query: Consequences of increased GHGs  Increased GHGs in the atmosphere have numerous significant consequences:  -glaciers, ice sheets, and perma frost will continue to melt. This will increase water levels, release more GHGs (methane, which is twenty times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and CO2), and reflect less heat back into the atmosphere exacerbating climate change1.  -the oceans (which are a natural carbon sink) are becoming increasingly acidic which will significantly damage ecosystems such as coral reefs. Additionally, changes in the chemistry of the ocean could affect the amount of CO2 it can absorb and process annually.  -there will be increasing incidents of extreme weather such as hurricanes, floods, and record high/low temperatures. Extreme weather can destroy ecosystems that capture CO2 such as forests and peat bogs leading to less natural CO2 absorption.  These events will accelerate climate change making it more difficult for humans to reduce GHG ppms to a sustainable level. Once average temperatures are above 2.5C, events will be triggered that will be irreversible and it will take 1000s of years of lower GHG emissions for the earth to return to normal 2.  1. Connor, Steve, 'Exclusive: The methane time bomb', The Independent, 23rd September 2008,  2. Wikipedia, "Climate Change Feedback". Retrieved 2011-08-08.

positive: climate house believes were too late global climate change These consequences are often speculation. With such a large and complex system we have no way of knowing what the consequences of climate change. There may well be some tipping points that will accelerate climate change but we do not know when each of these will become a problem and there may also be tipping points that act in the other direction.(See Earth's Resiliency)

negative: Nuclear energy goes against Green World  In order not to harm environment, not to cause climate changes, renewable power plants (wind, water, solar) should be used. However, these do not work together with nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants – giant very hot machines – are designed to operate at full speed (85%) all the time. They are not designed to change the output quickly. Since they are very expensive to build, they are not economic unless operated at full speed (also turning off and on is expensive). Solar and wind power plants are not stable (output varies because of natural factors) and thus need a backup, called a baseload. Nuclear plants are not a good backup for renewables. We need nimble plants in order to support wind and solar plants. Nuclear power stations do not work with solar, wind and water power stations, because they are running at full speed all the time (because of economic and technical reasons). Instead gas plants that can be powered up and down as required are needed to balance power generation. If we want to move towards Green World – nuclear energy does not help us to do so. [1]  It is generally agreed that we want more renewable power generation in Europe even if there are disagreements about where plants should be situated or how much must come from renewable sources. The European Union aims to have 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020. [2] And if it is to meet CO2 reduction targets far more will be needed in following decades.  Nuclear is also not as helpful as renewables in meeting these CO2 reduction targets. It is estimated that renewables produce 10-40g of CO2 pre kWh of electricity produced, but nuclear is currently much higher at 90-140g/kWh, though still only a tenth of coal. And as mining becomes more difficult it is estimated that this could double making nuclear no better for reducing CO2 than gas power. [3]  [1] Nelder, Chris, ‘Why baseload power is doomed’, smartplanet, 28 March 2012,   [2] European Commission, ‘Directive Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources’, Europa.eu, 17 October 2012,   [3] ‘CO2 emission of electricity from nuclear power stations’, Time for change, May 2012,

negative: Nuclear power is clean and emits significantly less CO2 than other renewable energy sources  In many senses nuclear energy is the cleanest of renewables. It does not produce emissions such as CO2 and greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the population and the environment. Roughly 700 million metric tons of CO2 emissions are avoided each year in the United States by generating electricity from nuclear power rather than some other source; according to the U.S. Department of Energy, that is nearly equivalent to the CO2 released from all U.S. passenger cars [1] .  It is true that it does produce radioactive waste but since this is in solid form it can be dealt with relatively easily and stored away from centres of population. Furthermore, as new technology becomes available to allow the more efficient use of nuclear fuel, less nuclear waste will be produced. (A recent example is the development of the fast breeder reactor, which uses fuel much more efficiently [2] )  [1] Max Schulz. "Nuclear Power Is the Future". Wilson Quarterly. September, 2006  [2] ‘Breeder reactor’, Wikipedia.

