**Energy
Community Burden Turn
1NC
Desalination shifts massive economic burden onto communities due to high energy
costs
Pacific 6 (Pacific Institute, on-profit research institute created to provide independent research and policy
analysis on issues of development, environment, and security, 6/27/06, “California Needs to Move
Cautiously on Desalination”, http://pacinst.org/news/california-needs-to-move-cautiously-on-desalination/,
aps)
Economic, Environmental, and Social Costs Still Outweigh Technological Gains June 27, 2006,
Oakland, CA: Having completed a year-long California-focused analysis of desalination, Oakland’s Pacific Institute concludes that
most of the state’s seawater desalination
proposals are premature. According to their report, “Desalination, With a
21 desalination projects proposed in California fail to adequately
address economic realities, environmental concerns, or potential social impacts. Recent
gains in desalination efficiency are being offset by rising interest rates and increases in energy and
construction costs. Even the cheapest estimates exceed the costs of conservation and efficiency
improvements, fixing leaks, and other sources of new supply. As a result, desalination remains an
Grain of Salt,” most if not all of the
extremely expensive source of fresh water for Californians.¶ “Desalination will be part of California’s water future, but the future’s
not here yet,” said Dr. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute. “Most
California communities can find
additional water, quicker and for less money, by improving efficiency and management.Ӧ
Desalination is energy intensive, making its already high costs vulnerable to rising energy
prices. Electricity accounts for 44% of the typical water costs of a reverse-osmosis plant. An energy rate increase of 25% increases
the cost of produced water by 11 percent. Energy price uncertainty creates costs that are ultimately paid
by water users, but project cost estimates often omit such considerations.¶ Statewide, proposals range
in size from a small plant providing water for a private development along Cannery Row, Monterey to much larger plants in Southern
California that would be among the largest desalination plants in the United States. The total capacity of the proposed plants could
amount to approximately 450 million gallons per day, which would represent a massive 70-fold increase over current seawater
desalination capacity. In Southern California, interest in desalination is driven by concerns about drought reliability, population
growth, and the desire to reduce dependence on outside water sources. The capacity of the region’s proposed plants totals 300 million
gallons per day, or about 7% of the region’s average daily water needs in 2000. If built, four of the proposed plants would be among
the largest in the country.¶ Concerns about drought, water supply limitations, overuse of water needed for ecosystems, and growth
moratoriums are driving Central California’s projects. The Pajaro-Sunny Mesa/Poseidon plant proposed for Moss Landing would be
the largest in the region, producing 20-25 million gallons of fresh water per day (MGD). This plant is in direct competition, however,
with the smaller California American Water Company plant, which would use the same Duke Energy site to produce 11-12 MGD.¶
Four desalination plants are proposed in Northern California. The purposes of the proposed plants vary, ranging from improved
reliability during droughts and emergencies to meeting anticipated growth needs and providing environmental benefits. With the
exception of the Marin Municipal Water District, which is operating a pilot plant, agencies in Northern California are still in the early
planning stages and no project is likely to be built before 2010.¶ “Our
communities cannot be rushed into
desalination projects – the economic, environmental, and social costs of desalination are too
high,” said Heather Cooley, lead author of the report. “Local, state, and national laws do not sufficiently protect our
communities from costly mistakes.”
2NC Ext
Energy and water costs make desalination financially unviable for most
communities—the plan just forces them into buying something they don’t want
Rodgers 14 (Paul Rodgers May 29, 2014 Accessed July 5, 2014 Nation's largest ocean desalination plant goes up near San
Diego; Future of the California coast? High Cost http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-oceandesalination-plant-goes-up-near)
Almost every discussion about desalination begins and ends with cost. Desalinated water typically costs about $2,000
an acre foot -- roughly the amount of water a family of five uses in a year. The cost is about double that of water
obtained from building a new reservoir or recycling wastewater , according to a 2013 study from the state
Department of Water Resources. And its price tag is at least four times the cost of obtaining "new water" from conservation methods - such as paying farmers to install drip irrigation, or providing rebates for homeowners to rip out lawns or buy water-efficient toilets.
"We look out and see a vast ocean. It seems obvious," said Heather Cooley, water director for the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit
research organization in Oakland. "But it's cost prohibitive for most places in California." In Carlsbad, two gallons of
seawater will be needed to produce each gallon of drinking water . And to remove the salt, the plant will use
an enormous amount of energy -- about 38 megawatts, enough to power 28,500 homes -- to force 100 million gallons of
seawater a day through a series of filters. The process, known as reverse osmosis, removes salt and other impurities by blasting the
water at six times the pressure of a fire hose through membranes with microscopic holes. San Diego County is better suited than any
large California community for desalination. It receives only 10 inches of rain a year, one-third less than Los Angeles, Fresno or San
Jose. It has very little groundwater. And it has a large customer base to spread out the cost of the Carlsbad plant, which will
provide about 7 percent of the total water needs of the county . The high price is worth it to help San Diego and
other regions rely less on water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, both of which are overdrawn
and increasingly unreliable, said Bob Yamada, water resources manager for the San Diego County Water Authority. "You can't
conserve or recycle what you don't have," Yamada said. "Desal offers us local control." The authority will pay from $2,014 to $2,257
an acre foot for the water, depending on how much it buys. The agency, which provides water to 3.1 million people in San Diego
County, signed a 30-year contract agreeing to buy at least 48,000 acre feet a year. With that guarantee, Poseidon and its investors were
able to sell bonds to finance the project. The company will be guaranteed a rate of return between 9 and 13 percent, depending on
operating costs. Critics say the agency is getting a raw deal. "It's not a public-private partnership," Gonzalez said. "It's corporate
welfare." Nobody disputes that the cost of water will go up. According to Yamada, the average customer's
bill, now $71 a month, will rise $5 to $7 to pay for desalination.
Warming Turn
1NC
Desalination massively increases fossil fuel emissions
Scientific American 9 [Scientific American, 1/20/09, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/theimpacts-of-relying-on-desalination/]
Due to its high cost, energy intensiveness and overall ecological footprint, most environmental
advocates view desalinization (or desalination)‚ the conversion of salty ocean water into fresh water‚ as a last resort
for providing fresh water to needy populations. Sourcing fresh water from streams, rivers, lakes and
underground aquifers and adhering to strict water conservation measures are much more viable
for both economic and environmental reasons in most situations, although some desert regions with thirsty and
growing populations may not have many such options. The relationship between desalinization and climate change is complex. Global
warming has increased droughts around the world and turned formerly verdant landscapes into near deserts. Some long held fresh
water sources are simply no longer reliably available to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, expanding
populations in desert areas are putting intense pressure on existing fresh water supplies, forcing communities to turn to desalinization
the process of desalinization burns up many
more fossil fuels than sourcing the equivalent amount of fresh water from fresh water
bodies. As such, the very proliferation of desalinization plants around the world‚ some 13,000 already
supply fresh water in 120 nations, primarily in the Middle East, North Africa and Caribbean, is both a reaction to and one of
many contributors to global warming. Beyond the links to climate problems, marine biologists warn
that widespread desalinization could take a heavy toll on ocean biodiversity; as such
facilities' intake pipes essentially vacuum up and inadvertently kill millions of plankton, fish
eggs, fish larvae and other microbial organisms that constitute the base layer of the marine
food chain. And, according to Jeffrey Graham of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography's Center for Marine Biotechnology and
Biomedicine, the salty sludge leftover after desalinization for every gallon of freshwater produced, another gallon
of doubly concentrated salt water must be disposed of can wreak havoc on marine ecosystems if dumped
as the most expedient way to satisfy their collective thirst. But
willy-nilly offshore. For some desalinization operations, says Graham, it is thought that the disappearance of some organisms from
discharge areas may be related to the salty outflow. Of course, as supplies of fresh water dwindle, the economic cost of desalinization‚
especially in coastal areas with easy access to ocean water‚ begins to look competitive with traditional water sourcing.
Every increase in CO2 emissions increases the risk of catastrophic global warming
Keating 9 (Joshua Keating, staffwriter at Slate focusing on international affairs, 11/13/09, “The End of the World”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world)
CLIMATE DISASTER¶ How it could happen: Under the worst-case scenario predicted by the
International Panel on Climate Change, the global surface temperature of the Earth could
increase by as much as 4-5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. (Many scientists
believe that estimate is conservative). Such a scenario would lead to as much as a half-meter
rise in sea levels, flooding coastal regions including many of the world’s major cities. ¶
Meanwhile, nearly one-third of the planet could become desert and more than half would
experience drought. The salinization of much of the Earth’s groundwater supply will only
make this worse. The IPCC found that at even a 3.5 degree increase would put 40-70 percent of the
world’s species at risk of extinction, and the potential for new geopolitical conflicts over
dwindling resources is mind-boggling.¶ How likely is it? A recent MIT study found that current
carbon trends bear out the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios or even exceed them. Global carbon levels
are currently at 380 parts per million compared to 280 before the Industrial Revolution. Most scientists conclude that catastrophic
effects will begin to be felt once those levels pass 450. If the Earth reaches 800-1000 parts per million, as the worst-case scenarios
predict, it’s really anybody’s guess. While recent research by the National Oceanographic and Aeronautics Administration suggests
that many of the effects of climate change are already irreversible, the
worst, potentially civilization-ending
outcomes could be mitigated by a substantial reduction in carbon emissions.
