Ocean Observation NEG – NDI 2014
Case
1NC – Seapower
No uq to undersea warfare – shortage of subs and china military modernization
Eaglen and Rodeback 2010
Mackenzie Eaglen Research Fellow for National Security Studies, Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies Jon
Rodeback Editor, Research Publications Heritage Submarine Arms Race in the Pacific: The Chinese Challenge to U.S.
Undersea Supremacy http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/02/submarine-arms-race-in-the-pacific-thechinese-challenge-to-us-undersea-supremacy
The People's Republic of China (PRC) is rapidly emerging as a regional naval power and a potential global power,
which "raises the prospect of intensifying security competition in East Asia both between the United States and
China and between China and Japan."[2] Other Pacific countries in the region have also taken note of the changing
security environment as evidenced in particular by their planned submarine acquisitions. Australia's military
buildup includes doubling its submarine fleet from six submarines to 12 larger, more capable submarines.[3] In
addition, "India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Singapore, Bangladesh and South Korea are planning to acquire
modern, conventional submarines."[4] Both Australia and India have explicitly described their naval buildups as
responses, at least in part, to China's naval buildup. In contrast, the U.S. submarine fleet is projected to continue
shrinking through 2028, further limiting the U.S. ability to shape and influence events in the Pacific. The U.S. attack
submarine serves an important part in establishing sea control and supremacy, and it is not interchangeable with
other assets. Its unique capabilities make it a force multiplier and allow it to "punch above its weight." To protect
U.S. interests in East Asia and the Pacific, and to support and reassure U.S. allies, the U.S. must halt and then
reverse the decline of its submarine fleet as a critical component of a broader policy to maintain the military
balance in the Pacific.
Budget cuts destroy readiness
Ron Ault 13, Executive Assistant to the President for Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO, “Navy Budget Cuts
Sinking America’s Military Readiness,” Feb 15 2013,
http://www.metaltrades.org/index.cfm?zone=/unionactive/view_blog_post.cfm&blogID=1390&postID=6618
While many in Washington are focused on the rapidly-approaching March 1st sequestration deadline, few seem to be paying much attention to the massive
cuts that will go into effect this week across our military – cuts that will have an equally devastating impact on our economy
and security.¶ As the result of the continuing resolution (CR) that was agreed upon in the final hours of 2012, a deal that averted the so-called fiscal cliff, the U.S.
Navy was forced to accept $6.3 billion in cuts for the remainder of the force’s Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) budget. If sequestration goes into effect, that number could
grow to $10 billion.¶ As the representative of 80,000 workers employed at U.S. shipyards and naval bases – workers who take great pride in the role they play in
supporting our military – I would like to shed some light on the severity and senselessness of the Navy budget cuts and implore the 113th Congress to take prudent
have already taken a hatchet to the Defense
budget; we simply cannot sustain any further cuts this year.¶ The $6.3 billion in Navy budget reductions cut too
deeply. For example, Navy Fleet Commanders have been ordered to cancel 3rd and 4th Quarter surface ship maintenance.
That’s a very tall order considering our shipyards are already fully loaded with high priority work on extremely tight
schedules to support fleet deployment. Once scheduled maintenance on a ship is missed, there is no capacity to make it
up later without causing delays elsewhere. The well-oiled machine breaks down. With the cuts contained in the CR alone, it is
conceivable that aircraft carriers, destroyers, nuclear submarines, and other Navy vessels would be tied up at piers
awaiting critical repairs without the ability to move, much less support our national defense. If we allow our fleet to collect
barnacles in harbor for six months, we would significantly disrupt our military’s access to the ships they need to
defend our country.
and expeditious action to avoid further Defense spending cuts in FY13. ¶ Lawmakers
Increasing the amount of information available does not increase military
effectiveness
USNI 9, US Naval institute blog, September 2009, “Information Dominance!? Say WHAT?”
http://blog.usni.org/2009/09/18/information-dominance-say-what
“
Information Dominance?” Who was the Legion-of-Merit wearing 05 or 06 who thought THAT one up? Do we actually think we dominate the information spectrum?¶
represents a badly flawed understanding of “information” as it pertains to
warfighting. This seems like the Cult of Cebrowski. Network-Centric Warfare as a concept is found very much wanting where the rubber meets the road. It might work if the enemy we
are fighting is the United States Navy, who has elevated information technology to a place on Olympus.¶ But for the rest of the world, our obsession with a
flattened information hierarchy is much more of a vulnerability than an advantage. That obsession treats information like a
drug. The more we have, the more we want. We are convinced that the key gem of information that will clear
away all the fog MUST be coming in the next data dump. Except the data dump is increasingly difficult to sift
through to find the critical information, if we are even aware of what is critical in light of so much unfiltered and unverified
gatherings. The effort required to produce pertinent and actionable intelligence, or even timely and worthwhile information, oftentimes suffers from such an
approach to information and intelligence gathering.¶ Without launching a long dissertation regarding NCW and the problems created by “information inundation” resulting from a
sensor/shooter marriage across a massive battlefield, I believe such a term as “Information Dominance” pays short shrift to a less sophisticated
enemy whose extensive low-tech networks of informants are capable of negating billions of dollars of maritime “stealth”
technology (or finding the right merchant ship in a 400-mile long shipping lane) by using the eyeball, the messenger, the motor scooter, or the sandal.¶ Such an enemy, I
would argue, has a much clearer and simpler set of information requirements, and is far more skilled, more disciplined, and much more
successful at meeting those requirements than we are. So, who is dominant in the information game? One could argue very effectively that it is not us.¶ Terms such
as “Information Dominance” ring of a grandiose bit of self-delusion that is part plan and part capability, with a large measure of wishful thinking. In the words
Nothing against VADM Dorsett, but this type of terminology
of a certain retired Marine Corps General, “words mean things”. They also reveal a lot about who uses them, and how. The term “Information Dominance” gives me the willies. Can we call it
something a little less presumtuous?
2NC – Budget Alt Cause
Specifically wrecks undersea dominance
Hugh Lessig 13, Daily Press, 9/12/13, “U.S. Navy: Budget challenges threaten submarine program,”
http://articles.dailypress.com/2013-09-12/news/dp-nws-forbes-submarine-hearing-20130912_1_u-s-navysubmarines-missile
The U.S. military touts its submarine program as an unqualified success, yet the fleet is expected to drop by nearly
30 percent in coming years and one Hampton Roads lawmaker wants to pull money from outside the Navy's shipbuilding program to ease
the pressure on one key program.¶ Two Navy leaders on Thursday told a panel chaired by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Chesapeake, that more
budget cuts would dull the edge of the submarine program, where the U.S. enjoys a distinct advantage over
other superpowers. Forbes chairs the House Armed Service's subcommittee on sea power.¶ About 2,300 jobs at Newport News Shipbuilding are
tied to the U.S. submarine program. The shipyard builds them in partnership with General Dynamics Electric Boat of Groton, Conn.¶ The U.S.
military has three types of nuclear-powered submarines. First are the smaller fast-attack submarines that fall primarily in two
classes, the older Los Angeles class and the newer Virginia class. Last week, the Navy commissioned the newest Virginia class sub at Naval
Station Norfolk.¶ The second type are Ohio class ballistic missile submarines that roam the seas and provide a nuclear strike capability.¶ The
third type is an offshoot of the second: When the Cold War ended, the U.S. converted four of those ballistic missile submarines into guidedcruise missile submarines.¶ All three types are scheduled
C. Johnson. who testified before the Forbes panel.
to drop, said Rear Adm. Richard P. Breckenridge and Rear Adm. David
The huge national debt means cuts will continue---guarantees an ineffective navy
Seth Cropsey 10, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, former Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy, “The US
Navy in Distress,” Strategic Analysis Vol. 34, No. 1, January 2010, 35–45,
http://navsci.berkeley.edu/ma20/Class%208/Class%2012.%20Sea%20Power.%20%20Cropsey_US_Navy_In_Distres
s.pdf
The most tangible result is the continued withering of the US combat fleet which today numbers about 280 ships. This is less than
half the size achieved towards the end of the Reagan administration buildup and 33 ships short of what the Navy
says it needs to fulfill today’s commitments. Nothing suggests a substantive reversal. Most signs point to additional
decline over the long term. Four years ago the Navy’s projected fleet size had dwindled to 313 ships. There it has stayed . . . until May of this year when a senior
Navy budget official, commenting on the proposed 2010 budget, suggested that the new Quadrennial Review now underway at the Defense
Department will likely result in a smaller projected fleet size. Huge increases in current and projected national debt
and the vulnerability of the military budget to help offset it increase the chance that without compelling events the
nation’s sea services will experience additional and perhaps drastic reductions. National indebtedness will grow from its
current ratio of 40 per cent of GDP to 80 per cent of GDP in a decade. Servicing this will cripple the nation’s ability to
modernize and increase a powerful world-class fleet or drive us deeper into a yawning financial hole.
2NC – Information Not Key
Adding information sources doesn’t increase military effectiveness
Michael N. Schmitt 11, Director & Charles H. Stockton Professor at the US Naval War College’s Stockton Center
for the Study of International Law, Senior Fellow at the NATO Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, “The Principle of
Discrimination in Twenty-First Century Warfare,” in Essays on Law and War at the Fault Lines, p 153-154, google
books
51 In a perfect universe, these advances in information acquisition/dissemination and weapons accuracy/suitability would
result in an impressive concentration of precision firepower that could be brought to bear in a transparent and wellunderstood battlespace against easily identifiable targets. Despite its impressiveness, however, technology
contains within it the potential to thicken the Clausewitzian fog of war rather than clear it.90 To begin with, new stealth
technologies may defeat transparency.91 At a more basic level, information dominance may yield little more than
information overload, a situation in which so much information is provided that the decision-maker becomes
stressed and confused and begins to make worse decisions than he otherwise would have.92
1NC – South China Sea
No South China conflict-engagement will check miscalc and mistrust
Thayer, New South Wales emeritus professor, 2013
(Carlyle, “Why China and the US won’t go to war over the South China Sea”, 5-13,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/05/13/why-china-and-the-us-wont-go-to-war-over-the-south-china-sea/, ldg)
China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea is challenging US primacy in the Asia Pacific. Even before Washington announced its official policy of
rebalancing its force posture to the Asia Pacific, the United States had undertaken steps to strengthen its military posture by deploying more nuclear attack
submarines to the region and negotiating arrangements with Australia to rotate Marines through Darwin.Since then, the United States has deployed Combat Littoral
Ships to Singapore and is negotiating new arrangements for greater military access to the Philippines. But
these developments do not presage
armed conflict between China and the United States. The People’s Liberation Army Navy has been circumspect in
its involvement in South China Sea territorial disputes, and the United States has been careful to avoid being
entrapped by regional allies in their territorial disputes with China. Armed conflict between China and the United States in the South China Sea
appears unlikely. Another, more probable, scenario is that both countries will find a modus vivendi enabling
them to collaborate to maintain security in the South China Sea. The Obama administration has repeatedly emphasised that its policy of
rebalancing to Asia is not directed at containing China. For example, Admiral Samuel J. Locklear III, Commander of the US Pacific Command, recently stated, ‘there
has also been criticism that the Rebalance is a strategy of containment. This is not the case … it is a strategy of collaboration and cooperation’. However, a review of
past US–China military-to-military interaction indicates that an agreement to jointly manage security in the South China Sea is unlikely because of continuing
strategic mistrust between the two countries. This is also because the currents of regionalism are growing stronger. As such, a third
scenario is more
likely than the previous two: that China and the United States will maintain a relationship of cooperation and
friction. In this scenario, both countries work separately to secure their interests through multilateral institutions such as the East
Asia Summit, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus and the Enlarged ASEAN Maritime Forum. But they also continue to engage each other
on points of mutual interest. The Pentagon has consistently sought to keep channels of communication open with China through three established
bilateral mechanisms: Defense Consultative Talks, the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and the Defense Policy Coordination Talks. On the one
hand, these multilateral mechanisms reveal very little about US–China military relations. Military-to-military contacts between the two countries have gone through
repeated cycles of cooperation and suspension, meaning that it has not been possible to isolate purely military-to-military contacts from their political and strategic
settings. On the other hand, the
channels have accomplished the following: continuing exchange visits by high-level
defence officials; regular Defense Consultation Talks; continuing working-level discussions under the MMCA; agreement on the ‘7-point consensus’; and no
serious naval incidents since the 2009 USNS Impeccable affair. They have also helped to ensure continuing exchange visits by senior military officers; the initiation of
a Strategic Security Dialogue as part of the ministerial-level Strategic & Economic Dialogue process; agreement to hold meetings between coast guards; and
agreement on a new working group to draft principles to establish a framework for military-to-military cooperation. So
the bottom line is that,
despite ongoing frictions in their relationship, the United States and China will continue engaging with each other.
Both sides understand that military-to-military contacts are a critical component of bilateral engagement. Without
such interaction there is a risk that mistrust between the two militaries could spill over and have a major negative
impact on bilateral relations in general. But strategic mistrust will probably persist in the absence of greater transparency in military-to-military
relations. In sum, Sino-American
relations in the South China Sea are more likely to be characterised by
cooperation and friction than a modus vivendi of collaboration or, a worst-case scenario, armed conflict.
