This is the argument my debate team uses. I'm not necessarily debating this i just wanted to present this for scrutiny and see what the most common problems one might have with this argument. Be prepared for a wall of text as this is an 8 minute speech. Feedback would be great for future debates using this argument.
Contention One is Inherency
Right now, the United States is not even considering space-based solar power despite the demand for it from developing nations
Schubert, 2010
What threats could induce the US to pursue Space-based Solar Power? Oil shortages have failed. International climate change initiatives have so far failed. Even an attack on US soil was insufficient to change American views towards energy. Positive incentives have also failed, including Nobel Prizes and petitions by developing nations. There is presently no superpower to challenge the US, so any remaining threats are perceived as being manageable. By process of elimination, there are no known threats or inducements which could initiate a concerted US effort to develop solar power satellites
Contention Two is Harms
A. The status quo ignores those without access to energy – these energy-oppressed poor are marginalized even in their own developing countries
Guruswamy, 2010
Unfortunately, for too long, the energy-oppressed poor have been glossed over or lost in the categorization of their predicament simply as being problems of the developing world, or they have been painted with the same socio-political and economic brush as the states in which they are located. For example, the energy-oppressed poor tend to be seen primarily as a problem of India or China or Brazil and not perceived as a burdened society apart from the geopolitical entities in which they reside. All developing countries tend to be conceptualized within a single typology based on the binary division of the world into developing and developed countries or north and south. The inaccuracy and mistake of doing so is underlined by a recent authoritative joint report of the United Nations. Thus, the differences between the LDCs, located primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia, in contrast to the advanced developing countries ("ADCs"), like China, India, the Asian Tigers, and Brazil, must be recognized. It is therefore necessary at the outset to acknowledge at least two major categories among the developing countries: LDCs and ADCs, and not treat all of them simply as developing countries.
B. The status quo mindset entrenches the energy-oppressed poor – they are not recognized as distinct burdened societies and that ignorance puts more than a billion lives at risk
Guruswamy, 2010
**Note: EOP=energy-oppressed poor, LDC=least developed country, ADC=advanced developed country
Indeed, as the middle classes of China and India rapidly approach lifestyles comparable to the middle classes in Europe and North America, the EOP in these countries remain hidden in the toxic haze of windowless huts, cut off from the attention of their governments and the wider world. ADCs like China and India have been treated as monoliths, when in reality those who inhabit the developed parts of these countries live dramatically different lives from the rural and urban EOP. The socioeconomic condition and lack of technological knowledge among the 500 million EOP in China and India are analogous to the 750 million EOP in the LDCs. These EOP form distinct burdened societies, and justice calls for them to be treated as such. Given the widespread existence of energy poverty, the services provided by energy could save millions of EOP lives in any type of developing country
C. Without recognition, two billion people will be destined to live in poverty because they lack access to electricity
Bradbrook and Gardam, 2006
the issue that has attracted most the attention recently has been the need to provide universal access to modern energy services. This is something that is taken for granted in developed countries, which perhaps explains the tardiness of the world community in coming to grips with the issue. Somewhat belatedly, the link between poverty and the lack of access to modern energy services has been recognized, because without access to energy services, people are destined to live in poverty. The provision of such services is a key ingredient to providing a sustainable way of living for all the world's population. The magnitude of the challenge is apparent from the fact that approximately two billion people, one-third of the world's population, lack access to electricity supplies
D. Without access to energy, people all around the world go through hell on a daily basis, millions die annually, and those conditions are permanent.
Driessen, 2006
Without electricity, modern life reverts to her childhood: no lights, refrigeration, heating, air-conditioning, radio, television, computers, safe running water or mechanized equipment for homes, schools, shops, hospitals, offices and factories. Incredibly, this is what life is like every day for 2 billion people in developing countries. Instead of turning on a light or stove, millions of women and children spend their days gathering wood, grass and dung, to burn in primitive hearths for cooking and heating. Instead of turning a faucet, they spend hours carrying water from distant lakes and rivers that are often contaminated with bacteria. Pollution from their fires causes 4 million deaths a year from lung infections. Tainted water and spoiled food cause intestinal diseases that kill another 2 million annually. Clinics and hospitals lack modern equipment, reliable refrigeration and clean tap water, exacerbating health problems that keep millions out of work for extended periods. The dearth of electricity also means minimal manufacturing and commerce – and impoverished countries forever dependent on foreign aid.
