Question:
Hydroelectric dams destroy communities

What applies to the environment, also applies to the human communities. Building dams often involves relocating people and removing them from their ancestral homelands. For example, China’s Three Gorges Dam involved relocating 1.3 million people, [1] involved severe human rights abuses [2] and has had dire social consequences. [3]

[1] CBS News, ‘China Completes Three Gorges Dam’, 2009

[2] International Rivers, Human Rights dammed of at Three Gorges, 2003

[3] New York Times, ‘Chinese Dam Projects Criticized for Their Human Costs’, 2007

Hydroelectric dams don’t destroy communities, governments do. Building dams only violates human rights if the governments building them do so. That’s why we never heard of large-scale human rights violations when the Hoover Dam in the United States was built. Moreover, responsible dam builders in the International Hydropower Association have taken steps to ensure they build dams with the utmost respect for human rights, through the guidelines mentioned above.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent

Transforming entire sectors of the economy and the resulting shifts in patterns of migration, training, employment and resourcing will be both complex and complicated and require a massive logistical effort. Waiting until the world’s grain baskets are already dustbowls or Manhattan is underwater is simply unrealistic.

Instead, nations individually and collectively need to plan and begin to implement the necessary changes now. Even the process of achieving political agreement on some of the likely changes could take decades. 2050 has been widely seen as the date when the ravages of Climate Change will be all too obvious; 30 years is no time at all in diplomatic and industrial terms [i] .

The financial costs of inaction on Climate Change have been estimated at $74tn, however that pails into insignificance with the broader human costs [ii] . Against that the World Bank has estimated that the costs of adaptation at a wildly varying but still relatively modest $4bn - $109bn a year [iii] .

[i] BBC Website. Temperatures could rise by 3C by 2050, models suggest. 25 March 2012. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17488450

[ii] Friends of the Earth. “Climate Change: The Cost of Inaction” 2006. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/econ_costs_cc.pdf

[iii] The World Bank. “The Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change”. http://climatechange.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climate-...

Climate Change, by dint of the complexity of the model, is virtually impossible to plan for. Developing an adaptation regime would simply create an ever-changing model while removing necessary intellectual and economic resources from the prevention regime that is already in place. This would not only mean transferring research resources there is also government and regulatory activity as well as industrial compliance structures and other outlays.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The necessary research alone will take time and should be a priority

There are significant research challenges that need to be addressed in terms of envisaging what an adaptation regime would look like. For example how adaptation would tie into to other types of change – social, economic, demographic, etc. Answering these questions, alone, will take time but are a necessary precursor to building a realistic adaptation routine [i] .

The urgency here comes from the fact that it will take time to establish new systems to work on this at an international level. One of the difficulties demonstrated by the experience of initial studies of climate change was that it needed to be conducted on a global scale, frequently involving complex and expensive modeling systems. There are several backstages to establishing this and the majority of relevant academics are currently working on prevention models rather than designing an entire new framework of prediction.

Developing such frameworks will require the focus of governments, in terms of research funding policies and agreeing enforcement and delivery models.

Given the choice between building a framework that can work and focussing on one that hasn’t, the choice seems to be fairly obvious [ii] .

[i] National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility website. http://www.nccarf.edu.au/

[ii] See also the UN site here

This argument is predicated on the idea that it is possible to build a model that would allow for adaptation. In the light of some of the challenges currently posed by Climate Change that seems improbable. Without a clearer idea of what adaptation would look like or what it could even potentially achieve, making it a priority against something that can be shown to work seems reckless in the extreme.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Prioritising prevention hasn’t worked

It is a demonstrable fact that efforts to reduce carbon emissions haven’t worked. Despite the conferences, the treaties and the pledges; global carbon emissions continue to rise – up 6.7% from 2009 to 2010. [i] The world’s largest economies continue to be the worst offenders and, with the BRIC economies joining their ranks, that look set to continue.

If you’ve been trying something for over 20 years with no notable success, then it seems sensible to try something else.

Added to which, many scientists, such as James Hansen, [ii] believe that a tipping point in the climate and broader ecosystem is imminent – with some suggesting that it has already been passed [iii] . We need to accept that Climate Change is not something that may happen in the future but something that is happening now. Extreme weather events are happening now, glaciers are melting now; the climate is shifting now, as is shown for example by the sea ice levels which in 2012 were at their lowest extent since we started monitoring it, the previous lowest extent was only set in 2007. [iv] Managing that reality to mitigate its impact on humanity and the rest of the ecosystem is the most responsible thing to do [v] .