2NC – South China Sea
No south china sea conflict-china would never engage
Carlson, Cornell government professor, 2013
(Allen, “China Keeps the Peace at Sea”, 2-21, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139024/allen-carlson/chinakeeps-the-peace-at-sea?page=show, ldg)
The fundamentals
of Deng's grand economic strategy are still revered in Beijing. But any war in the region would
erode the hard-won, and precariously held, political capital that China has gained in the last several decades. It
would also disrupt trade relations, complicate efforts to promote the yuan as an international currency, and send shock waves through
the country's economic system at a time when it can ill afford them. There is thus little reason to think that China is readying for war
with Japan. At the same time, the specter of rising Chinese nationalism, although often seen as a promoter of conflict,
further limits the prospects for armed engagement . This is because Beijing will try to discourage nationalism if it fears
it may lose control or be forced by popular sentiment to take an action it deems unwise. Ever since the Tiananmen Square massacre put
questions about the Chinese Communist Party's right to govern before the population, successive generations of
Chinese leaders have carefully negotiated a balance between promoting nationalist sentiment and preventing it
from boiling over. In the process, they cemented the legitimacy of their rule. A war with Japan could easily upset that balance by
inflaming nationalism that could blow back against China's leaders. Consider a hypothetical scenario in which a uniformed Chinese
military member is killed during a firefight with Japanese soldiers. Regardless of the specific circumstances, the casualty would create a new martyr in China and,
almost as quickly, catalyze popular protests against Japan. Demonstrators would call for blood, and if the government (fearing economic instability) did not extract
enough, citizens would agitate against Beijing itself. Those in Zhongnanhai, the Chinese leadership compound in Beijing, would find themselves between a rock and
a hard place. It is possible that Xi lost track of these basic facts during the fanfare of his rise to power and in the face of renewed Japanese assertiveness. It is also
possible that the Chinese state is more rotten at the core than is understood. That is, party elites believe that a diversionary war is the only way to hold on to power
-- damn the economic and social consequences. But Xi
does not seem blind to the principles that have served Beijing so well over
the last few decades. Indeed, although he recently warned unnamed others about infringing upon China's "national core interests" during a foreign policy
speech to members of the Politburo, he also underscored China's commitment to "never pursue development at the cost of
sacrificing other country's interests" and to never "benefit ourselves at others' expense or do harm to any
neighbor." Of course, wars do happen -- and still could in the East China Sea. Should either side draw first blood through accident or an unexpected move, SinoJapanese relations would be pushed into terrain that has not been charted since the middle of the last century. However, understanding that war
would be a no-win situation, China has avoided rushing over the brink. This relative restraint seems to have
surprised everyone. But it shouldn't. Beijing will continue to disagree with Tokyo over the sovereign status of the islands, and will not budge in
its negotiating position over disputed territory. However, it cannot take the risk of going to war over a few rocks in the sea . On the
contrary, in the coming months it will quietly seek a way to shelve the dispute in return for securing regional
stability, facilitating economic development, and keeping a lid on the Pandora's box of rising nationalist sentiment.
The ensuing peace, while unlikely to be deep, or especially conducive to improving Sino-Japanese relations, will be enduring.
China won’t get in a naval conflict
Holmes, Naval War College strategy professor, 2012
(James, “The Sino-Japanese Naval War of 2012”, 8-20,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/20/the_sino_japanese_naval_war_of_2012?page=0,1, DOA: 1016-12, ldg)
Whoever forges sea, land, and air forces into the sharpest weapon of sea combat stands a good chance of prevailing. That could be Japan if its political and military
leaders think creatively, procure the right hardware, and arrange it on the map for maximum effect. After
all, Japan doesn’t need to defeat
China’s military in order to win a showdown at sea, because it already holds the contested real estate; all it needs
to do is deny China access. If Northeast Asian seas became a no-man’s land but Japanese forces hung on, the political victory would be Tokyo’s. Japan
also enjoys the luxury of concentrating its forces at home, whereas the PLA Navy is dispersed into three fleets spread along China’s lengthy coastline. Chinese
commanders face a dilemma: If they
concentrate forces to amass numerical superiority during hostilities with Japan, they risk leaving
other interests uncovered. It would hazardous for Beijing to leave, say, the South China Sea unguarded during a conflict
in the northeast. And finally, Chinese leaders would be forced to consider how far a marine war would set back their seapower project. China has staked its economic and diplomatic future in large part on a powerful oceangoing navy . In
December 2006, President Hu Jintao ordered PLA commanders to construct “a powerful people’s navy” that could defend the nation’s maritime lifelines — in
particular sea lanes that connect Indian Ocean energy exporters with users in China — “at any time.” That
takes lots of ships. If it lost much of
the fleet in a Sino-Japanese clash — even in a winning effort — Beijing could see its momentum toward
world-power status reversed in an afternoon. Here’s hoping China’s political and military leaders understand all this. If so, the Great SinoJapanese Naval War of 2012 won’t be happening outside these pages.
1NC – Environment
Technology can’t resolve governance problems.
Malone et al. 2014
Thomas C., University of Maryland Professor of Marine Biology, A global ocean observing system framework for
sustainable development, Marine Policy 43 (2014) 262–272
As emphasized by Browman et al. [291, governance, not the science and technology behind ocean observing systems, is
the weak link in the implementation chain for EBAs. Historically, governments have responded to changes in ecosystem
states and their impacts in an ad hoc fashion focusing on sector by sector management (environmental protection and
the management of fisheries, water, transportation, oil and gas extraction, wind energy, tourism and recreation, etc) rather than on an
integrated, holistic strategy for managing human uses of ecosystem services [4262734]- Limitations of this sectorbased approach to govern- ance are compounded by inherent complexities in managing a growing number of
activities across different levels of government, across agencies (ministries) within governments, and (for multi- national regional
entities such as the European Union) among governments. As a result, competition for funding among govern- ment agencies
often inhibits needed collaborations and can result in policy choices that are detrimental to ecosystems and their
services and dependent coastal communities. The limitations of sector-specific 'stove pipe" approaches to the stewardship of ecosystem
services have been recognized for decades and are reflected in national and international calls for EBAs to managing human uses and adapting
to climate change "3.4.28.153). An effective set of institutional responses to achieve sustainable development must address
the reality that current governance arrangements are not well tuned to the challenges of formulating,
implementing and improving EBAs that are guided by lEAs and the sustained provision of the required data on pressures, states and
impacts. Conventional approaches to sustainable devel- opment incorporate current socio-political systems that limit the use of lEAs. Needed
is the development of institutional frame- works that promote a shift from sector by sector management of human
uses to a more holistic approach that considers the diversity of pressures on ecosystems , changes in ecosystem states
and their impacts through integrated governance. Cross-cutting stove pipes must involve a system of integrated ocean
governance that oversees and enables efficient linkages among three interdependent and sustained activities: (1)
establish- ment of an integrated coastal ocean observing system to monitor pressures, states and impacts simultaneously; (2) routine
and repeated lEAs based on these observations: and (3) the use of lEAs to help guide the sustainable implementation of EBAs (Fig. 31 The flow
of data and information among these activities must enable an iterative process of evaluating performance against objectives that leads to
more effective observing systems and EBAs. The
primary impediments to institutionalizing these activities
interactively are stable funding, capacity building, international collaboration, and timely data
exchange among countries. Stable funding for sustained observations is critical to the establishment of EBAs for sustainable
development Sustained capacity building is critical because most coastal waters are under the jurisdiction of developing countries and
emerging economies. International col- laboration is essential to establish priorities based on issues of mutual concern, to attract funding, to
effect timely data exchange among coastal states for comparative ecosystem analyses, and to develop systems that are interoperable globally
(common stan- dards and protocols for comparative analyses of multidisciplinary data streams from sentinel sites). Of these, timely exchange of
ecological data and information on pressures, states and impacts Is likely to be most challenging and will require international agreements that
are codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Holistic, integrated responses have the potential to effectively address issues related
to ecosystem services and human well-being simultaneously. If there is any chance of developing and maintain- ing effective EBAs for
sustainable development (and the sustained and integrated observing systems needed to inform them), the process of integrated ocean
governance must be overseen by a diversity of stakeholders. These include integrated coastal zone managers, marine spatial planners and
managers of CEOBON, LME programs. Marine Protected Areas 11511, Regional Seas Conventions |149|. and international maritime operations
|154|. In addition to these practitioners, important stakeholders include data providers (scientists and technicians involved in ocean observing
and pre- diction systems), analysts (natural, social and political scientists and economists), and journalists all working for the common good.
This body of stakeholders might be called the "Integrated Govern- ance Forum for Sustaining Marine Ecosystem Services" and would function as
a "Community of Practice* |155|. However, sustained engagement of such a diversity of stakeholders on a global scale to guide the
establishment of EBAs on the spatial scales needed to sustain ecosystem services (Section 2) is not feasible. Developing COOS to provide the
data and information needed to inform EBAs (Section 3) depends on enhancing the CCN locally and regionally based on priorities established by
stakeholders and articulated in national and regional ocean policies |2S|. The E.U. Marine Strategy Framework Directive [156| and the U.S.
National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean. Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes 1157] are important examples of emerging regional scale
approaches to integrated ocean governance. How effective these policies will be remains to be seen.
No species snowball
Roger A Sedjo 2k, Sr. Fellow, Resources for the Future, Conserving Nature’s Biodiversity: insights from biology,
ethics & economics, eds. Van Kooten, Bulte and Sinclair, p 114
As a critical input into the existence of humans and of life on earth, biodiversity obviously has a very high value (at least to humans). But, as
with other resource questions, including public goods, biodiversity is not an either/or question, but rather a question of “how
much.” Thus, we may argue as to how much biodiversity is desirable or is required for human life (threshold) and how much is desirable
(insurance) and at what price, just as societies argue over the appropriate amount and cost of national defense. As discussed by Simpson, the
value of water is small even though it is essential to human life, while diamonds are inessential but valuable to humans. The reason has to do
with relative abundance and scarcity, with market value pertaining to the marginal unit. This water-diamond paradox can be applied to
biodiversity. Although biological diversity is essential, a single species has only limited value, since the global system
will continue to function without that species. Similarly, the value of a piece of biodiversity (e.g., 10 ha of tropical forest) is
small to negligible since its contribution to the functioning of the global biodiversity is negligible. The global
ecosystem can function with “somewhat more” or “somewhat less” biodiversity, since there have been larger
amounts in times past and some losses in recent times. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to indicate that small
habitat losses threaten the functioning of the global life support system, the value of these marginal habitats is
negligible. The “value question” is that of how valuable to the life support function are species at the margin. While this, in principle, is an
empirical question, in practice it is probably unknowable. However, thus far, biodiversity losses appear to have had little or no
effect on the functioning of the earth’s life support system, presumably due to the resiliency of the system, which
perhaps is due to the redundancy found in the system. Through most of its existence, earth has had far less biological diversity.
Thus, as in the water-diamond paradox, the value of the marginal unit of biodiversity appears to be very small.
No ocean acidification problem – it’s natural
Idso et al 2009
Sherwood, founder and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and
currently serves as Chairman of the Center's board of directors, The Ocean Acidification Fiction Volume 12,
Number 22: 3 June 2009
There is considerable current concern that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is causing a significant drop in
the pH of the world's oceans in response to their absorption of a large fraction of each year's anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It has been
estimated, for example, that the globe's seawater has been acidified (actually made less basic) by about 0.1 pH unit relative to what it was in
pre-industrial times; and model calculations imply an additional 0.7-unit drop by the year 2300 (Caldeira and Wickett, 2003), which decline is
hypothesized to cause great harm to calcifying marine life such as corals. But just how valid are these claims? Whenever the results of
theoretical calculations are proposed as the basis for a crisis of some kind or other, it is always good to compare
their predictions against what is known about the phenomenon in the real world . In the case of oceanic pH, for example,
Liu et al. (2009) write in an important new paper that "the history of ocean pH variation during the current interglacial
(Holocene) remains largely unknown," and that it "would provide critical insights on the possible impact of
acidification on marine ecosystems." Hence, they set about to provide just such a context. Working with eighteen samples of fossil and
modern Porites corals recovered from the South China Sea, the nine researchers employed 14C dating using the liquid scintillation counting
method, along with positive thermal ionization mass spectrometry to generate high precision δ11B (boron) data, from which they
reconstructed the paleo-pH record of the past 7000 years that is depicted in the figure below. As can be seen from this figure, there is
nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about the two most recent pH values. They are neither the lowest of
the record, nor is the decline rate that led to them the greatest of the record. Hence, there is no compelling reason
to believe they were influenced in any way by the nearly 40% increase in the air's CO2 concentration that has occurred to
date over the course of the Industrial Revolution. As for the prior portion of the record, Liu et al. note that there is also "no correlation between
the atmospheric CO2 concentration record from Antarctica ice cores and δ11B-reconstructed paleo-pH over the mid-late Holocene up to the
Industrial Revolution." Further enlightenment comes from the earlier work of Pelejero et al. (2005), who developed a more refined history of
seawater pH spanning the period 1708-1988 (depicted in the figure below), based on δ11B data obtained from a massive Porites coral from
Flinders Reef in the western Coral Sea of the southwestern Pacific. These researchers also found that "there is no notable trend toward
lower δ11B values." Instead, they discovered that "the dominant feature of the coral δ11B record is a clear
interdecadal oscillation of pH, with δ11B values ranging between 23 and 25 per mil (7.9 and 8.2 pH units)," which they say "is
synchronous with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation." Going one step further, Pelejero et al. also compared their results with
coral extension and calcification rates obtained by Lough and Barnes (1997) over the same 1708-1988 time period; and as best we can
determine from their graphical representations of these two coral growth parameters, extension rates over the last 50 years of this period were
about 12% greater than they were over the first 50 years, while calcification rates were approximately 13% greater over the last 50 years. Most
recently, Wei et al. (2009) derived the pH history of Arlington Reef (off the north-east coast of Australia) that is depicted in the figure below. As
can be seen there, there was a ten-year pH minimum centered at about 1935 (which obviously was not CO2-induced)
and a shorter more variable minimum at the end of the record (which also was not CO2-induced); and apart from these
two non-CO2-related exceptions, the majority of the data once again fall within a band that exhibits no long-term trend,
such as would be expected to have occurred if the gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since the
inception of the Industrial Revolution were truly making the global ocean less basic. In light of these several diverse
and independent assessments of the two major aspects of the ocean acidification hypothesis -- a CO2-induced decline in
oceanic pH that leads to a concomitant decrease in coral growth rate -- it would appear that the catastrophe conjured up by the
world's climate alarmists is but a wonderful work of fiction.
2NC – No Acidification
Seagrasses solve the impact – acidification refuge.