negative: climate house believes were too late global climate change Despite the failure of the Copenhagen Protocol, local, regional, national, and international organizations are all still working on solutions for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol was a failure by virtue of its design (too many credits would have gone to former Soviet countries whose GHG reductions were entirely attributable to economic collapse, which would have resulted in a cash transfer but no real reductions). Discussions continue on how best each country can reduce their GHG emissions while remaining economically competitive. The EU ETS trading scheme is an example of just such an endeavour. (See Carbon Trading Schemes)

negative: The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem  Mineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3]  The Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6]  The second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case.  At the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill.  [1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012.   [2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201   [3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011,   [4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648,   [5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes & Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013,   [6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707

negative: economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would The former Labour government when considering expansion made it clear that environment would be taken into account when considering the construction of a third run-way so there would be environmental restrictions to make sure that this is not an issue. [1] However not expanding Heathrow also contributes to CO2 emissions; with so little spare capacity flights are often delayed due to any small disruption on the ground leaving planes circling above London increasing their emissions. Building more runways anywhere else would have a similar environmental impact to the expansion plans.  [1] The Labour Party, ‘A future fair for all; The Labour Party Manifesto 2010’. 2010,

negative: GERD will have environmentally positive consequences for the region. The major environmental benefit is the clean and renewable energy source. There is an unlimited supply of electricity and the production of this energy does not contribute to global carbon dioxide emissions. Another environmental benefit is that the dam will reduce the chances of flooding downstream and drought, enabling the country to better combat climate change which is worsening these factors [1] . Flood protection will prevent settled areas from being destroyed through rising river levels, benefitting Sudan and Egypt as well as Ethiopia.  [1] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13

negative: business economic policy africa house believes tunisia should not rely tourism Tourism causes pollution  The tourism industry in Tunisia results in notable damage to the environment. Without sustainability, economic growth will only last in the short term. This is especially pertinent for tourism, where environmental beauty is of particular importance. From the construction of infrastructure and travel, to the general waste produced, tourism is problematic in the sense that it can often cause pollution; which in turn damages the country’s reputation1. Most tourists to the region are from Europe, although there are an increasing number of Russians which means travel becomes a major source of pollution. A return journey via plane from London to Tunis creates around 310 kg of CO2 (standard passenger jets create around 0.17kg of CO2 per km) 2. This is disproportionately damaging compared to other vehicles, but is the most practical way of reaching Tunisia. Other impacts such as overuse of water, land degradation and littering can all cause problems as well3.  1) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Environmental Impacts’ data accessed 28 January 2014  2) BBC, ‘Pollution warning on holiday flights’, 1 May 2000  3) United Nations Environment Programme ‘Tourism’s Three Main Impact Areas’ data accessed 28 January 2014

negative: The one child policy is needed for population control  The One Child policy in China acts as an extremely powerful check on the population. With 1.3 billion people, problems of overcrowding and resource depletion in China are bad and will get significantly worse without change.1  The reality of the abolition of the one child policy is that with an increase in birth rate from the current level of 1.7 to 2.1 which is not unreasonable given population growth in other countries, there would be 5 million more births per year in China than there are now resulting in 250 million more people by the middle of this century.  Given that China is already one of the biggest contributors to global warming in the world, the addition of another 250 million people would be catastrophic in the prevention of damage to the climate. Ecological damage of this kind has been a common feature of overpopulated societies, china included, for centuries. Soil erosion, depletion of soil nutrients in arable land and pollution of water sources are already an increasing problem in China, desertification for example causes US $6.5billion of losses to the country each year.2 Further, the strain on Chinese resources would also be incredible. The policy also prevents other problems associated with overpopulation, such as epidemics and the growth of slums.3 Stable and balanced population growth requires that the policy remain in place for the time being.4  1 "Family Planning in China." Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China.   2 People’s Daily, ‘China Faces Challenge of Desertification’, 1 September 2001,   3 Revkin, Andrew. “An End to One-Child Families in China?” New York Times.28-02-2008.   4 Yardley, Jim. "China Sticking with One-Child Policy."