[i] Rogers, Simon, and Harvey, Fiona, ‘Global carbon emissions rise is far bigger than previous estimates’, guardian.co.uk, 21 June 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/21/global-carbon-emissions-record

[ii] Hansen, James, ‘Tipping point: Perspective of a climatologist. In State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans.’ E. Fearn, Ed. Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press, pp. 6-15. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04310w.html

[iii] Fred Guterl. “Searching for Clues to Calamity”, New York Times. 20 July 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/opinion/the-climate-change-tipping-poi...

[iv] Doyle, Alister, and Chestney, Nina ‘Arctic summer sea ice might thaw by 2015 – or linger for decades’, Reuters, 30 August 2012, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-climate-arctic-idUKBRE87T0LH20120830

[v] UNEP Progress Towards Meeting Internationally Agreed Goals. 2011. http://www.unep.org/pdf/RIO20/progress-internationally-agreed-goals.pdf

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The focus on prevention should not be diluted

It has taken three decades to drag most polluting business and many governments – and some are not yet there – to this stage of accepting that mitigation is necessary. Many remain unwilling to accept reality and are only making those grudging efforts they have undertaken because of the full force of global public opinion and the efforts of some governments and international bodies. Moving that focus simply allows those who weren’t happy about the challenges of carbon reduction to go back to the bad, old days.

Equally it allows industries such as coal off the hook at the very point when the pressure is really starting to count [i] . Some of the myths about clean coal or the supposedly environmental sensitivity of uranium mining are now sinking into the public consciousness – saying ‘let’s do this instead’ would run the risk of a return to business as usual.

[i] Michael McCarthy. UK to push for global Green accounting system. The Independent. 10 February 2012. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/uk-to-press-for-...

The mono-focus on prevention has, effectively, blinded the world’s governments to the real issue – that climate change is happening and will continue to happen. That is a process that will require great adaptation on behalf of everyone. As with any significant change, it needs to be managed. Economies and societies have been dramatically altered in the face of significant changes such as warfare. It’s time to face up to that reality.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Adaptation is likely to hurt poorer nations

Pollution is a global problem, with the greenhouse gas emissions of richer nations impacting on their poorer neighbours. Adaptation would most likely take place on a predominantly national basis, allowing those with the resources – built on their historical use of carbon energy – to find ways to adapt to some of the problems caused by Climate Change, while poorer nations are left without the capacity to do so.

Only a global focus on combating the basic causes of climate change will tackle the problem in a fair and equitable way, as richer nations cut back on their carbon-enriched lifestyles while developments in technologies offer benefits to the world as a whole rather than those who are already carbon rich as a result of geological or historical accident [i] .

[i] See the Jamaica Declaration 1994.

Seeing the fight against Climate Change as some panacea for international inequality has always been a non-starter. The rich nations are simply not going to give up their competitive advantages in terms of production. However, a sensible global response to issues such as the migration likely to result from some of the outcomes of changing climates, might mitigate some of their worse excesses.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Some of the required adaptations are impossible

In some Climate Change scenarios – for example, a diminution of global oxygen output as a result of the effect of desalination resulting from melting polar caps or enforcing reduced consumption of resources through their more equitable distribution – are either impossible in biological or practical terms [i] .

As a result, the only available option is reducing the carbon footprint of humanity as a species. Overwhelmingly, scientists agree that this is the only solution. Adaptation is, in reality, an attempt to hide from ‘an inconvenient truth’. Nobody likes being told that there is simply no way around the problem but that is the reality.

Some adaptations will, no doubt, happen naturally as people adjust but the focus of governments should remain on prevention.

[i] Stephen Leahy. “Climate Change Threatens Crucial Marine Algae”, Inter Press Service. 8 May 2012. http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/climate-change-threatens-crucial-marine-a...

