BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Underground nuclear storage is excessively expensive

The economic costs of underground storage are high. However, given that nuclear power is necessary to avoid what would likely be a very significant amount of economic harm, specifically from global warming. For example, it has been projected that not doing anything to address climate change would result in an overall increase in temperate of 5 degrees Celsius which would lead to economic costs in the order of $74 trillion. This means that the need for nuclear waste storage is inevitable.1 As such, whilst underground storage does cost more than alternate options, it is as mentioned within the proposition case the safest and most reliable method of nuclear waste storage. As such, proposition is willing to take the harm of extra cost in order to prevent harm to people’s health and well being. Ackerman, Frank. Stanton, Elizabeth. “Climate Change –the Costs of Inaction.” Friend of the Earth. 11/10/2006 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/econ_costs_cc.pdf
Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses

Side proposition supports the reuse of nuclear waste; however, it also believes that the remaining nuclear waste left by the process should be stored underground. This is because, the nuclear waste created from such a recycling process ends up being more concentrated and dangerous radioactively than normal nuclear waste. As such, storage above ground is incredibly dangerous if there is a leak. By comparison, storing the waste underground leaves 300m of sediment between the waste and the air. As such, the chances of the waste reaching a water source or causing panic are reduced as detailed in the proposition substantive. Further, even if there is a leak, the facilities can often be sealed off to prevent this from happening.1 “Nuclear Waste Faces uncertain future in Europe.” The Nuclear N Former. 2/11/2010 http://www.nuclearcounterfeit.com/?p=4211
Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation

Integral Fast Reactors are not a solution for the short term. There are currently no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation and the research reactor that was to be constructed by the United States was canceled in 1994. Any attempt to use IFRs to recycle all of the world’s nuclear waste would be very expensive and would not be an immediate solution – the waste would need to be stored somewhere while it waits to be used by the new reactors.
Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available

Even states without nuclear waste programs tend to generate radioactive waste. For example, research and medicine both use nuclear material and nuclear technology. Technologies such as Medical imaging equipment are dependent and the use of radioactive elements. This means that all states produce levels of nuclear waste that need to be dealt with. Moreover, many non-nuclear states are accelerating their programmes of research and investment into nuclear technologies. With the exception of Germany, there is an increasing consensus among developed nations that nuclear power is the only viable method of meeting rising domestic demand for energy in the absence of reliable and efficient renewable forms of power generation. The alternatives to putting nuclear waste in underground storage tend to be based around the reuse of nuclear waste in nuclear power stations. Whilst this is viable in some areas, in countries which lack the technology to be able to do this and in countries which don’t need to rely on nuclear power, this option becomes irrelevant. Further, even this process results in the creation of some nuclear waste, so in countries with the technology to implement such a solution, the disposal of the remaining nuclear waste is still an issue. As such, underground nuclear storage is a necessary method that should be used to dispose of nuclear waste. 1 1. “The EU’s deep underground storage plan.” 03/11/2010. World Nuclear News. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WE_The_EUs_deep_underground_storage_plan_0311101.html
Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative

Underground nuclear waste storage means that nuclear waste is stored at least 300m underground. The harm of a leak 300m underground is significantly limited, if the area has been chosen correctly then there should be no water sources nearby to contaminate. If this is the case, then a leak’s harm would be limited to the layers of sediment nearby which would be unaffected by radiation. By comparison a leak outside might lead to animals nearby suffering from contamination. Further nuclear waste might reach water sources should there be a leak above ground, if it is raining heavily when the leak happens for example. Further, the other options available, such as above ground storage present a potentially greater danger, should something go wrong. This is because it is much easier for nuclear waste to leak radiation into the air. This is problematic because even a hint of radiation may well cause people to panic owing to the damaging and heavily publicised consequences of previous nuclear safety crises. As such, underground storage is safer both directly and indirectly.1 As well as this, underground storage also prevents nuclear waste or nuclear radiation from reaching other states and as such, results in greater safety across borders.2 Further, storing all nuclear waste underground means that countries can concentrate their research and training efforts on responding to subterranean containment failures. Focus and specialisation of this type is much more likely to avert a serious release of nuclear material from an underground facility than the broad and general approach that will be fostered by diverse and distinct above-ground storage solutions. “Fukushima is a triumph for nuclear power.” The Register. 20/02/2010 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/ “EU Debates Permanent Storage For Nuclear Waste.” 04/11/2010 AboutMyPlanet. http://www.aboutmyplanet.com/environment/eu-debates-permanent-storage-for-nuclear-waste/
Underground nuclear storage is excessively expensive

