You are on page 1of 6

Word Count: 2107

What’s the difference between a soldier belonging to United States military and, let’s say, a mass
murderer? They both kill. Perhaps they both us guns to kill? The difference comes in motive and
intent. Not weapon or action. The same goes for policies, which is why the case for Space Based
Solar Power is topical and is environmental policy.

So, let’s start off here. We’ve got a T-Press, and I-Spec, a K, and a nifty CP. Let’s start with the
T-Press.

A. Interp
– Okay, I’ll accept his new reform definition as well as his analysis.
A. Standard and RTP
– Fantastic. I’m glad someone agrees that the common man is great. Funny though,
from my perspective, the common man sees energy and environment like Siamese
twins- joined at the hip.
A. Violation
– This, right here, is where I contest. One, current environmentally “safe” energy
sources aren’t safe and aren’t cheap, therefore I offer a change from the SQ by
implementing SBSP. Therefore, I think the biggest issue is whether or not energy
policy equals environmental policy, and vice versa.
A. Impact
– Yeah. T is big.

Okay, so response one is:

1. Energy Policy and Environmental Policy Are Intertwined

John Kerry said in ’02, that even the common school kid can tell you that energy policy and
environmental policy are inseparable.
Senator John F. Kerry [Democratic candidate for President in 2004, long-standing US Senator], “Statement of Senator John F. Kerry
on President Bush's Announcement on Air Pollution and Global Warming,” Delivered before the United States Senate, February 14, 2002
(Ethos)

“The Administration begrudgingly accepts that global warming is a threat which must be addressed even as their energy plan would
increase global warming pollution by more than 30 percent. They say they want to stem air pollution which makes Americans sick and degrades
our land and water but their proposals weaken pollution controls at power plants. They
submit an energy plan and tell us
not to worry because it is "energy policy, not environmental policy" when any school kid in
America could tell you energy policy and environmental policy are inseparable. The
President, with all due respect, cannot have it both ways. You cannot back policies that will
increase pollution and mislead the American people by claiming to be helping the
environment.”

Response two is:


2. Intent determines topicality

As said in the beginning, in real life, in the common man’s eyes, and in topicality, intent and
motive are crucial. Our environment is being degraded by fossil fuels and other alternatives,
someone must put their foot in and change this problem, make it better, I do by implementing
SBSP to help the environment as well as the average Joes.

Allll righty, moving we find the I-Spec. Yay.

A. Standard
1. Many different ways to implement SBSP
○ Correct, there are. However, I already specified three out of three areas. So
first off, I answered the orbit placement in my definition of SBSP in my 1AC.
If you note, I said “geosynchronous.” Moving on, I how to capture the energy
in my mandate. Using parabolic reflectors. And finally, concerning how I was
going to beam it down, I stated in the second mandate I would be using lasers.
This completely kills the I-Spec, I already specified how I was implementing
it.
1. Not specifying implementation
○ As seen above, I clearly did specify. Not to mention NASA is further R&Ding
SBSP for 15 years, so they’ll come up with better approaches to this first
approach.
1. Agencies versus USFG
○ Exactly, which is why we have NASA design it and then they’ll pass that
exact design, down to the nuts and bolts, over to other agencies under the
USFG.
A. Violation
– Excuse me? Did I hear that right? We specified to the hilt. We specified the orbit
placement, how we’re going to collect the energy, how we’re going to beam the
energy, how we’re going to collect the energy (rectennas- see definition of SBSP in
1AC), hand even how we’re going to get the satellites up there (SpaceX’s Falcon 9-
Mandate 2)
A. Impacts
– No impacts because of no violation. I clearly specified.

Now that the I-Spec is out of the way, let’s move on to the K oh yay.

