Russia Adv – 1ac

Warming Impact

The nuclear power industry is key to decreasing global warming.

Herbst and Hopley 07—*General Partner of Utilis Energy, LLC; U.S. Energy Practice Area Manager for Data Monitor Inc.; energy analysis and consulting positions with the PIRA Energy Group and Standard & Poor’s; MBA in Finance and International Business from New York University’s Stern School of Business. He has a BA in History and Biology from Washington University; Series 3 Certification (Futures and Commodities) from the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) **Lead commodities analyst for North American natural gas, electric power, and plastics markets, Senior director of energy market analysis for Duke Energy North America in Houston, New Power Company and Enron North America, electric power practice of PIRA Energy Group in New York

(Alan and George, “Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time has Come for the World’s Most Misunderstood Energy Source”, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007, http://personal.stevens.edu/~plindner/Stuff/books/Nuclear%20Energy%20Now%20-%20A.%20Herbst,%20G.%20Hopley%20(Wiley,%202007)%20WW.pdf)//AW

Besides being a virtually unlimited source of supply, nuclear power also offers considerable enhancements in energy reliability. For example, when Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on the U.S. Gulf Coast in late August 2005, Entergy Corporation declared a precautionary “unusual event” and shut down its Waterford nuclear reactor in St. Charles Parish, 30 miles east of New Orleans. Just two weeks later, Entergy was given permission by the NRC to reactivate the unit since it had suffered no significant damage, due to its robust construction. Other energy infrastructure and assets in the region were not so fortunate, and it took weeks and months after the hurricane to restore operations to various refineries and pipelines in the affected region. The ultimate impact of Katrina on the nuclear power industry is likely to be considerably greater than a brief shutdown of a single reactor. Damage to natural gas facilities on the Gulf Coast sent already-high natural gas prices even higher, and in the wake of Hurricane Rita these prices reached $14 per thousand BTUs (MMBtu). Even before Katrina’s market impact, the rising cost of natural gas and imported oil prompted various firms to reexamine the potential for constructing new nuclear assets. The two 2005 U.S. Gulf Coast hurricanes have also reinforced concerns of overdependence on any one source of energy and concentrating too much infrastructure in one region of the United States. There is increasing agreement within the climate change lobby that greater utilization of nuclear power must be considered in order to reduce the threat of global warming. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power generation does not emit carbon dioxide, the main catalyst of climate change.This has created an unlikely alliance between the nuclear industry and many environmentalists, who are looking for ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.A statement made by James Lovelock, a founder of Greenpeace, that “Only nuclear power can halt global warming” offers an example of this alliance.
Warming causes extinction

Tickell, 08 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Guardian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, 8/11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

Politics—Plan Popular

Public likes the plan.

Herbst and Hopley 07—*General Partner of Utilis Energy, LLC; U.S. Energy Practice Area Manager for Data Monitor Inc.; energy analysis and consulting positions with the PIRA Energy Group and Standard & Poor’s; MBA in Finance and International Business from New York University’s Stern School of Business. He has a BA in History and Biology from Washington University; Series 3 Certification (Futures and Commodities) from the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) **Lead commodities analyst for North American natural gas, electric power, and plastics markets, Senior director of energy market analysis for Duke Energy North America in Houston, New Power Company and Enron North America, electric power practice of PIRA Energy Group in New York

(Alan and George, “Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time has Come for the World’s Most Misunderstood Energy Source”, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007, http://personal.stevens.edu/~plindner/Stuff/books/Nuclear%20Energy%20Now%20-%20A.%20Herbst,%20G.%20Hopley%20(Wiley,%202007)%20WW.pdf)//AW

According to a March 2006 survey conducted by Bisconti Research and GfK NOP for the Nuclear Energy Institute, 73 percent of the 1,000 U.S. adult respondents polled would accept a new nuclear reactor at an existing plant site and 68 percent would favor the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity to the United States, while only 29 percent of those polled oppose nuclear power. The data are consistent with public opinion results obtained by Bisconti Research in May 2005 which showed that 70 percent of Americans favored nuclear power. Bisconti’s research has shown over the past decade a widening gap between those who favor nuclear energy and those in opposition to the technology. Public opinions on the issue since 1983 are shown in Figure 1.2. In recent years Bisconti’s research has also shown a widening gap between those strongly in favor and strongly against nuclear power. (See Figure 1.3.) These recent polling results are the latest figures of a decade-long attempt to mold U.S. public opinion. The following sections illustrate the change in the public’s attitude toward nuclear power over the past 40 years. Much of the public’s perception of nuclear energy tends not to be based on facts but rather on past images, such as mushroom clouds and ill ness caused by radiation and radioactive fallout. These perceptions have changed over the decades. By understanding what has influenced the public’s perception, one can form a more objective opinion regarding the merits of nuclear energy.
Campaign insures public will support the plan.

Herbst and Hopley 07—*General Partner of Utilis Energy, LLC; U.S. Energy Practice Area Manager for Data Monitor Inc.; energy analysis and consulting positions with the PIRA Energy Group and Standard & Poor’s; MBA in Finance and International Business from New York University’s Stern School of Business. He has a BA in History and Biology from Washington University; Series 3 Certification (Futures and Commodities) from the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) **Lead commodities analyst for North American natural gas, electric power, and plastics markets, Senior director of energy market analysis for Duke Energy North America in Houston, New Power Company and Enron North America, electric power practice of PIRA Energy Group in New York

(Alan and George, “Nuclear Energy Now: Why the Time has Come for the World’s Most Misunderstood Energy Source”, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2007, http://personal.stevens.edu/~plindner/Stuff/books/Nuclear%20Energy%20Now%20-%20A.%20Herbst,%20G.%20Hopley%20(Wiley,%202007)%20WW.pdf)//AW

The U.S. nuclear industry has made plans to roll out a multiyear advertising campaign to build public support for new nuclear generation plants. In early 2006, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) finalized plans for an ad campaign with the PR firm Hill & Knowlton to promote a “nuclear renaissance.” The goal of the campaign is to build greater bipartisan support inside and outside the D.C. beltway for greater use of nuclear power in the United States. The print ad campaign (Figure 1.4) features a young girl with a blue-sky background and declares, “Clean air is so twenty-first century” and “Our generation is demanding lots of electricity . . . and clean air.” As a pro-industry advocacy group, the NEI has an interest in closely monitoring the changing sea of U.S. public opinion. It commissioned Bisconti to quantify the U.S. public’s opinions on nuclear power. While it can be said that opinion polls paid for by advocacy groups generally yield more industry-friendly results than polls conducted by potentially more objective organizations or independent polling firms, recent nuclear energy opinion polls tend to show a strong correlation with Bisconti’s results.