Aff – AT Warming
CO2 not key
Philip Haddad June 22, 2011 PhD Chem. E. retd. Carbon Dioxide does not Cause Global Warming!
http://www.alvinsun.net/articles/2011/06/22/opinion/editorials/doc4e0228a53ed3d528547342.txt
There is a mistaken notion that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming. Although there is a clear
correlation between the rate of rise of temperature and the rate of rise of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, this is
because 80 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels. The carbon dioxide is just an indicator of all the energy
consumed. Where does all this energy go? It goes into the atmosphere. The real damage caused by the “carbon
dioxide greenhouse” myth it now is assumed that any energy source that does not produce carbon
dioxide is acceptable. Hogwash! Energy is heat. As a “greenhouse” gas, carbon dioxide is
insignificant compared to water vapor. For example, in arid regions the temperature swings from very hot in the day to
frigid at night due to loss of heat through radiation. Yet the atmosphere there has the same carbon dioxide
concentration as the more humid areas. Furthermore, carbon dioxide provides cooling through
photosynthesis.
**Biodiversity
Biodiversity Turn
Desal causes massive biodiversity loss—impingement and entrainment guarantee
widespread catastrophe
Cooley et al. 6 (Heather Cooley, Research Associate in the Water and Sustainability Program, Peter H.
Gleick, co-founder and President¶ of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and
Security, and Gary Wolff, Ph.D., Principal Economist and Engineer, June 2006, “Desalination, with a grain
of salt”, http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/desalination_report3.pdf, pp. 59, aps)
Intake water design and operation have environmental and ecological implications. As
described above, coastal plants typically take in large volumes of seawater during operation. In a recent
report on power plant cooling-water intake structures, the California Energy Commission notes that “seawater ... is not just
water. It is habitat and contains an entire ecosystem of phytoplankton, fishes, and
invertebrates” (York and Foster 2005). Large marine organisms, such as adult fish, invertebrates,
birds, and even mammals, are killed on the intake screen (impingement); organ- isms small
enough to pass through the intake screens, such as plankton, eggs, larvae, and some fish, are
killed during processing of the salt water (entrainment). The impinged and entrained
organisms are then disposed of in the marine environment. Decomposition of these
organisms can reduce the oxygen content of the water near the discharge point, creating
additional stress on the marine environment.¶ Impingement and entrainment introduce a
new source of mortality to the marine environment, with potentially broad implications for
local fish and invertebrate populations. More specifically, impingement and entrain- ment “may
adversely affect recruitment of juvenile fish and invertebrates to parent or resident
populations or may reduce breeding stocks of eco- nomically valuable fishes below their
compensation point resulting in reduced production and yield” (Brining et al. 1981). The magnitude and
intensity of these effects depend upon a number of factors, including the percent mortality of the vulnerable species, the mortality rate
of the organism relative to the natural mortality rate, and the standing stock in the area of interest (Edinger and Kolluru 2000).¶ The
effects of impingement and entrainment are species- and site-specific, and only limited
research on the impacts of desalination facilities on the marine environment has been done.
A recent overview of desalination seawater intakes, however, asserts that “[e]nvironmental impacts associ- ated
with concentrate discharge have historically been considered the greatest single ecological
impediment when siting a seawater desalination facility. However, recent analyses have noted that
marine life impingement and entrainment associated with intake designs were greater,
harder- to-quantify concerns and may represent the most significant direct adverse
environmental impact of seawater desalination” (Pankratz 2004).
Dead Zones Turn
Desalination leads to massive chemical runoffs that deprive coastal regions of
oxygen
Cooley et al. 6 (Heather Cooley, Research Associate in the Water and Sustainability Program, Peter H. Gleick, co-founder and
President¶ of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, and Gary Wolff, Ph.D., Principal Economist
and Engineer, June 2006, “Desalination, with a grain of salt”, http://pacinst.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/desalination_report3.pdf, pp. 60-61, aps)
Brine Composition and Discharge¶ Adequate
and safe disposal of the concentrated brine produced by
the¶ plant presents a significant environmental challenge. Brine salinity¶ depends on the salinity of the
feedwater, the desalination method, and the¶ recovery rate of the plant. Typical brines contain twice as much salt
as¶ the feedwater and have a higher density. In addition to high salt levels,¶ brine from
seawater desalination facilities can contain concentrations of ¶ constituents typically found in
seawater, such as manganese, lead, and¶ iodine, as well as chemicals introduced via urban
and agricultural runoff, such as nitrates (Talavera and Ruiz 2001), and impinged and entrained marine organisms
killed during the desalination process, as noted above.¶ Composition¶ Chemicals used throughout the desalination
process may also be dis- charged with the brine. The majority of these chemicals are
applied during pretreatment to prevent membrane fouling (Amalfitano and Lam 2005). For example,
chlorine and other biocides are applied continuously to prevent organisms from growing on the
plant’s interior, and sodium bisulfite is then often added to eliminate the chlorine, which
can damage membranes. Anti-scalants, such as polyacrylic or sulfuric acid, are also added to prevent salt deposits from
forming on piping. Coagulants, such as ferric chloride and polymers, are added to the feedwater to bind parti- cles together. The
feedwater, with all of the added chemicals, then passes through a filter, which collects the particulate matter. The RO membranes
reject the chemicals used during the desalination process into the brine. The
particulate matter on the filter is also
discharged with the brine or collected and sent to a landfill.¶ In addition to using chemicals for
pretreatment, chemicals are required to clean and store the RO membranes. Industrial soaps and dilute alkaline and acid aqueous
solutions are commonly used to clean the membranes every three to six months. The membranes are then rinsed with product water.
The first rinse, which contains a majority of the cleaning solution, is typically neutralized and disposed of in local treatment systems.
Subsequent rinses, however, are often discharged into the brine. Frequent cleaning and replacement of the membranes due to excess
membrane fouling may lead to discharges in violation of sanitary system discharge permits. This problem has occurred in Tampa Bay,
as noted in Box 3 and Appendix C.¶ Brine
also contains heavy metals introduced during the
desalination process. Corrosion of the desalination equipment leaches a number of heavy
metals, including copper, lead, and iron, into the waste stream. In an early study of a desalination
plant in Florida, Chesher (1975) found elevated copper and nickel levels in the water column and
in sediments near the brine discharge point. Copper levels were particularly high during
unstable operating periods and immediately following mainte- nance, although engineering
changes made at the plant permanently reduced copper levels.
That creates ecological dead zones
NOAA 14 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1/23/14, “"Dead zone" is a more
common term for hypoxia, which refers to a reduced level of oxygen in the water”,
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/deadzone.html, Accessed: 6/5/14, aps)
Less oxygen dissolved in the water is often referred to as a “dead zone” because most
marine life either dies, or, if they are mobile such as fish, leave the area. Habitats that would
normally be teeming with life become, essentially, biological deserts.¶ Hypoxic zones can
occur naturally, but scientists are concerned about the areas created or enhanced by human
activity. There are many physical, chemical, and biological factors that combine to create dead zones, but nutrient
pollution is the primary cause of those zones created by humans. Excess nutrients that run
off land or are piped as wastewater into rivers and coasts can stimulate an overgrowth of
algae, which then sinks and decomposes in the water. The decomposition process consumes
oxygen and depletes the supply available to healthy marine life.¶ Dead zones occur in many areas of the
country, particularly along the East Coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes, but there is no part of the country or the world
that is immune. The second largest dead zone in the world is located in the U.S., in the northern Gulf of Mexico.
Dead zones trigger extinciton
Blaire ‘5 /Pulitzer Prize Winner, President of the environment health advocacy group, Valley Watch/ [John, Sep 5th, “Should
New Orleans be Rebuilt?”, Counter Punch Newsletter, http://www.counterpunch.org/blair09052005.html]
In the past quarter century, efforts
driven by environmentalists and sympathetic politicians resulted
in the Grand Rivers becoming much cleaner but they remain seriously degraded in many
ways. Chemical pollution from point and areas sources continue and industry still uses
them to dump waste while chemical run-off from farming causes nitrogen loading which, in
turn, causes depletion of oxygen which continues through the river's ecosystem. Policies of the
past, both distant and recent, have resulted in ecological destruction of both the Grand Rivers and their tributaries. But maybe even
more important, recent years have seen the morbid development of the "Dead Zone," extending hundreds of miles into the Gulf of
the Dead Zone
is dead. It no longer supports anything but the most hardy of life forms and it is growing.
Oxygen depletion forces sea creatures to leave the area or die. The Dead Zone may be one of
the largest ecological problems we American face. That is due to the enormous area that is drained by the entire
Mississippi watershed and all the chemicals that find their way into the Gulf. But the problem is not merely with the
Dead Zone. Much of the problem lies squarely with the US Army Corps of Engineers which has done everything Congress would
fund to develop the Rivers for commerce, dismissing the needs of the natural world all along its path. Wetlands have been
destroyed, rivers have been raised, channels have been altered and dams have been built.