A. Framework
– Agreed, mindsets, motives, and intentions are very important. Also judge, I’d like you
to note that Will slightly backed up my second T-Press response.
A. Links
1. International Treaties
○ No. They. Don’t. Where in Article 1 of the Treaty on Principles Governing the
Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, does it say that any technology involving
space must be given to everyone? Nowhere. However, I do see how it could
be misinterpreted. Article 1 says “…use of outer space…shall be carried out
for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree
of economic or scientific development…” Now, the key here is what does
benefit and in the interest of mean? Well, if you take it into context with the
rest of the Treaty, you’ll find that it means simply, without goals to
weaponries space or harm other countries. A lot of the treaty talks about
military use, and harmful environmental use. So in context, as long as we do it
for the benefit of mankind and not for war activates or any other harmful
activities, we’re A-okay.
○ Secondly and most importantly, the US hasn’t signed OR ratified this treaty. It
doesn’t apply to us at. all. BAM! Link crushed.
○ Thirdly, if we’re to press a technology on ALL countries whether or no the
have the conomy to handle it, the technology to handle, or even want it, we’d
end up in total ruin. If the economy can’t handle it you get bankruptcy, if the
tech can’t handle you might get deaths and malfunctions (read: Chernobyl
times a billion), and if they don’t want it, you get breach of national
sovereignty and war. Major catastrophe. Will it taking out of context.

A. Everything else under the K


○ I would agree with for the most part, but since we don’t break any
international treaties, we don’t break the constitution. We didn’t even SIGN
the treaty he brought up.
○ Another response for this would be to show how Japan and California have
plans to pass SBSP, so therefore under this K, they’d be destroying the
constitution too. Not to mention the government breaks the constitution every
single day. For the US the constitution is simply wrapping paper, something
that looks good on the outside, but just gets crinkled up and thrown away in
the morning. ::gets off soapbox::

The CP!

A. Text
– How many countries is he pursuing? All of them. That’s what both you as the judge
and me as the affirmative team, have to assume since he doesn’t specify, or until he
answers in CX.
– He hasn’t read ANY evidence saying countries would want to work with the US on
SBSP. It’d cost them billions of dollars, which for some countries, is a lot they don’t
have. Not to mention, some countries might not be able handle developing the
technology.
– If he doesn’t get results in 5 years, his CP puts him right back where we are right
now, my plan.
A. Solvency
1. Without international co-op, space colonization is gone
○ To put it quite frankly, so?
○ Will is putting this card to say, if we don’t cooperate with other countries on
SBSP right now, the future of space development is lost forever! Hold your
horses there boy; there are still opportunities in the future to cooperate as well
as ongoing cooperation.
○ The card also never mentions SBSP, energy, or the environment all it talks
about is bases and habitats on the moon or Mars (which by the way is much to
hot to live on; come on ISECG, you know that).
1. ONLY international cooperation can create an effective SBSP system
○ Hmm, pretty sure things have changed since 1981.
○ Japan, SolarEn (Armenia), and two other international private companies are
pursing SBSP and claim to have working satellites in the future. Japan-2050
and SolarEn (with Pacific Gas & Electric- Cali)- 2016. So you have either one
of two conclusions, either private companies and Japan are lying and there
technology is junk, or the card is outdated and SBSP is realistic now. I go with
the latter.
○ Back in the ‘80s SBSP would have costed trillions of dollars.

Michael D. Lemonick, Yale Environment, Solar Power From Space: Moving Beyond Science Fiction, October 21st
2009, http://www.spaceenergy.com/AnnouncementRetrieve.aspx?ID=30613, {DC}

The bottom line, he says, was that it could be done, but it would have cos the
equivalent of a trillion of today’s dollars to get the first kilowatt of power, and
it would have taken 20 years. “The National Research Council and the Office
of Technology Assessment looked at it,” recalled Mankins. “One of them said,
‘Let’s revisit this in ten years.’ The other said, ‘Let’s never consider this
again.’”
○ The biggest reason the card says to use international co-op is cost, but with
today’s technology, we can get it down to just 25 billion bucks. Less than a
new nuclear plant.
1. Contributors to the ISS
○ Cool. However an space station=/=a new approach the entire world’s energy
using state of the art technology and billions upon billions of dollars; in fact
for the whole world to do it, it would trillions possibly.
1. China Relations
○ This is dependent upon China wanting to develop SBSP.
○ In fact I can claim the exact same advantages (China Relations and US
Hegemony) under my plan.

