Tampa Prep 2009-2010 Impact Defense File


AT: Biofuels Kill Environment



Download 2.71 Mb.
Page24/230
Date28.01.2017
Size2.71 Mb.
#9494
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   ...   230

AT: Biofuels Kill Environment



Second-generation biofuels solve environmental concerns

United Press International 9, Ecoworld, October 1, “Trash Based Biofuels May Solve Critical Environmental Problems”, http://www.ecoworld.com/energy-fuels/trash-based-biofuels-might-solve-problems.html
Singaporean and Swiss scientists say using trash to produce biofuels might help solve the world’s growing energy crisis and also reduce carbon emissions. The researchers said current biofuels produced from crops require an increase in crop production, which has its own severe environmental costs. However, second-generation biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol derived from processed urban waste, might offer dramatic emissions savings without the environmental catch.Our results suggest that fuel from processed waste biomass, such as paper and cardboard, is a promising clean energy solution,” said Associate Professor Hugh Tan of the National University of Singapore. “If developed fully this biofuel could simultaneously meet part of the world’s energy needs, while also combating carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependency.” The team found 82.93 billion liters of cellulosic ethanol could be produced from the world’s landfill waste and by substituting gasoline with the resulting biofuel, global carbon emissions could be cut by figures ranging from 29.2 percent to 86.1 percent for every unit of energy produced. The study that included researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich appears in the journal Global Change Biology: Bioenergy.


AT: Biopower



Biopower is neither inherently good, nor bad. Our specific context is more important than their sweeping generalization.

Dickinson 04 - Associate Professor, History Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley - 2004 (Edward Ross, “Biopolitics, Fascism, Democracy: Some Reflections on Our Discourse About “Modernity,” Central European History, vol. 37, no. 1, 1–48)

This notion is not at all at odds with the core of Foucauldian (and Peukertian) theory. Democratic welfare states are regimes of power/knowledge no less than early twentieth-century totalitarian states; these systems are not “opposites,” in the sense that they are two alternative ways of organizing the same thing. But they are two very different ways of organizing it. The concept “power” should not be read as a universal stifling night of oppression, manipulation, and entrapment, in which all political and social orders are grey, are essentially or effectively “the same.” Power is a set of social relations, in which individuals and groups have varying degrees of autonomy and effective subjectivity. And discourse is, as Foucault argued, “tactically polyvalent.” Discursive elements (like the various elements of biopolitics) can be combined in different ways to form parts of quite different strategies (like totalitarianism or the democratic welfare state); they cannot be assigned to one place in a structure, but rather circulate. The varying possible constellations of power in modern societies create “multiple modernities,” modern societies with quite radically differing potentials.91


Biopower is not genocidal when it is deployed by a government which also respects rights.

Dickinson 04 - Associate Professor, History Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley - 2004 (Edward Ross, “Biopolitics, Fascism, Democracy: Some Reflections on Our Discourse About “Modernity,” Central European History, vol. 37, no. 1, 1–48)

At its simplest, this view of the politics of expertise and professionalization is certainly plausible. Historically speaking, however, the further conjecture that this “micropolitical” dynamic creates authoritarian, totalitarian, or homicidal potentials at the level of the state does not seem very tenable. Historically, it appears that the greatest advocates of political democracy —in Germany left liberals and Social Democrats —have been also the greatest advocates of every kind of biopolitical social engineering, from public health and welfare programs through social insurance to city planning and, yes, even eugenics.102 The state they built has intervened in social relations to an (until recently) ever-growing degree; professionalization has run ever more rampant in Western societies; the production of scientistic and technocratic expert knowledge has proceeded at an ever more frenetic pace. And yet, from the perspective of the first years of the millennium, the second half of the twentieth century appears to be the great age of democracy in precisely those societies where these processes have been most in evidence. What is more, the interventionist state has steadily expanded both the rights and the resources of virtually every citizen — including those who were stigmatized and persecuted as biologically defective under National Socialism. Perhaps these processes have created an ever more restrictive “iron cage” of rationality in European societies. But if so, it seems clear that there is no necessary correlation between rationalization and authoritarian politics; the opposite seems in fact to be at least equally true.


Not all biopolitics bring about genocide—it trivializes Nazism to say that all enactments of the state of exception are equivalent.

Rabinow & Rose 03 (Paul, Professor of Anthropology at UC Berkeley, Nikolas, Professor of Sociology @ the London School of Economics, “Thoughts On The Concept of Biopower Today,” December 10, 2003, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/sociology/ pdf/RabinowandRose-BiopowerToday03.pdf, pg. 8-9)

Agamben takes seriously Adorno’s challenge “how is it possible to think after Auschwitz?” But for that very reason, it is to trivialize Auschwitz to apply Schmitt’s concept of the state of exception and Foucault’s analysis of biopower to every instance where living beings enter the scope of regulation, control and government. The power to command under threat of death is exercised by States and their surrogates in multiple instances, in micro forms and in geopolitical relations. But this is not to say that this form of power commands backed up by the ultimate threat of death is the guarantee or underpinning principle of all forms of biopower in contemporary liberal societies. Unlike Agamben, we do not think that : the jurist the doctor, the scientist, the expert, the priest depend for their power over life upon an alliance with the State (1998: 122). Nor is it useful to use this single diagram to analyze every contemporary instance of thanato-politics from Rwanda to the epidemic of AIDS deaths across Africa. Surely the essence of critical thought must be its capacity to make distinctions that can facilitate judgment and action.



Download 2.71 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   ...   230




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page