Counter plan text: the united states should teach man to fish

Teach a man to fish solves world poverty

Whiting 1826 1826 March 25, The Religious Intelligencer, Volume 10, Number 43, Ladder of
Benevolence, Quote Page 681, Column 1, Published by Nathan Whiting, New Haven, Connecticut.
(Google Books Full View) https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/28/fish/ //ahsAK
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. The
origin of this thought is highly contested. I have seen claims that that the adage is Chinese, Native American, Italian, Indian, or Biblical.
Sometimes it is linked to Lao-Tzu, Maimonides, or Mao Zedong. Would you please explore this topic? Quote Investigator: The general
principle of alleviating poverty by facilitating self-sufficiency has a long history. The 12th-century philosopher
Maimonides wrote about eight degrees in the duty of charity. In 1826 an explication of the eighth degree was published in a journal called “The
Religious Intelligencer”. Boldface has been added to excerpts: 1

Poverty causes war

Easterly 7 (William Easterly, William Russell Easterly is an American economist, specializing in
economic development. He is a Professor of Economics at New York University, joint with Africa House,
and Co-Director of NYU’s Development Research Institute, An ivory tower analysis of real world
poverty, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61620-1/fulltext?
code=lancet-site)

The problem of correlation versus causation pervades the book. “The bottom billion” are—no surprise—poor.  Again, Collier presumes
poverty causes war (what he calls a “conflict trap”). Poverty and war do seem to go together, but Collier fails to
offer convincing evidence that a given amount of poverty relief (however that would be accomplished) would cause reduced war.  And the threat of spurious correlation is still
a problem, as poverty and civil war may go together only because they are both symptoms of deeper
problems, like Africa's weak states, ethnic antagonisms, and the legacy of the slave trade and colonial exploitation. His shaky analysis leads
to real world advice (like foreign military intervention to break the “conflict trap”) that could be tragically wrong.  Collier thinks the
bottom billion are subject to many kinds of traps—the conflict trap, the coup trap, the natural
resource trap, the landlocked with bad neighbours trap, the corruption trap. So he thinks they need the West to
rescue them, because “breaking the conflict trap and the coup trap are not tasks societies can readily accomplish for themselves”. For

Collier, “They will be stuck in poverty unless we help them far more than we have to date.” The image
of the trap is reinforced by Collier's alarming statement that the bottom billion are falling further
behind the rest of us. So is there a poverty trap—ie, the poorest countries are condemned to the worst growth? No, this is yet another
statistical misunderstanding. If you pick out who are in the poorest 1 billion today, naturally they would be disproportionately likely to be those

that had the worst growth of incomes over the previous decades. Think of an analogy—the poorest gamblers after a 2-week long vacation in

Las Vegas would be those who lost most of their bets—but that doesn't mean that those poor bettors faced worst odds beforehand than the

others. So if you want to test whether there is a poverty trap, you need to look at whether those who were poor at the beginning of any period

you want to look at were more likely to have poor economic growth than the rest afterwards. The answer is no. In both historical and

contemporary experience, there are plenty of countries that start off poor and then grow their way out of poverty (remember all of today's rich

nations were once as poor as the bottom billion, as were more recent success stories like South Korea, China, India, Vietnam, and Botswana).
The CP solves AND alt solutions fail
Bartholomew 12 Mel Bartholomew. May 27, 2012. Square Foot Gardening. Mel Bartholomew
(December 14, 1931 – April 28, 2016) was an American gardener, inventor, businessman, television
presenter and writer. He was born in Kingston, New York, but was raised in California. He was known for
creating Square foot gardening. melbartholomew.com/can-we-solve-world-hunger/ //ahsAK
How long would it take to solve world hunger? How long would it take to solve world poverty ? Well,
we’ve been working on it for a zillion years and we haven’t solved it yet. What’s the core of the
problem? What’s the reason? Why hasn’t it been solved? In my humble opinion, it’s because we keep giving a
man a fish and we never teach him how to fish! Is it because he doesn’t want to learn, or is it because
we keep giving him a fish because it makes us feel good? After a while, he thinks “I’ll just keep accepting
these fish, it’s very nice of them to do that . By the way, my neighbor is hungry too, I wonder if you’d
have some extra fish tomorrow for him as well as for me?” So, the world’s solution to poverty and
hunger is keep giving a man a fish. We’ve got plenty, we can overproduce, we can have our excess go to
the hungry and that will solve every problem. And we will feel good. And their government will be
pleased. Will this situation ever change? Will they ever get un-hungry? Never. Not doing what we have
been doing. Up until now, we had no alternate solution that was feasible, practical and sensible. The
world’s solution was that those that were in the know and had the resources would go into a poor
country and teach them how to do our method of agriculture. We’ve done it from our country for a zillion years and
we’re still doing it. We’re sending them genetically engineered seeds to produce more crop. We’re giving them better fertilizers all the time, to
improve their yield from their meager soil and land. We’re convincing them that they need the finest machinery that we have, and that they
should plow up the land, as little as they have and as poor the soil is, enrich it with the best fertilizers we can produce, plant the most
productive genetically modified seeds and farm just like we do. That’s our solution. It worked for us didn’t it?? Why shouldn’t it work for them?