negative: Species extinction is an inevitable process  Species extinction is a part of the natural world: Within evolution species naturally go arise and later become extinct as they struggle to adapt to changing environments and competition with other species. This be regarded as a part of the 'survival of the fittest' which drives evolution. Most extinctions that have occurred did so naturally and without human intervention. It is, for example, estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and humans have existed at the same time as only a fraction of these species. [1] Therefore it cannot be claimed that species going extinct will somehow upset the delicate natural balance or destroy ecosystems. Ecologists and conservationists have in fact struggled to demonstrate the increased material benefits to humans of 'intact' wild systems over man-made ones such as farms and urban environments, which many species simply adapt to. [2] Therefore any claims that humans causing the extinction of other species are somehow acting 'un-naturally' or 'immorally' or that they are risking ecological collapse as a consequence are mistaken, as they fail to understand that extinction occurs as a natural fact and that ecosystems adapt accordingly. No other species acts to prevent species besides itself from becoming extinct, and therefore again allowing another species to die out is in no way 'un-natural.'  [1] Raup, David M. “Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?” W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991  [2] Jenkins, Martin. “Prospects for Biodiversity”. Science. 14 November 2003.

negative: Nuclear power plants are not much of an improvement over conventional coal-burning power plants despite claims that nuclear is the 'clean air energy.' Uranium mining, milling, leeching, plant construction and decommissioning all produce substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Taking into account the carbon-equivalent emissions associated with the entire nuclear life cycle, not just the nuclear fission itself, nuclear plants contribute significantly to climate change and will contribute even more as stockpiles of high grade uranium are depleted1.  Nuclear waste can remain radioactive for thousands of years. It must be stored for all this time away from water into which it can dissolve and far from any tectonic activity. This is virtually impossible and there are serious concerns over the state of waste discarded even a few decades ago. A report by the Environment Agency attacked Britain's disposal system as many containers used to store the waste are made of second-rate materials, are handled carelessly, and are liable to corrode; computer models suggest up to 40% of them could be at risk of being compromised within as little as 200 years2. Tens of thousands of containers of this waste, bound in concrete, are simply being stored above ground, mainly at Sellafield, while the Government and the nuclear industry decide what to do with them. On present plans it is assumed they will remain there for up to another 150 years before being placed in a repository underground, and then another 50 years before it is sealed3. This problem would only be added to if more nuclear power stations were built.  1The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008 2 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008, 3 Geoffrey Lean, 'Nuclear waste containers likely to fail, warns "devastating" report', The Independent, 24th Aug., 2008,

negative: energy house would store nuclear waste underground Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage:  "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.” [1]  The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counterargument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power.  [1] Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010

negative: Africa will be among the hardest hit  The IPCC starts its chapter on Africa “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability”. [1] It is also the poorest continent in the world so least able to cope. In the GAIN index by the Global Adaptation Institute which measures vulnerability and readiness for climate change eight of the bottom ten are African states. [2] The changes to Africa could be dramatic; 40% of wildlife habitats could disappear, crop yields fall by 5% despite already being the lowest in the world and 70 million are at risk of flooding as sea levels rise. [3] If anywhere needs help from developed countries in adaptation it is Africa.  [1] Boko, Michel, et al., ‘Africa’, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, IPCC, 2007,  , p.435  [2] Gain Index, 2011,   [3] Bloomfield, Steve, ‘Africa ‘will be worst hit by climate change’’, The Independent, 6 November 2006,

negative: energy house would store nuclear waste underground The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable. [1]  As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being.  [1] Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006

negative: Violent video games desensitise users  Violent video games do not only affect individuals but also society as a whole. The sole purpose of a player in these games is to be an aggressor. The heartlessness in these games and joy of killing innocent people create a desensitization and disinhibition to violence that can ultimately lead to a more violent society. A Bruce Bartholow study in 2011 proved for the first time the causal association between desensitisation to violence and increased human aggression1. They are also a very selfish, lonely form of entertainment which undermines the structure of an ordered, interdependent society. A study conducted by psychologists in 2007 found that of 430 primary school children, 'the kids who played more violent video games changed over the school year to become more verbally aggressive, more physically aggressive and less helpful to others.'2  1 University of Missouri-Columbia. (2011, May 26). Violent video games reduce brain response to violence and increase aggressive behaviour. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from ScienceDaily:  2 Schaffer, A. (2007, April 27). Don't Shoot. Retrieved June 2, 2011, from Slate:

