BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Natural Flow Theory

Natural Flow Theory (NTF) is the concept that every riparian user (land touching the water) has a right to the water unaltered and undiminished[1]. Dams tend not to disrupt water flow directly, however water use and evaporation from the large reservoir upstream from the dam could reduce the flow of the Blue Nile. In turn, this could affect downstream countries. Evaporation from the Aswan dam in Ethiopia amounts to around 14 billion cubic metres[2]. The GERD will face similar problems, meaning that the downstream countries will have a reduced water flow. The reservoir will also become a tempting target for large agricultural businesses as well. These companies, many of them foreign, have taken part in ’land grabbing’ to secure water before for large irrigation projects[3] and could potentially tap in to the large reservoir. A similar example is the Colorado River, where dams and irrigation projects have reduced the flow of the river and impacted heavily on the river delta[4]. These threats to the Blue Nile’s river flow demonstrate the likelihood of decreased access to water in the downstream countries, violating the major principle of NTF. [1]  Smolen,M., Mittelstet,A. & Harjo,B. ‘Whose Water is it anyway?’ Southern Region Water Program August 2012 [2] Consulate General of Ethiopia, Los Angeles ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ data accessed 12/12/13 [3] Fisher,S. ‘Africa for Sale’ International Rivers September 2011 [4] Wikipedia ‘Colorado River’ date accessed 12/12/13
The dam is predicted to provide energy for all of Ethiopia

While in theory the 6,000 MW dam can power all of Ethiopia, the reality is quite different. Areas of Ethiopia, such as Ogaden and Eritrea-Ethiopian border, are relatively unstable; making it hard to build a sufficient power grid in these regions. In Ogaden, instability in the past led to the withdrawal from the oil fields[1], and this conflict-zone will most likely make the completion of a national grid a problem. The hurdles to producing the means to provide energy to these areas means that there probably will not be universal access to the GERD’s electricity.   [1] Wikipedia ‘Ethiopia: Exports’ date accessed 10 December 2013
Economic benefits of the dam for Ethiopia

Despite Ethiopia’s economic dreams, demand risk may mean a shortfall in profits. Internally, supply may exceed demand once the GERD is complete. The unaffordability of energy has led to low demands for electricity in the past.  The possible reductions in subsidies to repay loans for building the dam will increase prices, which will then lower demand further[1]. Exporting the energy may not work either. To export power Ethiopia needs neighbours with developed transmission lines and a willingness to buy the electricity. The weak economic position of countries like Sudan[2] and poor relations with others suggest that international buyers won’t be too forthcoming.   [1] Wikipedia ‘Dams and Hydropower in Ethiopia’ date accessed 12/12/13 [2] World Bank ‘Project Appraisal Document on a Proposed Credit in the amount of SDR 26.44 Million’ 20 November 2007 p.20
Egypt and Sudan will have their legal rights infringed

The colonial era agreement is outdated and does not apply to the modern world. Ethiopia’s population has now exceeded 90 million, which is more than Egypt’s 83 million, and yet it only has a small claim to the river. Many upstream countries, like Uganda, feel that the downstream countries have constrained and damaged them by denying access to majority of the Nile’s water[1]. These states have created a new agreement the Cooperative Framework Agreement in which there is a “principle of equitable… utilization” and each “state has the right to use within its territory”.[2] The upstream countries argue supersedes the old colonial treaty if it ever had any validity.[3] The Ethiopian government has assured Egypt and Sudan that they will receive enough water to live off comfortably. Sudan has been satisfied by the rearrangements[4] which implies that Ethiopia will not deprive downstream countries of access to the Nile. [1] Schwartzstein, Water Wars [2] ‘Article 3’, Agreement on the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework, International Water Law, 2010 [3] Ibrahim, ‘The Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement’, p.302 [4] Peppeh,K. ‘Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt meet again to discuss GERD’ Zegabi 8 December 2013
Ethiopia does not need another hydroelectric dam

Geothermal power plants have their own drawbacks as well. Prime sites are often far away from population centres which means that there are losses of electricity between the plant and the customers.  Drilling into heated rock is a difficult process and once complete there must be constant management to ensure that the source is not overused[1]. [1] Siegel,R.P. ‘Geothermal Energy: Pros and Cons’, Triple Pundits 15 June 12
Natural Flow Theory

A contender to Natural Flow Theory is the Doctrine of Reasonable Use. This theory states that water can be used as long as it does not cause unreasonable damage to the flow.  While there will be some loss of water to evaporation in GERD reservoir, it is predicted to be minimal compared to other dams in the region[1]. The threat from the irrigation projects can also be mitigated by developing more efficient techniques, which is a high priority of the Nile Basin Initiative[2].       [1] Water Technology ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam Project’ Data accessed 12/12/13 [2] ‘Nile Water: Downstream versus upstream countries’ 27 May 2010
Africa will be among the hardest hit

