Quarterfinals: THBT dependance on hydraulic fracking is an unsustainable energy policy.
Cal and Graham continued destroying parlimentary debate by running a facts case with three necessary but insufficient burdens for the opposition and linking offense to each burden. To be sustainable an energy policy must satisfy: 1) the benefits outweigh the costs in the long run, 2) the policy is at least environmentally neutral, AND 3) it must satisfy our energy needs in the long run. Our advantages were: there is a finite amount of frackable material in the US so it cannot satisfy us in the long run, fracking pollutes the ground water which destroys agriculture in the rural regions where most shale deposits are, fracking destroys ecosystems by destroying mountains and habitats, fracking is cheap enough that corporations will invest in it instead of green technology which means we let global warming get out of hand and cannot export green tech to developing countries who need it, and an impact multiplier that natural gas is really inefficient per unit of volume so we need to do a lot of it to meet our energy needs, magnifying our other impacts. Of course, in the PMR, Cal kicked 2 of the NIBs and went hard for environmental neutrality, skewing strategy and time, violating reciprocity, and hurting clash all at once. What a great day for fairness and education.
Cal thinks we won. Which he thinks means we actually lost. Justin has left his mark on Cal’s psyche.
There was also a shoutout to the St. Olaf blog in the round. Hello to our friends across the river.