Together, these represent a complete assault on the natural systems that might have helped
mitigate the disaster we experienced as a nation on the Gulf Coast. That is why I come now to say, "do
Mexico from its source, the delta area of the Mississippi River, just south of New Orleans. As its name implies,
not rebuild New Orleans!" At least not where it sits today. We should look at the disaster caused by Katrina as an opportunity, an
opportunity to start correcting the arrogant policies of the past that made New Orleans so vulnerable in the first place. An
effort
by America to restore the Grand Rivers to their more natural state could help mitigate
future natural disasters which many scientists believe will only increase the longer we
ignore the dramatic problem of global climate change. Obviously, such a restoration will not
take place in any short term since we currently rely on the unnatural infrastructure to move
our goods out of middle America as well as to provide us easier access to goods coming from
all over the world. In my view, the Grand Rivers are like an arteries and veins in the organ, Earth. They provide us
sustenance and take away our waste, but, just like veins in our own bodies, if they receive
too much poison, they will collapse, resulting in death, possibly to the entire body. We
should not allow the opportunity that we have today to change the way we coexist with the
natural world. Rebuilding a city under sea level is not only unnatural, it is also unwise. In the 18th Century, when New Orleans
was settled, no one knew of the dangers they were making for man and nature. We cannot blame their ignorance for the problems we
see today there or in any of the places that get ravaged each year by development that is not sustainable. However, only
fools
continue to make the same mistakes, over and over again. Now is the time to change that
paradigm and start living in a manner that is sustainable, healthy and wise. Whether we
meet the challenge and opportunity we have today depends on whether we are capable of
looking forward or are forced to look backwards in a myopic reverence of the past.
Aff – AT Kills Marine Life
There are methods of desalination that don’t affect marine life or the environment
Heather Cooley, 13 Newsha Ajami, Matthew Heberger 12/11/13, Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Marine
Impacts, http://pacinst.org/publication/desal-marine-impacts/
These impacts, however, are not well understood. More research is needed, especially to understand the long-term
impacts. We
do, however, know that there are several operational, design, and technological
measures available to reduce the marine impacts of open water intakes. In particular,
subsurface intakes can virtually eliminate impingement and entrainment, as they extract
seawater from beneath the seafloor or a beach. The sand acts as a natural filter, providing a
level of pre-filtration that can reduce plant chemical and energy use and long-term
operating costs. There are several proven methods to disperse concentrated brine, such as
multi-port diffusers placed on the discharge pipe to promote mixing. Brine can also be
diluted with effluent from a wastewater treatment plant or with cooling water from a power
plant or other industrial user, although these approaches have their own drawbacks that
must be addressed.
**Fishing Disad
1NC
The fishing industry is thriving, reaching a point of economic sustainability
NOAA 4/29 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 4/29/14, “Two new NOAA reports
show strong economic gains from fishing, continued improvement in fish stocks”,
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140429_statusofstocks.html, aps)
U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales in
2012, a gain of seven percent over the previous year, with the economic impact of fishing jobs
increasing three percent from 2011 to 2012, according to a new NOAA Fisheries economics report.¶
Further, two more fish stocks were rebuilt to target levels in 2013, bringing the number of rebuilt U.S.
marine fish stocks to 34 since 2000, according to another NOAA Fisheries report also released today.¶
Taken together, the two reports, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 and the Status of U.S.
Fisheries 2013, show positive trends in the steady rebuilding of the country’s federally
managed fisheries off our coasts, and the important role fisheries contribute to the United
States economy.¶ “These two reports highlight the steady rebuilding of U.S. fisheries and
the broad and positive economic impact of commercial and recreational fishing to the
nation’s economy. These reports are an excellent example of the environmental intelligence NOAA uses
and provides every day,” said Eileen Sobeck, assistant NOAA administrator for fisheries. “Fishing is big
business and culturally important in our country. On top of that, it supports a lot of jobs.Ӧ
Fish survey infographic - Sales.¶ According to the economics report, commercial and recreational fishing
supported approximately 1.7 million jobs in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, a gain
over 2011’s 1.6 million. The commercial fishing industry — harvesters, processors and dealers, and
wholesalers and retailers — generated $141 billion in sales, $39 billion in income, and supported 1.3
million jobs in 2012 in fishing and across the broader economy.¶ Recreational fishing generated $58 billion
in sales, $19 billion in income, and supported 381,000 jobs in 2012 in fishing and across the broader
economy.¶ The annual economics report also breaks down the sales, income and job figures for each
coastal state. The five states that generated the most commercial fishing jobs in 2012 were California,
Massachusetts, Florida, Washington and Alaska. The five states that generated the most recreational fishing
jobs were Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas and New Jersey. ¶ The other new report, Status of
U.S. Fisheries 2013, also shows improvement as U.S. fisheries continue to rebuild. The two
stocks rebuilt in 2013 are Southern Atlantic Coast black sea bass and Sacramento River fall Chinook
salmon.¶ As an example of the benefits from sustainable management, Southern Atlantic Coast black sea
bass is a popular fish prized by recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial fishermen alike.
The stock ranges from Cape Hatteras to the Florida Keys and is managed by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. It was declared overfished in 2005 and NOAA Fisheries instituted a rebuilding plan
in 2006. Management measures for both the commercial and recreational fisheries led to an early recovery
of the stock. As a result of rebuilding, annual catch limits have more than doubled.
“Sustainable management of our fish stocks is critically important to the nation’s economy.
These results demonstrate the strength of the U.S. science-based management model under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” Sobeck said. “ The positive impacts we see in
these two reports continue a long-term trend in improving the stock status and rebuilding
in U.S. fisheries using sustainable management practices. The percent of assessed stocks that are
not overfished or subject to overfishing continues to improve, with 91 percent of those stocks not subject to
overfishing and 83 percent not overfished.”
Desalination creates dead zones that kill the fishing industry—Australia proves
Hunt 9 (Greg, executive officer @ South East Councils Climate Change Alliance (SECCCA), 5/4/09, “We have to do water
differently, says Maude Barlow, in this provocative address that Andrew Bolt, among others, won’t like!”,
http://www.seccca.org.au/2009/05/04/we-have-to-do-water-differently-says-maude-barlow-in-this-provocative-address-that-andrewbolt-among-others-wont-like/, aps)
Australian governments of all stripes are also busy building expensive, energy guzzling desalination
plants, that will further pollute the fishing grounds and coral reefs of Australia’s coastlines.
Desalination plants generate a poisonous byproduct, a lethal combination of concentrated
salt brine, the chemicals needed for the reverse osmosis process, and the aquatic life sucked
into the process. Dr. Ian Dyson, a marine sedimentologist, says that the discharge from Adelaide’s plant will create huge hyper
saline sea lakes, aquatic dead zones that will have catastrophic impacts on the fisheries. Building big
desalination plants, weirs and pipelines such as the Victoria government’s North-South pipeline, (being done without an
environmental assessment) also gives control over Australia’s water to foreign water corporations. It is ironic that the two big French
companies bidding on the Wonthaggi plant – Suez and Veolia – are about to lose their Paris water licenses when they come up for
renewal in a few months.
Fishing industry success is directly key to continued American economic growth—
decline kills regional economies and has a ripple effect throughout the economy
Sobeck 14 (Eileen, NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 4/29/14, “Fishing’s Impacts Ripple
across the Broader Economy”, http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2014/04/29/fishing%E2%80%99s-impactsripple-across-broader-economy, aps)
Fishing is big business in the United States. From
commercial fisheries to recreational and charter boat
business owners, fishing contributes to the United States’ economy and supports jobs.
According to new reports issued today by NOAA Fisheries, we continue to see positive economic impacts from
commercial and recreational U.S. fisheries as well as progress in rebuilding our nation’s
fish stocks.¶ Between 2011 and 2012 alone, U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion
in sales impacts, contributed $89 billion to gross domestic product, and supported 1.7 million jobs.¶ Breaking down the numbers a
little more, the value chain of the commercial fishing industry—harvesters, processors, dealers, wholesalers, and retailers—generated
$141 billion in sales, $39 billion in income and supported 1.3 million jobs in 2012.¶ The recreational fishing sector generated $58
billion in sales, $19 billion in income, and supported 381,000 jobs in 2012. ¶ Surprised? You shouldn’t be. The
United States
is a world leader in responsibly managed fisheries , and there’s no doubt that our approach
to management is directly tied to the positive economic impacts across the broader U.S.
economy in the last few years as we see in the Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2012 report.¶ In 2010, we turned the
corner on ending overfishing and turned our attention to rebuilding fish stocks, working in partnership with regional fishery
management councils, states, tribes, fishermen, and local fishing communities that rely on those stocks. The recent report Status of
U.S. Fisheries 2013 highlights the continued progress that NOAA Fisheries
and our partners and stakeholders
have made to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. Overall, the percent of assessed stocks that are harvested
at sustainable levels continues to increase. And our efforts are paying off; since 2000, 34 fish stocks have been rebuilt. This positive
outcome supports commercial fishermen and fishing communities and provides Americans with a local source of healthy food.