negative: Adaptation won’t work  Adaptation is simply working to reduce the effects of climate change, it will not prevent it from causing damage. Take hurricanes; adaptation would dictate that the buildings should have been made out of stronger materials and sea walls built to stop storm surges. Yet as with any other form of disaster management there is a sensible amount to adapt if building a 10foot sea wall will stop 95% of storm surges is it really worth building one of 20foot for twice the price to stop 99%?  Many forms of adaptation are directly contrary to demographic trends on the continent. Yes hardier crops can be introduced to mitigate the problems of drought but will these also feed a growing population? Yes people can migrate from those areas that will be worst hit but can their neighbours take in the extra people? For example climate change is one cause of drought in the Sahel, [1] to the south rainfall and flooding may actually increase in southern Nigeria though it will be unpredictable. [2] The obvious solution then would be migration from the Sahel south but the UN projects Niger’s population to grow to almost 70million by 2050 and Nigeria’s to 440million, [3] could Nigeria really take the extra population from its northern neighbour as well as its own growth?  [1] Thomas, Alice, ‘Sahel villagers fleeing climate change must not be ignored’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013,   [2] Uyigue, E., and Agho, M., ‘Coping with Climate Change and Environmental Degradation in the Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria’, Community Research and Development Centre, 2007,   [3] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision’, esa.un.org,  (using medium variant)

negative: Even if the American jobs act is not deficit neutral, it will have a significant effect in the future, through spending more in the present to speed the American recovery period and prevent a double dip recession. During the boom period it will be significantly easier to pay any increased deficit back. Further, even if the American credit rating is to be downgraded further, changes in the credit rating are played to be more significant than they actually are. The Japanese for example have had their credit rating downgraded by Moody’s to Aa3, however, bond interest in Japan is 2% at its highest levels on long term Japanese bonds whereas it is 3% in the U.S.7  The change in the credit rating of Japan did very little to increase interest on its bonds. The reason is that investors still believe that Japan is a stable market despite its deficit which amounts to 233% of annual economic output. As such, even if the credit rating of the U.S. does get downgraded it is likely to do little in terms of increasing U.S. bond repayments over time. Further, financing the American Jobs Act through a greater deficit could be seen by many rating agencies as a fiscally responsible move and as such would not lead to them downgrading the rating at all.8

negative: It’s not true that all markets naturally lead to a concentration of power. Whenever concentration of market power, even leading up to a monopoly, does happen, this is caused by the underlying cost structure of the industry, whereby a company experiences increasing returns to scale and relatively high fixed costs. This means it is most efficient for the first entrant in a market to become as big as possible, as fast as possible. An example of such a natural monopoly used to be the markets for utilities: when the distributing networks for water or energy weren’t built yet, the first company to expand would gain a natural monopoly.  Given that a natural monopoly is a consequence of the underlying cost structure of the industry, there is not much one can do to change it. Basically, one can choose between a private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government monopoly (Capitalism and Freedom, 2002). Of these, the private monopoly is best. A government monopoly would not just be a monopoly, but would also have the force of law to back it – the result would be the most direct form of regulatory capture, where the business interest takes over the public interest of the government agency.

negative: The Age of the Earth  Evidence from many different disciplines shows that the Earth is very old, allowing enough time for life as it exists today to evolve and contradicting a Creationist belief in a young earth.  For example, most of the stars in the sky are thousands and millions of lightyears away, which means that light took thousands and millions of years to reach us. [1]  Similarly, there are many geographic features that took thousands or millions of years to form. For example, ice cores such as those from Vostok, Antartica, give evidence of changes in climate going back 400,000 years, [2] far older than the 6,000 or so calculated from a literal reading of Genesis.  All the evidence points this way, from archaeology, geology, physics, astronomy and more. There are many different indicators that all point to an old age of the Earth.  [1] Björn Feuerbacher, ‘Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects’, Talk.Origins,  Accessed 1/6/2011  [2] ‘Vostok Ice Core’, National Climactic Data Centre,  Accessed 2/6/2011

negative: The technology required for colonizing ‘a second Earth’ would be easier to develop on the moon  The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years. [i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization.  [i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,