Opposition concedes that adaptations will happen as individuals respond to climate change, it is only fair and sensible that governments should make sure those changes happen in a managed fashion. To take one, small example; the increasing unwillingness of insurers to accept the risks of flooding for homes and businesses in some parts of the world requires a governmental response; many of those who bought homes that may be affected by flooding bought that property before they would have known about climate change.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Increasing oil costs make this the best time to be focussing on alternative energies

The pressure to invest in carbon-light forms of energies is starting to bear fruit as costs of oil make them financially viable. There are still enormous infrastructural costs but allowing carbon energy-based sectors to shift over to either shale gas or oil by taking the focus off prevention will mean that these incredibly polluting fuels are used – as the infrastructure is already in place and it is more financially palatable – rather than keeping up the pressure in favour of carbon reduction, energy efficiency and the growth of renewables. Germany and Denmark have proved that an effective renewables market can be the focus of a mature economy but that only happened with sustained political pressure. Scotland is moving in that direction as are some US states and other nations. Removing that pressure now would be a huge missed opportunity.

Renewables always looked like being ‘too little, too late’ and that now appears to be the case. Carbon based energy sources remain, massively, the major players of global energy production and that looks set to continue to be the case. It is time to take a mature response to that reality and manage the problem rather than pretending that a magical solution is going to be produced in the form of technological breakthroughs in nuclear or other energy technologies.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Other species may allow species other than themselves to die out, but they fail to do this because they act purely based on instinct and their instincts do not dictate to them to save other species. Humans, however, are capable of acting for a far greater number of reasons and after more consideration. For example humans are capable of empathy with other species and understanding that their pain and suffering mirrors our own, and thus that we should prevent it on moral grounds. What makes humans special is that they are more thoughtful than any other animal, and thus the moral standards for our behaviour are much higher.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Cap and Trade is More Economical Than a Carbon Tax

"The efficiency [of a cap-and-trade system] comes with the "trade" part. Let's say you have two power plants, each emitting 100 tons of carbon per hour. The first can reduce its emissions by 20 tons at a cost of $5 per ton, and the second can reduce its emissions by only 10 tons, at a cost of $30 per ton. Clearly the efficient thing to do is to make the former reduction rather than the latter, with the owner of the second plant paying the owner of the first plant to offset the first owner's extra costs [by buying carbon credits and the "right" to pollute from the first plant]." [1]

This technique allows effective emissions reductions to occur at the lowest cost. Hence as this is less disruptive to business they are more likely to be on board and not try to get around a cap and trade system using accounting methods in the same way that they might with a tax.

A cap-and-trade system is more flexible in the global economy. Nations that adopt a cap-and-trade system can later link that system into other cap-and-trade systems around the world. It would not be as easy for a carbon tax to achieve this. This is important in today's global economy, where multinational companies exist across borders.

As such cap-and-trade is the most viable solution that if implemented could lead to a long term solution and agreement between countries regarding reductions in emissions. [2]

[1] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/04/19/why-a-cap-and-trade-system-beats-a-carbon-tax

[2] Nast Conde, “Why a Cap-And Trade System Beats a Carbon Tax.” Portfolio.com 19/04/2007 http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2007/04/19/why-a-cap-and-trade-system-beats-a-carbon-tax

The costs of establishing and administering a cap-and-trade system could be substantial. It demands that a cap be set, monitored, and enforced. This is a highly complicated process, given the size of the energy market, and would demand substantial administrative oversight. Further, should the monitoring not be perfect, given the size and power of the firms involved, it is likely that they will be able to find loopholes in order to deal with the problem.

A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Specifically, if the market becomes subject to speculative attack, it would be likely that energy companies would have to offset the risks in the market by raising energy prices. Further, such market volatility could lead to certain energy companies being unduly punished for changes in the market that they simply could not have predicted. [1]

[1] “Carbon Markets Create a Muddle.” Financial Times. 26/04/2007 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4b80ee18-f393-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
A Cap and Trade system is fairer to producers

Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. It is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social "harm", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming.

Further, A cap-and-trade system is "fair" because it rewards "efficient"-polluters while punishing "non-efficient" polluters: Given the above argument, this is a more reasonable approach to rewarding and punishing an industry whose emergence pre-dates the environmental concerns surrounding carbon emissions.

A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment so is therefore fairer. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis.

Companies are even willing to pay a premium for the stability provided by this system [I1] ; the premium being the tax itself, and the lack of the potential for profit through the trading of carbon credits. Further as a system that is easy to understand it is easier for directors to allow their firms to ease in to the system. [1]

[1] Ugur Akinci, “Carbon Tax Versus Cap And Trade Approaches to Global Warming – Part 1.” Doubletaxes.com 2007 http://doubletaxes.com/category/free-tax-forms/carbon-tax-rebate-forms-through-small-business-ministry.html

[I1] Examples and case studies required.