Recreational fishing is an important social activity for individuals and families and is a
critical economic contributor to local communities and regional economies.
Economic collapse causes escalating global wars
Kemp 10 Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under
Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs
on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong.
The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and
Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As
a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis
for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion
programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical
groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is
challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic
government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of
a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan
increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear
program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential
for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the
Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of
the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major
disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s
population.
Uniqueness – Fishing Industry High
1NC
The fishing industry is thriving, reaching a point of economic sustainability
NOAA 4/29 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 4/29/14, “Two new NOAA reports
show strong economic gains from fishing, continued improvement in fish stocks”,
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140429_statusofstocks.html, aps)
U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in sales in
2012, a gain of seven percent over the previous year, with the economic impact of fishing jobs
increasing three percent from 2011 to 2012, according to a new NOAA Fisheries economics report.¶
Further, two more fish stocks were rebuilt to target levels in 2013, bringing the number of rebuilt U.S.
marine fish stocks to 34 since 2000, according to another NOAA Fisheries report also released today.¶
Taken together, the two reports, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2012 and the Status of U.S.
Fisheries 2013, show positive trends in the steady rebuilding of the country’s federally
managed fisheries off our coasts, and the important role fisheries contribute to the United
States economy.¶ “These two reports highlight the steady rebuilding of U.S. fisheries and
the broad and positive economic impact of commercial and recreational fishing to the
nation’s economy. These reports are an excellent example of the environmental intelligence NOAA uses
and provides every day,” said Eileen Sobeck, assistant NOAA administrator for fisheries. “Fishing is big
business and culturally important in our country. On top of that, it supports a lot of jobs.Ӧ
Fish survey infographic - Sales.¶ According to the economics report, commercial and recreational fishing
supported approximately 1.7 million jobs in 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, a gain
over 2011’s 1.6 million. The commercial fishing industry — harvesters, processors and dealers, and
wholesalers and retailers — generated $141 billion in sales, $39 billion in income, and supported 1.3
million jobs in 2012 in fishing and across the broader economy.¶ Recreational fishing generated $58 billion
in sales, $19 billion in income, and supported 381,000 jobs in 2012 in fishing and across the broader
economy.¶ The annual economics report also breaks down the sales, income and job figures for each
coastal state. The five states that generated the most commercial fishing jobs in 2012 were California,
Massachusetts, Florida, Washington and Alaska. The five states that generated the most recreational fishing
jobs were Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, Texas and New Jersey. ¶ The other new report, Status of
U.S. Fisheries 2013, also shows improvement as U.S. fisheries continue to rebuild. The two
stocks rebuilt in 2013 are Southern Atlantic Coast black sea bass and Sacramento River fall Chinook
salmon.¶ As an example of the benefits from sustainable management, Southern Atlantic Coast black sea
bass is a popular fish prized by recreational anglers, charter boat captains, and commercial fishermen alike.
The stock ranges from Cape Hatteras to the Florida Keys and is managed by the South Atlantic Fishery
Management Council. It was declared overfished in 2005 and NOAA Fisheries instituted a rebuilding plan
in 2006. Management measures for both the commercial and recreational fisheries led to an early recovery
of the stock. As a result of rebuilding, annual catch limits have more than doubled.
“Sustainable management of our fish stocks is critically important to the nation’s economy.
These results demonstrate the strength of the U.S. science-based management model under the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” Sobeck said. “ The positive impacts we see in
these two reports continue a long-term trend in improving the stock status and rebuilding
in U.S. fisheries using sustainable management practices. The percent of assessed stocks that are
not overfished or subject to overfishing continues to improve, with 91 percent of those stocks not subject to
overfishing and 83 percent not overfished.”
2NC Ext
US fishing industry is strong—revenues are boosted and fish populations have been
rebuilt to sustainable levels
Newman 13 (David, National Resources Defense Council Staff, 10/16/13, “National Academy of Sciences Confirms Successful
Rebuilding of U.S. Fisheries, Yet Suggests Weakening the Rules”,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dnewman/national_academy_of_sciences_c.html, aps)
America’s once-depleted fisheries are now recovering because of strong legal mandates to
end overfishing and quickly rebuild fish populations to sustainable levels. This is big news,
especially given the sad state of many fisheries throughout the world these days. In the early
1990s, many U.S. fisheries were in severe decline from fishing too hard over the previous decades. In 1996, a bipartisan majority in
Congress (yes, that’s right, Democrats and Republicans working together!) amended the nation’s fisheries law to require that
overfished species be rebuilt to healthy levels in as short a time period as possible, but not to exceed 10 years unless the biology of a
particular fish stock or an international agreement dictated otherwise. Since then, this requirement has given rise to a fisheries
management system that has had unrivaled success:¶ Two-thirds of fish stocks put in rebuilding plans since 1996 have either rebuilt to
healthy population levels, or have made significant rebuilding progress, according to a recent NRDC analysis of federal data. ¶ The
same analysis found that gross
commercial revenues have increased by $585 million for these
rebuilding success stories – a 92% increase (54% when adjusted for inflation) from the start of
rebuilding.¶ The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the federal agency charged with managing the nation’s fisheries,
counts 34 stocks as having rebuilt between 2000 and 2012, including: New England haddock, Mid-Atlantic summer flounder, South
Atlantic black sea bass, Gulf of Mexico red grouper, and Pacific lingcod. ¶ NMFS recently reported to Congress that fisheries
management in the U.S. has made “continued, significant progress…to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks.” ¶ Our
current
fisheries management system, which has taken years to develop and refine, now provides
checks and balances between the accountability provided by the legal requirement and the
flexibility provided by the fishing industry-dominant regional management councils that
guide the law’s implementation.
2NC AT Overfishing
Overfishing Exaggerated, Supplies Recovering Now
Kareiva 10 [Peter, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, where he is responsible for developing and
helping to implement science-based conservation, Why do we keep hearing global fisheries are collapsing?,
The Nature Conservancy, 29/11/1-, http://blog.nature.org/conservancy/2010/11/29/fisheries-apocalypseocean-fish-stock-peter-kareiva-ray-hilborn/]
I have been quantitatively analyzing environmental data for 30 years in a wide variety of arenas
(biotechnology, endangered species, agriculture, fisheries, etc). I am sad to report that, on average, the
conservation and environmental community errs on the side of being unduly alarmist and
apocalyptic in interpreting the data we have, to the detriment of being solution-oriented.
Nowhere was this more apparent to me than when I worked for NOAA’s fisheries division and
got to learn up close how committed and rigorous NOAA’s scientists were about finding ways to protect
the nation’s fisheries. Yes, there is coastal degradation in the United States and there are fisheries that have
collapsed. But there are also well-managed fisheries — something you almost never hear
about. And it is these success stories that can tell us what we need to do to reverse our
failures. I am no Pollyanna — the public’s growing disconnect from climate issues troubles me deeply.
But when scientists analyze and extrapolate data using methods that are open to debate and then
firmly conclude with statements such as, “Our analyses suggest that business-as-usual would
foreshadow serious threats to global food security, coastal water quality, and ecosystem
stability, affecting current and future generations,” I wonder what is being accomplished? Have we
not learned that scaring people paralyzes them instead of motivating them to act? For The Conservancy’s
science magazine, Science Chronicles, the world renowned fisheries biologist Ray Hilborn just wrote a
fascinating essay examining the doom-and-gloom rhetoric surrounding the state of marine fisheries. For
sure, there is another side to the story, and there are scientists who would disagree with Ray. But it is
important that the conservation community and the public learn to think skeptically about
messages of a forthcoming apocalypse as well as about messages of “everything is
wonderful.” Our marine fisheries are too important to the world’s economy and food
supply to waste energy on emotional rhetoric — our oceans demand cool-headed analyses
and data-based solutions that work. Ray’s essay (reprinted below) about why all the world’s fisheries
are not collapsing is a good place to start. ___________ Apocalypse Forestalled: Why All the World’s
Fisheries Aren’t Collapsing By Ray Hilborn, Professor, Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of
Washington If you have paid any attention to the conservation literature or science journalism over the last
five years, you likely have gotten the impression that our oceans are so poorly managed that
they soon will be empty of fish — unless governments order drastic curtailment of current fishing
practices, including the establishment of huge no-take zones across great swaths of the oceans. To be fair,
there are some places where such severe declines may be true. A more balanced diagnosis,
however, tells a different story — one that still requires changes in some fishing practices, but that is
far from alarmist. But this balanced diagnosis is being almost wholly ignored in favor of an
apocalyptic rhetoric that obscures the true issues fisheries face as well as the correct cures
for those problems. Where the Apocalyptic Rhetoric Comes From To get the storyline correct, it is
important to go back to the sources of the apocalyptic rhetoric. In 2006, a paper was published by Boris
Worm in Science (Worm et al. 2006) that received enormous press coverage. For instance, Steve
Murawski, director of scientific programs and chief science advisor, defended the U.S. fisheries
management system and pointed out that the proportion of stocks overfished in the U.S. was
declining, not increasing (Murawski et al. 2007). The Real Question: Are Current Fishing
Practices Decimating Stocks…or Rebuilding Them? No one disagrees on our goals for the world’s
fisheries stocks — we need higher fish abundances. Participants included several of the authors of the 2006
paper as well as several people from national fisheries management agencies. The results were published in
Science in 2009 (Worm et al. 2009), and showed that, while the majority of stocks were still below
target levels, fishing pressure had been reduced in most ecosystems (for which we had data) to
below the point that would assure long-term maximum sustainable yield of fish from those
ecosystems. About 30 percent of the stocks would currently be classified as overfished — but, generally,
fishing pressure has been reduced enough that all but 17 percent of stocks would be
expected to recover to above overfished thresholds if current fishing pressure continues. In
the United States, there was clear evidence for the rebuilding of marine ecosystems and
stock biomass. The idea that 70 percent of the world’s fish stocks are overfished or collapsed
and that the rate of overfishing is accelerating (Pauly 2007) was shown by Worm et al. (2009) and
FAO (2009) to be untrue. The Science paper coming out of the NCEAS group also showed that the
success in reducing fishing pressure had been achieved by a broad range of traditional fisheries
management tools — including catch-and-effort limitation, gear restrictions and temporary closed areas.