CO2 Science 2013
Seagrasses Enable Nearby Corals to Withstand Ocean Acidification, v16 n10
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N10/B2.php
Background The authors state that although many people expect future ocean acidification (OA) due to rising atmospheric
CO2 concentrations to reduce the calcification rates of marine organisms, they say we have little understanding of how OA will
manifest itself within dynamic, real-world systems, because, as they correctly note, "natural CO2, alkalinity, and salinity
gradients can significantly alter local carbonate chemistry , and thereby create a range of susceptibility for different ecosystems to
OA." What was done "To determine if photosynthetic CO2 uptake associated with seagrass beds has the potential to create OA refugia," as they
describe it, Manzello et al. repeatedly measured carbonate chemistry across an inshore-to-offshore gradient in the upper, middle
and lower Florida Reef Tract over a two-year period. What was learned During times of heightened oceanic vegetative
productivity, the five U.S. researchers found "there is a net uptake of total CO2 which increases aragonite saturation state (Ωarag)
values on inshore patch reefs of the upper Florida Reef Tract," and they say that "these waters can exhibit greater Ωarag than what has been
modeled for the tropical surface ocean during preindustrial times, with mean Ωarag values in spring equaling 4.69 ± 0.10." At the same time,
however, they report that Ωarag values on offshore reefs "generally represent oceanic carbonate chemistries consistent with present day
tropical surface ocean conditions." What it means Manzello et al. hypothesize that the pattern described above "is caused by the
photosynthetic uptake of total CO2 mainly by seagrasses and, to a lesser extent, macroalgae in the inshore waters of the Florida
Reef Tract." And they therefore conclude that these inshore reef habitats are "potential acidification refugia that are
defined not only in a spatial sense, but also in time, coinciding with seasonal productivity dynamics," which further implies that "coral reefs
located within or immediately downstream of seagrass beds may find refuge from ocean acidification ." And in further
support of this conclusion, they cite the work of Palacios and Zimmerman (2007), which they describe as indicating that "seagrasses
exposed to high-CO2 conditions for one year had increased reproduction, rhizome biomass, and vegetative growth
of new shoots, which could represent a potential positive feedback to their ability to serve as ocean acidification
refugia."
No impact --- Ocean ecosystems are resilient
CO2 Science 2008
Marine Ecosystem Response to "Ocean Acidification" Due to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, Vogt, M., Steinke, M.,
Turner, S., Paulino, A., Meyerhofer, M., Riebesell, U., LeQuere, C. and Liss, P. 2008. Dynamics of
dimethylsulphoniopropionate and dimethylsulphide under different CO2 concentrations during a mesocosm
experiment. Biogeosciences 5: 407-419, http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N29/B2.php
Vogt et al. report that they detected no significant phytoplankton species shifts between treatments, and that "the ecosystem
composition, bacterial and phytoplankton abundances and productivity, grazing rates and total grazer abundance
and reproduction were not significantly affected by CO2 induced effects," citing in support of this statement the work of
Riebesell et al. (2007), Riebesell et al. (2008), Egge et al. (2007), Paulino et al. (2007), Larsen et al. (2007), Suffrian et al. (2008) and Carotenuto
et al. (2007). In addition, they say that "while DMS stayed elevated in the treatments with elevated CO2, we observed a steep decline in DMS
concentration in the treatment with low CO2," i.e., the ambient CO2 treatment. What it means With respect to their many findings, the eight
researchers say their observations suggest that "the system under study was surprisingly resilient to abrupt and
large pH changes," which is just the opposite of what the world's climate alarmists characteristically predict about
CO2-induced "ocean acidification." And that may be why Vogt et al. described the marine ecosystem they studied
as "surprisingly resilient" to such change: it may have been a little unexpected .
Their impact has a three hundred year timeframe
CO2 Science 2005
The Fate of Fish in a High-CO2 World, Ishimatsu, A., Hayashi, M., Lee, K.-S., Kikkawa, T. and Kita, J. 2005.
Physiological effects of fishes in a high-CO2 world. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: 10.1029/2004JC002564,
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V8/N42/B3.php
Although this conclusion sounds dire indeed, it represents an egregious flight of the imagination in terms of what could
realistically be expected to happen anytime in earth's future. Ishimatsu et al. report, for example, that "predicted future
CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are lower than the known lethal concentrations for fish ," noting that "the
expected peak value is about 1.4 torr [just under 1850 ppm] around the year 2300 according to Caldeira and Wickett (2003)." So
just how far below the lethal CO2 concentration for fish is 1.4 torr? In the case of short-term exposures on the
order of a few days, the authors cite a number of studies that yield median lethal concentrations ranging from 37
to 50 torr, which values are 26 and 36 times greater than the maximum CO2 concentration expected some 300
years from now!
2NC – No BioD Impact
No extinction
Easterbrook 2003
Gregg, senior fellow at the New Republic, We're All Gonna Die!
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html?pg=2&topic=&topic_set=
If we're talking about doomsday - the end of human civilization - many scenarios simply don't measure up. A single nuclear
bomb ignited by terrorists, for example, would be awful beyond words, but life would go on. People and machines might converge in ways that
you and I would find ghastly, but from the standpoint of the future, they would probably represent an adaptation. Environmental collapse
might make parts of the globe unpleasant, but considering that the biosphere has survived ice ages, it wouldn't be
the final curtain. Depression, which has become 10 times more prevalent in Western nations in the postwar era, might grow so widespread
that vast numbers of people would refuse to get out of bed, a possibility that Petranek suggested in a doomsday talk at the Technology
Entertainment Design conference in 2002. But Marcel Proust, as miserable as he was, wrote Remembrance of Things Past while lying in bed.
Tech solves the impact
Stossel 2007
John, Investigative reporter for Fox news, Environmental Alarmists Have It Backwards
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/how_about_economic_progress_da.html
Watching the media coverage, you'd think that the earth was in imminent danger
-- that human life itself was on the
verge of extinction. Technology is fingered as the perp. Nothing could be further from the truth. John Semmens of Arizona's
Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the
environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become -- thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have
it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress . ... That technology
provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the
progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is
headed downward and that nature is making a comeback ." (Carbon dioxide excepted, if it is really a pollutant.) Semmens
describes his visit to historic Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, an area "lush with trees and greenery." It wasn't always that way. In
1775, the land was cleared so it could be farmed. Today, technology makes farmers so efficient that only a fraction of the land is needed to
produce much more food. As a result, "Massachusetts farmland has been allowed to revert back to forest." Human ingenuity and technology
not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?
Environmental threats exaggerated
Gordon 95 - a professor of mineral economics at Pennsylvania State University [Gordon, Richard, “Ecorealism
Exposed,” Regulation, 1995, http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv18n3/reg18n3-readings.html
Easterbrook's argument is that although environmental problems deserve attention, the environmental movement has exaggerated
the threats and ignored evidence of improvement. His discontent causes him to adopt and incessantly employ the pejoratively
intended (and irritating) shorthand "enviros" to describe the leading environmental organizations and their admirers. He proposes-and
overuses-an equally infelicitous alternative phrase, "ecorealism," that seems to mean that most environmental initiatives can be justifited by
more moderate arguments. Given the mass, range, and defects of the book, any review of reasonable length must be selective. Easterbrook's
critique begins with an overview of environmentalism from a global perspective. He then turns to a much longer (almost 500- page) survey of
many specific environmental issues. The overview section is a shorter, more devastating criticism, but it is also more speculative than the
survey of specific issues. In essence, the overview argument is that human impacts on the environment are minor, easily
correctable influences on a world affected by far more powerful forces. That is a more penetrating criticism than typically
appears in works expressing skepticism about environmentalism. Easterbrook notes that mankind's effects on nature long predate
industrialization or the white colonization of America, but still have had only minor impacts. We are then reminded
of the vast, often highly destructive changes that occur naturally and the recuperative power of natural systems .
Nature sustains damage and recovers.
Easterbrook 95 Distinguished Fellow, Fulbright Foundation (Gregg, A Moment on Earth)
Nature is not ending, nor is human damage to the environment “unprecedented.” Nature has repelled forces of a
magnitude many times greater than the worst human malfeasance. Nature is no ponderously slow. It’s just old. Old and slow
are quite different concepts. That the living world can adjust with surprising alacrity is the reason nature has been able
to get old. Most natural recoveries from ecological duress happen with amazing speed. Significant human tampering with
the environment has been in progress for at least ten millennia and perhaps longer. If nature has been interacting with genus Homo for
thousands of years, then the living things that made it to the present day may be ones whose genetic treasury renders them best suited to
resist human mischief. This does not ensure any creature will continue to survive any clash with humankind. It does
make survival more likely than doomsday orthodox asserts. If nature’s adjustment to the human presence began thousands of
years ago, perhaps it will soon be complete. Far from reeling helplessly before a human onslaught, nature may be on the
verge of reasserting itself. Nature still rules much more of the Earth than does genus Homo. To the statistical majority of natures
creatures the arrival of men and women goes unnoticed.
Prefer our evidence – Environmental apocalypse scenarios are always overblown and
recent human advancements solve.
Ronald Bailey 2k, science correspondent, author of Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet,
former Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, member of the Society
of Environmental Journalists, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, May 2000, Reason Magazine, “Earth Day, Then
and Now,” http://reason.com/0005/fe.rb.earth.shtml
Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. “We have about five more years at the outside to do something,” ecologist
Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end
within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens
the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in
the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, “Man
must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and
possible extinction.” Very Apocalypse Now. Three decades later, of course, the world hasn’t come to an end; if anything, the planet’s ecological
future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back
on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they’ve held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The
prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong. More important, many contemporary
environmental alarmists are similarly mistaken when they continue to insist that the Earth’s future remains an ecotragedy that has already entered its final act. Such doomsters not only fail to appreciate the huge environmental
gains made over the past 30 years, they ignore the simple fact that increased wealth, population, and
technological innovation don’t degrade and destroy the environment. Rather, such developments preserve and
enrich the environment. If it is impossible to predict fully the future, it is nonetheless possible to learn from the
past. And the best lesson we can learn from revisiting the discourse surrounding the very first Earth Day is that passionate concern, however
sincere, is no substitute for rational analysis.
We’re passed the tipping point.
AFP, Agence France Presse, September 15, 1999, “Outlook Grim For World’s Environment Says UN,”
http://www.rense.com/earthchanges/grimoutlook_e.htm
The United Nations warned Wednesday that the world’s environment was facing catastrophic damage as the new millennium nears, ranging
from irreversible destruction to tropical rainforests to choking air pollution and a threat to the polar ice caps. In a lengthy report, the UN
Environment Programme painted a grim tableau for the planet’s citizens in the next millennium, saying time was fast running out to devise a
policy of sustainable human development. And for some fragile eco-systems and vulnerable species, it is already too late, warns the report,
called GEO-2000. “Tropical forest destruction has gone too far to prevent irreversible damage . It would take many
generations to replace the lost forests, and the cultures that have been lost with them can never be replaced,” it warns. “Many of the
planet’s species have already been lost or condemned to extinction because of the slow response times of both the
environment and policy-makers; it is too late to preserve all the bio-diversity the planet had.” Sounding the alarm, the UNEP said
the planet now faced “full-scale emergencies” on several fronts, including these: -- it is probably too late to prevent global
warming, a phenomenon whereby exhaust gases and other emissions will raise the temperature of the planet and wreak climate change.
Indeed, many of the targets to reduce or stabilise emissions will not be met, the report says. -- urban air pollution problems
are reaching “crisis dimensions” in the developing world’s mega-cities, inflicting damage to the health of their inhabitants. -- the seas are
being “grossly over-exploited” and even with strenuous efforts will take a long time to recover.
Too many alt causes to solve
Pynn 07 – Journalist for the Vancouver Sun [Larry Pynn. “Global warming not biggest threat: expert.” The
Vancouver Sun. January 27, 2007. http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=6e2988da-31ab4697-810d-7a008306d571]
The biggest immediate threat to the vast majority of endangered species in Canada is not global warming, but issues such
as habitat loss, pollution and overexploitation. "We all worry about climate change, as we should, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't
worry about protecting habitat," says James Grant, a biology professor at Concordia University in Montreal and co-author of a new report on
threats to endangered species in Canada. "The really immediate causes right now for many species are things like farming,
urbanization and habitat loss caused by the direct things we do." Research by Grant and his pupils shows the biggest threat
is habitat loss at 84 percent, overexploitation 32 percent, native species interactions 31 percent, natural causes 27
percent, pollution 26 percent, and introduced species 22 percent. On average, species are threatened by at least two of the six
categories. Human activities representing the biggest source of habitat loss and pollution are not industrial resource extraction, but agriculture
at 46 per cent and urbanization at 44 per cent. "Farming is huge," Grant said in an interview. "The Prairies are one of the most affected habitats
in the world. We've turned them into wheat fields."The southern Okanagan-Similkameen is another example, home to about one-third of
species at risk in B.C. as well as a thriving agricultural industry, including vineyards, and increased urban development.
Politics Links
1NC – Politics Link
Causes fights – anti-environmentalism
Farr 2013
Sam, Member of the House of Representatives (D-CA) Chair of House Oceans Caucus, Review&Forecast
Collaboration Helps to Understand And Adapt to Ocean, Climate Changes http://seatechnology.com/pdf/st_0113.pdf
The past year in Washington, D.C., was rife with infighting between the two political parties. On issue after is- sue, the
opposing sides were unable to reach a compromise on meaningful legislation for the American people. This division was most
noticeable when dis- cussing the fate of our oceans. The widening chasm between the two political parties
resulted in divergent paths for ocean policy: one with Presi- dent Barack Obama pushing the National Ocean Policy forward,
and the other with U.S. House Republicans under- mining those efforts with opposing votes and funding cuts.