Underground nuclear storage is expensive. This is because the deep geological repositories needed to deal with such waste are difficult to construct. This is because said repositories need to be 300m underground and also need failsafe systems so that they can be sealed off should there be a leak. For smaller countries, implementing this idea is almost completely impossible. Further, the maintenance of the facilities also requires a lot of long term investment as the structural integrity of the facilities must consistently be monitored and maintained so that if there is a leak, the relevant authorities can be informed quickly and efficiently. This is seen with the Yucca mountain waste repository site which has cost billions of dollars since the 1990s and was eventually halted due to public fears about nuclear safety.1 ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Europes-Nuclear-Waste-Storage-Problems.html
Nuclear waste can be put to beneficial uses

France is the largest nuclear energy producer in the world. It generates 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. 1 It is very important to note, therefore, that it does not rely on underground nuclear waste storage. Instead, it relies on above ground, on-site storage. This kind of storage combined with heavy reprocessing and recycling of nuclear waste, makes underground storage unnecessary. 2 As such it seems logical that in most western liberal democracies that are able to reach the same level of technological progress as France, it makes more sense to store nuclear waste above ground. Above ground, checks and balances can be put into place that allow the maintenance of these nuclear storage facilities to be monitored more closely. Furthermore, reprocessing and recycling leads to less wasted Uranium overall. This is important as Uranium, whilst being plentiful in the earth, is often difficult to mine and mill. As such, savings here often significantly benefit things such as the environment and lower the economic cost of the entire operation. Palfreman, Jon. “Why the French Like Nuclear Energy.” PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html BBC News, ‘France nuclear power funding gets 1bn euro boost’, 27 June 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13924602
Nuclear waste can be used in other forms of power generation

There are new kinds of nuclear reactor such as ‘Integral Fast Reactors’, which can be powered by the waste from normal nuclear reactors (or from uranium the same as any other nuclear reactor). This means that the waste from other reactors or dismantled nuclear weapons could be used to power these new reactors. The Integral Fast Reactor extends the ability to produce energy roughly by a factor of 100. This would therefore be  a very long term energy source.1 The waste at the end of the process is not nearly as much of a problem, as it is from current reactors. Because the IFR recycles the waste hundreds of times there is very much less waste remaining and what there is has a much shorter half-life, only tens of years rather than thousands. This makes storage for the remainder much more feasible, as there would be much less space required.2 Till, Charles, ‘Nuclear Reaction Why DO Americans Fear Nuclear Power’, PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html Monbiot, George, ‘We need to talk about Sellafield, and a nuclear solution that ticks all our boxes’, guardian.co.uk, 5 December 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/05/sellafield-nuclear-energy-solution
Storing nuclear waste underground is necessary - there are no better option available

Underground nuclear storage is not the only way to store nuclear material. Economically speaking, it is more expensive, but likely much safer to store nuclear waste above ground in facilities that can be easily monitored and dealt with. Unlike in underground storage facilities, should something go wrong above ground, it can be responded to quickly and efficiently and it is likely that problems will be detected earlier as well. Further, widely implementing underground nuclear storage would also encourage states to be more cavalier with their nuclear energy policies. Specifically, whilst nuclear energy generation may result in zero carbon emissions, the mining and milling of uranium that initially starts the process is environmentally damaging.1 ISN Security Watch. “Europe’s Nuclear Waste Storage Problems.” Oilprice.com 01/06/2010 http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Europes-Nuclear-Waste-Storage-Problems.html
Underground nuclear storage is safer than any available alternative

Journalist Jeremy Shere describes the problems with most methods of nuclear storage: "There have been a few other interesting ideas –such as burying nuclear waste beneath the ocean floor. Scientists have also thought about putting waste in really deep holes, burying it in polar ice sheets, and stashing it beneath uninhabited islands. [...] But there are problems with each of these ideas. For example, it would be difficult to monitor nuclear waste under the ocean floor. Waste buried deep in the earth, meanwhile, might contaminate ground water. And as ice sheets continue to melt, it’s hard to say how long nuclear waste would remain buried, or where it would end up if it floated away. Plans to store waste produced in the United States in Yucca Mountain, in Utah, have been put on hold. So for now almost all nuclear waste is kept above ground in special containers at a few hundred different sites around the country.”1 The point with underground nuclear storage is that geological conditions are often very different between states and regions; this would often mean that in some states underground nuclear storage would be completely inappropriate because it could leak due to geological changes. Further, underground nuclear storage as mentioned in the first opposition counter-argument, actively encourages a state to become reliant on nuclear power. Shere, Jeremy. “What Is The Best Way To Dispose Of Nuclear Waste?” Moment of Science. 23/03/2010 http://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/nuclear-waste-storage/
Combating corruption

