BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The nuclear industry has constantly required government bailouts and has never been commercially viable in an open market

The costs of protecting oil supplies are significantly than any externalities created by the nuclear industry. In addition to which most sectors of the renewables industry have yet to even turn a dollar. Solar power, for example would have to compensate the enormous quantities of land it takes up to even cover its own costs[i]. Of course there are externalities in the production of nuclear power, as there are in any other industry – especially the energy sector. If the oil industry had to carry the cost of wars in the Middle East or the reparations due for climate change it would be bankrupt tomorrow. If tidal power providers had to pay for the long term damage to coastlands, no-one would even think about floating a barrage. By any standards nuclear is relatively cheaper and runs a much cleaner ship than most parts of the sector. [i] Simon Grose. “False Dawn of Solar Power”. Cosmos. 25 October 2006.
The nuclear industry is constantly judged on criteria that do not take its externalities into account

The nuclear industry around the world has always sought to improve the rights and protections of workers in uranium mines and to lessen the environmental impact of those mining activities[i]. Compared to the environmental impact of coal and oil withdrawal, uranium is relatively harmless. Compared to the space taken up by windfarms with their impact on the local environment and the devastation that can be caused by Hydroelectric, this is a low impact industry. [i] Press Release. “Environmental Aspects of Uranium Mining”. World Nuclear Association. February 2011.
It is simply unethical to invest in an industry that will leave the problems it creates to be dealt with for thousands of years into the future

All societies inherit problems from previous generations this age has acquired a global population that has increased seven-fold in the course of two generations and has a desperate need for energy. Nuclear power fills that need and consistently works to ensure that its byproducts are rendered harmless. No industry has put more work into ensuring that it does not leave a mess behind it – nor is any industry under more scrutiny on the subject. The Nuclear Industry has routinely accepted its responsibility to future generations in a way that other sectors of the mainstream energy sector have refused to.
There is no instance in which renewable energy has been able to provide a major share in the energy market

Nuclear power has, worldwide, received billions, if not trillions, of dollars of investment. By comparison the renewables industry has received tiny grants from central government and, despite a lack of funding and running forty years behind in terms of the attention of governments, it is holding its own with an expanding market share. As of the 8th of July 2011 the US was more reliant on renewable energy than nuclear[i] according to the Energy Information Administration. All of this was accomplished despite massively disproportionate funding. According to the primary Congressional report on the subject: “Energy research and development (R&D) intended to advance technology played an important role in the successful outcome of World War II. In the post-war era, the federal government conducted R&D on fossil fuel and nuclear energy sources to support peacetime economic growth. The energy crises of the 1970s spurred the government to broaden the focus to include renewable energy and energy efficiency. Over the 33-year period from the Department of Energy’s inception at the beginning of fiscal Year (FY) 1978 through FY2010, federal spending for renewable energy R&D amounted to about 16% of the energy R&D total, compared with 14% for energy efficiency, 26% for fossil, and 37% for nuclear. For the 63-year period from 1948 through 2010, nearly 12% went to renewables, compared with 9% for efficiency, 25% for fossil, and 50% for nuclear.”[ii] Put simply the renewables industry has been outspent but is still producing more energy in the world’s largest consumer. [i] “US Renewable Energy Production Now Greater Than Nuclear”. Future of Energy Blog. 8 July 2011. [ii] Fred Sissine. “Renewable Energy R&D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, and Energy Efficiency R&D”. Congressional Research Service. 26 January 2011.
Renewables are mostly unproven, experimental technologies being developed on a small-scale basis that is not ready to take up the gap to move away from fossil fuels under climate change agreements

It is useful to deal with the idea that nuclear is a CO2 free fuel. When the entire fuel cycle is considered then Nuclear power is a direct contributor to climate change emissions[i]. It is then possible to add in additional carbon footprints such as the emissions caused by building and staffing a large plant. It is also a question worth asking as to when climate change-related pollution became the only standard. There are plenty of other ways of polluting the environment and belching out irradiated gases into the ocean would seem to meet that standard. [i] http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm
Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice

All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.
Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process

Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks.[1][2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption.[3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying.[4] [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008
Earmarks help to create congressional stability

Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired,[1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee.[2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million.[3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability. [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008 [3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007
Abolishing earmarks will save money

Scrapping earmarks will save billions of dollars and contribute to reducing the appalling US budget deficit. Earmarks totalled about $16 billion of the 2009-10 budget,[1] unnecessary spending which should be cut in the interests of both present and future US taxpayers. Earmarks can be a large amount of a department’s budget, in 2005 the Office of Naval Research derived a quarter of its budget through earmarks.[2] Granted, removing earmarks alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the budget deficit and get rid of wasteful government spending, but earmarks are the obvious place to start. Until these most egregious examples of waste are tackled, it will not be possible to move on to cut bigger spending programs. [1] Kane, Paul, ‘Congressional earmarks worth nearly $16 billion’, 2010 [2] Charging RINO, ‘The Problem with Earmarks’, 2006
Earmarks erode trust in the government

The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents.[1] [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’
Earmarks do not accord with democratic principles of equity, fairness and justice

