College Policy Debate Forums
November 18, 2017, 07:44:15 AM *
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 23954 times)
Paul Elliott Johnson
Full Member
***
Posts: 134


« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2012, 08:53:06 AM »

I FRACK YOUR MILKSHAKE
Logged
tcram
Full Member
***
Posts: 165


« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2012, 09:21:45 AM »

-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.

Just to be clear, Professor, I didn't read the paper as trying to advocate for a limited mandate mechanism, but was trying to get people who asserted 'mandating production is easy' in this thread to clarify.  I don't fear the 'rewrite a line of tax code and slap a -for the purposes of production- qualifier' genre of small affs very much.  I just wanted to get out in front and try to clarify the discussion so that we appreciate the dangers of distorting the assumptions of energy policy literature in our race to put a limit on a topic.  Still wondering about some of my other questions tho.

And PJ, I hope you'll disclose the materials you used to frack my milkshake, proprietary or not. Or, there will be blood....
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2012, 09:56:11 AM »

the more I think on it Trcram, the more I think the following:

1) It may not be necessary to specify use in transportation/electricity generation.  Those really are the only areas where fossil fuels, or really fuels of any kind (whether traditional or alternative) are used with any significance.  I just worried about poeple doing some sort of geothermal heat pump, residential stoves, type of stuff that would dodge the core debate.  I cosnider ti morally reprehesible to didge the core issues on any given topic.

2) The question the debate community will need to decide is whether they want  a topic that allows aff's to pick between increased energy production in the form of alternatives or fossil fuels.  I think it could be interesting to force people into some of the permitting and environmental issues surrounding oil permitting int he GOM and other areas, as well into the developing state and federal regulatory burdens being put on fracking, etc.  That said, much like the old health care topics I think one side of the policy debate becomes good CP ground for the other because there really are some forced choices. In any case, i do not think the Uniqueness of the impacts on fracking are in trouble either direction, as the regulatory climate is apishly changing and evolving.
Logged
ana.nikolic
Newbie
*
Posts: 3


« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2012, 10:41:54 AM »


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!

To answer to your questions:
1) The intent of qualifying a specified theater of use was to limit the affs to energy sources used within the transportation and electricity generation sector. I understand your concern with the way the sample resolution was worded that it could be taken to mean "only increase drilling if its for transportation," because you are correct that you couldn't really lease land with a condition that 100% of the oil be directed to transportation sector.   I agree with your statement that specifying the end market for the energy use section of the topic does make sense, while it doesn't for production.  One remedy to this problem is the suggestion to list energy sources rather then the sectors in the resolution.

2) The Institute for Energy Research evidence that answers the ramp up in domestic production indicates that in reality, domestic production is not exactly "booming" -- in 2011 we only produced .3 million barrels then in 2009 (this figure includes production on private lands). Additionally - there are cards in the AT: Domestic topics are ruined by the states counter plan section about the role federal lands play in leasing policy.  The full Institute for Energy Research report (available here http://energyforamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Energy-InventoryFINAL.pdf) notes that important sources of oil are located on federally controlled lands, such as the Outer Continental Shelf and Alaska, where production can't occur without a federal lease.  Additionally, Oil Shale deposits in the west are located onshore on federal lands that are also not being leased.

Hope this answers your questions.  And I'd be happy to answer any more.  

Ana
« Last Edit: April 25, 2012, 10:57:41 AM by ana.nikolic » Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2012, 11:35:25 AM »


 

Hope this answers your questions.  And I'd be happy to answer any more.  

Ana

But I need you to be doing my paid work in order to free me up to answer questions online about your energy paper, Ana.  it makes me feel young and relevant.
Logged
joe
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 73


« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2012, 01:04:43 PM »

I cosnider ti morally reprehesible to didge the core issues on any given topic.


 Shocked
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2012, 01:22:10 PM »

I cosnider ti morally reprehesible to didge the core issues on any given topic.


 Shocked

Evidently, I could not even type the sentence in without my fingers engaging in a revolution.
Logged
Brad Hall
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2012, 02:04:27 PM »

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.



CP: no fracking
Logged
Brad Hall
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2012, 02:05:31 PM »

This graph may be helpful when comparing different energy sources and sectoral use:

Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2012, 02:35:06 PM »

 

[/quote]

CP: no fracking
[/quote]

What is the net benefit?  Whatever it is, the turns are better.  No fracking=more coal mining and use, more petroleum drilling and use, longer transition to alternatives, etc. Hell, even the politics is counter-intuitive because greens support increased NG usage.
Logged
Brad Hall
Newbie
*
Posts: 18


« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2012, 02:38:04 PM »

I was merely pointing out that the aff (when faced with such a CP) would have to actually defend fracking and can't just fall back on "not our fracking". However, "not our Zizek" would still be a legitimate strategy.
Logged
jzhawk
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 52


« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2012, 03:05:19 PM »

I was merely pointing out that the aff (when faced with such a CP) would have to actually defend fracking and can't just fall back on "not our fracking". However, "not our Zizek" would still be a legitimate strategy.

Zizek jokes make me feel so very old, yet also very appreciative that there is someone who would come after me in a school line organized alphabetically.

Logged
kearney
Newbie
*
Posts: 23


« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2012, 04:15:48 PM »

lol "fracking"
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2012, 04:22:33 PM »

CP: no fracking

-- really complicates your politics link
-- really complicates any links to an economic disadvantage.  Depending on aff, possible 2AC disad.  Aff solves frack demand without heavy-handed regulation
-- vulnerable to array of alternate shift DAs / addons since doesn't solve demand
-- unclear if CP can solve if it's a US ban - Canadian fracking shift

I suspect many teams would prefer to just engage impact defense rather than take big risks on link uniqueness.  Very situational, of course.
Logged
psadow
Newbie
*
Posts: 15


« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2012, 04:35:20 PM »

No fracking=longer transition to alternatives, etc.

I'm with you on the other two but... huh? How would not fracking make alt energy take longer?

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!