Changing the way money is given will reduce corruption, embezzlement and manipulation. Centralised government structures control aid distribution in many recipient countries. As a consequence, embezzlement by government officials has become more frequent and easier to conceal. Linking aid to specific projects is ineffective at solving this problem due to difficulty in tracking individual project accounts within the recipient nation. The need to monitor which individuals and institutions receive donated funds, and to confirm that funds have been applied according to agreed plans and schedules still presents a difficult and intractable auditing problem. Recently the Netherlands has halted its $148m development aid programme to Kenya in protest at aid embezzlement in the wake of multiple ‘graft’ scandals there[i]. Similarly Sao Tome’s Prime Minister was arrested for aid embezzlement in 2004[ii]. Corruption inside government means that aid is also often directed to supporters of the government when eventually spent. Aid may be channelled to particular individuals or political organisations, a trend which has been observed in Zimbabwe[iii]. Similarly, aid may be channelled to favoured social, ethnic or religious groups. This is particularly likely to happen in highly plural states that are affected by underlying cultural tension and strict physical divisions between communities and territories. Discriminatory treatment of Arab Israelis in Israel and the exclusion of Christian and Animist communities from aid schemes in the former Sudan illustrate this trend[iv]. [i] “Anti-corruption profile – Kenya” Trust.org. http://www.trust.org/trustlaw/country-profiles/good-governance.dot?id=12600e6d-9822-41c2-bff1-579481b9108a [ii] “Sao Tomean PM steps down after coup.” Afrol News Online. 01 August 2003. http://www.afrol.com/articles/10333 [iii] “Zimbabwe: Corruption Timeline.” Global Integrity Report. http://report.globalintegrity.org/Zimbabwe/2009/timeline [iv] “Background Note: Sudan.” U.S. Department of State. 08 April 2011. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5424.htm
Preventing dependence

Direct aid creates dependence and a dangerous client culture among recipient states. ODA is entwined with foreign policy to the degree where aid is no longer allocated on the basis of need, but according to the political and policy objectives of donor states. The USA can muster the political will to provide military aid to Israel totalling nearly $3bn a year[i], but even in the wake of Live8, real aid (payment of fresh funds to recipients, as opposed to funds acquired by rescheduling existing aid obligations) to the poorest nations in Africa is not as large proportionately. Not only is ODA increasingly being used to incentivise compliance or non-interference with America’s objectives in the war on terror, as shown by the aid provided to Pakistan for its cooperation in the stationing of US military bases. When ODA is administered in this way, there is an increased risk that recipient governments will be seen by their people as less independent – as stooges of colonial interlopers. Reliance on ODA can become entrenched but ODA has also created dependent nations such as Micronesia where 4/5 of the population are employed in ‘aid-created’ jobs and the government receives 90% of its revenue from the USA[ii]. It encourages a culture of aid-dependency where nations such as Kenya have come to believe that aid is the only way to lift themselves out of poverty. [i] Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html [ii] “Background Note: Micronesia.” U.S. Department of state. 31 October 2011. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1839.htm
Supporting domestic development and domestic markets

Direct aid undermines local markets within developing states. Many economists believe that economic growth needs to occur at a local or micro level, with private industry spurring growth and providing employment opportunities[i] that act to elevate consumer demand. Chile is often given as an example of a country which has grown in this way. Government aid frequently results in the growth of large, state-owned corporations which undercut the creation of local markets, preventing the development of private enterprise. This can be compared with the deskilling effect that long term food aid has caused within developing nations[ii]. Lacking the will or economic resources to expand land cultivation schemes, formally and culturally acquired farming have dropped out of use in a range of developing states. Dependence on centrally distributed aid is slowing reducing the number of skilled, practiced agricultural labourers able to work to grow food. Similarly, state-owned resource extraction and processing firms can influence an economy’s real exchange rate, making cross border trade in the commodities produced by farmers and local craftsmen uncompetitive – a situation known as the Dutch disease. This is a significant hazard in continents with a high proportion of interdependent sovereign states, such as Africa. State owned industry frequently undercuts local, privately owned industry in both the domestic and export markets of developing nations. Further, these processes raise the spectre of corruption in state institutions and state owned businesses[iii], with large revenues tempting individuals to engage in graft, nepotism and patrimony. The risks inherent in state supervised industry and micro-economic stimulus can be avoided by supplying aid funding to microbanking and microcredit institutions. Businesses of this type specialise in creating a large supply of low cost credit that small firms, farmers and households can borrow in order to fund the purchases and investments that will bring them closer to prosperity. [i] “Direct aid: A dollar a day keeps the donor away.” Wahega.net. 23 January 2007. http://www.wahenga.net/node/1030                [ii] The Development Effectiveness of Food Aid. The OECD. 2006, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?lang=en&sf1=identifiers&st1=432006081p1 [iii] The Political Economy of Foreign Aid. Hopkins, R F. Swarthmore College. http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rhopkin1/research/PolEconFA.pdf
NGOs do not deliver aid effectively