The IPCC starts its chapter on Africa “Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability”.[1] It is also the poorest continent in the world so least able to cope. In the GAIN index by the Global Adaptation Institute which measures vulnerability and readiness for climate change eight of the bottom ten are African states.[2] The changes to Africa could be dramatic; 40% of wildlife habitats could disappear, crop yields fall by 5% despite already being the lowest in the world and 70 million are at risk of flooding as sea levels rise.[3] If anywhere needs help from developed countries in adaptation it is Africa. [1] Boko, Michel, et al., ‘Africa’, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, IPCC, 2007, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter9.pdf, p.435 [2] Gain Index, 2011, http://index.gain.org/ranking [3] Bloomfield, Steve, ‘Africa ‘will be worst hit by climate change’’, The Independent, 6 November 2006, http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/africa-will-be-worst-hit-by-climate-change-423143.html
Each country should tackle its own problems

Every country is going to be affected by climate change in one way or another developed countries included. Australia has often been singled out as being a country that is “anti-climate”[1] but Australia is already being hit by bigger bushfires and sudden floods and the cost on Australian infrastructure is estimated to rise to $9billion per year by 2020 and continue rising,[2] and this is only one small slice of the costs such as crop failures due to drought, health problems – there have already been increases in dengue fever and malaria in Australia.[3] Developed countries which are also going to be severely affected by climate change have a responsibility to their own people first and should not be paying for other countries to adapt. [1] Readfearn, Graham, ‘Australia slides down to bottom on climate change performance index’, theguardian.com, 18 November 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/18/australia-climate-change-un-warsaw [2] The Climate Institute, ‘Coming Ready or Not: Can Australia's infrastructure handle climate change?’, 29 October 2012, http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/articles/media-releases/coming-ready-or-not-can-australias-infrastructure-handle-climate-change.html [3] Buckley, Ralf et al., ‘Climate response Issues, costs and liabilities in adapting to climate change in Australia.’, Griffith University, 2007, http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/300643/Climate_Response_Issues.pdf, p.24
There are other more urgent things to be spending money on

Money should be spent where it can make most difference. The cost of many methods of adapting to climate change is high compared to the gain. The developed world should focus aid on areas that can do most good rather than on adaptation. Even those who argue that climate change will be very costly and deadly implicitly agree that there are more worthwhile things. In Climate Vulnerability Monitor’s estimates of deaths the vast majority, 3.1million, are due to indoor smoke.[1] This however is something that is not solved through adaptation to climate change but through mitigation; by providing $25 cooking stoves.[2] [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, http://www.daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf, p.17 [2] Aroon, P.J., ‘Secretary Clinton is promoting cookstoves to save the world. Seriously’, ForeignPolicy.com, 22 September 2010, http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/21/clinton_is_promoting_cookstoves_to_save_the_world?hidecomments=yes
Climate change is already costing lives

Yes there are almost certainly some casualties already to climate change but almost certainly considerably less than either of these numbers; there have always been casualties due to ‘Heat & Cold Illnesses’ (35000) but are all these attributable to climate change? Probably not. There were extreme weather events even before climate change. Even if there are such deaths this does not amount to meaning the developed world should fund adaptation; just like not every outbreak of violence in Africa should be considered the responsibility of the developed world not every natural disaster is.
The developed world has the necessary skills

The developed world will no doubt be willing to provide expertise and some may even be willing to work pro-bono while doing work for poorer countries. The developed world should not be paying for such work. Providing money to pay for western workers in Africa both invites corruption and is really for the benefit of the developed countries by providing work for western firms.[1] Instead the focus has to be on the transfer of skills to Africans so that they can meet the challenges from climate change themselves. [1] Moyo, Dambisa, ‘Why Foreign Aid is Hurting Africa’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 March 2009, http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123758895999200083#articleTabs%3Darticle
Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone

In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day,[1] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double,[2] should have the same responsibility for cutting emissions, or for paying for the consequences.   [1] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0 [2] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html
Adaptation won’t work

Many places today have not even done the minimum and need funding to help them do so. There can be no denying that some defences can make a big difference; in 1900 Galveston was hit by a hurricane which killed up to 12000 people, 15 years later after the building of a sea wall only 53 people died in a similar hurricane.[1] In many cases this kind of adaptation is simply sensible policy to prevent disasters that should be carried out regardless of climate change. [1] Morris, Julian, ‘The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy’, reason.com, 15 November 2013, http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/15/the-terrible-toll-of-typhoon-haiyan-does
Climate change is already costing lives