Marine, Environmental Policy Regression The 112th Congress was called the "most anti-environ- mental Congress in
history" in a report published by House Democrats and has been credited for undermining the ma- jor environmental legislation of the past 40
years. After the Tea Party landslide in the congressional elections of 2010, conservatives on Capitol Hill began to flex their
muscles to roll back environmental protections. Since taking power in January 2011, House Republicans held roughly 300 votes to
undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for decades. To put that in per- spective, that was almost one in every five votes
held in Congress during the past two years. These were votes to al- low additional oil and gas drilling in coastal waters, while simultaneously
limiting the environmental review process for offshore drilling sites. There were repeal attempts to un- dermine the Clean Water Act and to roll
back protections for threatened fish and other marine species. There were also attempts to block measures to address climate
changes, ig- noring the consequences of inaction, such as sea level rise and ocean acidification.
2NC – Obama PC Link
Costs political capital, requires Obama to push
Farr 2013
Sam, Member of the House of Representatives (D-CA) Chair of House Oceans Caucus, Review&Forecast
Collaboration Helps to Understand And Adapt to Ocean, Climate Changes http://seatechnology.com/pdf/st_0113.pdf
Bui while the tide of sound ocean policy was retreating in Congress, it was rising on the other end of Pennsylvania
Avenue. The National Ocean Policy Understanding the need for a federal policy to address the oceans after the
Deepwater Horizon disaster, President Obama used an executive order in 2010 to create the Na- tional Ocean
Policy. Modeled after the Oceans-21 legisla- tion I championed in Congress, this order meant that the U.S. would
have a comprehensive plan to guide our stew- ardship of the oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. Despite push back
from the House of Representatives, the president continued implementing his National Ocean Policy this past year
through existing law, prioritizing ocean stewardship and promoting interagency collaboration to ad- dress the
challenges facing our marine environment. For in- stance, the National Oceans Council created the www.data.
gov/ocean portal, which went live just before the start of 2012 and has grown throughout the year to provide
access to data and information about the oceans and coasts. The U.S. Geological Survey and other National Ocean
Council agencies have been working with federal and state partners to identify the data sets needed by ocean
users, such as fish- eries and living marine resources data, elevation and shore- line information, and ocean
observations.
2NC – NOAA Link
Congress hates increased funding for NOAA programs---the plan would be a fight
Andrew Jensen 12, Peninsula Clarion, Apr 27 2012, “Congress takes another ax to NOAA budget,”
http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2012-04-27/congress-takes-another-ax-to-noaa-budget
Frustrated senators from coastal states are wielding the power of the purse to rein in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and refocus the agency's priorities on its core missions.¶ During recent appropriations subcommittee hearings April 17, Sen. Lisa Murkowski ensured no
funds would be provided in fiscal year 2013 for coastal marine spatial planning, a key component of President Barack Obama's
National Ocean Policy.¶ Murkowski also pushed for an additional $3 million for regional fishery management councils and secured $15 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty that was in line to
be cut by NOAA's proposed budget (for $65 million total).¶ On April 24, the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved the Commerce Department budget with language inserted by Sen.
John Kerry, D-Mass., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, into NOAA's budget that would transfer $119 million currently unrestricted funds and require they be used for stock assessments,
surveys and monitoring, cooperative research and fisheries grants.¶ The $119 million is derived from Saltonstall-Kennedy funds, which are levies collected on seafood imports by the
Department of Agriculture. Thirty percent of the import levies are transferred to NOAA annually, and without Kerry's language there are no restrictions on how NOAA may use the funds.¶
In
a Congress defined by fierce partisanship, no federal agency has drawn as much fire from both parties as
NOAA and its Administrator Jane Lubchenco.¶ Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has repeatedly demanded accountability for NOAA Office of Law Enforcement abuses uncovered by the
Commerce Department Inspector General that included the use of fishermen's fines to purchase a luxury boat that was only used for joyriding around Puget Sound.¶ There is currently another
Inspector General investigation under way into the regional fishery management council rulemaking process that was requested last August by Massachusetts Reps. John Tierney and Barney
Frank, both Democrats.¶ In July 2010, both Frank and Tierney called for Lubchenco to step down, a remarkable statement for members of Obama's party to make about one of his top
appointments.¶ Frank introduced companion legislation to Kerry's in the House earlier this year, where it should sail through in a body that has repeatedly stripped out tens of millions in
budget requests for catch share programs. Catch share programs are Lubchenco's favored policy for fisheries management and have been widely panned after implementation in New England
in 2010 resulted in massive consolidation of the groundfish catch onto the largest fishing vessels.¶ Another New England crisis this year with Gulf of Maine cod also drove Kerry's action after a
two-year old stock assessment was revised sharply downward and threatened to close down the fishery. Unlike many fisheries in Alaska such as pollock, crab and halibut, there are not annual
stock assessment surveys around the country.¶ Without a new stock assessment for Gulf of Maine cod, the 2013 season will be in jeopardy.¶ "I applaud Senator Kerry for his leadership on this
issue and for making sure that this funding is used for its intended purpose - to help the fishing industry, not to cover NOAA's administrative overhead," Frank said in a statement. "We are at a
critical juncture at which we absolutely must provide more funding for cooperative fisheries science so we can base management policies on sound data, and we should make good use of the
world-class institutions in the Bay State which have special expertise in this area."¶ Alaska's Sen. Mark Begich and Murkowski, as well as Rep. Don Young have also denounced the National
Ocean Policy as particularly misguided, not only for diverting core funding in a time of tightening budgets but for creating a massive new bureaucracy that threatens to overlap existing
authorities for the regional fishery management councils and local governments.¶ The first 92 pages of the draft policy released Jan. 12 call for more than 50 actions, nine priorities, a new
National Ocean Council, nine Regional Planning Bodies tasked with creating Coastal Marine Spatial Plans, several interagency committees and taskforces, pilot projects, training in ecosystembased management for federal employees, new water quality standards and the incorporation of the policy into regulatory and permitting decisions.¶ Some of the action items call for the
involvement of as many as 27 federal agencies. Another requires high-quality marine waters to be identified and new or modified water quality and monitoring protocols to be established.¶
Young hosted a field hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee in Anchorage April 3 where he blasted the administration for refusing to explain exactly how it is paying for
implementing the National Ocean Policy.¶ "This National Ocean Policy is a bad idea," Young said. "It will create more uncertainty for businesses and will limit job growth. It will also compound
the potential for litigation by groups that oppose human activities. To make matters worse, the administration refuses to tell Congress how much money it will be diverting from other uses to
fund this new policy."¶ Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., sent a letter House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers asking that every appropriations
bill expressly prohibit any funds to be used for implementing the National Ocean Policy.¶ Another letter was sent April 12 to Rogers by more than 80 stakeholder groups from the Gulf of
Mexico to the Bering Sea echoing the call to ban all federal funds for use in the policy implementation.¶ "The risk of unintended economic and societal consequences remains high, due in part
to the unprecedented geographic scale under which the policy is to be established," the stakeholder letter states. "Concerns are further heightened because the policy has already been cited
Congress refused to fund some $27 million in
budget requests for NOAA in fiscal year 2012 to implement the National Ocean Policy, but the administration released its draft implementation policy in
as justification in a federal decision restricting access to certain areas for commercial activity."¶
January anyway.
Farms DA
1NC
Water pollution from runoff on US farms has avoided regulation so far but continued
exemption is not guaranteed
David C. Roberts 9, assistant professor in the Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at North
Dakota State University; Christopher D. Clark, associate professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics at
the University of Tennessee; and Burton C. English, William M. Park and Roland K. Roberts, professors in the
Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Tennessee, “Estimating Annualized Riparian Buffer Costs
for the Harpeth River Watershed,” Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol. (Winter 2009) 31 (4): 894-913, oxford journals
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA), largely unregulated nonpoint sources (NPS) of pollution have
contributed to an increasing share of the nation’s water quality problems (Copeland). While the amount of agricultural land in the United States has remained
relatively constant over the past thirty years, agricultural production has increased because of technological advances and increasingly fertilizer-intensive agricultural practices. These fertilizerintensive practices have been a major contributor to a threefold increase in the nitrate load in the Mississippi River entering the Gulf of Mexico (Greenhalgh and Sauer). When the states and
territories surveyed the nation’s rivers and streams, they found 39% of the segments surveyed impaired for one or more uses. Agriculture was listed as a contributor to 48% of these
impairments—more than twice as much as any other source (USEPA 2002).¶ Reducing environmental externalities associated with agriculture poses a number of difficult policy challenges. In
NPS runoff from agricultural lands has proven to be relatively resistant to regulation. For
the CWA imposes effluent limitations on point sources but not on NPS and explicitly exempts
“agricultural stormwater discharges” from the definition of point sources (Houck).1 The void created by the absence of federal
regulation has been filled with a variety of voluntary programs (Houck). More recently, it has been filled by the promotion of policies that would allow
the context of water quality,
example,
point sources subject to the CWA’s effluent limitations to satisfy some of these restrictions by leasing effluent reductions from NPS. This has come to be known as “water quality trading”
(USEPA 2003b, 1996). States, attracted by the possibility of reducing pollution abatement costs, have implemented a number of water quality trading (WQT) programs (Breetz et al.).¶
States have also stepped into the void by enacting statutes that address NPS pollution by requiring landowners to observe mandatory “setback” or “buffer”
requirements along waterways. These statutes tend to be limited in their application to specific activities or waterways, or both. For example, while the
Georgia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act prohibits land-disturbing activities within 7.6 meters (25 feet) of the banks of any state water, it exempts a fairly
extensive list of activities from the prohibition, including “agricultural practices, forestry land management practices, dairy operations, livestock and poultry management
practices, construction of farm buildings…” (Georgia Department of Natural Resources). North Carolina has adopted regulations designed to protect a 15.2-meter (50-feet) riparian buffer along
waterways in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico River Basins (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources). Virginia’s Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act provides for 30.4-meter
(100-feet) buffer areas along specifically designated “Resource Protection Areas,” but allows encroachments into buffer areas for agricultural and silvicultural activities under certain conditions
(Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Board).¶ Riparian buffer strips—areas of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation along surface water bodies—have also played a prominent role in federal and
state voluntary programs to reduce NPS pollution. For example, the Conservation Reserve Program has supported the use of buffer strips since 1988 (Prato and Shi) and funds made available
to states through the CWA’s Section 319 program are often used to subsidize buffer strip installation (Nakao and Sohngen). Buffer strips are proving an attractive policy option because of their
effectiveness in intercepting and removing nutrients, sediment, organic matter, and other pollutants before these pollutants enter surface water and because of the other environmental
benefits they provide, including improved terrestrial and aquatic habitat, flood control, stream bank stabilization, and esthetics (Qiu, Prato, and Boehm).¶
NPS pollution has
typically avoided the type of regulation imposed on point sources. However, its prominent role in the impairment of surface and ground water quality
The possibility that the costs of abating
pollution from NPS are lower than costs of abating pollution from point sources (Faeth) may also make NPS an
attractive target. In any event, buffer strips are proving to be a relatively popular means of controlling NPS discharges. Although agriculture has often
been excluded from regulation, there is no guarantee that the agricultural sector will continue to enjoy this
treatment. For example, North Carolina’s Department of Water Quality drafted, but did not adopt, regulations
that would have required all crop farms adjacent to streams to install buffer strips (Schwabe). In the absence of regulation of agricultural
means that water quality cannot be meaningfully improved without addressing agricultural NPS pollutant loadings.
NPS, it seems likely that alternatives to regulation will continue, if not increase. Many of these will promote the installation of buffer strips through subsidies of one form or another. For
example, the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which subsidizes conservation-oriented practices by landowners, has established a goal of installing 157,000 miles of riparian
buffers, filter strips, and wetlands in states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Bonham, Bosch, and Pease).
IOOS leads to new policies to prevent harmful algal blooms---results in stricter
regulation on non-point sources of nutrient pollution like agriculture
Dr. Donald Anderson 8, Senior Scientist in the Biology Department of the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution and Director of the U.S. National Office for Marine Biotoxins and Harmful Algal Blooms, Phd in Aquatic
Sciences from MIT, Written testimony presented to the House Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, July 10 2008,
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=8915&tid=282&cid=46007
These are but a few of the advances in understanding that have accrued from ECOHAB regional funding. Equally important are the discoveries that provide management tools to reduce the
Management options for dealing with the impacts of 8 HABs include reducing their incidence and
extent (prevention), stopping or containing blooms (control), and minimizing impacts (mitigation). Where possible, it is preferable to prevent HABs rather than to treat their symptoms.
Since increased pollution and nutrient loading may enhance the growth of some HAB species, these events may be
impacts of HABs on coastal resources.
prevented by reducing pollution inputs to coastal waters, particularly industrial, agricultural, and domestic effluents high
in plant nutrients. This is especially important in shallow, poorly flushed coastal waters that are most susceptible to nutrient-related algal problems. As mentioned
above, research on the links between certain HABs and nutrients has highlighted the importance of non-point sources of nutrients
(e.g., from agricultural activities, fossil-fuel combustion, and animal feeding operations). ¶ The most effective HAB management tools are
monitoring programs that involve sampling and testing of wild or cultured seafood products directly from the natural environment, as this allows unequivocal
tracking of toxins to their site of origin and targeted regulatory action. Numerous monitoring programs of this type have been established in U.S.
coastal waters, typically by state agencies. This monitoring has become quite expensive, however, due to the proliferation of toxins and potentially affected resources. States are faced with flat
or declining budgets and yet need to monitor for a growing list of HAB toxins and potentially affected fisheries resources. Technologies are thus urgently needed to facilitate the detection and
characterization of HAB cells and blooms.¶ One very useful technology that has been developed through recent HAB research relies on species- or strain-specific “probes” that can be used to
label only the HAB cells of interest so they can then be detected visually, electronically, or chemically. Progress has been rapid and probes of several different types are now available for many
of the harmful algae, along with techniques for their application in the rapid and accurate identification, enumeration, and isolation of individual species. One example of the direct application
of this technology in operational HAB monitoring is for the New York and New Jersey brown tide organism, Aureococcus anophagefferens. The causative organism is so small and non-descript
that it is virtually impossible to identify and count cells using traditional microscopic techniques. Antibody probes were developed that bind only to A. anophagefferens cells, and these are now
used routinely in monitoring programs run by state and local authorities, greatly improving counting time and accuracy.¶ These probes are being incorporated into a variety of different assay
systems, including some that can be mounted on buoys and left unattended while they robotically sample the water and test for HAB cells. Clustered with other instruments that measure the
physical, chemical, and optical characteristics of the water column, information can be collected and used to make “algal forecasts” of impending toxicity. These instruments are taking
advantage of advances in ocean optics, as well as the new molecular and analytical methodologies that allow the toxic cells or chemicals (such as HAB toxins) to be detected with great
A clear need has been identified for improved instrumentation for HAB cell and toxin detection, and additional resources
are needed in this regard. This can be accomplished during development of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) for U.S. coastal waters, and
through a targeted research program on HAB prevention, control, and mitigation (see below). These are needed if we are to achieve our vision of future
HAB monitoring and management programs – an integrated system that includes arrays of moored instruments as sentinels along the U.S. coastline, detecting HABs as
sensitivity and specificity.
they develop and radioing the information to resource managers. Just as in weather forecasting, this information can be assimilated into numerical models to improve forecast accuracy.