Poverty is the root cause of violence and conflict

Goodhand 03 (Jonathan, School of Oriental and African Studies—University of London, “Enduring
Disorder and Persistent Poverty:A Review of the Linkages Between War and Chronic Poverty,” World
Development, 31:3, 2003, p. 629-646, http://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/research-
domains/transdisciplinary-concepts-and-methods/favaia/workspace/documents/world-development-
volume-31-issue-3-special-issue-on-chronic-poverty-and-development-policy/pages629-646.pdf)

In this final section some of the key implications of this analysis are briefly drawn out. To summarize the key arguments: –– Chronic conflict causes
chronic poverty. At a global level, donors will fail to make significant inroads in reducing chronic
poverty unless a greater emphasis is placed on conflict prevention and peacebuilding . ––Poverty is
one of a number of factors that may contribute to violent conflict and addressing horizontal
inequalities is likely to play a role in preventing the shift from grievance to violence. ––It is hypothesized
that transient poverty is likely to have a more significant influence on the dynamics of war and peace
than chronic poverty. A focus on chronic poverty may not have a significant impact on conflict prevention and peacebuilding. ––Greed-based theories of
conflict should be treated with caution as they fail to capture fully the political and social processes at work. A more nuanced analysis of how ‘‘greed’’ and

‘‘grievance’’ interact in particular contexts at particular times is called for. The institutions of the state play a crucial role in mediating these processes. ––The role of

borderland areas as incubators of poverty and conflict has been highlighted. How greed and grievance dynamics play themselves out in remote rural areas is a

question that has been underresearched. ‘‘Place matters’’ and policies need to be developed which are much more ‘‘context aware.’’ These findings lead to the

following three principal policy implications. (a) Conflict prevention and peacebuilding  Unless a greater priority is placed
on conflict prevention and peacebuilding, chronic poverty will continue to grow . In particular, more robust and
sustained action at the international level is required. Mainstream conflict and policy analysis tends to place an emphasis on internal problems and external

solutions (Lund, 2000). This needs to be rectified with more attention paid to ‘‘greed’’ and ‘‘grievance’’ dynamics at an international level through changes in

international public policy and global regulation. Many of today’s conflicts are connected to regionalized conflict systems, yet donor policy and planning frameworks

are often constrained by country-level analysis. Aid policy is only one of a number of instruments that may be used. Policy responses tend to be very

compartmentalized and often undercut one another. The poverty eradication objectives of aid can be undermined by public policy in other areas. It is one thing to

talk about making globalization more inclusive, but what does this mean when the rich countries of the world are spending three times as much subsidizing their

farmers than on aid budgets? (Elliott, 2001, p. 23). Aid may not be the leading edge in supporting peacebuilding processes, but it is incumbent on aid agencies to

develop more conflict sensitive policies and programs. Stewart and Fitzgerald (2000) argue for a greater emphasis on protecting fragile, conflict prone countries

through international regulation of investment in sensitive commodities such as arms, oil, gems and timber and the suspension of principal debt payments for

countries in conflict. The policy conditionalities for countries at war or threatened by war should be reformulated with the creation of special provisions to reduce

the effects of economic globalization on distributive justice, economic uncertainty and state weakness. While there is some agreement in the
literature that conflict causes poverty (and as we have argued, persistent conflict is likely to raise levels of chronic poverty), the argument that
there is a causal relationship in the reverse direction is more contentious. While few writers argue for a deterministic relationship, there is a growing body of

