Don’t supply enough energy
Dutta 11 - the People’s Tribunal on Nuclear energy. (5/19/2011, Soumya, “Why Nuclear (Fission) power must be abandoned forthwith” http://www.dianuke.org/why-nuclear-fission-power-must-be-abandoned-forthwith/,bs)
11. Insignificant contribution to India’s energy demand at present – Even after 42 years of nuclear power in India, the installed nuclear power capacity in the country is less than 5,000 MW, or less than 3% of the total installed electriciy capacity. The actual generation is even lower at about 2%, largely due to an Uranium shortage. But, the contribution of nuclear power to India’s total commercial energy consumption is less than 1%. We must recall that this meagre contribution has been achieved even after huge annual budgetary support to the Indian nuclear lobby. This years budget gave over Rs.10,000 crores to them, while allocating a little over one-fifth that amount to New & renewable energy. And even with this small budgetary support, the installed wind energy capacity in India is over 13,000 MW now (over 2.5 times the installed nuclear capacity), achieved in a much shorter span of ~ 15 years.
Thus, we in India are well placed to abandon this dirty, dangerous and limited energy source at the present juncture. It wont affect us very badly to forego just 0.8% of our energy source, and try to replace this with non-risky renewables.
Fission = CO2
Cant solve the environment
Dutta 11 - the People’s Tribunal on Nuclear energy. (5/19/2011, Soumya, “Why Nuclear (Fission) power must be abandoned forthwith” http://www.dianuke.org/why-nuclear-fission-power-must-be-abandoned-forthwith/,bs)
12. Not Climate Friendly either – The building of nuclear reactors has enormous embedded energy (energy used in building thiis), requiring very
high amounts of energy-intensive materials like steel, cement etc, and in a world that gets ~ 80% of its total commercial energy from fossil carbon fuels, this means the nuclear reactors have enormous embedded carbon emissions. This nails the lie of nuclear power having zero or even low GHG-emission. In fact there were a couple of studies (one rigorous study – “The CO2 emission of the nuclear life-cycle”, by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, and Phillip Smith), that any conventional nuclear fission power plant needs to generate power for about Seven-years just to equal the CO2-emission saving of gas-powered power plants, with all of the attendant risks of the nuclear mining, processing and reactor operation & radioactive waste and regular radioactive gas leakage
OST Fails
The outer space treaty fails – stops development and exploration of space and is vague
Hickman,7 – associate professor in the Department of Government and International Studies at Berry College, (John, 2007, “Still crazy after four decades: The case for withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/960/1 JV)
The core legal principle of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty declared that everywhere beyond the atmosphere to be res communis, an international commons rather akin to the “international waters” of the open oceans on Earth, rather than terra nullius, the sort of territory that is unclaimed yet claimable by states as sovereign territory. In what was then stirring, and today preposterous, language of the agreement, all of outer space was declared the “Common Home of Mankind” to be explored and exploited by all countries and for the benefit of all humanity.
There are two patently obvious flaws in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, one tragic and the other silly. The tragic flaw is that it created an “anti-commons.” The general problem is that establishing a commons runs the risk of creating perverse incentives. Where the commons is easy to exploit the likely result is the degradation of its renewable resources. That much has been understood by public policymakers at least since publication of Garret Hardin‘s influential essay “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Less appreciated is that establishing a commons can also establish an “anti-commons.” Eliminating the possibility of reaping rewards from a desired activity discourages that desired activity. When the 1967 Outer Space Treaty eliminated the possibility that states could claim territory on the final frontier it also extinguished an important motivation for states and private firms to engage in exploration and development. Had the policy purpose of the treaty been wilderness preservation in outer space then today it would be declared a smashing success. Beyond low Earth orbit, outer space remains a wilderness that benefits no one except astronomers and stargazing lovers. Yet the ostensible policy purpose of the agreement was to encourage space exploration and development in a manner that benefits humanity as a whole. As such, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was an abysmal failure. While there are other reasons for the effective closing of the space frontier beyond low Earth orbit with the last Apollo Missions to the Moon—the relaxation of Cold War tensions in the 1970s gave the superpowers less reason to compete and their other budget priorities competed with space programs—the diplomats and politicians who foisted the treaty onto an unwitting humanity in 1967 deserve much of the credit. Their negotiations resulted in a near-quarantine of humans on Earth and low Earth orbit and only anemic efforts to explore our solar system via unmanned space programs.
Depriving states of the right to claim sovereign national territory on solid celestial bodies has discouraged more energetic space exploration and development in the same manner that depriving property developers of the right to purchase real property would discourage their investment. One need to not applaud each and every property development project to recognize the economic value of property development to society, and the same may be said of the efforts of states in claiming and governing new territories. That idea that states are no longer interested in claiming new territory is belied by the Russian Federation’s recent claim under the Convention on the Laws of the Sea to the 1.2 million square kilometers of the Lomonosov Ridge in the Arctic.
The second flaw in the treaty is that its assertion of subject matter authority is absurdly, mind bogglingly large. Although only a small minority of the states that signed the treaty back in 1967 can even today launch satellites into orbit or send robotic probes to any celestial body, and although only three of the states that signed the treaty can today launch humans into orbit, their diplomatic representatives nonetheless felt competent in collectively asserting legal authority and ownership over everything in the universe beyond the Earth. Given the primitive nature of space technology available to humanity then and now, an agreement covering only what was within the solar system would have been sufficient. Comparison of the relative astronomical distances drives home this point. The radial distance from the “edge” of our solar system, from the outer boundary of the Kuiper Belt through the Sun to the opposite outer boundary of the Kuiper Belt, is a distance of 100 AU (Astronomical Units), or 100 times the distance from the Sun to the Earth. Although this 15 billion kilometer distance seems enormous, it is miniscule in cosmic terms. That 100 AU is a mere .0016 of a light-year. The most recent estimate of the radial distance from one edge of the universe to the other is 180 billion light-years.
Share with your friends: |