That wrecks farm productivity without reducing nutrient pollution
Carl Shaffer 14, President of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
REGARDING NUTRIENT TRADING AND WATER QUALITY, March 25 2014,
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2014-03-25-shaffer.pdf
Fifth, the underlying assumption that it is easy and inexpensive for farmers and nonpoint sources to reduce nutrient
loading is a myth. ¶ Concept of Water Quality Trading ¶ Farm Bureau policy supports the concept of water quality trading; implicit in that is the notion that participation by farmers
is voluntary and that the system reflects the realities of agriculture. Farm Bureau has a long history of supporting market-based approaches to improving the environment. We have also
encouraged states to include trading in their toolbox to help implement state water quality programs because trading and offsets can reduce costs associated with achieving environmental
improvements. ¶ Even with that history of support, however, farmers and ranchers remain skeptical of trading programs in general and those associated with water quality specifically, and for
good reason. Farmers grow things and understand that nutrient enrichment is a predictable outcome of all human activities – not just farming and ranching activities. Farmers understand that
agricultural activities – like those in virtually every other part of life, such as shopping malls, golf courses, residential areas to name just a few – can affect the amount of nutrients that reach
our waters. The fact is, each and every one of us plays a role in water quality; we all contribute to nutrient loading, either directly or indirectly, through the food we consume, the products we
EPA’s environmental strategies too often focus more on affixing blame for
problems or regulating some activity or person, rather than finding solutions that recognize and seek balance. EPA’s toolbox is both limited and dominated by an
purchase, and the way we live our lives. ¶ Unfortunately,
approach that focuses heavily on pollution prevention and reduction based on the concept of polluter pays. For conventional pollutants, this approach has resulted in costly controls and
there is an ongoing misperception that agriculture chronically over-applies
nutrients. Nutrients, however, are not conventional pollutants – they are a combination of pollutants from point sources and pollution from
nonpoint sources. The fact is, nutrients are critical for optimal productivity in agriculture even though farmers
and ranchers are striving for the best possible ecosystem function. Managing nutrients is extremely complicated
because there is not one practice, technology or approach that can optimize nutrient utilization throughout the
environment. Therefore, we need policy options that are balanced. We must develop solutions that optimize outcomes. We all want: 1) safe, affordable and abundant food, fiber and
restrictive permits on point sources. At the same time,
fuel; 2) vibrant and growing communities with jobs and expanding economic activity; and 3) fishable and swimmable waters. ¶ The challenges presented by trading and offset programs are the
regulatory offsets
complex interplay of economic scenarios that could play out over time when such programs are taken to their logical conclusions. For example, if
are required for
any new development or for expanding economic activity, one would expect a regulatory offsets process to trade low-value economic activity for high-value activity. In real life, however, such
a program would not be likely to require an old home to be torn down before a new home could be constructed. Likewise, the construction and operation of a new manufacturing facility and
result will
undoubtedly be a shift in development activities out of lower value areas, likely rural areas and farmland, into high value
urban areas. The downside of such an offsets program can be represented by simple math. For example, within an urban area, land suitable for building a factory could be valued at
the jobs inherent to that economic activity would not likely come at the expense of other high-value economic activity. But trading programs will allow “tradeoffs” and the
$100,000 or more per acre, while land in the same geographic area suitable to produce corn or soybeans could be valued at $10,000 per acre. In a market-based system, it would appear to be
only rational to extinguish the environmental externalities generated by the farmland to offset the externalities associated with the higher value economic activity of manufacturing. While this
The
long-run reality for farmers and ranchers would be that, over time, rural areas will have fewer and fewer means
to sustain themselves. ¶ Trading and Offsets are Creatures of State Statutes ¶ The Clean Water Act leaves the task of controlling water pollution largely to the states; it expressly
may be an extreme example, the reality is that the nation has never used water quality as a mechanism to cap or, in some cases like the Chesapeake Bay, reduce economic activity.
recognizes, preserves and protects “the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution [and] to plan the development and use … of land and water
resources.” Authorized federal involvement in state actions is carefully limited. Under no circumstances does the act authorize EPA to assume state responsibility to develop a planning process
or a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation plan. It is within these contexts that trading programs are often contemplated. As such, states may implement trading and offsets
programs established under state laws. In addition, states retain the flexibility to choose both if and how to use trading in the implementation of state water quality programs.¶ Nutrient
Standards May Not be Affordable or Attainable Without Trading ¶ Optimizing nitrogen and phosphorus utilizations through trading may hold potential, but there are significant scientific,
market and regulatory challenges. First, from a scientific standpoint, there is no direct relationship between agricultural nutrient management practices and nutrient loss. If the relationship
were direct, trading would be straightforward, transparent and enable orderly operations of markets. ¶ Second, under the Clean Water Act, states establish and EPA approves water quality
standards and criteria. States are currently feeling pressure from EPA to adopt default numeric nutrient standards and criteria based on the level of nutrients found in pristine waters. Such an
If EPA is successful, cities,
agriculture and other sources of nutrients will incur significant regulatory costs without any guarantee that water quality
improvements will match the required level of investment. Restrictive state standards that are not based on reference waters can be unachievable and require costly control
approach holds the prospect of establishing standards that force states to adopt costly control measures that, in the end, are not realistically attainable.
and management measures. ¶ EPA and States Are Imposing Barriers for Markets and Trading ¶ Achieving the environmental and economic goals of point source - nonpoint source (PS-NPS)
water quality trading depends on having understandable rules that clearly define what is being traded and the parameters of the exchange. Trading rules and procedures establish who can
trade, what is traded (credit definition), duration of a credit, baseline requirements (for calculating credits), accepted procedures for calculating credits, how the trade occurs, trading ratios,
verification, liability rules, and enforcement procedures. ¶ In theory, trading assumes market participants have full information about the cost and effectiveness of their nutrient reduction
options and can instantly and, at little-to-no-cost, obtain information on credit market prices and quantities. However, in the real world people are faced with limited time, resources, skills and
acquaintance with markets. Complex rules and inadequate institutional design can result in poor buyer or seller participation, coordination failures and lack of desired outcomes. (Shortle,
2013). ¶ In fact, ex-post assessments of PS-NPS water quality trading programs already in existence have generally been negative about their performance. Most have seen little or no trading
activity, with the expected role for nonpoint sources unrealized. A number of reasons have been presented including a lack of trading partners (due to limited regional scale or underlying
economics), inadequate regulatory incentives, uncertainty about trading rules and practice performance, excessively high PS-NPS trading ratios (increasing the cost of nonpoint credits), legal
and regulatory obstacles (including liability concerns), high transaction costs, and participant unfamiliarity and inexperience. ¶ Pennsylvania’s experience with water quality trading illustrates a
number of the challenges I have mentioned. For example, the rules underlying Pennsylvania’s nutrient credit trading program, created in large part in response to an EPA mandate to reduce
pollution in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, are the product of a multi-year stakeholder negotiation process that was codified in regulation in 2010. However, shortly thereafter, EPA
announced that it would undertake a review of the offset and trading program in each Chesapeake Bay jurisdiction. EPA’s assessment included questions about whether or not Pennsylvania’s
agricultural trading baseline met the requirements of TMDL—in spite of the fact that trades had already taken place under the program rules in place at the time. Further, the assessment
included EPA’s expectations that Pennsylvania would demonstrate that the existing baseline was sufficient to meet the TMDL, or otherwise make “necessary adjustments” to the baseline
acceptable to EPA. ¶ In response to EPA’s review, Pennsylvania has since proposed a number of possible changes to its trading program that have raised serious questions among existing and
potential credit generators and users about what the rules governing the market for credits will look like going forward. Specifically, many are concerned about what happens to non-point
source credit generators, primarily farmers, who have generated and sold credits under Pennsylvania's existing program, and who may have long-term commitments to provide credits for
years into the future. The uncertainty is not conducive to sustaining a successful, transparent, long-term water quality ¶ trading program. ¶ The Myths –
It’s Neither Easy Nor
Inexpensive ¶ It is often assumed that agriculture can supply credits less expensively than other nonpoint and point sources. Whether or not this is true depends heavily on the
trading rules and procedures described previously. Baseline requirements represent one trading rule that has an important impact on agriculture’s ability to be the low-price supplier of credits.
¶ Baseline requirements establish the level of stewardship farmers and ranchers perform on a parcel of land before they are eligible to participate in the trading program and actually produce
credits for sale. Any abatement necessary to meet the baseline cannot be sold as credits, but is instead credited to meeting the load allocation for agriculture. When baselines are more
stringent than current practices, a farmer would only be willing to create and sell credits if the expected credit price were high enough to cover the cost of meeting the baseline plus the cost of
any measures taken to produce additional abatement. This increases the cost of supplying credits, and ¶ reduces the amount of credits purchased by point sources.¶ Current research suggests
that concerns about baseline requirements are well founded. Stephenson et al. (2010) found that when the baseline is more stringent than current practices, agricultural credit costs for
nitrogen can surpass costs per pound (for marginal abatement) for point sources because the baseline has claimed the lowest-cost pollutant reductions. Ghosh et al. (2011) found that
Pennsylvania’s baseline requirements significantly increased the cost of entering a trading program, making it unlikely that nonpoint sources that could reduce nutrient losses for the lowest
unit costs would enter the market. Wisconsin has expressed concern that EPA’s approach to defining baselines could obstruct agricultural sources’ participation in trading programs and
possibly impede water quality improvements (Kramer, 2003). The impact of baseline requirements is a crucial matter and fundamental to the successful operation of any trading program,
though its impact is not unique. Any trading rule or requirement that is incorrectly developed can have similar effects: fewer nonpoint source credits purchased by point sources, and total
abatement costs for regulated sources higher than they could have been. ¶ As a regulatory agency, EPA appears to have difficulty appreciating the realities of how markets function. The
agency is not necessarily tasked with creating private markets and most people would probably agree that the agency has difficulty appreciating the realities of how real markets function. As a
result, environmental markets are suffering from a significant creditability crisis. This ultimately results in skeptical farmers and ranchers who then take a cautious approach to nutrient trading.
if it were easy and inexpensive for farmers and ranchers to reduce nutrient loadings,
they would have already figured out a way to capture the benefit associated with incremental nutrients lost
to the environment. Farmers today use some of the most advanced technology in the world to optimize their
productivity. From precision application using 4R nutrient stewardship to GPS technology, farmers and ranchers are committed to improving their
production efficiencies, a fact that allows them in turn to reduce their environmental footprint. 4R nutrient stewardship is an
¶ Regarding the cost of reducing nutrient loads,
effective concept that allows a farmer to use the right fertilizer source, at the right rate, at the right time and with the right placement to optimize nutrient utilization, while precision
agriculture is a farming system that uses technology to allow closer, more site-specific management of the factors affecting crop production. ¶ For example, in precision agriculture, utilizing
GPS and yield monitors, farmers can measure their output more precisely by matching yield data with the location in the field. Special computer-driven equipment can change the rate at
which fertilizers, seeds, plant health products and other inputs are used, based on the needs of the soil and crop in a particular portion of a field. ¶ Farmers have embraced precision
agriculture and the 4R philosophy because it is an innovative and science-based approach that enhances environmental protection, expands production, increases farmer profitability and
constituents want affordable and abundant food, fiber and fuel, and the members of Farm
Bureau want the chance to provide them. Farmers are concerned about the environment. As technology evolves so do farmers. We take advantage of technology,
improves sustainability. ¶ Conclusion ¶ Your
new practices and programs in order to not only provide safe, affordable and abundant food, fiber and fuel, but also to protect our land, water and air resources.
Extinction
Richard Lugar 2k, Chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee and Member/Former Chair of the
Senate Agriculture Committee “calls for a new green revolution to combat global warming and reduce world
instability,” http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to lose sight of the long-range
challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only
preventing starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go
to war over access to
resources, and that poverty and famine have often bred fanaticism and terrorism. Working to feed the world will
minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food
will increase well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to
improve their standard of living and caloric intake. Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing
world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West:
developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land
disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves.
The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe. ¶ Productivity revolution ¶ To meet
the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more
food on the land we have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical
for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output
that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a
threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of
course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we must invest much
more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean
a major shift in the way we conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world. The
United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a
decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.