empirical research, which examines poverty’s role as one of a number of causal factors behind violent conflict. Broadly, it is argued that uneven

development processes lead to inequality, exclusion and poverty . This contributes to growing
grievances particularly when poverty coincides with ethnic, religious, language or regional
boundaries. 26 These underlying grievances may explode into open conflict when triggered by external
shocks (such as a sudden change in terms of trade) or mobilized by conflict entrepreneurs. Although few argue that poverty per se causes conflict, research
points to the importance of extreme horizontal inequalities as a source of grievance which is used by leaders to
mobilize followers and to legitimate violent actions (Stewart & Fitzgerald, 2000).

Poverty causes nuclear war.

Caldwell 2000 - Joseph George Caldwell, PhD (Statistics) Consultant in Statistics and Information
Technology (“On Human Population, Global Nuclear War and the Survival of Planet Earth,” Foundation
Website 10/26/00, http://www.foundationwebsite.org/arti1000.htm Accessed 7/10/13 AT)

It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above.
First, human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three billion more
desperately poor people on the planet than there were just forty years ago. Despite decades of
industrial development, the number of wretchedly poor people continues to soar. The pressure for war
mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity -- the desire of one
group to acquire the land, water, energy, or other resources possessed by another. With each passing
year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels.

Public forum debaters should be able to read plans and counterplans

Our first contention is meltdowns

Nuclear reactors are at high risk of an accident. Gesselschaft 12 finds that

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl are more likely to happen than the core meltdowns in and Fukushima

previously assumed such events

. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that

may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the

radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International

Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants. The reactor accident in Fukushima has fuelled the discussion

about nuclear energy and triggered Germany's exit from their nuclear power program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought, a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz:

"After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once

in 10 to 20 

There’s 3 reasons why meltdowns happen when we promote nuclear energy

1. New tech 

Sovacool 08 finds that

Although the incident at Three Mile Island avoided this nightmare scenario, barely, it brought about sweeping changes to the industry and forced the permanent closure and decommissioning of TMI Unit 2.498 After the accident, emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors

safety risks
engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations in the U.S. were radically reformed. Newer Reactors are the Riskiest Unfortunately, are amplified
such as those at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island only

with new nuclear systems generations of . Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has noted that [as] almost all serious nuclear accidents occurred with
recent technology , making newer systems the riskiest.5" In 1959, the Sodium Research Experiment reactor in California experienced a partial meltdown fourteen months after opening." 1 In 1961, the S1-1 Reactor in Idaho was slightly more than two years old before a

fatal accident killed everyone at the site.50 2 The Fermi Unit 1 reactor began commercial operation in August 1966, but had a partial meltdown only two months after opening.50 3 The St. Laurent des Eaux Al Reactor in France started in June 1969, but an online refueling machine malfunc- tioned and

melted 400 pounds of fuel four months later."4 The Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor in Alabama began commercial operation in August 1974 but experienced a fire severely damaging control equipment six months later.5 Three Mile Island Unit 2 began commercial operation in December 1978 but had a partial

meltdown three months after it started.0 6 Chernobyl Unit 4 started up in August 1984, and suffered the worst nuclear disaster in history on April 26, 1986 before the two-year anniversary of its operation.0 7 Safety risks may be especially acute for new reactors in the U.S. for three reasons. First , the
pressure to build new generators on existing sites increases the risk of to avoid complex issues associated with finding new locations only

catastrophe because there is a greater chance that one accident can affect multiple reactors
, . Second, Generation IV

[Furthermore,] researchers continue to pursue breeder reactor designs that use liquid sodium as coolant[s].5" Liquid sodium, however, can be dangerous, since it [which] can immediately catch fire when exposed to water.510 Third, the domestic nuclear industry lacks qualified and experienced staff and is

losing much of the expertise that it does have to retirement, attrition and death.5 '

2. Cyber attacks 

Van Dine 16 finds that

The past decade has seen unprecedented progress in the security of nuclear materials and facilities. As key improvements to physical security have been implemented, however, a potentially more dangerous threat is undermining these gains: the cyber threat. Cyber-attacks
could be used to facilitate the theft of nuclear materials or [as]an act of sabotage resulting in radiological release . A successful attack could have consequences that CN-

244-64 2 reverberate around the world and undermine global confidence in civilian nuclear power as a safe and reliable energy source. Given the risk and the stakes, governments and industry must now increase focus on the cyber threat. Nuclear operators and a range of national and international

organizations have recognized the challenge and have begun to accelerate their efforts to strengthen cyber security at nuclear facilities. However, the rapidly evolving cyber threat, combined with the proliferation of digital systems, makes it difficult to get ahead of the threat. Case after case—from the

Stuxnet attacks on the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Iran, to the hack of Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power in South Korea, to disturbing revelations of malware seeking login credentials found on systems at a German nuclear power plant—demonstrates that the current approach to cyber security at

Recent
nuclear facilities is falling short, and will soon be insufficient. Crafting a strategy that protects facilities from the dynamic, evolving cyber threats they now face requires a fresh, unconstrained examination of the overarching framework that guides their cyber security.

history is filled with examples demonstrating that critical infrastructure and even nuclear facilities are vulnerable —both to untargeted malware

and targeted cyber-attacks. As is now well known, the Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Iran was attacked with the Stuxnet virus between 2009 and 2010, damaging centrifuges and delaying enrichment activities. [3] This case is particularly notable as the facility was described as well-defended and

isolated from the internet. Since news of Stuxnet broke, revelations of malware found in nuclear facilities and critical infrastructure have only increased in frequency. 

Chen 20 
Even if the vulnerabilities don’t get exploited, the presence of additional nuclear reactors could incentivize adversaries to devote more money
to offensive cybersecurity programs. Russia and China are nowhere close to their limit on cybersecurity spending: an excuse is all they need to
ramp up spending. With juicy targets like nuclear reactors, there might even be a full-fledged cyberwar. Returning to the example of Stuxnet,
building new nuclear reactors will
nuclear energy is one such area that we should take the utmost caution towards. If anything, only

increase the [number of vulnerable computer systems] attack surface. It is a common adage that no code is bug free. In
fact, Steve McConnell, author of Code Complete, finds that the average codebase has anywhere between 15 to 50 errors per 1000 lines of
code.  nuclear reactor could increase the size of the codebase by 1.6%. With presumably millions of lines of code per reactor, the conclusion is
for every nuclear reactor built, the probability of a
obvious. There is a need for alarm. Our internal modeling suggests that
nuclear cyberattack increases by 4%. If the US were to switch entirely to nuclear energy, there would
be a 75% chance of a cyberattack before the end of 2020. A cyberattack [causing] would be devastating, potentially crippling the
United States. Coordinated meltdowns could trigger an environmental calamity, permanently ruining the environment and killing millions instantly from radiation poisoning and fallout. These condi tions could quickly become global,
decimating populations around the world.  

3. Weak enforcement
Regulation in the past have empirically failed
Brookings 11
regulatory laxity plagues the[US]
United States: While a degree of from lax enforcement NRC, it results more of regulations than from failure to heed warnings or private sector deception. The

nuclear plants failed to report defects in equipment that could pose safety
NRC’s Office of the Inspector General uncovered 24 instances in which

risks . In the last eight years, the regulator has not imposed any penalties on plant operators for such infractions.

Meltdowns are wide-spread as Gesellschaft 12 finds that

The team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is particularly high, the contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected to occur once in about every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated southwestern part of Germany run the

worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination, associated with the numerous nuclear power plants situated near the borders between France, Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind direction. If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million people on

average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter. This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in
the eastern US A and in East Asia this would [affect] 14 to 21 million people. be "Germany's exit from the nuclear energy program will reduce the national risk of radioactive contamination. However, an even stronger

reduction would result if Germany's neighbours were to switch off their reactors," says Jos Lelieveld. "Not only do we need an in-depth and public analysis of the actual risks of nuclear accidents. In light of [this] our findings I believe an internationally coordinated phasing out of nuclear energy should also be

considered ," adds the atmospheric chemist.

These meltdowns are deadly. Bertell 06 terminalizes that

Any estimate would be increased by including internal contamination from food and water and conversion of energy deposits to effective collective doses. This very conservative estimate of cancer fatalities in Europe attributable to Chernobyl is 889,336 to 1,778,672. Summary of findings Using
conservative methodology, the eventual death toll from the Chernobyl disaster I estimate will be: • 253 due to direct radiation damage • 904,763 to

[was] 1 to 2 million deaths

1,809,515 due to fatal cancers or • 905,016 to 1,809,768 in total This estimate of roughly is conservative for several reasons, firstly, because of the failure of the radiation investigation by UNSCEAR to document the radionuclide

variety and the extent of radiation contamination of food; and secondly, because of the use of faulty ICRP (International Commission on Radiation Protection) methodology, and the absence of a comprehensive scientific examination of all deaths among emergency and rescue workers, and disaster

witnesses. 

1) god is real god willed the squo he wants best for people negate

2) eval debaters after first rebuttal to alleviate the disadvantage first speaking team has

3) all weighing must come in the 2nd constructive for the 2nd speaking them to alleviate the disparity

Our second contention is a renewable trade-off

America is seeing a rise in renewables, as EIA finds in 2019 that

Renewable generation provided a new record of 742 million megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity in 2018,
nearly double 2008 the 382 million MWh produced in . Renewables provided 17.6% of electricity generation in the United States in 2018. Nearly 90% of the increase in U.S. renewable electricity between 2008 and 2018 came from wind and solar generation. Wind

generation rose from 55 million MWh in 2008 to 275 million MWh in 2018 (6.5% of total electricity generation), exceeded only by conventional hydroelectric at 292 million MWh (6.9% of total generation).
Nuclear energy hurts the renewable sector in two ways. First is crowding out
Karpov in 2019 explains that 
 The cost of nuclear power is often broken down into capital costs and operating costs. Capital costs include site preparation, engineering, manufacturing, construction, commissioning, and financing. Operating costs include fuel costs (from uranium mining to fuel fabrication), maintenance,

decommissioning, and waste disposal. The capital costs of a nuclear power plant are much higher than [other] energy sources for

such as coal and natural gas—and the annual cost of repaying the initial investment is substantially higher than the annual operating costs. This is because nuclear power plants are technically complex and must satisfy strict licensing and design requirements. The design and construction of a new nuclear

power plant requires many highly qualified specialists and often takes many years, compounding financing costs, which can become significant. Design changes or lawsuits can cause delays that further increase the financing charges, which in some cases exceed the actual construction costs.

Due to the market’s limited supply of capital, Kanellos corroborates in 2010 that 
nuclear power plants don't go down in price over time.
Unlike computers, solar panels,[and] wind turbines and most other high tech projects, and projects Instead, the costs escalate, and that's a

Rising costs
recipe for a disaster, according to a report released today by Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. (Here is a link to the full report.)  means more expensive energy, he said. It also

crowd outs
undermines the purpose of subsidies like government-backed loan guarantees, because the subsidies can't be phased out due to the continuing price increases. Worse, the vast scope of nuclear projects [which] invariably absorbs the mental energy of utilities and

investment in other renewables and energy efficiency. 

Second is lobbying

Cooper finds in 2014 that

to increase reactors
The ongoing collapse of nuclear power in the U.S. is readily apparent in the failure to launch 90 percent of “nuclear renaissance” reactors, delays and cost overruns for those that got started, the cancellation of projects the capacity of existing , and

the U.S. nuclear industry has

the early retirement of aging reactors. To reverse its fate, launched an aggressive • gone in search of a new technology to champion (small modular reactor [SMR]), •

campaign to sell nuclear power as the primary solution to climate change , and • sought to slow the growth of alternatives with vigorous attacks on the policies

that have enabled renewable resources to grow at record levels. Thus the collapse has lent greater intensity and significance to the 50-year debate over the economic viability and safety of commercial nuclear power: • It is not only the fate of nuclear power at stake, but also the fundamental direction of

the policy response to climate change. This paper examines the fundamental choice policymakers are being asked to make. It reviews the prospects for nuclear technology in light of the past and present performance of nuclear power (Section I), assesses the economic and safety challenges that SMR

technology faces (Section II) when confronting the alternatives that are ava 

As a result, Lyderson 15 finds that

Nuclear generators have successfully lobbied against tax incentives for fought against renewable and energy efficiency standards on the state level, and

wind and solar on the federal level as states . They’re in the process of securing changes in regional capacity markets that would benefit nuclear and harm solar and wind. And develop their Clean Power Plans to

fulfill the federal mandate to reduce carbon emissions, nuclear is often pitted against renewables. In

because of competition from wind.

deregulated states like Illinois, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania, nuclear generators have found it increasingly difficult to sell their power at a profit on open markets, primarily from gas but also

and solar
Meanwhile, energy efficiency distributed generation have reduced demand for electricity and are [being a] part of a fundamental shift which could significantly shrink the role of[from] large, centralized power plants.