Lives are already being lost to climate change; a report by Climate Vulnerability Monitor estimates that already almost 5million are lost per year to climate change, even without the distorting numbers from pollution there are 400,000 deaths per year.[1] While attributing individual events to climate change is difficult research by climate scientists suggests that the lack long rains in Somalia in early 2011 is between 24 and 99% the result of greenhouse gasses.  This famine has killed between 50 and 100 thousand people.[2] With lives being lost the urgency of funding adaptation to reduce these loses is clear.   [1] Climate Vulnerability Monitor, ‘A Guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet’, DARA, September 2012, http://www.daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2ndEd-FrontMatter.pdf, p.17 [2] Straziuso, Jason, ‘Global warming may have fueled Somali drought’, Phys.org, 15 May 2013, http://phys.org/news/2013-03-human-climate-big-factor-somali.html
The developed world has the responsibility to help others

The IPCC says that it is “extremely likely” that human activities are the cause of the temperature rise.[1] This means the biggest historical emitters have a responsibility to pay for the consequences. From 1900 to 2004 the United States produced 314,772 million metric tonnes of CO2 compared to China’s 89,243 million metric tonnes and while India now produces more CO2 Germany over the same period emitted three times as much.[2] History matters as much of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades or hundreds of years. It is the responsibility of those who caused the problem to protect innocents from the fallout of their actions. [1] Harvey, Fiona, ‘IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'’, theguardian.com, 27 September 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-climate-report-un-secretary-general [2] Vaughn, Adam, ‘A history of CO2 emissions’, Datablog guardian.co.uk, 2 September 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissions-historical
The developed world has the necessary skills

Many of the areas of adaptation are areas where the west has the relevant expertise; seasonal forecasting, adjusting farming – perhaps by engineering hardier plants, weather insurance etc. Africa does not have experience or experts in many of the relevant areas, for example Africa lags behind in bioscience,[1] so it makes sense for the west to provide these experts. And while they do so the west might as well also pay the cost of these expertise and also provide the necessary skills education and training to overcome these problems. [1] Wafula, Kevin, ‘Africa still lags behind on bioscience capacities, says Scientist’, Africa Science News, 2011, http://www.africasciencenews.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=764:africa-still-lags-behind-on-bioscience-capacities-says-scientist-&catid=49:food&Itemid=113
Responsibility is not the developed world’s alone

First developing countries now produce a large share of emissions; China, India and other rising countries should also have to pay. They also at the same time have increasing financial resources. Second even if countries bear responsibility in proportion to emissions it does not follow developed countries should meet the costs of adaptation. People have always adapted to their climate as an essential part of survival[1] and the climate has always been changing even if at a slower rate so why should the developed world pay in this particular instance? That the west should cut its emissions so that it produces no more than the average per capita is equitable. It is however not equitable for one group to have to pay for the adaptation of others to their environment. [1] Clark, Duncan, ‘What is climate change adaptation?’, theguardian.com, 27 February 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/27/climate-change-adaptation
Adaptation won’t work

Adaptation is simply working to reduce the effects of climate change, it will not prevent it from causing damage. Take hurricanes; adaptation would dictate that the buildings should have been made out of stronger materials and sea walls built to stop storm surges. Yet as with any other form of disaster management there is a sensible amount to adapt if building a 10foot sea wall will stop 95% of storm surges is it really worth building one of 20foot for twice the price to stop 99%? Many forms of adaptation are directly contrary to demographic trends on the continent. Yes hardier crops can be introduced to mitigate the problems of drought but will these also feed a growing population? Yes people can migrate from those areas that will be worst hit but can their neighbours take in the extra people? For example climate change is one cause of drought in the Sahel,[1] to the south rainfall and flooding may actually increase in southern Nigeria though it will be unpredictable.[2] The obvious solution then would be migration from the Sahel south but the UN projects Niger’s population to grow to almost 70million by 2050 and Nigeria’s to 440million,[3] could Nigeria really take the extra population from its northern neighbour as well as its own growth? [1] Thomas, Alice, ‘Sahel villagers fleeing climate change must not be ignored’, theguardian.com, 2 August 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/aug/02/sahel-climate-change-displacement-migration [2] Uyigue, E., and Agho, M., ‘Coping with Climate Change and Environmental Degradation in the Niger Delta of Southern Nigeria’, Community Research and Development Centre, 2007, http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/climate-change-in-Niger-Delta.html [3] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision’, esa.un.org, http://esa.un.org/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm (using medium variant)
Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change