AT Political Opposition
Their evidence overestimates the farm lobby’s clout---the farm bill proves it’s too
weak to influence policies
Ron Nixon 13, NY Times, July 3 2013, “Farm Bill Defeat Shows Agriculture’s Waning Power,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/us/politics/farm-bill-defeat-shows-agricultures-waning-power.html
WASHINGTON — The startling failure of the farm bill last month reflects the declining clout of the farm lobby and the oncepowerful committees that have jurisdiction over agriculture policy, economists and political scientists said this week.¶ Although a number of
factors contributed to the defeat of the bill — including Speaker John A. Boehner’s failure to rally enough Republican support and Democratic opposition to $20
the shift in the American population and
political power to more urban areas.¶ “There are a small number of Congressional districts where farming continues to carry much sway,” said
billion in cuts to the food stamps program — analysts said the 234 to 195 vote also illustrated
Vincent H. Smith, a professor of agricultural economics at Montana State University. “Especially
in the House, the farm lobby has been
substantially weakened.Ӧ For much of American history, the agriculture sectors wielded tremendous political
power. Farm groups were able to get key farm legislation passed by rallying millions of farmers in nearly every Congressional district. Influential farm state
legislators like Representative Jamie L. Whitten of Mississippi, a Democrat who was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee on agriculture,
brought billions in agriculture financing to their states and fought off attempts to cut subsidy programs despite pressure from both liberals and conservatives.¶ Mr.
Whitten died in 1995 after 53 years in Congress. ¶ But
as Americans have moved to the cities and suburbs, farmers and lawmakers
representing districts largely dependent on agriculture have seen their political muscle steadily decline. Just 2.2
million people now work in farming in the United States, or about 2.5 percent of the total work force. ¶ Farming now accounts for about 1 percent of gross national
product, down from a high of about 9 percent in 1950. Only 40
Smith in 2006. He said that number was probably smaller today.
lawmakers represent largely farming districts, according to research by Mr.
Political opposition is insufficient to stop environmental regulation---greenhouse gas
regulations prove
Jonathan H. Adler 13, Prof of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western
Reserve University School of Law, Oct 3 2013, “Conservatives and Environmental Regulation,”
http://www.volokh.com/2013/10/03/conservatives-environmental-regulation/
Anti-regulatory rhetoric may be pervasive, but federal environmental regulation has continued to
expand, under Democratic and Republican presidents alike. Anti-regulatory conservatives have been able to stem the tide of
regulatory initiatives, but only for a time. The failure to develop and advance non-regulatory alternatives to environmental problems has compromised efforts to
constrain the EPA’s regulatory authority. There are plenty of Americans who are suspicious of federal regulation, but they nonetheless prefer
federal environmental regulation to no environmental protection at all.¶ The failure of anti-regulatory conservatism is on display in the
current fight over federal regulation of greenhouse gases. House Republicans oppose such regulation (and for good reason), but
they have not put forward any alternatives (and many refuse to accept that climate change could be a problem). Nonetheless, federal regulation of GHGs
marches on. The EPA just proposed another set of rules last month. Blanket opposition to federal GHG regulation failed to prevent (or even
appreciably slow) such regulation, and time is running out. As GHG emission controls get imposed, and companies invest in the necessary control technologies,
the political support for constraining EPA authority over GHGs will decline. Utilities may not want to give up coal or install costly carbon capture technologies, but once they’ve made these
investments they will hardly want to see the regulations removed. If these rules are not stopped soon, it will be too late. This is a reason even those who refuse to accept the likelihood of
climate change should consider alternatives to command and control regulation. Shouting “No” is insufficient to ensure success.
AT Labor Shortages
Farm labor shortages are a myth that repeatedly fail to pan out
John Carney 12, CNBC, “More Data on The Phony Farm Labor Crisis,” 30 Aug 2012,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48847903
It’s become something of an annual tradition.¶ Every summer, newspapers around the country roll out stories of a labor
shortage on farms. The fruit is going to rot in the orchards, crops will go unpicked, agricultural communities will
be devastated unless something is done, the stories predict.¶ Here’s a pretty typical version of the story, as told by the San Francisco Chronicle:¶ But the American Farm Bureau
Federation and its California chapter believe there is plenty of reason to worry.¶ "There have been instances in which growers had to disc up whole crops because they didn't have the
workforce to harvest," said Kristi Boswell, the Farm Bureau's director of congressional relations. She points to Georgia, where whole tomato fields were plowed under last year. "The workforce
has been decreasing in the last two to three years, but last year it was drastic."¶ And farmers are saying this year is even worse.¶ In recent years, we’ve seen just how resilient this narrative
You’d think the idea of a labor shortage in the midst of on ongoing job drought would be laughed out of town .
But somehow the story keeps getting told and taken seriously. According to
the Farm Labor Shortage Mythologists, American citizens are just too lazy and would rather go jobless than work
on a farm.¶ Here’s how the Chronicle puts it:¶ Growers have tried to hire more domestic workers and had hoped that with unemployment rates so high, they'd find local labor.¶ "But
really is.
(Read more: When Are You Retiring?...How Does Never Sound?)¶
domestic workers don't stick around to finish the job," Boswell said. "It's labor-intensive and often involves hand-picking in grueling conditions."¶ Earlier this summer, as these stories started
up once again, I tried to introduce some sanity into the discussion by pointing out that
the dire farm labor shortage forecasts of 2011 had absolutely
flunked the test of reality. As it turned out, 2011 was one of the best years on record for American farms.¶ One of the criticisms
of my reading of the farm data was that the data about national farm income might have been concealing more local crises. Perhaps the national numbers had come in well despite the alleged
“farm crisis,” because fields of soy and corn in the Midwest had done well, while the apples of Washington, peanuts of Georgia, and California fruits and vegetables went unpicked.¶ Not quite.
State-by-state data released by the Department of Agriculture Wednesday has pretty much destroyed that critique.¶ Let’s start with California. The San
Francisco Chronicle had warned:¶ Farmers across California are experiencing the same problem: Seasonal workers who have been
coming for decades to help with the harvest, planting and pruning have dropped off in recent years. With immigration crackdowns, an aging Mexican population, drug wars at the
border and a weakened job market in the United States, the flow of migrants has stopped and may actually have reversed, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
So what happened?¶ Farm profits, what the Ag Department calls “net cash income,” in California
rose from $11.1 billion in 2010 to $16.1 in 2011, an eye-popping 45 percent growth.¶ In Washington, the apple harvest was going to be
devastated by a labor shortage. Farm profits instead rose from $1.98 billion to $3.14 billion, a 58 percent rise.¶ Georgia was going to have a
“rancid harvest” due to its farm labor shortage, according to The Georgia Report. I guess those peanuts picked themselves, because farm profits in the state rose
from $2.5 billion to $2.6 billion.¶ The mythological Arizona farm labor shortage was supposedly “ destroying” its farm sector.
Somehow or another, farm profits rose from $734 million to $1.3 billion.¶ Not every state saw profits boom. Farms in Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Louisiana,
public policy research firm that has been studying the trend.¶
New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island and South Carolina did less well in 2011 than 2010. Alabama’s farms saw net cash income fall off a cliff, from $1.2 billion to $773 million.¶ But
clearly this national epidemic of farm labor shortages just never happened.
Farmers can just raise wages to attract more workers
John Carney 13, CNBC, 5/24/13, “Famers Solve Labor Shortage by Raising Pay,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/24/famers-solve-labor-shortage-by-raising-pay.html
Farm owners have responded to fears of a labor shortage by actually raising wages by a little bit.¶ The Department of
Agriculture reports:¶ Farm operators paid their hired workers an average wage of $11.91 per hour during the April 2013
reference week, up 4 percent from a year earlier. Field workers received an average of $10.92 per hour, up 4 percent from a year
earlier. Livestock workers earned $11.46, up 51 cents. The field and livestock worker combined wage rate, at $11.10 per hour, was up 48 cents
from a year earlier. Hired laborers worked an average of 40.3 hours during the April 2013 reference week, compared
with 39.2 hours a year earlier.¶ Maybe someone should tell the Partnership for a New American Economy about this. It's just crazy
enough that it may work!¶ By the way, don't worry about this bankrupting the great American farmer. Farm
profits are expected to rise by more than 13 percent this year—to more than double what they were as recently as
2009.
AT Brazil Solves
Brazil doesn’t solve---lack of infrastructure
Alistair Stewart 13, South America Correspondent for DTN/The Progressive Farmer, 8/6/13, “Brazilian Farming's
Biggest Problem,”
http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/view/blog/getBlog.do;jsessionid=2F48BC2D3422FCE86B5624EA3DE
307B4.agfreejvm1?blogHandle=southamerica&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc3e43976e014055b03e641466
Everybody knows the biggest problems facing Brazilian agribusiness. It's logistics.¶ When the cost of transporting soybeans from the
fields in central Mato Grosso to a China-bound ship reach 40% of the commodity's value, you have a serious problem. ¶ Brazil more or less stopped
heavy infrastructure investment in the 1970s. So when grain production began to ramp in the center-west, in areas
thousands of miles from the sea, during the 1990s and 2000s, the roads, rail and port facilities eventually became overrun.¶ The
situation gradually deteriorated before descending into chaos over the last year.¶ The freight cost from Sorriso (center-north
Mato Grosso) to Paranagua port rose 50% this season, reaching $3.19 per bushel at the peak of the soybean harvest, while ships were waiting for up to 70 days to
load beans at Paranagua. With demurrage costs (basically ship rental) at $15,000 to $20,000, that wait can be very expensive. ¶ "While we don't resolve the logistics
questions, we are inviting other players to enter into the game," said Julio Toledo Piza, chief executive at BrasilAgro, a corporate farm, at an industry conference to
discuss logistics in Sao Paulo Monday.¶ Brazil
is the only major grain producer with substantial arable land available to exploit
and so is in a great position to feed a growing world population over the next thirty years, as long as it works out a
cheap way of delivering the grain, feed and meat. If not, alternative producers in South America, Africa and Asia will grow. ¶ "This is a
huge opportunity that we can't let slip through our grasp," said Jorge Karl, director of OCEPAR, the farm coops association in Parana state. ¶ Governors have
belatedly woken up to the logistical chaos that surrounds them and the federal government has recently given greater priority to infrastructure development.¶ As a
result, a series of plans to improve infrastructure have started moving forward and progress has been made on key grain corridors, such as the North-South railway,
which will eventually connect the new eastern Cerrado soybean fields to ports in the North.¶ "The situation is vastly improved ... We hope that in six to seven years
we can clear the logistics deficit," said Bernardo Figueiredo, head of EPL, the government's new infrastructure plan overseer.¶ But
while more attention
is now being paid to the infrastructural shortcomings, farmer leaders point out that chronic delays are still the norm.¶ For
example, farmers have been waiting for asphalt along the BR163 highway, which connects central Mato Grosso with northern Amazon ports, for a decade. Work has
progressed over the last two years, leading many to believe the Transport Ministry forecast that it will be ready in 2014. However, just this week the Ministry
admitted that the asphalt may only be completed in 2015, or after.¶ Similarly, an East-West railway that will connect the soy and cotton fields of western Bahia to
the sea is due to be complete in 2015, but work is yet to start on many stretches and, realistically, beans will flow along this route in 2018 at the earliest.¶ Many
other projects have been similarly delayed or suspended due to problems with implementation .¶ Faced with spiraling freight
costs, the patience of farm leaders has been wearing thin for a while. ¶ "We are told that things are improving but we can't wait. The inability of the government to
deliver projects on time is unacceptable," according to Carlos Favaro, president of the Brazilian Soybean and Corn Growers Association (APROSOJA-MT).¶ None of
the major new grain infrastructure projects will be ready for upcoming 2013-14 season, and with soybean area set to grow by 5% or more, the logistical
chaos
could deepen next year.¶ "We are going to have to muddle through next season," said Luis Carlos Correa Carvalho, president of the Brazilian Agribusiness
Association (ABAG).¶ "Realistically, the situation is only likely to improve in 2016-17," he added.¶ The high logistics costs will likely slow growth in
Brazilian grain production over the next couple of years, but there remains so much pent up demand for logistics in Brazil that any new export corridor
will be inundated as soon as it opens.¶ Speakers at the conference agreed that the fault for the current situation lies with government incompetence, as there are
ample funds to invest.¶ "Credit is everywhere. The money isn't the problem. The government has to allow it to be invested," said Ingo Ploger, president of the
Business Council of Latin America (CEAL).¶ So why is government so sluggish?¶ For years, the problem was a lack of political will. Simply, farm infrastructure was not
a vote winner.¶ More recently, the realization that Brazil needs farm revenues to underpin the foreign accounts led President Dilma Rousseff to prioritize
infrastructure.¶ However, after
30 years of neglect, the know-how and systems to implement big rail, road and port
projects just aren't there, explained EPL's Figueiredo.¶ "We suffer because plans drawn up are often of poor quality and environmental and other
authorities don't have expertise in assess them in a timely manner. That's a big reason why processes are delayed," he explained to the conference. ¶ Meanwhile,
corruption remains rife in Brazil's construction industry. As a result, suspicion of graft is widespread. That means
government auditors are quick to suspend projects when suspicions arise.¶ Until these problems are solved, Brazil will
continue to have production costs 10% above its competitors in the U.S. and Argentina, noted CEAL's Ploger.
US is the world’s key food producer
Brown 11 (The world is closer to a food crisis than most people realise Lester R. Brown guardian.co.uk, Tuesday
24 July 2012 07.21 EDT• Lester R. Brown is the president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of Full Planet,
Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, due to be published in October
The United States is the leading producer and exporter of corn, the world's feedgrain. At home, corn accounts for fourfifths of the US grain harvest. Internationally, the US corn crop exceeds China's rice and wheat harvests combined.
Among the big three grains – corn, wheat, and rice – corn is now the leader, with production well above that of wheat and nearly double that of
rice. The corn plant is as sensitive as it is productive . Thirsty and fast-growing, it is vulnerable to both extreme heat and drought.