negative: Heat will damage player's health  In order to fully understand the implications of this motion, one must see what participating in the FIFA World Cup means to a football player.  First of all, it means an intense and sustained physical effort for a significant amount of time. Do not forget that the Cup itself lasts for a couple of weeks, and there are plenty of weeks of training before it in order to get the players in the best shape possible. This means they are exposed to a lot of physical stress and have to play or train no matter of the weather conditions or temperature.  Secondly, with temperatures ranging from 35C to 40C during the summer it would be torture to force the players to train and play in those conditions. Former France, Fulham, Manchester United and Everton striker Louis Saha told BBC Sport he thought it was impossible for players to handle the Middle Eastern country's extremely high summer temperatures. (1) "I was in Qatar recently and it was 48C," he said. "Believe me, it is impossible to have a proper game down there." It is not only the players who get hurt, but also the game itself, as you cannot expect the same show from fatigued, light-headed and exhausted players.  Most of all, FIFA’s top priority should always be the protection of player’s health, as, at the end of the day, despite money, show or spectators, no one should risk their life or be obliged to work in unsafe conditions. Studies show the immense risks of heat-related illnesses and their potentially deadly outcome.(2) Being aware of these issues, FIFA’s vice-president Jim Boyce, from Northern Ireland, is prepared to back a decision in principle to move the World Cup to the winter.(1)  (1) Richard Conway “Qatar faces no threat to its right to host 2022 World Cup” , BBC, 3 October 2013   (2) Erik Brady “Heat-related illness still deadly problem for athletes”, USA Today, 8/15/2011

negative: Patients will be better informed than under the status quo  Advertising prescription drugs enables patients to learn, and to request innovation faster in order to benefit from the new drugs that health personnel still have not gotten used to.  Advertising increases consumer awareness of drugs, which makes consumers more likely to take appropriate medication. The drugs market is complex and so advertising can help explain the differences between treatments, for example between contraceptive pills intended to reduce period pain, period flow and those simply to prevent pregnancy.  Advertising under current rules is used to inform patients of new drugs which may be appropriate for conditions which they suffer from (such as recent asthma drugs which reduce the frequency of attacks), but which their doctor might overlook or not have the time to crosscheck against her list of patients. [1]  56% of AMA general practitioners believed that direct-to-consumer advertising had prompted some of their patients to seek treatment for a condition which would have otherwise been neglected. [2] If a patient has taken the time to actively consider a particular drug and then visits their doctor, whether they are prescribed it or not, they are building up a positive relationship with their doctor and are more likely to continue to take an active interest in their health.  Further on, in states where there is no direct to consumer advertising but there is advertising to doctors, patients are disadvantaged because it is in the interest for private medical insurance firms or national health services to keep information about expensive new drugs from patients.  In the UK it was because of cost that the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) refused to allow the prescription of Herceptin, a drug which US studies have shown reduces the damage done by breast cancer. Ultimately pressure from Roche, the drug’s manufacturer and from patients resulted in the drug being authorized for use, but the process was much faster in the US where Roche could run advertisements alerting consumers to the potential benefits of Herceptin, and thereby immediately giving patients access to a similar level of information as their doctors and allowing them to push for its authorization.  [1] Patient View – for improving patient care, Information on prescription medicines: the views of EU-based patient groups,  , accessed 08/07/2011  [2] Lyles A., Direct Marketing of Pharmaceuticals to Consumers, Annual Review of Public Health, published May 2002,  , accessed 08/08/2011

negative: imate international global house believes outcome paris climate conference Sovereignty is often taken to mean that states can do what they like without interference. This is not the kind of mentality that will help solve climate change or ensure that this deal sticks. Unfortunately climate change is a global issue where what happens in one country affects everyone else just as much as the miscreant. The atmosphere is a global commons, currently free for everyone to use, and more often abuse. As such the principles of sovereignty and non-interference can have no place.

negative: High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable  The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher. [1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give. [2]  As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending.  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011

negative: A treaty similar to the Antarctic Treaty would prevent competition  The opening up of the arctic Ocean through climate change also opens up territorial claims as where there are resources at stake states are keen to make a claim so as to exploit them. For example in 2008 Russia’s then President Medvedev stated “Our first and fundamental task is to turn the Arctic into a resource base for Russia in the 21st century.” [1] Such competition for resources can lead to conflict as is increasingly being shown in the East and South China Seas.  The Antarctic Treaty however freezes these territorial claims, as would our proposed treaty. It also bans military activity so preventing any completion from getting out of hand. [2] The proposal would also ban the exploitation of the Arctic’s resources so reducing the cause of any conflict.  [1] Keating, Joshua, ‘Medvedev makes a play for Arctic riches’, Passport Foreign Policy, 17 September 2008,   [2] ‘The Antarctic Treaty’, Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, 2011,