A report by the United Nations Environmental Project estimates that adaptation costs to Africa per year could already be $15billion, reach $50billion by 2050 and anything up to $350billion by 2070. Funding for adaptation to Africa in 2011 was only $454milliion.[1] This is not a gap that Africa can make up itself; in 2010 all spending on education was less than $50billion.[2] Africa can’t afford to adapt itself while responding to an expanding population as well as its existing problems of poverty and disease. It is clear that developed countries that do have the resources have to step it and take responsibility. [1] Schaeffer, Michiel et al., ‘Summary’, Africa Adaptation Gap Technical Report, United Nations Environmental Project, 2013 http://www.unep.org/roa/Amcen/docs/publications/Africa_Adapatation_Gap.pdf , p.xi [2] ‘Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in sub saharan Africa’, Trading Economics, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sub-saharan-africa/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html, ‘Gross domestic product 2010’, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
Euro creates a common cultural identity

Historically Europe has been a region with a shared culture; artists, writers, musicians, scientists, and philosophers travelled the continent freely (there were very few border checks until World War I). They often also conversed in a common language, French, or before that Latin. It has been nationalism that has carved Europe up into a couple of dozen separate autonomous entities; the Euro and European Union are simply breaking down these barriers. The Euro in particular encourages travel between nations in the same way that it is considered unexceptional to travel from Scotland to England so it is now simple to move from France to Germany with no borders and no change of currency. Ultimately the Eurozone will be much the same as any modern country in which there are multiple identities (whether regional or due to multiculturalism); Great Britain, United States, or Switzerland.
The euro helps to take away the people's democratic rights

When joining the Euro countries gain some economic sovereignty as well as losing it. We forget that countries like Italy joined in part because of their unstable currencies and they wanted to regain economic stability through using the Euro.[1] It is also wrong to suggest that joining the Euro strips countries of their economic sovereignty; it is still their national leaders who make economic decisions, they simply do it in concert with their European colleagues rather than in isolation. That Germany has a large role in making such decisions is not particularly relevant when with globalisation economic decision making in any one country was already being constrained. [1] Jones, Erik, ‘Italy and the Euro in the Global Economic Crisis’, The International Spectator, Vol.44, No.4, December 2009, pp.93-103, http://www.jhubc.it/facultypages/ejones/International_Spectator_2009.pdf, p.95
The Euro crisis has forced policy to be made on ad hoc basis.

Policy in a crisis is always going to be made on an ad hoc basis, this is why we have representative democracies in which we empower our elected representatives to make these decisions. In the United States this is often particularly prominent with questions about how a candidate would respond to the ‘3 am phone call’,[1] but other countries still vote at least in part based on the leadership of the party leaders with polls regularly asking if the party leader is ready to be the national leader.[2] If the electorate opposes the deals that have been made then they can throw out the government at the next election. So far in Europe the electorates even where they have thrown out the governing party they have opted for parties that seek to continue the terms of their bailout, all be it often with promises to try to reduce the burden.[3] [1] Fallows, James, “Mitt Romney Drops His 3 a.m. Phone Call”, the Atlantic, 12 September 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/mitt-romney-drops-his-3-am-phone-call/262285/ [2] Harris, Tori, ‘Poll shows Ed Miliband yet to convince as future PM’, Public Service Europe, 19 April 2013, http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/3357/polls-show-ed-miliband-yet-to-convince-as-future-pm [3] Maltezou, Renee, and Papachristou, Harry, ‘Greek pro-bailout parties secure ruling majority’, Reuters, 17 June 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/17/us-greece-election-idUSBRE85F05320120617
The euro encourages regional separatism

The Euro does not encourage separatism. Given that members of the European Commission[1] and various national leaders have stated that newly independent countries would have to reapply the EU then the Euro should act as a disincentive to prospective independent nations.[2] This is because they will have a period in which they do not benefit from membership of the customs union. The Euro simply adds to this disincentive as for those currently in the Euro it simply adds to the disruption if they have to leave, no matter how briefly. For those states that are currently opted out of the Euro, as is the case with the UK and therefore Scotland, if they reapply to the EU they will have to commit to joining the Euro. [1] Taylor, Brian, ‘Scottish independence: EC’s Barroso says new states need ‘apply to join EU’’, BBC News, 10 December 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20664907 [2] Johnson, Simon, ‘Independent Scotland ‘would have to apply from scratch to join EU’’, The Telegraph, 28 February 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9899322/Independent-Scotland-would-have-to-apply-from-scratch-to-join-EU.html