To back up and prove my last statement, I’ll close with these two advantages to our plan. In fact
you could word them as a turn even.
1. US-China
a. Link: China Needs Energy

Taylor Dinerman [], October 22 2007, “China, the US, and Space Solar Power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1, {DC}

At some point within the next twenty or thirty years China will face an energy crisis for which it
will be almost certainly unprepared. The crisis may come sooner if, due to a combination of
internal and external pressures, the Chinese are forced to limit the use of coal and similar fuels.
At that point their economic growth would stall and they would face a massive recession. Only a
new source of electrical energy will insure that such a nightmare never happens. The global
repercussions would be disastrous. In the near term the only new source of electric power that
can hope to generate enough clean energy to satisfy China’s mid- to long-term needs is space
based solar power.

b. US Solves China’s Energy Problem Via SBSP


Taylor Dinerman [], October 22 2007, “China, the US, and Space Solar Power,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/985/1, {DC}

For the US this means that in the future, say around 2025, the ability of private US or
multinational firms to offer China a reliable supply of beamed electricity at a competitive
price would allow China to continue its economic growth and emergence as part of a peaceful
world power structure. China would have to build the receiver antennas (rectennas) and
connect them to its national grid, but this would be fairly easy for them, especially when compared
to what a similar project would take in the US or Europe when the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) factor adds
to the time and expense of almost any new project.

Granted, we can mandate that we offer China our energy, but we can say that it’s possible, which
is as much as Will can say.

2. US Hegemony/Tech Race
a. US tech leadership is waning
Terrence K. Kelly [], “The US Scientific and Technical Workforce Improving Data for Decisionmaking,” 2004 [], {DC}

Concerns about the size and adequacy of the U.S. scientific, technical, engineering, and
mathematics workforce have grown amid fears of a dwindling labor pool and concern that this
may erode U.S. leadership in science and technology and could complicate mobilization of
appropriate manpower for homeland security.

b. SBSP key to tech leadership and US hegemony


NASA, “Space Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic Security” Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, October 10, 2007, [], {DC}

The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP


directly addresses the concerns of the Presidential Aerospace
Commission which called on the US to become a true spacefaring civilization and to pay closer
attention to our aerospace technical and industrial base, our “national jewel” which has enhanced
our security, wealth, travel, and lifestyle. An SBSP program as outlined in this report is remarkably consonant with the
findings of this commission, which stated: The United States must maintain its preeminence in aerospace
research and innovation to be the global aerospace leader in the 21st century. This can only be
achieved through proactive government policies and sustained public investments in long-term
research and RDT&E infrastructure that will result in new breakthrough aerospace capabilities.

Let’s recap.

T: Affirmative- to the common man energy and environment are inseparable and in reality
(which is valued above debate land), intent/motive determine things, not action.

I-Spec: Affirmative- Shot in the head, decapitated, crushed with a hydraulic press, and burned. I
specified to the utmost degree, fulfilling all of Will’s implementation arguments.

K: Affirmative- Non-existant. We don’t break any treaties for a number of reasons, but most
importantly, we didn’t sign or ratify the treaty Will claims we broke.

CP: Affirmative- His CP might put him back with the affirmative plan, his solvency evidence is
outdated, non-applicable, un-warranted, and we can claim both the US-China relations advantage
and the US hegemony advantage.

There you have it. Aff sweeps neg’s arguments, protects the environment, saves lives, saves
money, increases national security, puts the US back on top in the technology arena, and has the
capability to strengthen US-China relations. Thank you. Vote affirmative.

Cheers.