negative: Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone  First developing countries now produce a large share of emissions; China, India and other rising countries should also have to pay. They also at the same time have increasing financial resources. Second even if countries bear responsibility in proportion to emissions it does not follow developed countries should meet the costs of adaptation. People have always adapted to their climate as an essential part of survival [1] and the climate has always been changing even if at a slower rate so why should the developed world pay in this particular instance? That the west should cut its emissions so that it produces no more than the average per capita is equitable. It is however not equitable for one group to have to pay for the adaptation of others to their environment.  [1] Clark, Duncan, ‘What is climate change adaptation?’, theguardian.com, 27 February 2012,

negative: Adverts generate profit. Profit funds research into improved drugs  We should not attack drugs companies for making profits from their products, nor for encouraging patients to use them. Each new drug costs an average of $500m to produce and very small percentage of the drugs that are researched ever make it to the market. [1] The more profitable the industry, the more new drugs it can afford to research and develop and thus the more patients who can receive appropriate treatment. Many of the complex cures being developed for diseases like cancer, HIV/AIDs, SARS and Avian Flu will take decades to research. In the meantime, drug companies require funding streams from other drugs to continue research.  Drugs have become increasingly expensive and advertisement helps to cover those costs. From 1980 and 2004, from about $6 billion (in 2005 dollars) to $39 billion. There has been a real growth rate of about 8 percent a year, on average.  By comparison, drug firms’ gross margins—sales revenue minus costs and income taxes—have been increasing more slowly, by about 4 percent annually. [2]  So, with more personalized medicine and greater costs in drug development, the industry needs a greater source of revenue in order to research therapeutics further. Advertising would provide this revenue.  [1] Hollis A., Me-too drugs: is there a problem ?, University of Calgary, published December 2004,  , accessed 08/08/2011  [2] Congres of United States, Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry, October 2006,  , accessed 08/01/2011

negative: government house believes governance united states should be split between two Growing partisanship  The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging.  This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement [1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable. [2]  While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy. [3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government.  [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009,   [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011,   [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc

negative: High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly  Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight. [1]  A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner. High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously. [2]  [1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009,   [2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association.

negative: Provides autonomy for developing countries  Rwanda has been trying to increase the size of remittances in order to increase its autonomy. The President Paul Kagame has said “aid is never enough and we need to complement it with homegrown schemes to accelerate growth.” He wants “a higher level of direct ownership in the nation’s projects” and wants it because western donors had suspended aid. [1] A change to remittances would reduce this vulnerability; it would be much more difficult for ‘donors’ to suspend the tax breaks they provide for remittances to individual countries than it is to cut aid. Indeed remittances are noticeably stable with money still being sent home during recessions and can even be countercyclical as migrants will send more if they know things are bad back home. [2] This then takes the issue out of the hands of the politicians and puts it into the hands of the people.  [1] Procost, Claire, ‘Rwanda seeks diaspora investment to cut reliance on foreign aid’, global development guardian.co.uk, 11 October 2012  [2] Ratha, Dilip, ‘Remittances: Funds for the Folks Back Home’, International Monetary Fund

negative: The social problems that have taken root in America result from a number of converging causes. While many individuals may desperately want to contribute to the debate surrounding these problems, attributing the declining performance of the American economy highly visible social divisions is misleading and unproductive.  The division between rich and poor as well as the low taxes on the rich exist because a lower tax burden on the rich promotes innovation within economies. Specifically, it is often the rich that engage in enterprise, be it through their own businesses or as part of large corporations. The lower tax burden on the rich makes taking risks in order to develop new technology more profitable for the people making those risks.  Promotion of enterprise and risk during recessions should be a priority for American policy makers, because it is often new products that drive economic growth by creating new markets which drive demand and also by increasing productivity. As such, an increase on the tax burden for the rich in the American economy is problematic because it hurts this method of recovery. It should also be mentioned that simply lowering the tax burden on the poor is likely to be impossible at this time without significantly increasing a U.S. deficit that has already been downgraded by credit rating agencies. In allowing the deficit to increase further the U.S. would have to pay back significantly more in the future owing to higher interest. This approach to fiscal policy has been heavily criticised by the chairman of Forbes Inc. Steve Forbes.4  As such, it is opposition’s opinion that whilst such a change might address issues of social cohesion in the U.S, the cost to the economy from doing so is too great. Further, social cohesion could easily be encouraged through other, less economically harmful measures such as tightening up regulation on banking. Doing so helps the economy and plays against the “Greedy bankers” rhetoric that proposition mentions.

