I'm still undecided on that issue, however it wouldn't be an environmental policy to reopen it. It may effect the environment in the sense that nuclear waste radiation will be in that area, instead of somewhere else, but the USFG does not classify reopening it as an environmental policy.
I do not think that re-openning Yucca Mountain is in the resolution for debate this year. The resolution this year is that the united states federal government should significantly reform its environmental policy. Notice it says reform, which means by definition that the affirmative team can only reform a current environmental policy. Since Yucca Mountain was closed by Obama in June it is no longer a current environmental policy thus not allowing you to reform it. Since it is not a current environmental policy you must first add it then reform it. Any Comments?
Sure, i'll comment. ;) you'd be right, except for ONE little word in the resolution... "it's"
For example: You would be right if the topic was "resolved: that the USFG should significantly reform "an" environmental policy"
But, it doesn't.
"its" implies that "policy" is in a broader sense... If you are changing the way the government is treating an issue on environmentalism, you are changing its over-all policy.
Even if you take that into account, opening Yucca Mountain does not plainly effect the environment. We still have the same amount of radiation, and the pits hundreds and thousands of feet below the earth's surface where they are currently storing nuke waste, is doing fine. Plus(People may argue) it is not a long term solution(I haven't looked into that very much yet).
evTalk is a blog designed to discuse environmental issues. If you have any issues you wish to have posted on evTalk or have a question about the site, please feel free to contact me!
Furl
Google
My Yahoo
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm still undecided on that issue, however it wouldn't be an environmental policy to reopen it. It may effect the environment in the sense that nuclear waste radiation will be in that area, instead of somewhere else, but the USFG does not classify reopening it as an environmental policy.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that re-openning Yucca Mountain is in the resolution for debate this year. The resolution this year is that the united states federal government should significantly reform its environmental policy. Notice it says reform, which means by definition that the affirmative team can only reform a current environmental policy. Since Yucca Mountain was closed by Obama in June it is no longer a current environmental policy thus not allowing you to reform it. Since it is not a current environmental policy you must first add it then reform it.
ReplyDeleteAny Comments?
Sure, i'll comment. ;) you'd be right, except for ONE little word in the resolution... "it's"
ReplyDeleteFor example: You would be right if the topic was "resolved: that the USFG should significantly reform "an" environmental policy"
But, it doesn't.
"its" implies that "policy" is in a broader sense... If you are changing the way the government is treating an issue on environmentalism, you are changing its over-all policy.
Even if you take that into account, opening Yucca Mountain does not plainly effect the environment. We still have the same amount of radiation, and the pits hundreds and thousands of feet below the earth's surface where they are currently storing nuke waste, is doing fine.
ReplyDeletePlus(People may argue) it is not a long term solution(I haven't looked into that very much yet).