Link – Desalination
1NC
Desalination creates dead zones that kill the fishing industry—Australia proves
Hunt 9 (Greg, executive officer @ South East Councils Climate Change Alliance (SECCCA), 5/4/09, “We have to do water
differently, says Maude Barlow, in this provocative address that Andrew Bolt, among others, won’t like!”,
http://www.seccca.org.au/2009/05/04/we-have-to-do-water-differently-says-maude-barlow-in-this-provocative-address-that-andrewbolt-among-others-wont-like/, aps)
Australian governments of all stripes are also busy building expensive, energy guzzling desalination
plants, that will further pollute the fishing grounds and coral reefs of Australia’s coastlines.
Desalination plants generate a poisonous byproduct, a lethal combination of concentrated
salt brine, the chemicals needed for the reverse osmosis process, and the aquatic life sucked
into the process. Dr. Ian Dyson, a marine sedimentologist, says that the discharge from Adelaide’s plant will create huge hyper
saline sea lakes, aquatic dead zones that will have catastrophic impacts on the fisheries. Building big
desalination plants, weirs and pipelines such as the Victoria government’s North-South pipeline, (being done without an
environmental assessment) also gives control over Australia’s water to foreign water corporations. It is ironic that the two big French
companies bidding on the Wonthaggi plant – Suez and Veolia – are about to lose their Paris water licenses when they come up for
renewal in a few months.
2NC Ext
Widespread desalination decimates the fishing industry—causes massive revenue
loss by killing marine life
FWW 9 (Food & Water Watch, nonprofit consumer organization that works to ensure clean water and
safe food, February 2009, “Desalination: An Ocean of Problems”,
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Desal-Feb2009.pdf, aps)
Ocean desalination damages marine life¶ Ocean desalination plants can wreak havoc on marine
life and commercial fisheries. Many proposed coastal plants rely on power plants to pull in
ocean water. These power plants use outdated “once-through cooling water intake structures” that cool
the plants by pulling in large quanti- ties of seawater. Desalination plants located next to these
facilities take a portion of the outgoing water from these systems for their water supply.¶
The problem here is that these structures suck in a lot more than seawater — they also bring marine life
that dies in¶ the machinery. According to EPA, these intake structures kill at least 3.4 billion
fish and other organisms annually. Larger organisms are trapped against the intake
screens, and smaller ones, such as fish eggs and larvae, are drawn through the intake
screens and destroyed in the cooling sys- tem. As a result, fishermen lose at least 165 million
pounds of fish today and 717.1 million pounds of potential future catch. This is equivalent to
a $212.5 million economic loss to anglers and commercial fishermen.56¶ California’s power
plant intake structures alone are responsible for the destruction of at least 312.9 million
organisms each year, resulting in the lost catch of at least 28.9 million pounds of fish and
43.6 million pounds of potential future catch. This amounts to a $13.6 million loss to
fishermen.5
Impact – Food Security
1NC
US fishing industry collapse kills global food security – causes conflict.
USCG 10 (United States Coast Guard, 1/5/10, “Protecting America’s Fisheries,”
http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/Fisheries.pdf, aps)
The recreational and commercial fishing industry has an economic impact of more than $20
billion to the United States, employing tens of thousands of people and providing a food
source for millions of Americans. The United States has the largest EEZ in the world, 2.25 million square miles,
containing an estimated 20 percent of the world's fisheries resources. There are also a significant number of
marine mam- mals at risk, or endangered, including the Northern Right Whale, with approximately 300 in existence. The U nited
S tates is the fifth largest fishing nation in the world, with approximately 110,000 commercial vessels. The
capacity of the U.S. fishing fleet alone far exceeds all fish stocks' capabilities to reproduce. Many U.S.
fisheries are threatened by over-capitalization of the industry, exces- sive incidental by-catch and habitat degradation. Increased effort
by U.S. fishers results in a reduction of spawning stock and an increase in the harvest of immature fish. Habitat degl'adation has
occurred due to massive water diversions for agricultural projects and the negative impact of urban development. In recent years on
an international level , competition for declining resources has resulted in a number of violent
confrontations as some of the world's fishers resort to ille- gal activity. Some of these unfortunate
incidents include: • Three Thai fishermen who were killed by Vietnamese maritime authorities. Two Spanish fishermen were injured
when their vessel was fired on by a Portuguese patrol boat within Por­ tuguese waters. • The Canadian patrol vessel fired at a Spanish
boat ille- gally fishing in an internationally patrolled area in the North Atlantic. • A Russian Border Guard ship fired on two Japanese
ves­ sels thought to be poaching; one ship was hit, and fish­ ers on board were injured. • An Argentine gunboat fired on and sank a
Taiwan fishing vessel. • A patrol boat from the Falklands chased a Taiwan fishing vessel more than 4,000 miles. These, and other
similar incidents
underscore the high stakes being played out across the world as declining fish
stocks put increasing pressure on fishing nations to under- take more aggressive action. In the
future, fishing treaties will become the source of greater diplomatic attention.
Specifically, food insecurity destabilizes Russia and China—wars go global
Lynn 13 (Matt, financial journalist, 1/26/13, “Food prices may be catalyst for 2013 revolutions”,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/food-prices-may-be-catalyst-for-2013-revolutions-2013-01-16, aps)
So if you figure that rising food prices create revolts, and prices will rocket this year, then where might we see political turmoil? It is a
question that matters to investors, because a revolution means a collapse in stock-markets. Just take a look at Egypt in
2011 — the Cairo index plunged from 7,200 to 3,600 as the regime fell. If the revolt is big enough, markets may tumble globally.
Algeria is one obvious candidate. It was the one country that didn’t get caught up in the Arab Spring. But it has many of the same
issues as Libya and Egypt. Don’t be surprised to see demonstrations on the streets there. Morocco may well get caught up in the
turmoil. And food
shortages may spell the end for President Bashar Assad in Syria. Greece is the second
possibility. Unemployment is now at 27%. Many people are on the breadline — and bread is about to get a lot costlier. There are
increasing reports of people having to rely on food handout in Athens and other major cities. Taxes are constantly being pushed higher
to meet the deficit targets and wages are still being cut and jobs slashed. More
expensive food could easily be the
spark for an extremist party to seize power and take the country out of the euro. More worrying
still, Russia. There have already been protests against the autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin.
Rising grain prices have toppled Russian leaders in the past — Putin could follow the czars into
oblivion. It is the Russian grain harvest that has been especially badly hit, and this is still a country where poverty is widespread. Putin
has stayed in power thanks to rising living standards. If they drop, his
regime will be under pressure. Or, most
seriously of all, China. It has grown much richer, but there are millions and millions of people
who have moved to the new cities — if they start to go hungry that could prompt a wave of
rebellions. Cold weather is playing havoc with food supplies there. Usually, it could import more food if it needed it. But this year
that won’t be possible — or at least only at huge cost. Minor revolts in the Middle East don’t have the potential to knock more than
local markets. Egypt was the major stock market in the region, and that has already been through a regime change. But a Greek exit
from the euro, or a
Russian or Chinese political rebellion, would massively destabilize the global
may be the
most likely cause of turmoil in the markets this year.
economy — and send equity, bond and currency markets into turmoil. Whichever nation it is, it looks like food
Russian collapse causes lashout and nuclear war – that causes extinction
FILGER 2009 (Sheldon, author and blogger for the Huffington Post, “Russian Economy Faces Disastrous Free Fall
Contraction” http://www.globaleconomiccrisis.com/blog/archives/356)
In Russia historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is
rarely encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former Soviet Union that led to its
political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted with their nation’s history, are unquestionably
alarmed at the prospect that Russia’s economic crisis will endanger the nation’s political
stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers
facing unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond
Should
the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far
beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome would be for the Global Economic Crisis.
the political elites are the financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets in a desperate attempt to raise cash.
There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower status,
Russia remains one of the only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient
scope and capability to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin who
will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform itself into a virulent and
destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President Barack Obama’s national security team has already briefed him about the
consequences of a major economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence
community have already concluded that the Global Economic Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political instability in
During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for guarding the nation’s nuclear
arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that desperate personnel would illicitly sell
nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current economic crisis in Russia were to
deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal remain? It may be that the
the world.
financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous consequence.
2NC – China Scenario
Chinese food shocks cause lashout.
Kanel 1 (Thomas Kanel, Security Studies from Hull, Larence Serewicz, Foreign Policy Analyst, Fall 2001, “China’s Hunger: The
Consequences of a Rising Demand for Food and Energy”,
http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Articles/01autumn/Kane.htm)
Despite China's problems with its food supply, the Chinese do not appear to be in danger of widespread
starvation.
cannot rule out the prospect entirely, especially if the earth's climate actually is getting warmer.
The consequences of general famine in a country with over a billion people clearly would be catastrophic. The
effects of oil shortages and industrial stagnation would be less lurid, but economic collapse would endanger
China's political stability whether that collapse came with a bang or a whimper. PRC society has become dangerously
Nevertheless, one
fractured. As the coastal cities grow richer and more cosmopolitan while the rural inland provinces grow poorer, the political interests
of the two regions become ever less compatible. Increasing the prospects for division yet further, Deng Xiaoping's administrative
reforms have strengthened regional potentates at the expense of central authority. As Kent Calder observes, In part, this change
[erosion of power at the center] is a conscious devolution, initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1991 to outflank conservative opponents of
economic reforms in Beijing nomenclature. But devolution has fed on itself, spurred by the natural desire of local authorities in the
affluent and increasingly powerful coastal provinces to appropriate more and more of the fruits of growth to themselves alone.[ 49]
Other social and economic developments deepen the rifts in Chinese society. The one-child policy, for instance, is disrupting
traditional family life, with unknowable consequences for Chinese mores and social cohesion.[ 50] As families resort to abortion or
infanticide to ensure that their one child is a son, the population may come to include an unprecedented preponderance of young,
single men. If common gender prejudices have any basis in fact, these males are unlikely to be a source of social stability. Under these
circumstances, China
is vulnerable to unrest of many kinds. Unemployment or severe hardship, not to mention
actual starvation, could easily trigger popular uprisings. Provincial leaders might be
tempted to secede, perhaps openly or perhaps by quietly ceasing to obey Beijing's directives. China's leaders, in turn,
might adopt drastic measures to forestall such developments. If faced with internal strife, supporters of
China's existing regime may return to a more overt form of communist dictatorship. The PRC has, after all, oscillated between
experimentation and orthodoxy continually throughout its existence. Spectacular examples include Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign
and the return to conventional Marxism-Leninism after the leftist experiments of the Cultural Revolution, but the process continued
throughout the 1980s, when the Chinese referred to it as the "fang-shou cycle." (Fang means to loosen one's grip; shou means to
tighten it.)[ 51] If order broke down, the Chinese would not be the only people to suffer. Civil
unrest in the PRC would
disrupt trade relationships, send refugees flowing across borders, and force outside powers
to consider intervention. If different countries chose to intervene on different sides, China's
struggle could lead to major war. In a less apocalyptic but still grim scenario, China's
government might try to ward off its demise by attacking adjacent countries.
That goes nuclear
Hunkovic 9 (Lee J. Hunkovic, American Military University, 2009, “The Chinese-Taiwanese Conflict: Possible Futures of a
Confrontation between China, Taiwan and the United States of America”, http://www.lamp-method.org/eCommons/Hunkovic.pdf)
A war between China, Taiwan and the United States has the potential to escalate into a nuclear
conflict and a third world war, therefore, many countries other than the primary actors could be affected
by such a conflict, including Japan, both Koreas, Russia, Australia, India and Great Britain, if they
were drawn into the war, as well as all other countries in the world that participate in the
global economy, in which the United States and China are the two most dominant members. If China were able to
successfully annex Taiwan, the possibility exists that they could then plan to attack Japan and begin a
policy of aggressive expansionism in East and Southeast Asia, as well as the Pacific and even into India, which
could in turn create an international standoff and deployment of military forces to contain
the threat. In any case, if China and the United States engage in a full-scale conflict, there
are few countries in the world that will not be economically and/or militarily affected by it.
However, China, Taiwan and United States are the primary actors in this scenario, whose actions will determine its eventual outcome,
therefore, other countries will not be considered in this study., with 331 deaths.
2NC – Resource Wars
Fishing is key to the global food supply
Chimatiro ‘03 [Sloans, Malawi’s Director of Fisheries, How important is the fishery sector for the developing world?,
Agriculture & Rural Development, Feb 2003,
http://www.rural21.com/uploads/media/ELR_fishery_sector_and_the_developing_world_0205.pdf]
While these figures on the world’s fish and fisheries market may seem impressive, from the developing countries’ perspective, the
dimension becomes even more significant: According
to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO), fish accounts for more than 40 percent of the protein in the diet of twothirds of the global population, and in East and South Asia alone, more than a billion people – primarily the
poor- est population groups – rely on fish as their main source of protein. But the fishery sector not only provides
food for immediate consumption: Some 300 to 500 million people in developing countries rely directly or indirectly
on fisheries for their economic survival. The global trade value of fish and fisheries products has grown from USD 6
billion in 1980 to USD 56 billion in 2001, with the developing countries’ share climbing from USD 3.4 billion to USD 17.4 billion
over the same period. At the same time, African countries are exporting their own «high-value» species, such as tuna, which achieve
very high prices – in excess of USD 100 per kilo – on the European and Japanese markets. Only recently, the record sum of USD
300,000 was paid for a single bluefin tuna in a Japanese fish market. The scenario will become even more complex if the demand for
fish increases in line with projected demographic growth. A study published by the International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) and the WorldFish Center and entitled «Outlook for Fish to 2020: Meeting Global Demand» predicts that in the most likely
(baseline) scenario, global
fish consumption from 1997 to 2020 will increase at an annual growth rate of
1.5 percent – and by 2 percent in the developing countries. The problem is that according to the FAO, some
75 percent of the world’s marine resources are already being exploited to a maximum or even over-exploited and the net marine catch
has stagnated for years at around 80 million tonnes. There is also a growing demand for «low-quality» fish for processing into animal
feeds: Already, about one-third of the global catch is turned into animal feed.
Food Insecurity Causes War
Omestad ‘13 [Thomas, Senior Writer in the Public Affairs and Communications division of the U.S. Institute of Peace. He is a
career foreign policy and national security journalist, having served as the diplomatic correspondent for U.S. News & World Report
magazine, Food Insecurity’s Impact on Conflict Merits a Closer Look, United States Institute of Peace, 23/9/13,
http://www.usip.org/olivebranch/food-insecurity-s-impact-conflict-merits-closer-look]
“We do not yet understand what levels or aspects of food insecurity are most likely, in what circumstances, to directly contribute to or
cause conflict,” according to "Harvesting Peace: Food Security, Conflict, and Cooperation," a report that both summarizes research on
the topic and frankly points out gaps in our understanding. The report, which draws on earlier discussions among experts convened by
the Wilson Center, is written by Emmy Simmons, an author and independent consultant with long experience on humanitarian food
food insecurity
directly causes conflict is more difficult to make, in part because there are so many underlying causes of food insecurity.
There is, however, an emerging consensus that food insecurity joins with other factors to worsen
instability in societies, economies, and politics,” her report adds. Joseph Hewitt, an expert at the Office of Conflict
issues. “While the evidence that conflict causes food insecurity is clear and unassailable, the case that
Management and Mitigation at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), put it well at a report launch event this
month at the Wilson Center: “Food security does not cause conflict in the same way that applying heat to water causes it to boil.”
Rather, he said, it joins with other potential conflict-promoting factors, including poor governance, popular grievances against
governments and inter-community tensions. Henk-Jen
Brinkman, chief of the Policy, Planning and Application Branch of
the United Nations Peacebuilding Support Office, called food insecurity “a threat multiplier” and
noted the persistence in some conflict zones a “vicious cycle from violence to food insecurity
and from food insecurity to violence that needs to be broken.” The concept of food security entails such factors as
accessibility, sufficiency and stability of supply, and how food is used in conjunction with other basic needs, including clean water,
sanitation and health care. Much of the recent record on conflict leading to food insecurity has been documented. In Sudan’s Darfur
region, the government of Sudan has used destruction of food-producing assets to try to undermine the region’s rebels, what one
analyst who is quoted in the report calls “famine on the cheap—famine and scorched earth [as] their weapons of choice.” Studies,
including by the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization, chart agricultural losses due to wars. Other reports discuss how conflict
has directly disrupted food flows, reduced investment in food production, and included the destruction of food stocks, animals and
agricultural equipment. Children are among the worst hit. The report cites research by the Households in Conflict Network at the
Institute of Development Studies. It found that children exposed to the effects of war between Eritrea and Ethiopia from 1998 to 2000
“were more stunted than children from outside the war zone.” On the question of food insecurity contributing to conflict, however,
there is less evidence, and, in general, food problems seem to exert effects on conflict through their interplay with other disputes and
grievances. One rather clear-cut exception is the phenomenon of rapid
hikes in food prices as a trigger for civil
unrest. The report notes that when global grain price increases hit in 2008, unrest followed in more
than 40 countries. Bread riots have flared at key moments throughout history. And recently, cuts in government
bread subsidies helped fuel some of the Arab Spring’s uprisings. The report also mentions research that
indicates competition over land, water and livestock between communities can deepen ongoing
conflicts. Food scarcity has also encouraged the migration of young men to Algeria and Libya, where some were swayed by
revolutionary views and then returned to northern Mali to fight against a government that they believe had treated them unfairly.