negative: ss economy general international africa house believes africa really rising The Continent is still vulnerable to natural disasters  A major road block to development and economic growth in Africa is the prevalence of natural disasters. These disasters commonly affect the poorest and most vulnerable in society, as they are often the ones living in the ‘most exposed areas’, thus preventing development [1] . In Somalia, for example, the 2013 cyclone left tens of thousands homeless in an already impoverished area, worsening their economic situation [2] . Dr Tom Mitchell from the Overseas Development Institute has claimed that economic growth cannot occur until disaster risk management becomes central to social and economic policy [3] . Disaster management could cost too much however. In November 2013, a United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report demonstrated that 2070 a total $350 billion per annum would be required to deal with the threats presented by clime change such as increased Arid areas and higher risks of flooding [4] .  [1] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [2] Migiro, ‘Somalia Reels From Cyclone, Floods and Hunger – ICRC’, 2013  [3] Decapua, ‘Natural Disasters Worsen Poverty’, 2013  [4] Rowling, ‘Africa Faces Sharp Rise in Climate Adaption Costs – Unep’, 2013

negative: economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would The third run-way would cause noise and pollution problems  The high population density of the area around Heathrow means it is not an ideal location for a bigger airport. It makes sense to increase capacity in an area with lower population density instead of trying to do so within a location that is constrained by adjacent urbanized areas. Expanding Heathrow airport would mean increasing the problem of noise for the about 700,000 people living under the flight path. According to the HACAN report the Department for Transport only accepts that noise is a problem if a community is subjected to over 57 decibels of noise over the course of a year according to a 1985 Government study. In which case only the boroughs of Richmond and Hounslow would be affected. However this does not tie in with Londoner’s experiences. BAA says that 258,000 people are currently affected by high noise levels but the local community believes the real number is more like 1 million people affected. [1] Any argument that states that noise levels will not increase is flawed at best and outright fraudulent at worst, clearly a large expansion in the number of flights will increase the amount of noise and possibly the numbers affected.  [1] Johnson, Tim, ‘Approach Noise at Heathrow: Concentrating the Problem’, HACAN, March 2010,  p.12


query: The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law.  There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’. [1] Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise. [2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives. [3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable. [4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase.  [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.  [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group.  [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times.

positive: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons All parties recognize the risk of their total destruction as a result of starting a nuclear conflict. This is exactly why no full scale war has broken out between nuclear powers. Supposing that states will be unable to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons does not change the fact that many states have them, and also that many other states are incapable of defending themselves from aggressive neighbours without a nuclear deterrent.

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states.

negative: Russian and US strategic interests conflict  Contradictions between Russian and U.S. interests will always exist. The United States is not Russia's ally, and it can be confidently predicted that it never will be. While politically the two countries sometimes temporarily need each other to face global challenges, as long as it does not harm them politically or economically, militarily they will remain positioned as strategic enemies. NATO is a good example of this. While the United States believes NATO brings peace and stability Russia feels directly threatened by NATO expansion into states that were once a part of the Soviet Union such as the Baltic states or the possibility of expansion to Ukraine or Georgia. [1] There have even been suggestions that Russia’s 2008 conflict with Georgia was to prevent Georgia proceeding down the path to NATO membership with US encouragement. A view partially substantiated by President Putin himself “it has become absolutely clear that the desire of Georgian authorities to join NATO is motivated not by their ambition to form part of a global security system and contribute to the strengthening of international peace. Tbilisi's NATO bid is determined by other considerations, namely an attempt to embroil other nations in its bloody undertakings… from a legal point of view, Russia's actions in South Ossetia are totally legitimate.” [2] As a result America's relations with Russia will never resemble its relations with France or Great Britain. U.S. strategic nuclear planning will always envisage a potential Russian nuclear attack on targets on American territory. Likewise, Russian planners will not rule out an American attack on Russian targets.  [1] Neuger, James G., and Alison, Sebastian, ‘Putin Says NATO Expansion Is Direct Threat to Russia (Update 2)’, Bloomberg, 4 April 2008,   [2] President Putting quoted in ‘South Ossetia – The Stakes’, globalsecurity.org,  accessed 27/4/11

negative: Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would.  Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air.  [1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012,   [2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012,