At elevated temperatures, the corn plant, which is normally so productive, goes into thermal shock. As spring turned into summer, the
thermometer began to rise across the corn belt. In St Louis, Missouri, in the southern corn belt, the temperature in late June and early July
climbed to 100F or higher 10 days in a row. For the past several weeks, the corn belt has been blanketed with dehydrating heat. Weekly
drought maps published by the University of Nebraska show the drought-stricken area spreading across more and more of the country until, by
mid-July, it engulfed virtually the entire corn belt. Soil moisture readings in the corn belt are now among the lowest ever recorded. While
temperature, rainfall, and drought serve as indirect indicators of crop growing conditions, each week the US Department of Agriculture releases
a report on the actual state of the corn crop. This year the early reports were promising. On 21 May, 77% of the US corn crop was rated as good
to excellent. The following week the share of the crop in this category dropped to 72%. Over the next eight weeks, it dropped to 26%, one of
the lowest ratings on record. The other 74% is rated very poor to fair. And the crop is still deteriorating. Over a span of weeks, we have seen
how the more extreme weather events that come with climate change can affect food security. Since the beginning of June, corn prices have
increased by nearly one half, reaching an all-time high on 19 July. Although the world was hoping for a good US harvest to
replenish dangerously low grain stocks, this is no longer on the cards. World carryover stocks of grain will fall further at the end
of this crop year, making the food situation even more precarious. Food prices, already elevated, will follow the price of corn upward, quite
possibly to record highs. Not only is the current food situation deteriorating, but so is the global food system itself. We
saw early signs of the unraveling in 2008 following an abrupt doubling of world grain prices. As world food prices
climbed, exporting countries began restricting grain exports to keep their domestic food prices down. In response,
governments of importing countries panicked. Some of them turned to buying or leasing land in other countries on
which to produce food for themselves. Welcome to the new geopolitics of food scarcity. As food supplies tighten,
we are moving into a new food era, one in which it is every country for itself. The world is in serious trouble on
the food front. But there is little evidence that political leaders have yet grasped the magnitude of what is
happening. The progress in reducing hunger in recent decades has been reversed. Unless we move quickly to adopt new
population, energy, and water policies, the goal of eradicating hunger will remain just that. Time is running out. The world may be
much closer to an unmanageable food shortage – replete with soaring food prices, spreading food unrest, and
ultimately political instability– than most people realise.
Ext UQ
Nutrient runoff from farms is currently unregulated
Ken Kirk 12, Executive Director at the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, JD from Georgetown
University Law Center and Master’s in Environmental Law from GWU Law School, June 20 2012, “Is the Clean
Water Act Broken and Can We Fix It?” http://blog.nacwa.org/is-the-clean-water-act-broken-and-can-we-fix-it/
Much has been written and will continue to be written about the Clean Water Act this year as we celebrate the Act’s 40th
anniversary. I don’t think anyone would argue the fact that the Act has been great for our waterways or that we would be much worse off
without it.¶ But now we’ve entered a much more difficult and complex period in the history of the Clean Water Act. Federal money continues
to dry up. Costs continue to increase. And requirements have become more stringent. We also have many new challenges to deal with
including climate change, altered weather patterns, and population growth, to name just a few.¶ And we’re still struggling with how to
address wet weather and related runoff, particularly as this relates to nutrients—arguably one of our biggest clean water issues
right now. And yet, nonpoint sources remain unregulated. How has this been allowed to continue?¶ Let’s look back in time for
a minute. Before the Clean Water Act, discharge was largely unregulated . We know this was not a good thing. Then, during
the first 20 years of the Act, the focus was on wastewater treatment from domestic and industrial point sources
and the broad use of secondary treatment to accomplish the Act’s goals. I believe this was the right thing to do at the time.¶ Unfortunately,
this entire time, nonpoint sources— including agricultural operations—have completely avoided regulatory
responsibility for their share of the water pollution problem. If we continue to ignore this very major source of water quality
impairment, then it will come at great cost to all taxpayers.
Despite water regulations, agricultural runoff is not restricted
Neila Seaman 13, Director, Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, “IOWA LEADERS STILL NOT PROTECTING WATER
QUALITY,” http://iowa.sierraclub.org/CAFOs/IALeadersStillNotProtectingWaterQuality.htm
There are two sources of water pollution. Point sources are cities, towns and industries that treat their wastewater
before it’s piped into a receiving water resource. They are heavily regulated. Non-point sources are primarily
agricultural runoff from fertilizer and manure and there are basically no regulations on those sources. The
point sources and non-point sources pointing their fingers at each other as the problem has created a huge logjam that has
spanned decades. As a result, the point sources are now highly regulated and the non-point sources remain
unregulated.
Ext Food Insecurity -> War
Food shortages cause nuclear world war 3
FDI 12, Future Directions International, a Research institute providing strategic analysis of Australia’s global
interests; citing Lindsay Falvery, PhD in Agricultural Science and former Professor at the University of Melbourne’s
Institute of Land and Environment, “Food and Water Insecurity: International Conflict Triggers & Potential Conflict
Points,” http://www.futuredirections.org.au/workshop-papers/537-international-conflict-triggers-and-potentialconflict-points-resulting-from-food-and-water-insecurity.html
There is a growing appreciation that the conflicts in the next century will most likely be fought over a lack of
resources.¶ Yet, in a sense, this is not new. Researchers point to the French and Russian revolutions as conflicts induced by
a lack of food. More recently, Germany’s World War Two efforts are said to have been inspired, at least in part, by its
perceived need to gain access to more food. Yet the general sense among those that attended FDI’s recent workshops, was that the scale of
the problem in the future could be significantly greater as a result of population pressures, changing weather, urbanisation, migration,
loss of arable land and other farm inputs, and increased affluence in the developing world. ¶ In his book, Small Farmers Secure Food, Lindsay Falvey , a
participant in FDI’s March 2012 workshop on the issue of food and conflict, clearly expresses the problem and why countries across the globe are starting
to take note. .¶ He writes (p.36), “…if people are hungry, especially in cities, the state is not stable – riots, violence, breakdown of law and
order and migration result.”¶ “Hunger feeds anarchy.”¶ This view is also shared by Julian Cribb, who in his book, The Coming Famine, writes that if
“large regions of the world run short of food, land or water in the decades that lie ahead, then wholesale, bloody wars are
liable to follow.” ¶ He continues: “An increasingly credible scenario for World War 3 is not so much a confrontation of super powers
and their allies, as a festering, self-perpetuating chain of resource conflicts.” He also says: “The wars of the 21st Century are less likely to
be global conflicts with sharply defined sides and huge armies, than a scrappy mass of failed states, rebellions, civil strife, insurgencies, terrorism and genocides,
sparked by bloody competition over dwindling resources.Ӧ As another workshop participant put it, people do not go to war to kill; they go to war over resources,
either to protect or to gain the resources for themselves. ¶ Another observed that hunger results in passivity not conflict. Conflict is over resources, not because
study by the International Peace Research Institute indicates that where food security is an
issue, it is more likely to result in some form of conflict. Darfur, Rwanda, Eritrea and the Balkans experienced
such wars. Governments, especially in developed countries, are increasingly aware of this phenomenon.¶ The UK Ministry of Defence, the CIA,
the US Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Oslo Peace Research Institute, all identify famine as a potential
trigger for conflicts and possibly even nuclear war.
people are going hungry.¶ A
Ext IOOS Causes Regulation
Improved ocean observation would allow for regulation of agricultural runoff
Mark J. Kaiser 4, PhD, professor and director of the Research & Development Division at the Center for Energy
Studies at Louisiana State University, PhD and Allan G. Pulsipher, Professor of Energy Policy in the Center for
Energy Studies and Professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at Louisiana State University, PhD in
Economics from Tulane University, “The potential value of improved ocean observation systems in the Gulf of
Mexico,” Marine Policy 28 (2004) 469–489, Science Direct
Waterways draining into the GOM transport wastes from 75% of US farms and ranches, 80% of US cropland, hundreds of
cities, and thousands of industries located upstream of the GOM coastal zone. Urban and agricultural runoff contributes large quantities of
pesticides, nutrients, and fecal coliform bacteria. ¶ Activities that have contributed or are still contributing to the degradation of coastal water conditions
along the Gulf Coast include the petrochemical, industrial, agricultural, power plants, pulp and paper mills, fish processing, municipal wastewater treatment,
sources are difficult to regulate and currently have the greatest impact on the
pollutant sources include agriculture, forestry, urban runoff, marinas, recreational boating, and
atmospheric deposition.¶ One of the greatest concerns for GOM coastal water quality is an excess of nutrients which can lead
to noxious algal blooms, decreased seagrasses, fish kills, and oxygen-depletion events. Improved ocean observation systems is expected
to allow environmental activity in the region to be better understood and monitored.
maritime shipping, and dredging. Nonpoint
GOM coastal water quality. Nonpoint
Regulation is currently impossible because it’s hard to determine the cause of blooms--the plan allows for attribution that makes regulations possible
David Caron 7, Professor of Biological Sciences at USC, PhD in Biological Oceanography from MIT and Woods
Hole Oceanographic Inst., and Burt Jones, Adjunct Professor of Biological Sciences at USC, PhD in Biological
Oceanography from Duke, “Making Use of Ocean Observing Systems: Applications to Marine Protected Areas and
Water Quality,” Sept 25-26 2007, http://calost.org/pdf/resources/workshops/OceanObserving_Report.pdf
Recent summaries of available information have indicated that coastal ecosystems have witnessed a general increase in the occurrence and
severity of harmful and toxic algal blooms. The coastline of California is no exception, with powerful neurotoxins such as saxitoxin and domoic acid now commonly observed throughout the
state. Numerous factors have been implicated as possible contributors to these coastal algal blooms. Harmful blooms can result from natural, seasonal supply of nutrients to coastal waters during
upwelling and from anthropogenic inputs of nutrients in river discharges and land runoff.¶ Unfortunately, quantifying the contribution of
the many potential sources of nutrients that can support algal blooms is a daunting task because of the difficulty of maintaining
continuous observations in the ocean. Harmful algal blooms are ephemeral events that can develop quickly and dissipate before their causes can be
adequately characterized. Efforts by municipalities, counties and the state to provide responsible environmental stewardship of coastal waters are often thwarted by the
lack of sufficient observational capabilities to document water quality, let alone determine the cause(s) of adverse events such as harmful algal blooms.
Partnerships are desperately needed between ocean observing programs, research/academic institutions, coastal managers and monitoring programs (including both government and nonprofit) to grapple with the increasing
number of environmental influences on algal population growth and toxin production in coastal marine ecosystems. ¶
Ocean observing systems provide a tool for monitoring,
blooms
understanding and ultimately predicting harmful algal
. Sophisticated sensing instruments installed on piers, deployed from ocean buoys, or carried by mobile surface and underwater vehicles provide a ‘constant
presence’ in the ocean that assists scientists to detect impending or emerging events, and guide their sampling effort. Aquatic sensors can provide information on salinity (which can identify sources of freshwater input to the
coastal ocean), temperature (which yields information on the physical structure of the water column, a primary factor affecting algal growth in nature), chlorophyll fluorescence (which documents the biomass of algae in the water)
and dissolved oxygen (which indicates biological activity and ecosystem health). A variety of ever-improving nutrient sensors can quantify specific substances that may stimulate algal growth (e.g., ammonium, nitrate, phosphate).
observing
systems fill a fundamental gap in our ability to document harmful or toxic events, and aid our attempts to attribute these
events to specific environmental causes.
In addition, new sensors that can detect specific microorganisms and/or toxins produced by these species are under development and eventually will increase the capabilities of ocean observing systems. These
Ext Regulations Hurt Farms
Even a small link is enough---farms operate on thin margins that make the cost of
regulation devastating
Daniel R. Mandelker 89, Stamper Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis, June 1989, “Controlling
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution: Can It Be Done,” Chicago-Kent Law Review Vol. 65, Issue 2,
http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2776&context=cklawreview
Another obstacle to controlling nonpoint pollution is that the nonpoint source may be unable to internalize the
cost of the control or pass it on to consumers. 53 This problem particularly arises with controls on agricultural
nonpoint sources. These controls can be expensive in an industry marked by thin margins and low
profitability. Nor are farmers, as an unorganized production group, able to pass the costs of these controls on to
consumers. 54 In contrast, nonpoint source land use controls applied to urban development may not present this problem. Urban developers may be able to
pass the cost of these controls on to their consumers,55 and local governments can use density bonuses to offset the cost of controls necessary to reduce nonpoint
pollution.
Regulations would be ineffective and wreck the economic viability of farms
AFT 13, American Farmland Trust’s Center for Agriculture in the Environment, August 2013, “Controlling Nutrient
Runoff on Farms,” http://www.farmland.org/documents/FINAL-ControllingNutrientRunoffonFarms.pdf
Direct regulation of nutrient runoff from farms is highly unlikely in the United States (Williams 2002). The geographic dimensions make “federally
designed, nationally uniform technology based performance and emissions standards” difficult
to implement without a marked increase in budgeting
for individual farm permitting, monitoring and enforcement. Local
variations in weather, soil salinity, and soil erosion potential,
leaching potential, and freshwater availability present further challenges to an effective national regulatory regime.
Variations in crop type, production practices, livestock type and concentration, use of irrigation, tillage practices,
sediment runoff and fertilizer runoff all contribute to the difficulty of “one size fits all” regulation. Social factors like
proximity to metropolitan area, and surrounding land use also influence farm practices. EPA has noted that a program of this breadth would make
it very difficult to implement and enforce regulations. ¶ The economic dimensions of agriculture also pose barriers
to regulation. Agriculture in the United States has vast economic value, yet is dispersed widely across the country and
by landowner. Faced with the rising costs of inputs and equipment, the farm industry is quickly consolidating.
Increased environmental regulation of farms may reduce their economic viability due to compliance
costs. And the political dimensions, mentioned earlier, that make regulation of agriculture difficult include a consolidated voting block, strong lobbying and
political pressure.
The cost of complying would be prohibitive
John Leatherman 4, Associate Professor in the Dept of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State, PhD from the
University of Wisconsin, Craig Smith, Graduate Research Assistant in the Dept of Agricultural Economics at Kansas
State, and Jeffrey Peterson, Assistant Professor in the Dept of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State, Agu 19-20
2004, “An Introduction to Water Quality Trading,”
http://www.agmanager.info/events/risk_profit/2004/LeathermanPeterson.pdf
A significant share of the current water quality problems in Kansas stem from nonpoint source pollution, such as urban
storm water and agricultural runoff (KDHE, 2002). Applying the same “command and control” regulatory approach to
nonpoint source pollution would be problematic for a number of reasons. The widely distributed nature of nonpoint
source pollution would make regulation and compliance costs frighteningly prohibitive. It’s also likely there would be
significant public opposition to broad regulation of the many activities contributing nonpoint source pollution.
