Climate Change case?
Looking for something new to run in the Spring? Here is a new report linking climate change and transportation. Might be a fun way to integrate the global warming debate into your rounds. It even has a great states counterplan answer right in the executive summary!
Climate must be taken into account
Because transportation infrastructure is built to
last decades, and represents substantial national
invest ment, it is critical that climate factors be
incorporated in transportation siting, investment,
and design decisions.
States can’t do this plan!
Only the federal government can do the necessary
interdisciplinary climate impact research, data
gathering, modeling and forecasting, mapping,
and structuring of the comprehensive planning
neces sary to ensure the resilience of our nation’s
multimodal transportation systems, and the communities
and businesses they serve.
Possible Plan? Might be effects-topical.
Authorize capital and planning funding support
to enhance transportation resil iency, including
funding states to conduct inventories of their
transportation assets and locations that are
vulnerable to climate change. Most impor tantly
it should make infrastructure climate adaptation
an eligible expense under the core highway
and transit programs, based on a comprehensive
system inventory and risk assessment.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
what Nick said. T, Vagueness, Tix, States, and this 1AR is nightmarish. Hell, even if you beat back the counterplan, tix is probably enough to beat this aff, for both the timeframe reasons that Nick mentions as well as the truly weak nature of the solvency claim (planning solves all our problems? ORLY?)
IDK, I think it sounds legit. It is more of an advantage then a whole 1AC.
I am also sure that the report gets more specific, Danny mentioned that some of those quotations were from the executive summary… which is a summary, right, means it is short and to the point, cause that’s what summaries do, right?
I think this would work, or something like this…
Harms: We have shitty roads
California just released a report that says Californians lose 40 billion a year because of poor roads: from traffic, to accidents, to wear and destruction on the car
Plan: Build new roads that are like this______ (however they say i should be done in that file, I don’t want to read it right now)
Solvency: These new roads aren’t shitty
They are what we need so we don’t loose $40 billion, they will only loose $15 billion because people will still have accidents but they won’t have issues from bad roads.
Advantage 1: GW
Oh, by the way, these roads are K2 stop/slow/check Global Warming
GW isn’t good
Advantage 2: Poverty
PPL who save the most would be the impoverished
Poverty is shitty to be in
Sounds to me that it is topical. Roads are physical infrastructure.
Build roads, everywhere… doesn’t sound unrealistically vague to me. If there is a road that is not at (X) specification then we will make it that way. What more do you need/want?
tix – You may win timeframe. I will give you that; it will take us years to see the truly negative effects of GW. Probability and magnitude I think GW is on the side of this mini-aff. I don’t know anyone running politics that would outweigh GW on prob/mag… That is just from what I have seen, don’t hate on me because I haven’t seen YOUR tix before. Which is why you have the CP, right?
SCP – States CP FTL. Like, major FTL… bad FTL. Run states have no money/are bankrupt, States Elections (Louisiana has a major election coming up next year that this could play a huge role in), major solvency deficits, and the list goes on! Besides, who do you think will build the roads? States. Why? because the USFG only uses shovels to build military bases where they kill/torture others… not for roads, that is why we have states… the USFG gives money to states and states build roads to the USFG specifications. This makes the 50 states just a funding CP that avoids a DA with lesser solvency.
Boom, head shot.
Just like that Danny’s idea still kicks ass.
I vote Danny because being in poverty is shitty and because GW is bad, mmmkay! (G0D I love South Park!)
I believe Mat earlier in the semester referenced this type of case as more of a big stick affirmative. That’s the direction I saw it going in. But again, I just want to plant seeds – if anyone thinks it’s good run it; also, as negatives it may be a case so you want to plan on answering it =) Good discussion!
“Why? because the USFG only uses shovels to build military bases where they kill/torture others”
we actually try to do the killing and torturing off base. the bone-chilling screams of dissenters makes it hard to sleep, and that’s a safety issue with pilots, etc.
Bagram? Where is Will when you need him? This is just pure irony, right?
(This joke was not meant to be offensive to all people in the service. I still love you Brandon!)
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So this aff would basically alter transportation infrastructure planning to account for global warming scenarios? I’m somewhat skeptical about topicality, not to mention that the USFG key argument has literally zero warrants. (Seriously, it says “only the USFG can do it” but gives no coherent reason for why this is.)
If you do run this, you would have to go with some sort of “warming inevitable but survivable” scenario. The obvious problem is that any impacts the case accesses are probably decades into the future, so you’re going to have a hard time winning the timeframe aspect of the impact debate.