E. In the end, the energy-oppressed poor are treated as disposable populations – that assumption ensures extinction
Santos, 2003
I have described this situation as a combination of political democracy and social fascism. One current manifestation of this combination resides in the fact that intensely strong public opinion, worldwide, against the war is found to be incapable of halting the war machine set in motion by supposedly democratic rulers. At all these moments, a death drive, a catastrophic heroism, predominates, the idea of a looming collective suicide, only preventable by the massive destruction of the other. Paradoxically, the broader the definition of the other and the efficacy of its destruction, the more likely collective suicide becomes. In its sacrificial genocide version, neoliberalism is a mixture of market radicalization, neoconservatism and Christian fundamentalism. Its death drive takes a number of forms, from the idea of "discardable populations", referring to citizens of the Third World not capable of being exploited as workers and consumers, to the concept of "collateral damage", to refer to the deaths, as a result of war, of thousands of innocent civilians. the war will cost 100 billion dollars, enough to pay the health costs of the world's poorest countries for four years. Is it possible to fight this death drive? We must bear in mind that, historically, sacrificial destruction has always been linked to the economic pillage of natural resources and the labor force, to the imperial design of radically changing the terms of economic, social, political and cultural exchanges in the face of falling efficiency rates postulated by the maximalist logic of the totalitarian illusion in operation. It is as though hegemonic powers, both when they are on the rise and when they are in decline, repeatedly go through times of primitive accumulation, legitimizing the most shameful violence in the name of futures where, by definition, there is no room for what must be destroyed. In today's version, the period of primitive accumulation consists of combining neoliberal economic globalization with the globalization of war. The machine of democracy and liberty turns into a machine of horror and destruction.
F. The energy-oppressed poor have a basic human right to energy – we have a moral obligation to protect that human right and provide access to energy
Characterizing electricity as an essential civic service implies that governments are expected to provide access to an equal supply of electricity to all individuals within their jurisdiction the normative content and scope of the human right to access electricity entitles everyone to access a reliable, adequate, and affordable electricity supply of sufficient quality for personal and household (domestic) use. Elaborating upon each of these elements in turn, ‘‘everyone’’ implies that electrical facilities and services are universally available without discrimination. Special protective measures to ensure that marginalized social groups enjoy electricity access would not qualify as discrimination. Significantly, the human right is formulated as one of access rather than a right to electricity per se. ‘‘Access’’ must be physical (an adequate infrastructure exists), geographically proximate (located near end users) and economical (affordable).
Thus, we present the following PLAN – The United States federal government should develop and implement a space-based solar power system for global distribution.
Contention Three is Solvency
A. Plan can create energy to support those marginalized in the status quo – solar energy from space is already a feasible solution
International Academy of Astronautics, 2011
Fundamentally new energy technologies clearly appear to be needed during the coming decades under all examined scenarios – both to support continued (and sustainable) global economic growth, and for reasons of environmental/climate concerns. Solar energy from space appears to be a promising candidate that can contribute to address these challenges. Solar Power Satellites appear to be technically feasible as soon as the coming 10-20 years using technologies existing now in the laboratory (at low- to moderate- TRL) that could be developed / demonstrated The mature (high-TRL) technologies and systems required to deploy economically viable SPS immediately do not currently exist; however, no fundamental breakthroughs appear necessary and the degree of difficulty in projected R&D appears tractable. SPS do appear economically viable under several different scenarios for future energy markets, including potential government actions to mediate environment/climate change issues. Economic viability of particular Solar Power Satellite concepts will depend upon both the markets to be served, and the successful development of the technologies to be used
B. Space-based solar power will meet all potential energy scenarios in this century, including the global need for energy access
International Academy of Astronautics, 2011
It is clear that solar power delivered from space could play a tremendously important role in meeting the global need for energy during the 21st century. There are four principal drivers for this conclusion. First, there is the likely (but not certain) increase in global populations. Second, there is the projected dramatic increase in the worldwide per capita demand for energy to enable economic development. In addition, there is an urgent and continuing need to develop huge new renewable energy sources to resolve the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, and the increasingly certain risk of global climate change. And, finally there is the growing uncertainty in global supplies of existing fossil fuels; the issue of “peaking”, which if it occurs earlier rather than later and affects multiple fossil fuels could lead to drastic increases in energy prices (thereby strangling economic development).