The idea that NGO’s are better able to deliver development aid has become received wisdom – accepted uncritically, repeated unthinkingly. Because charities do not have the political staying power of governments, nor a government’s ability to mobilise force or request assistance from intergovernmental bodies (such as the UN), they are often the first to withdraw when dormant war zones turn ‘hot’. Inevitably, and understandably, NGOs will always prioritise the lives of their staff and volunteers. Problems also arise when faith-based NGOs attempt to involve themselves in development projects in poorer parts of the world. Even large, well-funded charities such as Christian Aid[i] or Saudi educational charities are perceived as partisan actors in certain states and territories. The presence of such groups has frequently exacerbated community tensions where access to political power, wealth or land is divided unequally among plural religious or cultural groups. Most importantly, whilst organisations such as the Red Cross may be able to deliver emergency aid to areas where national governments are unwelcome, it is all but impossible to deliver development aid to conflict zones. Long term solutions to economic deprivation or agricultural failure are rendered meaningless in an environment where the destruction of infrastructure is widespread and unpredictable. Even the most basic forms of aid delivery may be diverted to rebel forces, perpetuating conflicts. The kind of peace that only national governments can impose is needed before serious development can commence. [i] “Christian Aid: Continued Bias and missing context in Palestinian agenda.” NGO Monitor. 13 July 2006. http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/christian_aid_continued_bias_and_missing_context_in_palestinian_agenda_ngo_update_january_june_
Combating corruption

Advocates of government-to-government aid do not have to defend such out-dated portrayals of ODA. Since at least 2000, many DAC member nations have tied their aid entirely or in part to political, economic and environmental reform. The burden is now on recipient nations to prove that aid payments are not being squandered. An onus is placed on recipients to invest in the creation of a political culture that tackles corruption, as has been seen with the founding of an ‘anti-graft task force’ in Kenya in 2006. Linked aid promotes political stability, development policies conscious of the limitations of national resources and a consistent economic framework. Moreover, there is no guarantee that charities and NGOs will be any less corrupt or more able to prevent corruption. Easy access to large amounts of capital creates an environment that can foster corruption within any type of organisation, whether governmental institutions in the developing world or non-governmental institutions based in wealthy states. Passing aid to multiple NGOs, many of which may not be governed by accounting standards as strict as those applied to onshore organisations in the UK and the US, creates a system in which it is far harder to monitor and prevent embezzlement. In 2003, the Indian government placed 800 NGOs operating within its north eastern states under a regime of strict observation. Many of the organisations identified were suspected of having links to north eastern separatist and insurgent fighters; it was believed that funds donated to these NGOs, either privately or by the state itself, were being channelled to armed rebel groups[i]. [i] NGO Regulation Network. http://www.ngoregnet.org/country_information_by_region/Asia_and_Oceania/India.asp
Preventing dependence

Cutting aid payments to the governments of states that are aid dependent would severely restrict the provision of public services and undermine public and international confidence in fragile political settlements. This dependence therefore prevents the aid being cut off. Israel, for instance, would arguably be unable to survive without its foreign aid from the USA. Similarly, those states such as Micronesia or Tokelau which are almost exclusively aid dependent are essentially protectorates of those states that aid them, giving them political independence and the ability to develop. The approach suggested by the resolution would also have a negative impact on nations that are politically stable but in need of reliable, uncomplicated economic support. Between 45 to 50% of all foreign aid goes to nations such as Argentina, Botswana and Brazil. Indeed, sanctions levelled against politically unstable or oppressive states such as Angola and Zimbabwe tend to restrict the aid payments they receive. Reducing aid to politically mature and conflict-free “emerging economies” reduces certainty and sustainability in development. We should deliver the aid which we have promised, the results of which- for many states- are now coming to fruition.