on federal lands, why doesn't private/states domestic production devastate IMPACT uniqueness for disadvantages?  You don't have to be from Sublette County or Williston to know domestic production is running away full-bore and we'll deal with regulations once the government catches up.  Is there sufficient literature depth about production on federal lands for a unique discussion that is not undercut by state and private production without leading us into a season of BLM EIS's or generic biodiversity impacts with marginal 'this species is threatened on this federal reserve' internal links?

Energy is cool, and there is a TON of material to digest in this paper, but those are two things that stick out to me right now.  Further light is welcome.  Great job, tho!
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2012, 02:52:26 PM »

I think those are fair concerns TCram, and I would need to think on them a bit.

The problem is that uniqueness problems are dependent on fuel source.  The FG has been making coal and oil E&P and use more difficult and costly, but has been making NG relatively easier.  Both are fossil fuels (although with different environmental footprints).  Seems to me that the best debates are about fuel switching or increasing access to existing fuels related to coal/NG for electricity and oil/NG for transportation.  I think the electricity sector has much better impacts. 

At core, i think the fracking/shale discussion is one that really needs to be explored.  The natural gas debate is genuinely fascinating because it has environmental, economic, social justice and foreign policy implications cutting both directions and really good advocacy work being done on both sides of the debate.
Logged
Mike Davis
Full Member
***
Posts: 237


« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2012, 03:48:17 PM »

I agree that the fracking discussion is certainly timely and important. I also think there is zero chance that affs are going to gravitate towards fracking.

I think those are fair concerns TCram, and I would need to think on them a bit.


At core, i think the fracking/shale discussion is one that really needs to be explored.  The natural gas debate is genuinely fascinating because it has environmental, economic, social justice and foreign policy implications cutting both directions and really good advocacy work being done on both sides of the debate.
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2012, 03:52:40 PM »

I agree that the fracking discussion is certainly timely and important. I also think there is zero chance that affs are going to gravitate towards fracking.
 

Why?  i ask this genuinely as i am a bit out of touch.  Fracking is unquestionably the key to accessing the US NG reserves, and those reserves are the key to displacing coal in the electricity sector and potentially even oil in the transportation sector in the short-term future. Nobody credible thinks you can replace either gasoline or coal in the next 1020 years without access to these reserves, whcih is why even most green groups call for "responsible" development of the reserves rather than non-development.

As one who living squarely in the center of energy policy debates on a daily basis, I do not think it is possible to address any of the big energy issues without discussing natural gas, and, hence, fracking.
Logged
Mike Davis
Full Member
***
Posts: 237


« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2012, 04:01:33 PM »

I could be wrong and it could just be based in where I live, but I don't see affirmatives flocking to fracking with the number of other alternatives that the aff will have. It also seems like the affirmative could pursue policies that avoid fracking in certain areas and still argue they increase domestic production. I would be interested in seeing more pro-fracking literature as most of what I have been able to find on the subject is very anti-fracking especially in certain areas. It seems that the PIC would be a good strategy against fracking, but it also seems that the aff could just start from the ground of only engage in fracking in certain places.

Not a reason against this topic persay, but a reason why I don't think most affs would run tithe fracking debate.
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2012, 04:05:36 PM »

I could be wrong and it could just be based in where I live, but I don't see affirmatives flocking to fracking with the number of other alternatives that the aff will have. It also seems like the affirmative could pursue policies that avoid fracking in certain areas and still argue they increase domestic production. I would be interested in seeing more pro-fracking literature as most of what I have been able to find on the subject is very anti-fracking especially in certain areas. It seems that the PIC would be a good strategy against fracking, but it also seems that the aff could just start from the ground of only engage in fracking in certain places.

Not a reason against this topic persay, but a reason why I don't think most affs would run tithe fracking debate.

Okay,  but I can tell you from my standpoint that I think the pro-fracking literature is really underrated, likely because people haven't really dived in yet.  Incredible impacts,  really good take-outs to the environmental claims, and interesting foreign policy trade angles to be played.  Th greens are dug-in on the issue, and I know that people have visceral intial reaction tot he issue base don their Gasland inspired advocacy, but there is really more there than meets the eye.
Logged
Mike Davis
Full Member
***
Posts: 237


« Reply #24 on: April 24, 2012, 04:10:09 PM »

Can you point us to some of these sources? Like I said - I've done quite a bit reading on fracking and I haven't come across these args.
Logged
Malgor
Full Member
***
Posts: 220


« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2012, 04:13:08 PM »

I bet if you focus you can disagree with both positions more! Dont sell yourself short  Grin


agree energy overall is a sweet topic, though with each passing year solvency gets a little harder to win. 


disagree with the taxes thing as a mechanism to address it. it's a big policy idea but a very small part of energy policy. 

Could not disagree with both of these positions more.

1)  There are great solvency cards being written everyday for a wide range of energy related arguments.  Warming may be getting harder to win from a solvency perspective, but there is such an expanse of arguments beyond warming.  As Ana's topic paper astutely points out, the development of shale gas plays, which has really only occurred int he last couple of years, has fundamentally changed the energy policy discussion.  It is not in the same place it was in two or tree years ago.  New problems and new solutions have been found, and there about a billion great cards on both sides right now.

2)  Taxes are large a part of energy policy. Enormous and central part of the current literature and policy documents.  However, while taxes may be a necessary part of comprehensive energy discussion, they are not sufficient to access the range of issues that are much more regulatory in nature. 

2)
 
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2012, 04:14:56 PM »

I bet if you focus you can disagree with both positions more! Dont sell yourself short  Grin

 

Always sell long on jzhawk, buddy,  I'm gold.
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2012, 04:16:05 PM »

Can you point us to some of these sources? Like I said - I've done quite a bit reading on fracking and I haven't come across these args.

I'll gather some (or rather, have Ana gather some) and have them posted.
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2012, 01:30:23 AM »

Even if fracking good isn't a desirable aff plan, fracking bad is an intuitive aff advantage.  SQ = desperation frack, new non-frack energy source solves.  Georgetown claimed that in a few debates this year, and the internal link was smaller and less intuitive (Libyan oil contracts.)

There will be fracking. 

Whether it's bidirectional or more of an impact v. defense debate is TBA.

Logged
dylanquigley
Newbie
*
Posts: 28


« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2012, 08:30:09 AM »

A few quick comments:
-Garrett's concern is valid but I believe can be addressed without significant problems. This is a problem we've faced plenty in the past and its never seemed to cause much problem. Though when I was a sophomore in high school I did lose to the T/PMN one-two punch since your plan had to being a "policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources."
-In partial response to TCram, Ana and I's intent was to provide for a range of topical mechanisms beyond very limited federal mandates. In the "mainstream options for change" section Ana has done a great job laying out a variety of ways we can increase production/use. While I'm sure that inevitably these will get narrowed a bit and the verb usage will be tweaked by committee like I mentioned above, our goal as outlined in the paper is provide a wide range of affirmative options and I don't think a very limited federal mandate mechanism would be consistent with that.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!