Yes, perhaps in the short term the excitement of a 3D printer will make people print more than they can make use of. In the long run, however, it is likely that by making goods more affordable for everyone 3D printers will be able to reduce problems of scarcity. When people have a more equal access to necessities, material possessions cease to become such a symbol of power, and they become less important for people.

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day, [1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double, [2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.

[1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0

[2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html

It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.

Out of town retail developments need not be bad for the environment. Out of town centres are often built on land that would otherwise be derelict (e.g. Sheffield's Meadowhall Mall or Bluewater in Kent) and so, if anything, improve the quality of the area. Building modern retail outlets large enough to be economic in urban centres would also involve a great deal of destruction and the sacrifice of historic buildings and local character. Local pollution can be greatly reduced by using modern energy-saving designs which are not possible in city-centre locations, and by providing bus and light-rail services from nearby population centres.

There is a different between being morally responsible and being morally considerable. Human beings are both. Moral responsibility implies a duty and therefore a capability to act in an ethical manner. Animals can not of course be morally responsible as they do not have the intellectual capacity to ascertain what is right and wrong, only instincts as to how to survive. We cannot expect animals to be morally responsible but this does not mean that human beings do not have a duty to be morally responsible. It would be ideal for all beings to act in an ethical manner but only humans are capable of considering ethics and therefore we are the only morally responsible beings. Moral considerability refers to whether or not a being deserves to be treated in an ethical manner. There is a burden on the proposition to show why moral considerability relies on being morally responsible. Profoundly retarded human beings and babies are unable to be morally responsible and yet we consider them to be morally considerable.

Having only one plant also poses a risk that if something goes wrong it creates a high risk of blackout for whole region the plant is supplying. Additionally we need to remember the immense cost of nuclear power plants. Olkiluoto 3 has suffered from immense overruns and spiralling costs which have more than doubled to 8.5 billion Euros. [1] When a wind turbine is about 2.5 million Euros then well over 3,000 turbines can be built for the same cost. [2]

[1] Koistinen, Olavi, ‘Suomenkin uusi ydinvoimala maksaa 8,5 miljardia euroa’, Helsingin Sanomat, 13 December 2012, http://www.hs.fi/talous/Suomenkin+uusi+ydinvoimala+maksaa+85+miljardia+euroa/a1305627982885

[2] ‘How much to wind turbines cost’, Windistry, accessed 18 November 2013, http://www.windustry.org/resources/how-much-do-wind-turbines-cost

The government should not be racist, but neither should it be so politically correct as to paralyze itself. Religion is not a blanket defense against things which the country decides it is not prepared to allow. Religious groups must be prepared to engage constructively with those around them, discussing and comparing values – this is intrinsic to “integration into society.” Knee-jerk reactions against any challenge to their way of life completely miss the point, and they must think about our values just as we think about theirs.

It is our responsibility to make sure the debate does not get hijacked by racists, but if we do this sufficiently well we can successfully cast the debate as legitimate criticism rather than oppression.

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs [i] .

Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage.

By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector.

[i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.

We hear a lot about the depletion of supplies of fossil fuels, however it is not mentioned that there is also a potential problem with the supply of uranium: "There is currently a gap in the amount of uranium being mined and the amount of uranium being consumed," states Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) CEO Rob Adam1.

This would potentially be ok if it did not look like we are approaching a uranium peak. The peak in supplies of uranium seems likely to arrive sometime between 2030 and 2040 with uranium being almost totally gone by 2070 or 2120 at the latest. It is the peak that matters, as after this point supply will not be able to keep up with demand. If you take into account that nuclear energy produces 16% of world electricity, and less than 5% primary energy supply, it seems impossible to me for nuclear energy with current technology to ever satisfy a big part of the world's energy demand2. It means that nuclear power is not a sustainable base which we should be looking to be dependent on.

1 Matthew Hill, 'Global uranium production will need to double by 2015 to catch up with demand', Mining Weekly, 25th June 2007, 2 Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy watch group, December 2006, p.5.,

As well as benefits hydroelectric dams have added dangers. Dams increase the risk of earthquakes, because the weight of the water-reservoir impacts the Earth’s crust underneath. [1] Moreover, big dams run the risk of bursting, causing massive damage in their wake. The bursting of the Chinese Banqiao dam in 1975 is estimated to have cost about 230,000 lives. [2]

[1] BBC News, ‘Earthquake risk from dams’, 2002

[2] The New Internationalist, ‘Big dams, big trouble’, 2003

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim