General Actions:
Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona State University | 2 | Kent Denver BJ | Scott Odekirk |
| |||
Gonzaga | 2 | Awesome ppl | someone |
|
Tournament | Round | Report |
---|
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Entry | Date |
---|---|
1ACTournament: Gonzaga | Round: 2 | Opponent: Awesome ppl | Judge: someone CONTENTION 1 IS WARMING In public discussions of climate change, the full range and weight of evidence underpinning the current science can be difficult to find. A good example of this is the role of observations of the climate system over the past one hundred years or more. In the current public discourse, the focus has been mostly on changes in global mean temperature. It would be easy to form the opinion that everything we know about climate change is based upon the observed rise in global temperatures and observed increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution. In other words, one could have the mistaken impression that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single correlation study. In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a human role in climate change. Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is even less informed by 20th century changes in global mean temperature. For example, our understanding of the greenhouse effect – the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy and chemistry. Much of this science is textbook material that is at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record. For example, it is a scientific fact that Venus, the planet most similar to Earth in our solar system, experiences surface temperatures of nearly 500 degrees Celsius due to its atmosphere being heavily laden with greenhouse gases. Back on Earth, that fundamental understanding of the physics of radiation, combined with our understanding of climate change from the geological record, clearly demonstrates that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will inevitably drive global warming. The observations we have taken since the start of 20th century have confirmed our fundamental understanding of the climate system. While the climate system is very complex, observations have shown that our formulation of the physics of the atmosphere and oceans is largely correct, and ever improving. Most importantly, the observations have confirmed that human activities, in particular a 40 increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since the late 19th century, have had a discernible and significant impact on the climate system already. In the field known as detection and attribution of climate change, scientists use indicators known as of climate change. These fingerprints show the entire climate system has changed in ways that are consistent with increasing greenhouse gases and an enhanced greenhouse effect. They also show that recent, long term changes are inconsistent with a range of natural causes. A warming world is obviously the most profound piece of evidence. Here in Australia, the decade ending in 2010 has easily been the warmest since record keeping began, and continues a trend of each decade being warmer than the previous, that extends back 70 years. Globally, significant warming and other changes have been observed across a range of different indicators and through a number of different recording instruments, and a consistent picture has now emerged. Scientists have observed increases in continental temperatures and increases in the temperature of the lower atmosphere. In the oceans, we have seen increases in sea-surface temperatures as well as increases in deep-ocean heat content. That increased heat has expanded the volume of the oceans and has been recorded as a rise in sea-level. Scientists have also observed decreases in sea-ice, a general retreat of glaciers and decreases in snow cover. Changes in atmospheric pressure and rainfall have also occurred in patterns that we would expect due to increased greenhouse gases. There is also emerging evidence that some, though not all, types of extreme weather have become more frequent around the planet. These changes are again consistent with our expectations for increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Patterns of temperature change that are uniquely associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect, and which have been observed in the real world include: greater warming in polar regions than tropical regions greater warming over the continents than the oceans greater warming of night time temperatures than daytime temperatures greater warming in winter compared with summer a pattern of cooling in the high atmosphere (stratosphere) with simultaneous warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere). By way of brief explanation, if the warming over the 20th century were due to some deep ocean process, we would not expect to see continents warming more rapidly than the oceans, or the oceans warming from the top down. For increases in solar radiation, we would expect to see warming of the stratosphere rather than the observed cooling trend. Similarly, greater global warming at night and during winter is more typical of increased greenhouse gases, rather than an increase in solar radiation. There is a range of other observations that show the enhanced greenhouse effect is real. The additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been identified through its isotopic signature as being fossil fuel in origin. The increased carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is being recorded as a measured decrease in ocean alkalinity. Satellite measurements of outgoing long-wave radiation from the planet reveal increased absorption of energy in the spectral bands corresponding to carbon dioxide, exactly as expected from fundamental physics. It is important to remember that the enhanced greenhouse effect is not the only factor acting on the climate system. In the short term, the influence of greenhouse gases can be obscured by other competing forces. These include other anthropogenic factors such as increased industrial aerosols and ozone depletion, as well as natural changes in solar radiation and volcanic aerosols, and the cycle of El Niño and La Niña events. By choosing a range of indicators, by averaging over decades rather than years, and by looking at the pattern of change through the entire climate system, scientists are able to clearly discern the fingerprint of human-induced change. The climate of Earth is now a closely monitored thing; from instruments in space, in the deep ocean, in the atmosphere and across the surface of both land and sea. It’s now practically certain that increasing greenhouse gases have already warmed the climate system. That continued rapid increases in greenhouse gases will cause rapid future warming is irrefutable. Warming reaches its tipping point within twenty-five years—9,200 studies prove—investment now is key The first is that the carbon accumulation in the atmosphere and resulting global warming have blown away the 2 degree Celsius tipping point that was earlier set. The present report says that to limit warming to a rise of 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, 1,000 gigatons (trillion metric tons) is the outer limit of carbon dioxide that can be emitted. However, by 2011 humans had already emitted 531 gigatons. That leaves very little wiggle room. According to climate change experts, the 1,000-gigaton limit may well be crossed in the next 25 years. ¶ The world has a total of 2,795 gigatons worth of carbon in the form of fossil fuels and reserves. Burning just 10 of these would take the earth over the tipping point. That's the stark message coming from the IPCC report. ¶ The report makes the second categorical assertion regarding sea level rise. It says that sea levels are projected to rise by 28-97 centimetres by 2100. This is over 50 more than the previous projection of 18-59 over the same period. This increase is mainly because of better estimation methods and more observations. By the year 2300, it is projected that seas will be higher by up to a cataclysmic 3 meters. ¶ Buried in the dense Summary for Policymakers, the report issued this week, is a series of future global scenarios. If you look at India, in the worst case scenario, temperatures will rise by up to 4 degrees Celsius and rainfall will increase by up to 20 over most of the sub-continent. Coupled with sea level along India's long coastline - on which are located megapolises like Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata - this spells a dire picture by the turn of this century. Of course, this is the worst case scenario, in which carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have more than doubled from the present in the next 80-odd years. ¶ How scientific and robust is the IPCC's statements and predictions? The whole process involved 9,200 scientific studies, reviewed by 1089 experts from 55 countries working in a multistage process. They received 54, 677 comments from scientists across the world. Over 2 million gigabytes of numerical data was analyzed before 209 authors put together the draft report. Then representatives of 195 countries went over it word by word. ¶ Most scientists agree that the IPCC's reports are on the conservative side because they are forced to accommodate everybody, including governments that are wary of sounding too alarmist. In the present report, for instance, two observed facts leading to increasing carbon dioxide release are not fully taken aboard - the melting of permafrost and ocean acidification. Scientists have observed that both these on-going processes will cause an even greater amount of carbon dioxide to be released (or remain unabsorbed) than before. But these are not fully spelt out yet. Similarly warming of the deep sea (beyond 700 feet) is also not fully described or accounted for as the IPCC stopped collecting evidence 6 months ago, in order to start the consultation process. Fast feedbacks—changes that occur quickly in response to temperature change—amplify the initial temperature change, begetting additional warming. As the planet warms, fast feedbacks include more water vapor, which traps additional heat, and less snow and sea ice, which exposes dark surfaces that absorb more sunlight. Slower feedbacks also exist. Due to warming, forests and shrubs are moving poleward into tundra regions. Expanding vegetation, darker than tundra, absorbs sunlight and warms the environment. Another slow feedback is increasing wetness (i.e., darkness) of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets in the warm season. Finally, as tundra melts, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is bubbling out. Paleoclimatic records confirm that the long-lived greenhouse gases— methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide—all increase with the warming of oceans and land. These positive feedbacks amplify climate change over decades, centuries, and longer. The predominance of positive feedbacks explains why Earth’s climate has historically undergone large swings: feedbacks work in both directions, amplifying cooling, as well as warming, forcings. In the past, feedbacks have caused Earth to be whipsawed between colder and warmer climates, even in response to weak forcings, such as slight changes in the tilt of Earth’s axis.2 The second fundamental property of Earth’s climate system, partnering with feedbacks, is the great inertia of oceans and ice sheets. Given the oceans’ capacity to absorb heat, when a climate forcing (such as increased greenhouse gases) impacts global temperature, even after two or three decades, only about half of the eventual surface warming has occurred. Ice sheets also change slowly, although accumulating evidence shows that they can disintegrate within centuries or perhaps even decades. The upshot of the combination of inertia and feedbacks is that additional climate change is already “in the pipeline”: even if we stop increasing greenhouse gases today, more warming will occur. This is sobering when one considers the present status of Earth’s climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past 12,000 years). It has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets to remain on Greenland and Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6°C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the Holocene.3 The warming that has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together have brought us to the precipice of a planetary tipping point. We are at the tipping point because the climate state includes large, ready positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic ice sheet, and much of Greenland’s ice. Little additional forcing is needed to trigger these feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will transition to an environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no return within any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture, people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife. Understanding how decreases in C02 emissions would affect global tem- peratures has been hampered in recent years by confusion regarding issues of committed warming and irreversibil- ity. The notion that there will be additional future warming or "warming in the pipeline'' if the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were to remain fixed at current lev- els (7) has been misinterpreted to mean that the rate of increase in Earth's global tempera- ture is inevitable, regardless of how much or how quickly emissions decrease (2—4). Fur- ther misunderstanding may stem from recent studies showing that the warming that has already occurred as a result of past anthropo- genic carbon dioxide increases is irreversible on a time scale of at least 1000 years (5, 6).¶ But irreversibility of past changes does not mean that further warming is unavoidable.¶ The climate responds to increases in atmospheric C02 concentrations by warm- ing, but this warming is slowed by the long time scale of heat storage in the ocean, which represents the physical climate iner- tia. There would indeed be unrealized warming associated with current CO2 con- centrations, but only if they were held fixed at current levels (7). If emissions decrease enough, the CO2 level in the atmosphere can also decrease. This potential for atmospheric CO2 to decrease over time results from iner- tia in the carbon cycle associated with the slow uptake of anthropogenic C02 by the ocean. This carbon cycle inertia affects tem- perature in the opposite direction from the physical climate inertia and is of approxi- mately the same magnitude (2, 6).¶ Because of these equal and opposing effects of physical climate inertia and car- bon cycle inertia, there is almost no delayed warming from past CO2 emissions. If emis-¶ sions were to cease abruptly, global average temperatures would remain roughly con- stant for many centuries, but they would not increase very much, if at all. Similarly, if emissions were to decrease, temperatures would increase less than they otherwise would have (see the first figure).¶ Thus, although the C02-induced warming already present on our planet—the cumula- tive result of past emissions—is irreversible, any further increase in CO,-induced warm- ing is entirely the result of current C02 emis- sions. Warming at the end of this century and beyond will depend on the cumulative emissions we emit between now and then. But future warming is not unavoidable: CO2 emissions reductions would lead to an imme- diate decrease in the rate of global warming.¶ Why, then, are many different near-term projections of C02-induced warming very similar? These modeled estimates are similar because even socioeconomic scenarios that produce very different cumulative emissions by the end of this century are not very differ-¶ ent over the next two decades (figs. S1 and S2). The climate system physics implies that fur- ther increases in warming could in principle be stopped immediately, but human systems have longer time scales. Carbon-emitting infrastructure is designed to benefit human- kind for many decades; each year's additional infrastructure implies added stock intended to last and emit C02 for many decades. It is this dependence on C02-emitting technology that generates a commitment to current and near- future emissions (7). Cleaner alternatives are being developed and carbon capture and stor- age technologies are being tested, but techno- logical development and diffusion are sub- ject to substantial inertia (8). Societal inertia, rather than the inertia of the climate system, is thus the critical challenge if we wish to begin to decrease the rate of CO2-induced global warming in the near future.¶ The strong dependence of future warm- ing on future cumulative carbon emissions implies that there is a quantifiable cumula- tive amount of CO2 emissions that we must not exceed if we wish to keep global tem- perature below 2°C above preindustrial tem- peratures. Several recent analyses have sug- gested that total CO, emissions of 1000 Pg C (-3700 Pg CO2; f Pg = 1015 g) would give us about even odds of meeting the 2°C target (9—12). To meet such a target given histori- cal emissions would mean that the world has roughly half of the allowable emissions bud- get remaining. This is equivalent to 50 years of emissions at current levels and carries the implication that the longer we delay before beginning to decrease emissions, the faster¶ the rate of decrease must be to stay within this total allowable budget (13).¶ Emissions differ widely between countries, par- ticularly between those in the developed and devel- oping world (14). Cumu- lative carbon emissions from the developed world currently exceed those from developing coun- tries, but rapid economic growth in emerging econo- mies is expected to reverse this pattern within a few decades (fig. S2). Nonethe- less, per capita cumulative emissions from developed countries are expected to remain far higher than those from developing nations throughout the 21 st¶ century (see the second fig- ure). If technological investments and innova- tion increase the availability of reduced-car- bon sources of energy that are competitive in price, development can continue to improve the lives of people in emerging economies without driving global climate change to increasingly dangerous levels. If reduced-car- bon energy sources are not advanced rapidly, a great deal of carbon-intensive infrastructure¶ is likely to be put in place in the developing world, implying a large and ongoing societal commitment to further global CO2 emissions and consequent climate warming (7).¶ Given the irreversibility of CO2-induced warming (5, 6), every increment of avoided temperature increase represents less warm- ing that would otherwise persist for many centuries. Although emissions reductions cannot return global temperatures to pre- industrial levels, they do have the power to avert additional warming on the same time scale as the emissions reductions themselves. Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this decade, or this century is not predetermined by past CO, emissions; it is yet to be deter- mined by future emissions. The climate ben- efits of emissions reductions would thus occur on the same time scale as the political decisions that lead to the reductions. Mexico solve biofuels best— Mexico passed a law last year to push developing biofuels that don't threaten food security and the agriculture ministry has since identified some 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of land with a high potential to produce jatropha.¶ "If I had more land I would plant it because they say it's good business," Cardenas said, surrounded by rare rambutan and mangosteen fruit trees.¶ Demand for the eco-friendly fuel could grow now that U.S. President Barack Obama has promised to invest $150 billion over 10 years in renewable energy infrastructure.¶ GENETIC DIVERSITY¶ Continental Airlines ran a two-hour test flight in January of a Boeing 737 passenger plane powered with a mix of jatropha and algae-based biodiesel, following the lead of Japanese and New Zealand airline companies.¶ "The biofuel mix actually ran more efficiently and burned less fuel in total than the conventional (jet-fuel powered) engine," Steve Lott, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association, or IATA, said.¶ The airline industry will consume 67 billion gallons of fuel this year, or 6 percent of the world's oil, a concern for environmentalists as well as airline budgets, especially after the spike in gas prices last year, Lott said.¶ The IATA wants all its members to use 10 percent renewable fuels by 2017. The challenge will be to ramp up output of green fuels at a rate fast enough to meet growing demand.¶ Mexico is running tests to find jatropha varieties that produce the most oil with the least care. Some 300 different types are being monitored at a government research center in Rosario Izapa, near Mexico's border with Guatemala.¶ In Guatemala, entrepreneur Ricardo Asturias has been promoting jatropha for the past eight years and now has his own plantations and biodiesel factory. He says the region's genetic diversity will give it an edge over competitors in Asia.¶ "This plant is native to Mesoamerica. In our nurseries we have 57 different varieties and we're not finished yet," he said. "In India there are only three recognized varieties."¶ Once Mexican investigators find the optimal jatropha strain, they will distribute seeds to interested farmers who like the fact the shrub is low maintenance.¶ "You sow it and it grows. It's not like corn," said Rafael de Leon, 39, his land ringed by bushy jatropha that can grow taller than he is. "If there's money in it, we'll plant it." Mexico is a country with vast natural resources for the production of biofuels, resulting from its¶ agricultural diversity and geographical and climatic conditions that are ideal for this purpose. Our country¶ has a great potential to become an important world producer of biofuels. 51¶ The program has identified a number of priority areas including:¶ • Providing incentives for feed stocks for biofuel production¶ • Promoting scientific development and cutting edge technologies for crops with potential¶ • Encouraging the use of integrated technology approaches¶ • Provide advice to producers for the creation of feed stock firms¶ • Provide coordination and collaboration between key actors¶ To date, however, there has been only minor cooperation between the United States and Mexico at the¶ governmental level. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has worked with SAGARPA on¶ a number of technical issues, and prepared a report on the Mexican biofuels sector in 2009 that pointed¶ to the potential for growth in the market and to the changing regulatory landscape for biofuels in¶ Mexico. This report highlighted the prospect of higher levels of demand for biodiesel thanks to the¶ setting of a national goal to introduce at least 5 of biodiesel in the transportation sector by 2012.¶ But the main interest has come from the US private sector that is looking to invest in biofuels production¶ in Mexico with an eye to exporting the product either back to the US or to Europe. With small scale¶ projects popping up across the country, US firms have begun to evaluate the potential for large?scale¶ production of biofuels. Global Clean Energy (GCE), a Los Angeles?based firm that specializes in¶ feedstocks for the production of biofuels, has recently invested in two jatropha farms in Mexico and one¶ in Belize. Jatropha, a hardy shrub that produces a nut with very high oil content that can be processed¶ into biodiesel, is seen by many as a perfect biofuel feedstock for Mexico. Native to the Mesoamerican¶ region, the plant grows on marginal land, is not edible either for humans or animals, and thus does not¶ generate food vs fuel controversy, and can be planted on land that is also used for grazing goats or¶ sheep. In addition to being a feedstock for biofuels, the harvest can be used as a source of biomass for¶ producing energy and the nuts themselves can be detoxified and processed for animal feed after their¶ oil has been expressed.¶ GCE has 5,000 acres under cultivation in Yucatan, and has adopted a sustainable business model that has resulted in jobs, fair wages and community development in the local area. 52 This is one of the dimensions of the biofuels industry that is only infrequently mentioned but that is important to note. It is increasingly common for businesses focusing on biofuels production to develop a model that emphasizes both profitability and sustainable development. Pioneer Global Renewables, a U.S. firm from San Francisco that has already invested in jatropha plantations in the Dominican Republic, is also looking to expand into Mexico and has a similar model to GCE, focusing on local community development, fair prices for harvests, and minimal negative impact on the environment. Jatropha, however, is only one of a multitude of biofuels that has potential in Mexico. Sugar, a long depressed industry in the country, could receive a significant boost if large scale ethanol production were contemplated. A large number of sugar mills are currently lying dormant, and could be retrofitted relatively cheaply to produce ethanol. For example: According to the Mexican Sugarcane Producers Association, only two mills have the capability of producing ethanol with the technical requirements specified by PEMEX, equating to about 10 million liters per year. If these mills upgraded their facilities and operated at full capacity and efficiency, it is calculated that total production capacity for ethanol could reach 170 million liters per year. 53 The sugarcane-to-ethanol industry will also have to overcome labor and taxation issues if it is to become commercially viable in Mexico. At present ethanol is subject to a luxury tax of 50 percent, which makes the production of ethanol for fuel uncompetitive at the moment. Another option exists in the incipient algae to ethanol industry, which is receiving considerable attention because of the potential for using algae cultivations as a way to capture carbon dioxide, and can be located in almost any climate. U.S. firms that possess the technology to increase efficiency in this field, such as Phyco2, a California-based firm, are already looking into the possibility of bringing their product to market in Mexico. 54 Biofuels innovations indigenous to Mexico will also be of interest to U.S. firms. Recent research into the potential of succulents and, in particular, agave show enormous promise. The agave plant has very high concentrations of sugar and produces more sugar per acre planted than sugarcane. A research team working at the Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo has esti mated that the variety Agave tequilana weber can yield up to 2,000 gallons of distilled ethanol per acre per year and from 12,000-18,000 gallons per acre per year if their cellulose is included, whereas: Corn ethanol, for example, has an energy balance ratio of 1.3 and produces approximately 300-400 gallons of ethanol per acre. Soybean biodiesel, with an energy balance of 2.5, typically can yield 60 gallons of biodiesel per acre while an acre of sugarcane can produce 600-800 gallons of ethanol with an energy balance of 8.0. An acre of poplar trees can yield more than 1,500 gallons of cellulosic ethanol with an energy balance of 12.0, according to a National Geographic study published in October 2007. 55 In addition to the impressive potential for producing ethanol, agave is an attractive crop as it can grow in harsh environments, requires relatively little water, can be used to produce a wide variety of products, such as paper, textiles, and rope, and is common across Mexico. A recent study by German researchers presents the possibility of "carbon farming" as a less risky alternative to other carbon capture and storage technologies. It suggests that a significant percentage of atmospheric CO2 could potentially be removed by planting millions of acres of a hardy little shrub known as Jatropha curcas, or the Barbados nut, in dry, coastal areas.¶ But other experts raised doubts about the study's ambitious projections, questioning whether the Barbados nut would be able to grow well in sandy desert soils and absorb the quantity of carbon their models predict.¶ The researchers behind the study say Barbados nut plantations could help to mitigate the local effects of global warming in desert areas, causing a decrease in average temperature and an increase in precipitation. If a large enough portion of the Earth were blanketed with carbon farms, they say, these local effects could become global, capturing between 17 and 25 metric tons of CO2 per hectare each year over a 20-year period.¶ "All the other techniques we know about just prevent emission, nothing else," said lead author Klaus Becker of the University of Hohenheim in Stuttgart, Germany. "Only plants are able to extract carbon dioxide from the air."¶ The study, published in the journal Earth System Dynamics, states that if 730 million hectares of land -- an area about three-quarters the size of the United States -- were devoted to this method of carbon farming, the current trend of rising atmospheric CO2 levels could be halted.¶ Carbon farms would not compete with food production if they were concentrated in dry coastal areas, the researchers said. In their scenario, oceanside desalination plants, partially powered by biomass harvested from the plantations themselves, provide a low-emissions irrigation method.¶ Could huge plantations change weather patterns?¶ The study states that the Barbados nut is uniquely suited to growing in regions inhospitable to other crops. The plant, which produces a nonedible seed that can be used to create biodiesel, is comfortable growing at temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit. It can also withstand high levels of contamination in the soil, making wastewater another potential source for irrigation.¶ Additionally, the plant grows rapidly and develops "pretty large roots below the soil, which is important for carbon binding," said co-author Volker Wulfmeyer, also of the University of Hohenheim. As part of their research, Wulfmeyer and Becker traveled to a Barbados nut plantation in Luxor, Egypt, to collect physical samples from the plants to estimate their carbon-storing potential.¶ There are about 1 billion hectares of desert land in coastal areas that could be used for Barbados nut plantations, the researchers estimate, located in countries such as Mexico, Namibia, Saudi Arabia and Oman. If the entirety of this land were used for carbon farming, the study found, atmospheric carbon dioxide could be reduced by 17.5 parts per million over two decades, or 16.6 percent of the CO2 increase since the start of the Industrial Revolution.¶ But less ambitious projects may also have an impact. Using models, the researchers projected that 100-square-kilometer plantations in Oman and Mexico's Sonoran Desert could cause temperatures to fall by more than 1 degree Celsius. The model also saw a precipitation increase of 11 millimeters per year in Oman and 30 millimeters per year in the Sonoran. B) i. Bioplastics—jatropha waste-products revolutionize biodegradable polymers Industry has long been wary of mass-producing biodegradable plastics, not only because of deficient technology, but also because of the high costs usually associated with them. ii. Biotechnology is key to stop global warming—establishes a transition into sustainable energy and resource consumption CONTENTION 2 IS SOLVENCY First, climate change is a result of aggregate emissions and aggregate concentrations ¶ of GHGs in the atmosphere. Small fluctuations may not seem to make a large difference. ¶ However, as in the tragedy of the commons where the individual cost of grazing is only a ¶ fraction of the individual benefit and where such cost-benefit analysis leads to over-grazing ¶ and the collapse of the commons, each additional unit of GHGs emitted contributes to ¶ untenable aggregate levels of GHGs.174 Thus, to the extent that the Bank is responsible for ¶ some of the emissions, as is the rest of the world, the Bank is responsible for cutting some ¶ of the emissions, an action required for stabilizing atmospheric levels of GHGs. In short, it ¶ has both the opportunity and responsibility to be environmentally conscientious. ¶ Second, the Bank’s role in the global economy is unique. Since it connects the ¶ products and expertise of the developed world to the needs of the developing world, it has ¶ the opportunity to engage developing countries in responding to climate change. One of the ¶ main obstacles in international climate negotiations continues to be the tension between ¶ economic development and environmental protection, which draw from concerns for ¶ “economic justice.”175 Developing countries understand that “today’s rich countries moved first from ¶ agriculture to manufacturing industries which use resources intensively, and later to services ¶ and less polluting types of manufacturing,”176 and many hold that it is better to “pollute now ¶ and clean up later.”177 They also recognize that the people in developed countries have ¶ emitted and continue emitting high levels of greenhouse gases. For many heads of state in the ¶ developing world, justice demands that the developed countries bear the brunt of addressing ¶ climate change. The Indian delegate to the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee on ¶ Climate Change (INC) session in Geneva argued: ¶ The problem of global warming is caused not by emissions of greenhouse gases as such, but by ¶ excessive levels of per capita emissions of these gases. If per capita emissions of all countries had ¶ been on the same levels as that of the developing countries, the world would not today have ¶ faced the threat of global warming. It follows, therefore, that developed countries with high per ¶ capita emission levels of greenhouse gases are responsible for incremental global warming. ¶ ¶ In these negotiations, the principle of equity should be the touchstone for judging any proposal. ¶ Those responsible for environmental degradation should also be responsible for taking corrective ¶ measures. Since developed countries with high per capita emissions of greenhouse gases are ¶ responsible for incremental global warming, it follows that they have a corresponding obligation ¶ to take corrective action. Moreover, these are also the countries which have the greatest capacity ¶ to bear the burden. It is they who possess the financial resources and the technology needed for ¶ corrective action. This further reinforces their obligations regarding corrective action.178¶ ¶ Developed nations, on the other hand, have argued that their own reductions in emissions will ¶ not produce any environmental gains if developing nations do not also agree to emissions ¶ targets. Fear that the emissions of developing nations would offset or surpass the emissions ¶ reductions gained by implementation of the Kyoto Protocol was one of the major reasons for ¶ U.S.’s refusal to even consider the ratification of the Protocol in the Senate.179 Furthermore, if¶ developing countries were not required to take action to reduce their emissions, the U.S. feared ¶ that domestic industries would suffer severe economic losses while developing countries ¶ hosted new industry growth. Senator Robert Byrd (R-WV), co-sponsor of the Byrd-Hagel ¶ Resolution, commented during the senate debate that: ¶ He did not think the Senate should support a treaty that requires only half the world – in ¶ other words, the developed countries – to endure the economic costs of reducing emissions ¶ while developing countries are left free to pollute the atmosphere, and in so doing, siphon off ¶ American industries… In this particular environmental game, there are no winners; the world ¶ loses. And any effort to avoid the effects of global climate change will be doomed to failure ¶ from the start without the participation of the developing world.180¶ ¶ Since the Bank is a public agency in a developed country and its business is principally ¶ in developing countries, it has a unique opportunity to address this conundrum. By instituting ¶ a policy to reduce its own emissions while maintaining its role as an export financing agent, it ¶ can serve as a U.S. example of accepting environmental responsibility. At the same time, the ¶ exporting of energy efficiency methodologies and cleaner forms of energy technology in order ¶ to achieve emissions reductions benefits and engages developing countries. By requiring the ¶ export of cleaner forms of energy to areas where infrastructure is just beginning to be built, the ¶ Bank can help establish renewables as feasible foundations of economic development. ¶ Introducing renewable energy infrastructure can then also reduce the barriers of consumer ¶ unfamiliarity and information asymmetries that currently tend to favor nonrenewable energy ¶ forms. Intentioned implementation of technology for the purpose of market experience is the ¶ first step toward that technology’s gaining more widespread use.181¶ Third, the Bank’s adoption of a GHG emissions reduction policy would allow it to press other export credit agencies under the OECD Common Arrangement to undertake ¶ similar measures. Its historic role as a leader among the OECD ECAs might afford it the ¶ political capital necessary to pursue widespread adoption of GHG reduction policies.182 If it is ¶ able to do so, the Bank will have influenced a significant proportion global financing policies – ¶ ECAs in 2001 covered about $800 billion of exports, and their activity “exceeds that of all ¶ multilateral development banks” including the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.183 Energy companies that have already developed the know-how and technology abroad or in Mexico for biofuel production and commercialization could clearly expand their horizons and consider Mexico as a viable market for mass commercialization, distribution or production of biofuels. Yes transition—jatropha biofuels cost less than oil now and productivity’s still increasing In California, SG Biofuels announced at Advanced Biofuels Markets that it has expanded its global network of hybrid trial and agronomic research sites to 15 with the addition of eight new JMax Knowledge Centers in Guatemala, Brazil and India, and has achieved costs of $99 per barrel or less across three continents. Jatropha curcas is a non-edible shrub that is native to Central America. Its seeds contain high amounts of oil that can be processed to produce a high- quality energy feedstock for use in biodiesel, renewable jet fuel or specialty products. Because it is a non-edible feedstock and can be effectively harvested on abandoned land that is considered undesirable for food crops, it does not compete with global food supplies. Focusing on the details and inner-workings of government policy-making is productive – critical approaches can’t resolve real world problems like poverty, racism and war Extinction comes first The same argument can be made for Kant’s other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: “So act as to use humanity, both in your own person and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means”; and “So act as if you were always through your actions a law-making member in a universal Kingdom of Ends.” No one with a concern for humanity could consistently will to risk eliminating humanity in the person of himself and every other or to risk the death of all members in a universal Kingdom of Ends for the sake of justice. To risk their collective death for the sake of following one’s conscience would be, as Rawls said, “irrational, crazy.” And to say that one did not intend such a catastrophe, but that one merely failed to stop other persons from bringing it about would be beside the point when the end of the world was at stake. For although it is true that we cannot be held responsible for most of the wrongs that others commit, the Latin maxim presents a case where we would have to take such responsibility seriously – perhaps to the point of deceiving, bribing, even killing an innocent person, in order that the world not perish. To avoid self-contradiction, the Categorical Imperative would, therefore, have to rule against the Latin maxim on account of its cavalier attitude toward the survival of mankind. But the ruling would then produce a rift in the application of the Categorical Imperative. Most often the Imperative would ask us to disregard all unintended but foreseeable consequences, such as the death of innocent persons, whenever concern for such consequences conflicts with concern for acting according to duty. But, in the extreme case, we might have to go against even the strictest moral duty precisely because of the consequences. Acknowledging such a rift would post a strong challenge to the unity and simplicity of Kant’s moral theory. CONTENTION 3 IS IMPACT FRAMING Nuclear war is obsolete: “War” is a fuzzy category, shading from global conflagrations to neighborhood turf battles, so the organizations that track the frequency and damage of war over time need a precise yardstick. A common definition picks out armed conflicts that cause at least 1,000 battle deaths in a year — soldiers and civilians killed by war violence, excluding the difficult-to-quantify indirect deaths resulting from hunger and disease. “Interstate wars” are those fought between national armies and have historically been the deadliest. B. Nuclear weapons deter all war – empirics prove The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) analyzed a set of developments associated with climate change that could seriously undermine global living conditions. These include storm and flood disasters, reductions in water supplies, droughts, the degradation of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity, and the spread of diseases. Most vulnerable are poor areas in high-risk regions and developing countries with low adaptive capacities; but wealthy countries are not immune (e.g., the 2003 European heat wave, Hurricane Katrina). These developments could lead to a number of human responses, including violent struggles for increasingly scarce resources, mass migrations, ethno-nationalism, and the erosion of legitimacy for existing institutions. The potential security risks posed by these climaterelated human responses are becoming increasingly worrisome to many observers. In 2007 the UN Security Council held its first discussion of the security risks of climate change and the UN Secretary General warned that climate change may pose as much of a danger as war. A 2007 report by a blue-ribbon panel of retired military leaders sees climate change as a “threat multiplier” in already fragile regions of the world, which could become breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. Various scenarios of climate-related security threats were compiled by a panel of experts that included, among others, former CIA director James Woolsey and Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling. According to this panel’s report, climate change 'has the potential to be one of the greatest national security challenges that this or any other generation of policy makers is likely to confront.' It could breed new conflicts and magnify existing problems, from the desertification of Darfur and competition for water in the Middle East to the disruptive monsoons in Asia. The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) concludes in its 2007 report that, without resolute counteraction, climate change will overwhelm many societies’ adaptive capacities in the near future, resulting in a level of instability that could jeopardize national and international security. Since the early 1990s, several studies have examined how several climate-related factors affect violent conflict. This work suggests that environmental degradation and resource scarcity can contribute to violent conflict in a number of ways, including resource captures, mass migrations, and conflicts over compensation payments between countries. It also offers a typology of conflicts: center-periphery conflicts; ethno-ecological conflicts; regional, cross-border and mass-migration conflicts; international water conflicts, etc. These studies identify a set of contributing factors that join with environmental factors to affect the likelihood of violent conflict (e.g., institutional, socioeconomic, land use). These contributing factors are important because many of the studies do not show a clear link between environmental factors and interstate conflict.. When climate-related factors combine with these contributing factors, an indirect link emerges between environmental degradation, resource scarcities and domestic conflict. Despite these contributions a number of critiques argue that existing studies have done little more than confirm that the relationship between climate effects and conflict is complex and not well understood. The existing work makes it difficult to extrapolate the prospects for climate-induced instability into the future, document the factors that aggravate it, or identify the strategies that are effective in dealing with it. Part of the problem lies with the fact that many of findings are derived from case studies that already resulted in violent conflict. In order to address the deficiencies, this contribution will provide a rigorous examination of the climate-induced instability thesis that addresses the complexity of the problem: long-term climate changes will stress human, environmental and social subsystems in ways that will affect basic human needs and desires. Human responses will generate issues and disputes that could destabilize the functioning of core societal processes and institutions. The destabilizing effects of these reactions make it more difficult to produce goods and services, govern, and maintain civil social interaction; in addition, they can lead to violent conflict. For instance, increased temperatures and/or decreased precipitation may lead to water scarcity and soil degradation, which could lead to declines in agricultural yields and diminished food supplies. This could lead to increased competition for arable land and scarce food and water supplies – especially in poor nations with rapid population growth. Where poverty, disputes and other contributing factors co-exist, climaterelated stress could lead to the erosion of social order, economic decline, violent conflict, and governmental crises. This instability could also spread to neighboring states, through refugee flows or ethnic links, and expand the geographical scope of a crisis, overwhelming governance and security structures. These implications, however, are not inevitable: often climate-related stresses will be resolved effectively by institutions and other human interventions. Rather than conflict, more cooperation could be the result. This contribution discusses the climate-induced instability thesis within a conceptual framework of conflict and cooperation that draws from past experiences of weather and climate-related instability to enhance our ability to understand and deal with the future security threats posed by climate change. A macro-level analysis of environmental conflicts will be combined with micro-level empirical data of specific cases. Uncertainty about outcomes does not work decisively against the fighting of wars in con¬ventional worlds. Countries armed with con¬ventional weapons go to war knowing that even in defeat their suffering will be limited. Calculations about nuclear war are differently made. Nuclear worlds call for and encourage a different kind of reasoning. If countries armed with nuclear weapons go to war, they do so knowing that their suffering may be unlimited. Of course, it also may not be. But that is not the kind of uncertainty that encourages anyone to use force. In a conventional world, one is uncertain about winning or losing. In a nuclear world, one is uncertain about surviving or being annihilated. If force is used and not kept within limits, catastrophe will result. That prediction is easy to make because it does not require close estimates of opposing forces. The number of one's cities that can be severely damaged is at least equal to the number of strategic warheads an adversary can deliver. Variations of number mean little within wide ranges. The expected effect of the deterrent achieves an easy clarity because wide margins of error in estimates of probable damage do not matter. Do we expect to lose one city or two, two cities or ten? When these are the pertinent questions, we stop thinking about running risks and start worrying about how to avoid them. In a conventional world, deterrent threats are ineffective because the damage threatened is distant, limited, and problematic. Nuclear weapons make military miscalcu¬lations difficult and politically pertinent pre¬diction easy. | 1/4/14 |
1ACTournament: Arizona State University | Round: 2 | Opponent: Kent Denver BJ | Judge: Scott Odekirk 1AC LOWELL BCPLAN TEXT Plan text: The Export-Import bank of the United States should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Mexico by providing loans to finance the development of non-corn biofuels including jatropha.CONTENTION 1 IS WARMING Warming is real and anthropogenicBraganza 11 (Karl, Manager, Climate Monitor at the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, The Bureau presently operates under the authority of the Meteorology Act 1955, which requires it to report on the state of the atmosphere and oceans in support of Australia’s social, economic, cultural and environmental goals. His salary is not funded from any external sources or dependent on specially funded government climate change projects. Karl Braganza does not consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations "The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why," 6/14/11, http://theconversation.edu.au/the-greenhouse-effect-is-real-heres-why-1515) In public discussions of climate change, the full range and weight of evidence underpinning Warming reaches its tipping point within twenty-five years—9,200 studies prove—investment now is keyVarma 9/30 The first is that the carbon accumulation in the atmosphere and resulting global warming have Tipping points prevent adaptation—significant emission cuts are keyHansen 8 Fast feedbacks—changes that occur quickly in response to temperature change—amplify the Carbon cycling means warming depends only on future emissions—CO2 reductions now are keyMatthews and Solomon 4/26 Understanding how decreases in C02 emissions would affect global tem- peratures has been hampered Mexico solve biofuels best—Genetic diversity— 300 eco-friendly jatropha strains spread with more investmentRosenberg 9 Mexico passed a law last year to push developing biofuels that don’t threaten food security US technology—Mexico has massive resources but needs more cooperationWood 10 Mexico is a country with vast natural resources for the production of biofuels, resulting Three internal links to warming:Carbon farming—Jatropha plantations halt the current trend of C02 emissions—each hectare captures 25 tons of C02 per yearHarball and Climatewire 13 (Elizabeth, news source that provides coverage of the debate over climate policy and its effects on business, the environment and society, "Could Carbon Farms Reverse Global Warming? ", Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=could-carbon-farms-reverse-global-warming-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=could-carbon-farms-reverse-global-warming, accessed 12/20/13, TC) A recent study by German researchers presents the possibility of "carbon farming" as i. Bioplastics—jatropha waste-products revolutionize biodegradable polymersHalliday 10 Industry has long been wary of mass-producing biodegradable plastics, not only because of deficient technology, but also because of the high costs usually associated with them. Biotechnology is key to stop global warming—establishes a transition into sustainable energy and resource consumptionOECD 11(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development-http://www.oecd.org/¶ "Industrial Biotechnology and Climate Change" 11-7-2011 http://www.oecd.org/sti/biotech/49024032.pdf) The impact is global warming.Ocean acidification causes mass extinctionsWard 10 (Peter, PhD, professor of Biology and Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, paleontologist and NASA astrobiologist, Fellow at the California Academy of Sciences, The Flooded Earth: Our Future in a World Without Ice Caps, June 29, 2010) CONTENTION 2 IS SOLVENCY The Export-Import bank is a crucial link between the developed and developing worlds—renewable technology transfer fosters social responsibility and global spilloverGong 6 First, climate change is a result of aggregate emissions and aggregate concentrations ¶ of Mexico and US firms say yes—biofuel law creates stable investment groundFelix 8 Energy companies that have already developed the know-how and technology abroad or Yes transition—jatropha biofuels cost less than oil now and productivity’s still increasingLane 12 In California, SG Biofuels announced at Advanced Biofuels Markets that it has expanded its global network of hybrid trial and agronomic research sites to 15 with the addition of eight new JMax Knowledge Centers in Guatemala, Brazil and India, and has achieved costs of 2499 per barrel or less across three continents. Genetic improvements make current jatropha strains successful—prefer the more recent evidenceSGB 13 Jatropha curcas is a non-edible shrub that is native to Central America. Its seeds contain high amounts of oil that can be processed to produce a high- quality energy feedstock for use in biodiesel, renewable jet fuel or specialty products. Because it is a non-edible feedstock and can be effectively harvested on abandoned land that is considered undesirable for food crops, it does not compete with global food supplies. Academic debate over green politics is vital to engage the direction of energy policy and overcoming corporate control—-the aff cedes the policy process to status-quo interestsTorgerson 8 (Douglas, Professor of Politics, Cultural Studies, and Environmental and Resource Studies at Trent University in Canada, Constituting Green Democracy: A Political Project, The Good Society: Volume 17, Number 2, MUSE) Extinction comes firstBok 88 (Sissela, Professor of Philosophy at Brandeis, Applied Ethics and Ethical Theory, Rosenthal and Shehadi, Ed.) The same argument can be made for Kant’s other formulations of the Categorical Imperative: CONTENTION 3 IS IMPACT FRAMING Nuclear war is obsolete:A. Deterrence, peacekeeping, and tradeGoldstein 11 "War" is a fuzzy category, shading from global conflagrations to neighborhood turf B. Nuclear weapons deter all war – empirics proveTepperman, LL.M. in International Law from NYU, former Managing Editor of Foreign Affairs, 2009 C. Climate change is the root cause of their impacts—it’s a threat multiplierScheffran 9 The 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) And no miscalculation—threat of nuclear annihilation decreases margin for unpredictabilityWaltz 81 Uncertainty about outcomes does not work decisively against the fighting of wars in con¬ventional worlds Nuclear war doesn’t cause extinction:Nuclear Winter Theory FlawedBall, Professor at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University, 2006 No Impact to FalloutMartin, research associate in the Dept. of Mathematics at Australian National University, 1984 | 1/10/14 |
Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
---|
Abernathy (TX)
ACORN Community (NY)
Agape Leaders Prep (NY)
Airline (TX)
Alpharetta (GA)
Alpine (UT)
Alta (UT)
Anderson (TX)
Appleton East (WI)
Appleton (MD)
Arcadia (CA)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Atholton (MD)
Austin SFA (TX)
Ballard (WA)
Baltimore City College (MD)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barstow (MO)
Bellarmine (CA)
Bentonville (AR)
Berkeley Prep (FL)
Berkner High School (TX)
Bexley (OH)
Bingham (UT)
Bishop Guertin (NH)
Bishop Loughlin (NY)
Blake (MN)
Bloomington (MN)
Blue Valley North (KS)
Blue Valley Northwest (KS)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Blue Valley West (KS)
Briar Woods (VA)
Broad Run (VA)
Bronx Law (NY)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brooklyn Technical (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Buhler (KS)
Byron Nelson (TX)
C.E. Byrd (LA)
Caddo Magnet (LA)
Cairo (GA)
Calhoun (GA)
Cambridge (GA)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Campus (KS)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Capitol Debate (MD)
Carrollton (GA)
Carrollton Sacred Heart (FL)
Casady (OK)
Cascia Hall (OK)
Cathedral Prep (PA)
Cedar Rapids Wash. (IA)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (MD)
Chamblee Charter (GA)
Chaminade Prep (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Charles Page (OK)
Charlotte Catholic (NC)
Chattahoochee (GA)
Chesterton (IN)
CK McClatchy (CA)
Clackamas (OR)
Claremont (CA)
Classical Davies (RI)
Clear Lake (TX)
Clifton (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Coronado (NV)
Crenshaw (CA)
Crosby (TX)
Crossings Christian (OK)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Damien (CA)
Debate Rhode Island (RI)
Denver Arts (CO)
Denver Center For Int'l Studies (CO)
Denver East (CO)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Detroit Country Day (MI)
Dexter (MI)
Dominion (VA)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Downtown Magnets (CA)
Dunwoody (GA)
Eagan (MN)
Eagle (ID)
East Chapel Hill (NC)
East Kentwood (MI)
East Side HS (NJ)
Eden Prairie (MN)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Evanston (IL)
Fayetteville (AR)
Field Kindley (KS)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Osage (MO)
Fremont (NE)
Friendswood (TX)
Gabrielino (CA)
George Washington (CO)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Glenbrook North (IL)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Greenwood (AR)
Greenwood Lab (MO)
Groves (MI)
Gulliver Prep (FL)
Guymon (OK)
Hallsville (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harrisonburg (VA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Hendrickson (TX)
Henry W. Grady (GA)
Heritage Hall (OK)
Highland (UT)
Highland Park (MN)
Highland Park (TX)
Homestead (WI)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Houston Academy for Int'l Studies (TX)
Houston County (GA)
Houston Memorial (TX)
Hutchinson (KS)
Ingraham (WA)
Interlake (WA)
Iowa City High (IA)
Iowa City West (IA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
James Logan (CA)
Jenks (OK)
Jesuit Dallas (TX)
Johns Creek (GA)
JSEC LaSalle (RI)
Juan Diego (UT)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
Kermit (TX)
Kingfisher (OK)
Kinkaid (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Salle College (PA)
Lafayette High School (LA)
Lake City (ID)
Lake Oswego (OR)
Lakeland (NY)
Law Magnet (TX)
Lee's Summit West (MO)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberal Arts & Science Academy (TX)
Lincoln College (KS)
Lincoln HS (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Lindblom Math&Science (IL)
Little Rock Central (AR)
Little Rock Hall (AR)
Lowell (CA)
Loyola (CA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maine East (IL)
Maize South (KS)
Marist (GA)
Marquette (WI)
Marriotts Ridge (MD)
Marshfield (MO)
MLK Jr Early College (CO)
McClintock (AZ)
McDonogh (MD)
McDowell (PA)
Meadows (NV)
Midway (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Milton (GA)
Minneapolis South (MN)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Montgomery Bell (TN)
Moore (OK)
Mount Vernon Presbyterian (GA)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mt Hebron (MD)
National Cathedral (DC)
Nevada Union (CA)
New Mission Boston Community Leadership (MA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newton (KS)
Niles North (IL)
Niles West (IL)
Norfolk (NE)
North Houston (TX)
Northside (IL)
Northview (GA)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Oakwood (CA)
Olathe Northwest (KS)
Omaha Westside (NE)
Pace Academy (GA)
Paideia (GA)
Palo Verde (NV)
Palos Verdes (CA)
Park Hill (MO)
Parkway West (MO)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Hill (MO)
Peninsula (CA)
Perry High school (OH)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pittsburgh Central (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Portage Northern (MI)
Puget Sound Community (WA)
Puyallup (WA)
Ransom Everglades (FL)
Reagan (TX)
Redmond (WA)
Reservoir (MD)
Richardson (TX)
River Hill (MD)
Rogers Heritage (AR)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Roswell (GA)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Rufus King (WI)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Saginaw (TX)
Saint Mary's Hall (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
San Dieguito Academy (CA)
San Marino (CA)
Santa Margarita (CA)
Saratoga (CA)
Seaholm (MI)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Sheboygan North (WI)
Sioux Falls Roosevelt (SD)
Sioux Falls Washington (SD)
Skiatook (OK)
Skyview (UT)
Small Schools Debate Coalition (CA)
South East (CA)
SPASH (WI)
St Francis (CA)
St Georges (WA)
St Ignatius (OH)
St James (AL)
St Johns College (DC)
St Marks (TX)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Paul Central (MN)
St Paul Como Park (MN)
St Petersburg (FL)
St Vincent de Paul (CA)
Stern MASS (CA)
Stratford (GA)
Strath Haven (PA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Sunset (TX)
Taravella (FL)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thorndale (TX)
Timberline (ID)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Traverse City Central (MI)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Tualatin (OR)
Tulsa (OK)
Tulsa Union (OK)
University (CA)
University (NJ)
University (TN)
U. Chicago Lab (IL)
University Prep (MI)
Vashon High School (WA)
Veritas Prep. (AZ)
Wakeland (TX)
Walter Payton (IL)
Washburn (MN)
Washburn Rural (KS)
Washington Technology Magnet (MN)
Wayzata (MN)
West (UT)
West Bloomfield (MI)
West Des Moines Valley (IA)
Westinghouse (IL)
Westlake (TX)
Weston (MA)
Westminster Schools (GA)
Westwood (TX)
Wheeler (GA)
Whitney Young (IL)
Wichita East (KS)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Woodward Academy (GA)
Wooster (OH)