Because of these two reasons, Dvork concludes in 2010 that 

U.S. states [with no nuclear plans] have
With respect to efficiency and renewable energy the “no nuclear plans” (in comparison to U.S. “nuclear states”): had three times as much renewable energy and ten
times as much renewable energy non-hydro in their 1990 generation mix, set Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) goals for the next decade that are 50% higher; spent three times as much on efficiency in 2006. Furthermore, nonnuclear U.S.

states saved over three times as much energy in 1992 to 2006 and have much stronger utility efficiency programs in place.

There are two impacts

First is air pollution

Nuclear energy has long construction times which force the use of carbon intensive construction
practices as Jacobson 19 from Stanford writes that 
There is a small group of scientists that have proposed replacing 100% of the world’s fossil fuel power plants with nuclear reactors as a way to solve climate change. Many others propose nuclear grow to satisfy up to 20 percent of all our energy (not just electricity) needs. They advocate that nuclear is a

“clean” carbon-free source of power, but they don’t look at the human impacts of these scenarios. Let’s do the math.. One nuclear power plant takes on average about 14 years to build
-1/2 , from the planning

phase all the way to operation . According to the World Health Organization, about 7.1 million people die from air pollution each year, with more than 90% of these deaths from energy-related combustion. 

Compared to
In addition, 10 of the reactors were completed between 1991-2000. As such, the whole planning-to-operation time for these reactors was at least 32 years, not 15. That of any individual reactor was 10 to 19 years. Utility-scale wind and solar farms, on the other

hand, [which] take on average only 2 to 5 years [to build] , from the planning phase to operation. Rooftop solar PV projects are down to only a 6-month timeline. So transitioning to 100% renewables as soon as possible would

result in tens of millions fewer deaths. 

Jacobson terminalizes that 

switching our energy system to nuclear
According to the World Health Organization, about 7.1 million people die from air pollution each year, with more than 90% of these deaths from energy-related combustion. So

would result in 93 million people dying , as we wait for the new nuclear plants to be built
about all in the all-nuclear scenario.

So transitioning to renewables as
Utility-scale wind and solar farms, on the other hand, take on average only 2 to 5 years, from the planning phase to operation. Rooftop solar PV projects are down to only a 6-month timeline. 100%

soon as possible would result in tens of millions fewer deaths.

Second is climate change

Climate change requires immediate action as Miller writes in 2018 that 

"This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the

Global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45%

University of Melbourne, said in a statement. from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero"

around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C .Lowering emissions to this degree, while technically possible, would require widespread changes in energy, industry, buildings, transportation and cities, the

report says."The window on keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees C is closing rapidly and the current emissions pledges made by signatories to the Paris Agreement do not add up to us achieving that goal," added King.

This is why renewable energy, not nuclear, is key to reducing emissions. Greenpeace finds that
Landmark analysis released by Greenpeace USA, European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and other climate and energy advocates shows that the United States can indeed address global warming without relying on nuclear power or so-called “clean coal” — as some in the ongoing energy debate claim.

80% of U.S. electricity can be produced by renewable

The new report, “Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for Solving Global Warming” details a worldwide energy scenario where nearly

energy [and can reduce] carbon dioxide emissions

sources; where [and] [by] 50% globally without can be reduced and 72% in the U.S.

resorting to an increase in nuclear power dangerous or new coal technologies; and where America’s oil use can be cut by more than 50% by 2050 by using much more efficient cars and trucks (potentially plug-in hybrids),

increased use of biofuels and a greater reliance on electricity for transportation. The 92-page report, commissioned by the German Aerospace Center, used input on all technologies of the renewable energy industry, including wind turbines, solar photovoltaic panels, biomass power plants, solar thermal

collectors, and biofuels, all of which “are rapidly becoming mainstream.”

This is probable. Roberts 16 finds that

It is technically and economically feasible to run the US economy entirely on renewable energy, and to do so by 2050. That is the conclusion of a study last year in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, authored by Stanford scholar Mark Z. Jacobson and nine colleagues. Jacobson is well-known for his

ambitious and controversial work on renewable energy. In 2011 he published, with Mark A. Delucchi, a two-part paper (one, two) on "providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power." In 2013 he published a feasibility study on moving New York state entirely to renewables, and in 2014 he

created a road map for California to do the same. His team's 2015 paper contains 50 such road maps, one for every state, with detailed modeling on how to get to a US energy system entirely powered by wind, water, and solar (WWS). That means no oil and coal. It also means no natural gas, no nuclear

power, no carbon capture and sequestration, and no biofuels. Why exclude those sources? And what does that do to costs? More on that in a minute. The road maps show 80 how to 85 percent of existing energy
could be replaced by wind, water, and solar by 2030, with 100 percent by 2050. The result is a substantial savings relative to the status quo baseline, in terms of energy costs, health costs, and climate

costs alike. The resulting land footprint of energy is manageable, grid reliability is maintained, and more jobs will be created in renewables than destroyed in fossil fuels. Here's how it looks: Sounds pretty great! So how should we feel about this? Remember when I discussed scenarios that showed humanity

limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius? I made a point of saying that the scenarios demonstrated technical and economic feasibility, but represented enormous, heroic assumptions about social and political change.

Nuclear energy destroys our chances of meeting this goal, Shrader-Frechette finds in 2013 that in its
entire life-cycle
At all [nuclear] fuel-cycle stages, except (7), massive carbon releases occur. Yet the nuclear industry routinely calls fission an “emissions free” technology because the industry misleadingly trims greenhouse-emissions data from all but (7) of fourteen fuel-cycle stages (NEI 2007). Stage-(2) milling, for instance,

uses mainly fossil fuels and requires roughly 1,000 metric tons of uranium ore to produce one ton of U308, after grinding/leaching/processing (Argonne 2007, Diehl 2004). In stage (4) enrichment, to produce 124 tons of enriched UF6, one must process1000 metric tons UF6, create 876 tons of radioactive

waste, and use 951,543 Mwh (Megawatt-hours) of electricity. At stage (4), 8 Mwh electricity (most from fossil fuels) is needed to produce one kilogram of enriched UF6 (WISE 2006). Unsurprisingly, completely independent, peer-reviewed, university analyses in professional, scientific journals throughout the

world—from Oxford (UK) to Heerlen (Netherlands) to Singapore, agree about per-kilowatt-hour, carbon-equivalent, full-fuel-cycle emissions: Once full-fuel cycle greenhouse emissions are counted, fission is five to forty times dirtier than
wind, three to [and] ten times dirtier than solar-PV ), and roughly as dirty as natural gas (Van Leeuwen 2006; Barnaby and Kemp 2007, 7–14; ShraderFrechette 2011, 35–68). Nuclear thus contributes both to climate change,

and to the massive health toll of fossil fuels—including causing up to 40 percent of all cancers (Lashof et al. 1981, 3, 6; Shrader-Frechette, 2007, 3–38, 114–49). Although the Kyoto Protocol “counts” emissions only at the single point of electricity generation, once one includes full-fuel-cycle greenhouse

emissions, university scientists agree that greenhouse-emissions ratios, among various energy technologies, are as follows: 112 coal : 49 natural gas : 49 nuclear : 4 solar : 1 wind (Sovacool 2008; Fthenakis and Kim 2007; Barnaby and Kemp 2007, 7–14; Shrader-Frechette 2011, 35–68. ; WWW, 35–68). But if

so, there is no low-carbon argument to make in favor of atomic energy over renewables like wind and solar-PV. 

Preventing 4 degrees C warming is critical, as Illing 19 finds that

The UN says we’re on track to get to about 4 degrees or 4.3 degrees of warming by the end of the century if we continue as we are. I don’t think that we’ll get there, this century at least. I think that we’ll take enough action to avert that. But I think it’s really important to know what it would mean to land

there, because that is a much more reasonable anchor for our expectations. “Our best-case scenario is basically one in which we lose the equivalent of 25 Holocausts — and that’s just from air pollution alone” Part of the problem when discussing climate threats is that so much of it feels abstract or

we could avoid 150 million excess deaths from air

distant. But as soon as you begin to quantify the damage, it’s pretty harrowing. For instance, you cite a recent study showing that

pollution by end of century if we could limit warming to 1.5 degrees . or hold warming at 2 degrees without relying on negative emissions

Thus, we negate