And food insecurity for some individuals “may give incentives” to them to join rebellions, the
report argues. The Wilson Center report suggests that USAID has “immediate opportunities” to use and refine its approach to conflict
and food security through its assistance to 19 “Feed the Future” countries. It describes Mali, in particular, as offering a “unique
opportunity” to meld conflict-sensitive development assistance with humanitarian aid. More broadly, the report urges researchers to
include food insecurity factors in analyzing conflict. The greater clarity that could emerge from a focus on food issues in future
conflict studies could help USAID, the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) and nongovernmental organizations adapt their work in the field
to advance both food security and peace. A core goal of USIP is to help prevent violent international conflict, and the
intersections between resource issues and conflict will be receiving more attention at the Institute
in the future. As Paul Hughes, USIP’s senior advisor for international security and peacebuilding said recently, “We see
resource scarcities as drivers of conflict.”
Resource Wars Lead to Nuclear Extinction
Lendman ’07 [Stephen, received a Harvard BA in 1956 and a Wharton MBA in 1960. After six years as
a marketing research analyst, he has devoted his time to extensive reading, and since summer 2005 writing
on vital world and national topics, including war and peace, American imperialism, corporate dominance,
political persecutions, and a range of other social, economic and political issues. Resource Wars – Can We
Survive Them?, Global Research, 6/6/07, http://www.globalresearch.ca/resource-wars-can-we-survivethem/5892]
Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing, peace declining, and the planet’s ability to
sustain life front and center, if anyone’s paying attention. They’d better be because beyond
the point of no return, there’s no second chance the way Einstein explained after the atom was split. His
famous quote on future wars was : “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but
World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Under a worst case scenario, it’s more dire than
that. There may be nothing left but resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of a nuclear
holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future, if at all. The threat is real and once nearly
happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. We later learned a miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October, 2002
summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with host country Cuba. For the first time, we were told how close we
came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was avoided only because Soviet submarine captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his
order to fire nuclear-tipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy’s “quarantine” line. Had
he done it, only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big part of it, would
have survived.
Impact – Economy
1NC
Fishing industry success is directly key to continued American economic growth—
decline kills regional economies and has a ripple effect
Sobeck 14 (Eileen, NOAA’s Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 4/29/14, “Fishing’s Impacts Ripple
across the Broader Economy”, http://www.commerce.gov/blog/2014/04/29/fishing%E2%80%99s-impactsripple-across-broader-economy, aps)
Fishing is big business in the United States. From
commercial fisheries to recreational and charter boat
business owners, fishing contributes to the United States’ economy and supports jobs.
According to new reports issued today by NOAA Fisheries, we continue to see positive economic impacts from
commercial and recreational U.S. fisheries as well as progress in rebuilding our nation’s
fish stocks.¶ Between 2011 and 2012 alone, U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion
in sales impacts, contributed $89 billion to gross domestic product, and supported 1.7 million jobs.¶ Breaking down the numbers a
little more, the value chain of the commercial fishing industry—harvesters, processors, dealers, wholesalers, and retailers—generated
$141 billion in sales, $39 billion in income and supported 1.3 million jobs in 2012.¶ The recreational fishing sector generated $58
billion in sales, $19 billion in income, and supported 381,000 jobs in 2012. ¶ Surprised? You shouldn’t be. The
United States
is a world leader in responsibly managed fisheries , and there’s no doubt that our approach
to management is directly tied to the positive economic impacts across the broader U.S.
economy in the last few years as we see in the Fisheries Economics of the U.S. 2012 report.¶ In 2010, we turned the
corner on ending overfishing and turned our attention to rebuilding fish stocks, working in partnership with regional fishery
management councils, states, tribes, fishermen, and local fishing communities that rely on those stocks. The recent report Status of
U.S. Fisheries 2013 highlights the continued progress that NOAA Fisheries
and our partners and stakeholders
have made to end overfishing and rebuild fish stocks. Overall, the percent of assessed stocks that are harvested
at sustainable levels continues to increase. And our efforts are paying off; since 2000, 34 fish stocks have been rebuilt. This positive
outcome supports commercial fishermen and fishing communities and provides Americans with a local source of healthy food.
Recreational fishing is an important social activity for individuals and families and is a
critical economic contributor to local communities and regional economies.
Economic collapse causes escalating global wars
Kemp 10 Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under
Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs
on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong.
The world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and
Japan suffer a major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As
a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis
for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion
programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical
groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is
challenged, and there are more “failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic
government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of
a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan
increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear
program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential
for nuclear terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the
Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of
the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major
disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s
population.
2NC – Internal Link Ext
Fishing industry is key to the US economy
NOAA 13 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 3/7/13, “NOAA report finds commercial and recreational
saltwater fishing generated $199 billion in 2011”,
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mediacenter/2013/03/07_noaa_report_finds_commercial_and_recreational.html, aps)
U.S. commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in
sales and supported 1.7 million jobs in the nation’s economy in 2011, according to a new economic report
released by NOAA’s Fisheries Service.¶ The report, Fisheries Economics of the United States 2011, is published annually on a twoyear lag to allow data collection, analysis, and peer review. It provides economic statistics on U.S. commercial and recreational
fisheries and marine-related businesses for each coastal state and the nation. Key to the report are the economic effects--jobs, sales,
income, and value added to Gross National Product--of the commercial and recreational fishing industries. “Economic
impact” measures how sales in each sector ripple throughout the state and national
economy as each dollar spent generates additional sales by other firms and consumers.¶ The
seafood industry—harvesters, seafood processors and dealers, seafood wholesalers and retailers—generated $129
billion in sales impacts, $37 billion in income impacts and supported 1.2 million jobs in 2011, the most recent year included
in the report. Recreational fishing generated $70 billion in sales impacts, $20 billion in income impacts, and supported 455,000 jobs in
2011. Compared to 2010, the numbers are up for all of these impacts except commercial seafood sales. ¶ “Commercial
and
recreational fishing are integral parts of the nation’s social and economic fabric,” said Sam
Rauch, deputy assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “While there’s still work to do, to see landings and value
climb in 2011 shows we’re moving in the right direction, even in this time of challenging transition for many fishing communities.”
Aff – Non Unique
Fishing industry is on the decline--overfishing
Si 6/27 (George, Northeastern University, 6/27/14, “THE PLAGUE OF OVERFISHING: GLOBAL
FISHERIES PREDICTED TO COLLAPSE BY 2050”,
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/topics/environment/2248-the-plague-of-overfishing-globalfisheries-predicted-to-collapse-by-2050, aps)
The fishing industry is a billion dollar enterprise that provides livelihood and survival for
billions of people. According to a 2012 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), the fishing industry is worth over $200 billion and products of this industry provide 3 billion people
over 20 percent of their total protein consumed. Without question, this is an invaluable industry that affects
people worldwide. However, trends do not look favorable for the longevity of the industry, with
some experts warning that fisheries globally can collapse as early as 2050.¶ With so many
problems plaguing our oceans, overfishing threatens to destroy many species and has
already done irreparable damage to species like the Bluefin Tuna, Swordfish, and Sturgeon. These
species fall under the “large predatory fish” (LPF) category, a group that has been over 90 percent
overfished. Large predatory fish are highly sought after, given the high price they fetch; the prospect of
making large profit led to nonstop fishing of these species, robbing them the time necessary
to breed and repopulate.
Aff – Overfishing Now
Overfishing High, Destroys Ecosystems
Nutall 13 [Nick, Head of Media Services, United Nations Environment Programme, 3/4/13,
http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800]
Despite its crucial importance for the survival of humanity, marine biodiversity is in ever-greater
danger, with the depletion of fisheries among biggest concerns. Fishing is central to the
livelihood and food security of 200 million people, especially in the developing world, while one
of five people on this planet depends on fish as the primary source of protein. According to
UN agencies, aquaculture - the farming and stocking of aquatic organisms including fish, molluscs,
crustaceans and aquatic plants - is growing more rapidly than all other animal food producing
sectors. But amid facts and figures about aquaculture's soaring worldwide production rates, other, more
sobering, statistics reveal that global main marine fish stocks are in jeopardy, increasingly
pressured by overfishing and environmental degradation. “Overfishing cannot continue,”
warned Nitin Desai, Secretary General of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, which
took place in Johannesburg. “The depletion of fisheries poses a major threat to the food supply
of millions of people.” The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation calls for the establishment of Marine
Protected Areas (MPAs), which many experts believe may hold the key to conserving and boosting fish
stocks. Yet, according to the UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, in Cambridge, UK, less than one per cent of the world’s oceans and seas are currently in MPAs.