C. Implementing plan is uniquely key – over two billion people are marginalized by their lack of access to energy without the development of Space-based Solar Power
Snead, 2009
Absent a clear public consensus to dramatically reduce US per capita energy use to near 1900 levels and a willingness to let many billions of people worldwide continue to live in a state of energy deprivation—currently 1.6 billion people do not have access to electricity and 2.4 billion people do not have access to modern fuels per the UN—additional sustainable energy sources will need to be developed. A rational US energy policy and implementation plan must address this issue. This is why starting the commercial development of SSP gains importance
Contention Four is Framework
A. Remember, we have a moral obligation to combat the marginalization that results from entire societies being denied energy access – we must act combat the resultant disposability or face an unending sacrificial genocide
Santos, 2003
the West has repeatedly been under the illusion that it should try to save humanity by destroying part of it. This is a salvific and sacrificial destruction, committed in the name of the need to radically materialize all the possibilities opened up by a given social and political reality over which it is supposed to have total power. This is how it was in colonialism, with the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the African slaves. This is how it was in the period of imperialist struggles, which caused millions of deaths in two world wars and many other colonial wars. This is how it was under Stalinism, with the Gulag, and under Nazism, with the Holocaust. And now today, this is how it is in neoliberalism, with the collective sacrifice of the periphery and even the semiperiphery of the world system. Sacrificial genocide arises from a totalitarian illusion manifested in the belief that there are no alternatives to the present-day reality, and that the problems and difficulties confronting it arise from failing to take its logic of development to ultimate consequences. If there is unemployment, hunger and death in the Third World, this is not the result of market failures; instead, it is the outcome of market laws not having been fully applied. This political logic is based on the supposition of total power and knowledge, and on the radical rejection of alternatives; it is ultra-conservative in that it aims to reproduce infinitely the status quo.
B. Our response to adopt a framework of compassion – that allows us to fulfill individual responsibility to address the needs of the energy-oppressed poor
The Dalai Lama, 1993
Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace. This need for co-operation can only strengthen humankind, because it helps us to recognise that the most secure foundation for a new world order is not simply broader political and economic alliances, but each individual's genuine practice of love and compassion. The practice of compassion is not idealistic, but the most effective way to pursue the best interests of others as well as our own. The more we become interdependent the more it is in our own interest to ensure the well-being of others. When we do not know someone or do not feel connected to an individual or group, we tend to overlook their needs. Yet, the development of human society requires that people help each other. I, for one, strongly believe that individuals can make a difference in society. Every individual has a responsibility to help move our global family in the right direction and we must each assume that responsibility.
C. Finally, we ask you to endorse that framework for two reasons:
1. Discourse on space-based solar power is key to the interaction between policy makers and the scientific community – the affirmative ensures that interchange would take place within a framework of compassion
Woodell, 2000
The policy-making process, to an outsider, looks messy and imprecise, particularly when contrasted with the disciplines of scientific inquiry. By the same token, the rigorous process and methods of scientific research can appear plodding, tedious, and unimaginative to the untrained eye. Scientists inhabit a rarefied environment, and the bigger the science, the more rarefied it becomes. The same holds true of policy makers, who, at the global level, occupy a very exclusive domain. On a structural level, there is no real framework for routinized interaction between these two rarefied worlds; they operate independently of each other. Moreover, on a more human level, it is easy to see how pride of place can become a very real obstacle to productive interchange. Yet it is precisely in cases like SSP — which by any definition is big science with big policy implications — where such interchange is critical.
2. Performance is paramount – space-based solar power requires individual advocacy in the real world and our speeches in this round constitute that necessary activism on behalf of the common good.
Woodell, 2000
SSP is a dark horse with limited name recognition, running against a powerful incumbent (conventional fuels), an established contender (nuclear power), and an intriguing potential newcomer (cold fusion). For such a candidate to be considered, much less endorsed, it needs first to be known. science has a proud tradition of activism on behalf of the common good, and aggressive advocacy of SSP is fully in keeping with this tradition. Moreover, those most knowledgeable about SSP science are by far the best equipped to make a case for it, in terms of both its underlying technology and its potential environmental and societal benefits. Finally, though, the most compelling case for concerted advocacy is the fact that SSP cannot be realized without it. No one is holding a place at the table for SSP in the policy arena, and if scientists themselves do not first make and then take that place, no one else will do it for them.