Earmarks are fundamentally unfair, benefiting some states and congressional districts much more than others regardless of the merits of their case for federal spending. Where spending priorities are decided by the executive they can set objective criteria and organise competitive bidding processes for specific projects. Earmarks avoid this merit-based approach and instead channel money to specific projects according to how well-connected their Congressional representatives are.[1] Congressmen on the key spending committees, especially the Appropriations Committees, are best placed to channel pork back to their districts. It has been found that earmark spending rises between 40-50% in a state if one of its Senators becomes Chair of a top-three committee.[2] [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’ [2] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011
Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process

The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years.[1][2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful.[3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying.[4] The attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency.[5] [1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007 [2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008 [3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009 [5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009
Earmarks help to create congressional stability

In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.
Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money

There will always be some wasted spending but earmarks often appropriate money for projects that are considered very worthwhile by the local community.[1] After all, representatives know that useless vanity projects will not attract positive headlines back home, so they have every incentive to ensure that the money goes into stimulating local economies, investing in neglected communities, and making a positive impact on the lives of millions of Americans.[2] For example Senator McCain singled out $6.6million for research on Formosan termites as unjustified but for local people they represent a threat to buildings as they consume wood.[3] Furthermore, who is more likely to appreciate the needs on the ground, a faceless, unaccountable Washington-based bureaucrat, or an elected local representative closely in touch with the needs of their constituents? As Rahm Emanuel argues “I know more about the needs of the people I represent than some bureaucrat in Washington, an ideologue in the White House, or worse, a bureaucrat with orders from a White House ideologue.”[4]  Finally, if there are some worthless examples of earmarks, then by all means eliminate those through scrutiny and votes in Congress on a case-by-case basis. There is no need to abandon the whole system. [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009 [2] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009 [3] Grace, Stephanie, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2009 [4] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007
Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership

Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed.[1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district. [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006
Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch

Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.
Earmarks do not represent an efficient use of taxpayers' money

Earmarks usually represent expensive programs of little worth to the American people. As the main means of pork barrel politics, earmarks are typically vanity projects with little economic benefit. Examples include the Alaskan “Bridge to Nowhere” (a $400 million project to connect an island community of just 50 people to the mainland),[1] $1 million for shuttle buses at Western Kentucky University,[2] and a grant of $300 000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society of Hawaii.[3] Worse, a recent Harvard Business School study found that states which received the most federal spending via earmarks from well-connected Congressmen actually suffered economically as a result, because the federal money crowded out private investment and distorted the local jobs market.[4] [1] Volpe, Paul, ‘Politifact: ‘Bridge’ Going Nowhere Before Palin Killed It’, 2008 [2] WKU News, ‘Funding secured for 2 more projects’, 2009 [3] Mendoza, Jim, ‘McCain criticizes Voyaging Society earmark’, 2010 [4] Coval, Joshua et al., ‘Do Powerful Politicians Cause Corporate Downsizing?’, 2011
Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership

The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska.[1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation. [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009
Earmarks are part of the power of the purse

Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century.[1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this;[2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters.[3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country.[4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch. [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006 [2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009 [3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007 [4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009
Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch

The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent.[1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully,[2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban.[3] [1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008 [2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009 [3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009
Abolishing earmarks will save money

Scrapping earmarks won’t save money, it’s just a distraction from the real challenge the government faces. As Earmarks are just a way of describing a government funded program[1] they do not represent additional government spending, they simply appropriate small amounts of it (less than 0.5% of the whole US budget, and only 1.5% of discretionary spending) for specific projects.[2] If the earmarks were not there, the money would still be spent; its use would simply be decided by the executive branch rather than directed to a particular end by Congress. For this reason, ending the use of earmarks will do nothing to cut the deficit. If you were serious about doing that you would have to think about cutting entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, raising the pension age further, reducing military expenditure, and increasing taxes.[3] [1] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009 [2] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009 [3] Hoyer, Steny H., ‘’Pork’ doesn’t fatten budget’, 2009
Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss

There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass.[1] [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009
Earmarks erode trust in the government

What erodes trust in Congress is the endless squabbling between parties who put their own partisan advantage over the national interest, not the lobbying of individual representatives and senators on behalf of their constituents. Politicians erode trust by loudly arguing that government is the problem.[1] Earmarks are in fact important in linking Congress to citizens, as they produce concrete benefits at a local level that can be associated with the activities of elected officials. This increases trust and helps to legitimise the wider activities of the federal government, including its taxes. This helps to explain why opinion polls find that most people trust their own Congressman to do the right thing, even as confidence in Congress as a whole sinks to record lows.[2] [1] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009 [2] Reich, Robert, ‘House of Ill-Repute: It’s Time to Ban Earmarks”, 2006
Open primaries allow the electorate to express nuanced polling choices

Contests between those of the same party are in their nature divisive and distract from the aim of winning the general election. Debates about Ideological nuance are not major reasons for non-political voters to go to the polls. Debates about those issues have largely been the preserve of those who are party members and as a result should stay within that sphere. Greater competition can be engendered through other means, such as Proportional Representation that leads to real competition between all parties in all areas of a country as opposed to a contest between candidates who have no real differences of opinion.
Open primaries obscure the distinctions between political parties

While centrist candidates maybe preferred in Primary elections, but it is a choice that has been made by the people when presented with a full ideological spectrum by the range of candidates standing for elections. Appeal to Swing voters is what matters in elections anyway so what Open Primaries do is make that abundantly clear, with the candidate most likely to carry swing voters in the general election most likely to win the candidacy. This makes party leaderships think hard about what voters want and how to incorporate that into policy.