The magnitude of the problem of overfishing is often overlooked, given the competing claims of
deforestation, desertification, energy resource exploitation and other biodiversity depletion dilemmas. The
rapid growth in demand for fish and fish products is leading to fish prices increasing faster than prices of
meat. As a result, fisheries investments have become more attractive to both entrepreneurs and
governments, much to the detriment of small-scale fishing and fishing communities all over the world. In
the last decade, in the north Atlantic region, commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock
and flounder have fallen by as much as 95%, prompting calls for urgent measures. Some are
even recommending zero catches to allow for regeneration of stocks, much to the ire of the fishing industry.
According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish
species are either fully exploited or depleted. The dramatic increase of destructive fishing
techniques worldwide destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems. FAO reports that
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing worldwide appears to be increasing as fishermen seek to avoid
stricter rules in many places in response to shrinking catches and declining fish stocks. Few, if any,
developing countries and only a limited number of developed ones are on track to put into effect by this
year the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.
Despite that fact that each region has its Regional Sea Conventions, and some 108 governments and the
European Commission have adopted the UNEP Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land based Activities, oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests. The
Johannesburg forum stressed the importance of restoring depleted fisheries and acknowledged that
sustainable fishing requires partnerships by and between governments, fishermen, communities and
industry. It urged countries to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea and other instruments that
promote maritime safety and protect the environment from marine pollution and environmental damage by
ships. Only a multilateral approach can counterbalance the rate of depletion of the world’s fisheries which
has increased more than four times in the past 40 years.
Aff – Alt Cause
Alt cause—climate change kills the fishing industry
Valentine 14 (Katie, columnist, 5/29/14, “The Fishing Industry Is Poised To Lose Billions Due To Climate Change, Report
Finds”, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/29/3442537/fishing-lose-billions-climate/, aps)
The global fishing industry is poised to lose $17 to $41 billion by 2050 due to climate change’s
effects on the marine environment, according to a new report.¶ The report, published by the Sustainable Fisheries
Partnership and the University of Cambridge, outlines the range of challenges that increasing ocean
temperatures and acidification will bring to the seafood industry, based on findings from the IPCC’s
Fifth Assessment Report. The authors found that climate change puts the 400 million people who depend
heavily on fish for food at risk, especially small-scale fishermen in the Tropics. That’s because yields are
expected to fall by 40 to 60 percent in the Tropics and Antarctica — in the high latitudes,
however, the report said yields are likely to increase 30 to 70 percent.¶ Some fish stocks will be able to
migrate to cooler or more food- or oxygen-rich waters, which is good news for those fish populations but can lead to conflicts among
countries as to which nations are entitled to the displaced stocks, and also could lead to more illegal fishing. The report singles out the
recent shift of Atlantic mackerel to Icelandic waters over the last few summers as one example — with these new fish stocks, Iceland
and the Faroe Islands have been fishing mackerel outside of international agreements. Top predators like tuna are some of the most
likely to move, putting economic strain on small island nations in particular.¶ “This
report is a wake up call for the
seafood industry to recognize the scale of the threat to ocean resources from climate change
and acidification,” Blake Lee-Harwood of Sustainable Fisheries Partnership said in a statement.
Aff – No Link – Brine Filters
No link—Brine filters solve chemical discharge—their author
Hunt 9 (Greg, executive officer @ South East Councils Climate Change Alliance (SECCCA), 5/4/09, “We have to do water
differently, says Maude Barlow, in this provocative address that Andrew Bolt, among others, won’t like!”,
http://www.seccca.org.au/2009/05/04/we-have-to-do-water-differently-says-maude-barlow-in-this-provocative-address-that-andrewbolt-among-others-wont-like/, aps)
Perhaps the best way to reduce the effects of brine disposal is to reduce the volume of brine
that must be discharged and minimize the adverse chemicals found in the brines. Both manmade filters and natural filtration processes can reduce the amount of chemicals applied
during the pre- treatment process. Ultrafiltration, for example, can replace coagulants,
effectively removing silt and organic matter from feedwater (Dudek and Associates 2005). Ultrafiltration also
removes some of the guesswork involved in balancing the pretreatment chemicals, as pretreatment “must be continuously optimized to
deal with influent characteristics” (Amalfintano and Lam 2005). These
filters, however, are backwashed
periodically to remove sludge buildup and cleaned with the same solution used on RO membranes. Backwash can be
disposed of with the waste brine or dewatered and disposed of on land. Additionally, subsurface intake wells, which use sand as a
natural filter, reduce chemical usage during pretreatment by reducing the biological organisms that cause bio- fouling.
Aff – No Impact – Food Security
Alt cause—new tech means farmers will always produce more food
Zubrin 11 (Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics, Senior Fellow with the Center for Security Policy “WHY IT’S
WRONG TO AGREE WITH THE MALTHUSIANS ABOUT ETHANOL” May 13, 2011http://www.ilcorn.org/daily-update/182why-it-rsquo-s-wrong-to-agree-with-the-malthusians-about-ethanol/)// CG
In an op-ed article printed in the Denver Post May 8, editorial columnist Vince Carroll endorsed the view of population control
advocate Lester Brown that the U.S. corn ethanol program is threatening the world’s poor with starvation. This endorsement is
especially remarkable in view of the fact that, as the otherwise generally astute Mr. Carroll has correctly noted many times in the past,
all of Lester Brown’s many previous
limited-resources doomsday predictions have proven wildly
incorrect. In fact, Lester Brown is wrong about the alleged famine-inducing potential of the ethanol program for exactly the same
reason he has been repeatedly wrong about the alleged famine-inducing potential of population growth. There is not a fixed
amount of grain in the world. Farmers produce in response to demand. The more
customers, the more grain. Not only that, but the larger the potential market, the greater the
motivation for investment in improved techniques. This is why, despite the fact that the
world population has indeed doubled since Lester Brown, Paul Ehrlich, and the other
population control zealots first published their manifestos during the 1960s, people
worldwide are eating much better today than they were then. In the case of America’s corn growing
industry, the beneficial effect of a growing market has been especially pronounced, with corn yields per acre in 2010 (165 bushels per
acre) being 37 percent higher than they were in 2002 (120 bushels per acres) and more than four times as great as they were in 1960
(40 bushels per acre.) Not
only that, but in part because of the impetus of the expanded ethanol
program, another doubling of yield is now in sight, as the best farms have pushed yields
above 300 bushels per acre. As a result, in 2010, the state of Iowa alone produced more corn than the entire United States
did in 1947. Of our entire corn crop, only 2 percent is actually eaten by Americans as corn, or 12 percent if one includes products like
corn chips and corn syrup. These advances in productivity do not only benefit the United States. America’s farmers are the vanguard
for their counterparts worldwide. New
seed strains and other techniques first demonstrated on our
most advanced farms, subsequently spread to average farms, and then go global, thereby
raising crop yields everywhere.
No impact to food insecurity
Salehyan 7 (Idean, Professor of Political Science – University of North Texas, “The New Myth About Climate Change”, Foreign Policy,
Summer, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3922)
First, aside
from a few anecdotes, there is little systematic empirical evidence that resource
scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict. In fact, several studies have shown that an
abundance of natural resources is more likely to contribute to conflict. Moreover, even as the planet has
warmed, the number of civil wars and insurgencies has decreased dramatically. Data collected by researchers at Uppsala University
and the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo shows a steep decline in the number of armed conflicts around the world. Between
1989 and 2002, some 100 armed conflicts came to an end, including the wars in Mozambique, Nicaragua, and Cambodia. If global
warming causes conflict, we should not be witnessing this downward trend. Furthermore, if famine and drought led to the crisis in
Darfur, why have scores of environmental catastrophes failed to set off armed conflict elsewhere? For instance, the U.N. World Food
Programme warns that 5
million people in Malawi have been experiencing chronic food shortages for
But famine-wracked Malawi has yet to experience a major civil war. Similarly, the Asian
tsunami in 2004 killed hundreds of thousands of people, generated millions of environmental refugees, and led to severe
shortages of shelter, food, clean water, and electricity. Yet the tsunami, one of the most extreme catastrophes in recent
history, did not lead to an outbreak of resource wars. Clearly then, there is much more to armed conflict
than resource scarcity and natural disasters.
several years.
No famine
Gardiner 8 – Duane T. Gardiner, Texas A&M University, and Raymond W. Miller, Late, Utah University, Soils in Our
Environment, 2008, p. 21
In short the world is demanding more food, more fiber, and more industrial crops grown on less land using less water. If the
population continues to increase at the current rate (7000 more people per hour), one
can predict that the world will
experience critical resource shortages during the lifetime of young people alive today. Despite all this doom
and gloom, most people are not hungry. In fact, the food supply has become more stable,
especially for the more developed countries. During the twentieth century, growth in world
economies and standards of living exceeded growth in population.