Topic Analysis - LD November/December - Fossil Fuels
By: Samantha McLoughlin
The 2019 November/December Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topic is… Resolved: the United States ought to eliminate subsidies for fossils fuels.
AFF IDEAS:
In terms of policy affs, the core aff ground will likely argue that removing subsidies for fossil fuels will decrease emissions and prevent global warming. Likely, these affs will claim that the plan causes a shift to renewable energy (such as solar, wind, nuclear etc.). Additionally, affs could discuss the immense cost of subsidizing fossil fuels, and read economy advantages based off that.
In terms of philosophy, most authors conclude aff. For example, a Kantian approach to environmental ethics would likely conclude aff, as Kantian ethics would likely generate a direct or indirect duty to nonhuman nature in order to increase our moral perfection.
In terms of K affs, most theories will have at least some intersection with environmentalism. Specifically, settler colonialism would likely affirm because of the irresponsible and exploitative nature that settlers have with the land/environment (which is embodied in fossil fuel subsidies). However, such affs would have to be careful, as renewable energy industries are also heavily criticized by some settler colonial authors. Another likely K aff would deal with capitalism, and explore the way that capitalist economic incentives have propped up exploitative industries (such as the fossil fuel industry) at the expense of the environment.
NEG IDEAS:
In terms of topicality, the two most likely contested words in the topic would be “subsidies” and “fossil fuels”.
“Subsidies” are usually broken down into “production”, “consumer”, and “post-tax” subsidies. Depending on the definition, subsidies can take the form of anything from tax breaks to investment by state-owned enterprises. Different governments and organizations (such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the International Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund etc.) take different approaches to defining and quantifying energy subsidies, so T debate here will likely be somewhat messy. Luckily, because there are many organizations that have made explicit attempts to define energy subsidies, T research will likely be easier and more robust.
“Fossil fuels” broadly encompasses petroleum, coal, natural gas, and Orimulsion (bitumen-based fuel developed by a private corporation). However, each of these categories breaks down into many more individual types of fuel, meaning that there is lots of room for nuanced T debates here.
In terms of policy ground, the main DAs will probably focus on the effect of the aff plan on oil prices (arguing that the aff causes oil prices to skyrocket, hurting the economy), or the value of the fossil fuel industry in maintaining US influence and soft power abroad (especially in the face of rising Chinese or Russian influence via the energy industry). Additionally, given that climate activism has become an increasingly prominent (and partisan) movement in recent weeks, politics DAs will likely be popular (both those that speak to the 2020 election, and typical agenda politics DAs). Such DAs will likely be accompanied by agent CPs, such as states. In terms of CP ground, the most popular CPs will likely be advantage counterplans to solve global warming, as that is a likely aff advantage area.
In terms of philosophy, there isn’t much neg ground, as most authors tend to vote aff, or not take a stance on the resolution.
In terms of Ks, there is also a good amount of neg ground. Most Ks could be read on either side, since a lot of critical authors think environmentalism is good, but should be done via their theory. Specifically, settler colonialism neg ground is also pretty plentiful, as authors critique both the renewable industry (which many affs will claim to shift to), and environmentalism as a settler project which tries to rescue settler stewardship of the land. Another K could argue that the aff relies on free market logic, where they trust that once government intervention via subsidies is removed, the free market of energy will function “properly” and produce the best, most environmentally friendly solutions. Feminism, specifically ecofeminism, will likely be strong on this topic too, which is discussed below.
FEM GROUND:
AFF: In terms of fem affs, ecofeminism will likely be a strong literature base to research. Ecofeminism theorizes that the way we understand the climate/the earth is profoundly gendered (for example, the feminization of nature via terms such as “Mother Earth”). According to most ecofeminist scholarship, the earth is exploited by capitalist patriarchal structures along gendered lines. Binaries like male/female, human/animal, culture/nature are masculine binaries used to create a split between “man” and “nature” used to justify environmental exploitation (such as extraction of fossil fuels).
NEG: All of the above ecofeminism literature can be read as links to environmentalism affs that don’t take into account the gendering of nature. Additionally, there are links to “objective “value free” Western science, which is often used to try to address climate change (as some global warming affs will likely rely on these notions of science).