EU CP
1NC
Counterplan: The European Union should fully develop and implement an integrated
European Ocean Observation System.
Integrated European observation is key to broader data – tech is world class, just a
question of implementation.
EMD 2014
REPORT FROM THE JOINT EUROGOOS/EMODNET/EMB/JRC WORKSHOP AT THE EUROPEAN MARITIME DAY IN
BREMEN,The importance of an integrated end-to-end European Ocean Observing System: key message of EMD
2014 http://eurogoos.eu/2014/06/09/eoos-at-emd-bremen-2014/
Ocean observations are essential for marine science, operational services and systematic assessment of the marine
environmental status. All types of activities in the marine environment require reliable data and information on the
present and future conditions in which they operate. Many maritime economic sectors (e.g. oil and gas exploration, maritime
transport, fisheries and aquaculture, maritime renewable energy) directly benefit from easily accessible marine data and
information in several ways: improved planning of operations, risk minimization though increased safety, improved performance and overall
reduced cost. Other activities, such as deep sea mining and marine biotechnology, also benefit from specialized deep-sea observations that
were not feasible until recently. The complexity and high density of human activities in European seas and oceans result
in a high demand for marine knowledge in the form of data, products and services to support marine and maritime
activities in Europe, stressing the need for an integrated European approach to ocean observation and marine data
management (Navigating the Future IV, European Marine Board 2013). While Europe already has a relatively mature
ocean observing and data management infrastructure capability, this is largely fragmented and currently
not addressing the needs of multiple stakeholders. Mechanisms for coordinating existing and planned ocean
observations using a system approach are needed for more integrated, efficient and sustained observations under
the framework of a “European Ocean Observing System” (EOOS) following international practice (systems developed by USA, Australia
and Canada) and the call of the EurOCEAN 2010 Conference Declaration . The integration of different national and local marine
data systems into a coherent interconnected whole which provides free access to observations and data, as pursued
by the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) is of key importance for maritime sectors like fisheries, the
environment, transport, research, enterprise and industry. However, much work still needs to be done in close
collaboration with end-users, in particular industry, to further develop EMODnet into a fully functional, fit for purpose gateway to
European marine data and data products taking into account requirements of multiple users. There is a need for science-industry partnerships
to stimulate innovation and develop a successful EOOS that will further enhance the contribution of marine observations to economic activities
relevant for Blue Growth in Europe. Innovative technologies, developed in collaboration between research scientists and the industry,
have given several solutions during the past years for more robust, multi-parametric and systematic observations.
This, in turn, is leading to new and more reliable operational services that support a wide range of maritime
economic activities: fisheries and aquaculture, offshore oil and gas, marine renewable energy, maritime transport, tourism etc. Other
services address the sectors of marine safety, climate and weather applications, as well as marine environmental
assessment. At the end of the marine observations, data to knowledge cycle, activities and tools are needed to create added value products
for specific stakeholders, including the wider public, such as the European Atlas of the Seas which allows professionals, students and anyone
interested to explore Europe’s seas and coasts, their environment, related human activities and European policies. At the same time, it is critical
to evaluate whether we are monitoring/observing what we actually need. Regional assessments such as performed by the newly established
EMODnet sea-basin “checkpoints” could provide relevant information, among others to advise Member States about requirements for essential
and optimal observation capability.
Infrastructure for data sharing already exists
Paris and Schneider et al 2013
Jean-Daniel Paris, Nadine Schneider Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement/IPSL Data sharing
across the Atlantic: Gap analysis and development of a common understanding http://www.coopeus.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/Carbon-data-sharing-gaps-06-12-2013-D31.pdf
The global need to develop large, cross continental environmental datasets has been recognized*'. To address this
issue, COOPEU5 is a joint US National Science Foundation (*4SF) and European Commission FP7 (in the frame of
the European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures, ESFRI) supported project initiated in September 2012s.
Its main goal is creating a framework to develop interoperable e-infrastructures across several environmental and
geoscience observatories in Europe and US. The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON in the US,
www.neoninc.org) and the Integrated Carbon Observatory System (ICOS in the EU, http://www.icosinfrastructure.eu/) are two of these governmental supported observatories. Here, the data products from these
two observatories are centered around greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration, carbon and energy flux observations,
and the surface micrometeorology surrounding these measurements. The objective of COOPEUS is to coordinate
the integration plans for these carbon observations between Europe and the US. Even though both ICOS and NEON
have the ability to collaborate on effective issues, we fully recognize that this effort cannot be effectively
accomplished without the engagement of many other partners, such as; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's Global Monitoring Division (US NOAA GMD), the Group on Earth Observations (GEO,
www.earthobservations.org) and the Group of Earth Observations System of Systems (GEOSS), World
Meteorological Organization (WMO, www.wmo.int), the Belmont Forum (www.igfagcr.org), ^SF- supported
EarthCube (earthcube.ning.com)and DataOne (www.dataone.org) projects, and a wide variety of regional-pased
flux networks (i.e., AmeriFlux, Fluxnet). Of course as COOPEUS continues to advance, this list of partners are not
exclusive and are expected to increase. COOPEUS aims to strengthen and complement these partnerships through
a variety of governance mechanisms, some informal and others formalized (e.g. Memorandum of Understanding),
tailored to each individual organizational governance structure. Several of these organizations (mentioned above)
have a history of collaborating and sharing of data. In this historical context, we also have recognized what has
worked, exiting limitations, and what can be improved in terms of data sharing and interoperability. This COOPEUS
work task is building upon these relationships and working history to strengthen these approaches and
collaboration.
Yes Data Sharing
Europe will share data with the US – solves the aff
COOPEUS 2013
Project CoopEUS WP 4 – Ocean Observation Deliverable D4.1- Fact Finding Report http://www.coopeus.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/D4_1_Facts_Finding_10_03_FIN.pdf
Sharing scientific data can be the 'playing-field' for an easy and profitable commencement of the scientific
structured collaboration while complementing respective expertise. This approach also meet the recent trend of
EU and US funding agencies moving towards more openness and more sharing. The analysis and definition of the
basic principles and requirements for a shared data policy can be a first step for a long-term transatlantic
cooperation and can pave the ground for the data integration on a global scale diminishing significant
misalignment in the data issues. Besides, the adoption and implementation of common data standards can
facilitate the development of infrastructure and data infrastructures that will be largely interoperable. The
international ICT collaborative frame for the interoperability of scientific data and infrastructures has to be
leveraged to take advantages of the continuous progresses and specialized skills. Parallel initiatives and projects at
global and continental scale have to be exploited with the aim of supporting the on-going networking process of
the Ocean Scientists and ICT engineers and specialists European ODIP, EUDAT iCORDI GENESI-DEC, GEOwow GPOD, TATOO and worldwide Research Data Alliance, DAITF( http://www.daitf.ore/ ) to mention some. The present
development status of the research infrastructures for ocean observations 001 and EMSO enable, as they are now,
to outline data sharing practices and protocols across borders and disciplines although with some limitations.
Limiting factors for an easy and extensive data use out of the respective data production frame and user
community can be misalignment of vocabularies and ontology, metadata Incompleteness and heterogeneities, non
standardized QC/QA practices. These issues shall be the subjects of deepening discussion in CoopEUS to achieve
reciprocal understanding and smooth data interoperability and exchange.
EU Tech Good
European sensors are cutting edge and real time – no distinction between them and
the aff.
COOPEUS 2013
Project CoopEUS WP 4 – Ocean Observation Deliverable D4.1- Fact Finding Report http://www.coopeus.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2013/11/D4_1_Facts_Finding_10_03_FIN.pdf
EMSO will pioneer in delivering multidisciplinary real-time data from the sea by providing data from the ocean
surface through the water column to the benthos and sub-seafloor. It will be facilitated, in part, by advancements
made on Eulerian (fixed) observatory infrastructures during the ESONET Network of Excellence, EuroSITES programs and the
potential follow-on project Fixed- point Open Ocean Observatories (Fix03). And it will work alongside other key ESFRI
infrastructures such as Euro-Argo, SIOS and EPOS. The implementation and management of EMSO infrastructure
are based on an European transnational integration effort at EU Members State Governments level and on the
commitment of research institutions from thirteen countries. The long-term sustainability and the close interaction
with the reference European scientific community, coordinated through the ESONET- Vision upcoming association,
is ensured through the establishment of a European Consortium (ERIC). Science objectives guide observatory design and
dictate the ability to collect data without employing traditional means, such as research vessels. However, the latter are intended to
complement the EMSO network, which will be serviced by a combination of research vessels and ROVs operations provided by EU Member
States in a coordinated network established by EUROFLEETS. EMSO nodes include cabled and stand-alone observatories with moorings and
benthic instruments, while communicating in real time or in delayed mode, and being serviced through periodic maintenance cruises. Mobile
systems, such as ROVs and AUVs will improve the potential of some of the observatories by expanding their spatial extent. EMSO nodes are
conceived as an integration of local and regional seafloor and water column in situ infrastructures equipped for both generic and science
oriented approach (Ruhl et al., 2011). Generic sensor module While not all scientific questions can be addressed by each individual
infrastructure, specific set of variables measured at all EMSO sites and depths are considered, including temperature, conductivity (salinity),
pressure (depth), turbidity, dissolved oxygen, ocean currents, and passive acoustics. These generic sensors can be used to directly address a
wide range of geo-hazard warning and scientific applications related to understanding natural and anthropogenic variation and the possible
impacts of climate change. In the observatory setting, these data can then be relayed back to shore via seafloor cable (real-time) or satellite
telemetry (delayed time). The use of salinity and conductivity sensors spaced regularly along strings and additional ADCP coverage can capture
the themes related to ocean physics. These include understanding wind- driven and deep-ocean circulation, planetary waves, and interactions
between the Benthic Boundary Layer and the seabed.
Solves Environment
Europe solves ecosystem management – academic, government, industry partnerships
ESF 2014
European Science Foundation, Arctic 2050: Towards ecosystem-based management in a changing Arctic Ocean,
March 12 2014, http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/arctic-2050-towards-ecosystem-basedmanagement-in-a-changing-arctic-ocean-1011.html
About 150 scientists, policy makers and members of industry are gathering today at the 4th European Marine Board
Forum in Brussels to discuss how best to manage the consequences of a changing Arctic Ocean for human health and wellbeing. The European Marine Board has convened this flagship event in collaboration with the European Polar Board, working in association with
the European Science Foundation, in the knowledge that industry and science must work together to achieve sustainable
management of resources such as fishing and oil and gas exploration while at the same time, protecting and
conserving the Arctic environment. Dramatic changes, largely attributed to anthropogenic activity, have taken place in the Arctic in
recent decades. These changes include melting of glaciers and sea ice, altered oceanic current patterns, movement and accumulation of
contaminants and range shifts in many species. As a result of these changes the Arctic region is being transformed, with wide-ranging impacts
and opportunities including the potential for ice-free shipping routes in the future, increased activity in oil and gas exploration, changes to
Arctic fisheries and biodiversity, and impacts on residents’ livelihoods. “At present we are unprepared for the environmental and societal
implications of increased human access to the Arctic that will come with the receding ice” explains Professor Peter Haugan from the University
of Bergen and vice-Chair of the European Marine Board. “We have not fully anticipated the consequences of an increase in
activities like hydrocarbon exploration, mineral extraction, bioprospecting and pelagic and demersal fisheries ”. The
4th EMB Forum, recognized as an official ICARP III event, promotes the need for an ecosystem-based management approach
in the Arctic Ocean, in order to adapt to and manage rapid environmental change and commercial exploitation ,
supporting a key recommendation of the recently published Arctic Biodiversity Assessment.[1] Moderated by David Shukman, BBC Science
Editor, forum sessions include, ‘Living with a Changing Arctic Ocean’, ‘Utilizing and managing Arctic Ocean resources’ and a session on ‘Arctic
Ocean Observation’, building on the European Marine Board call in 2013 for urgent action to increase our observational capacity across the
entire Arctic Ocean (EMB, 2013).[2] Speakers will include industry representatives from Shell, the International Association of Oil and Gas
Producers and the International Maritime Organisation. The forum provides a platform to address ecosystem-based
management in the Arctic Ocean by stimulating dialogue across sectors to aid common understanding, collaborative
actions and sustainability targets. Later today the forum will culminate with an open panel discussion on the roles of industry and
science in achieving sustainable management of the Arctic Ocean.
Solves Acidification
Europe can develop acidification solutions – experimentation. Data is sufficient.
Riebesell 2009
Ulf, professor of marine biogeochemistry and Head, biological Oceanography, leibniz institute of marine sciences,
eXperimeNtAl ApprOAcHes iN OceAN AcidiFicAtiON reseArcHhttp://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/224_gattuso.pdf
Progress in our ability to make reliable predictions of the impacts of ocean acidification on marine biota critically
depends on our capability to conduct experiments that cover the relevant temporal and spatial scales. One of the
greatest challenges in this context will be scaling up biotic responses at the cellular and organismal level to the
ecosystem level and their parameterization in regional ecosystem and global biogeochemical models. EPOCA
employs a suite of experimental approaches to assess marine biota's ocean acidification sensitivities, ranging from
single species culture experiments to field surveys of the distribution of potentially sensitive caxa In relation to seawacer carbonate chemistry
(Figure BS). Each of these approaches has its distinct strengths and weaknesses. 3ottle and microcosm experiments allow for high replication of
multiple CO?/pH treatments jndei well-controlled experimental conditions, thereby yielding high statistical power. However, they typically lack
genetic and species diversity, competitive interac- tion, and the trophic complexity of natural systems, which complicates extrapolation of
results to the real world. Field observations, on the other hand, cover the full range of biological Interactions and environmental complexities,
but they generally provide only a snapshot In time, with little or no information on the history of the observed biota and environmental
conditions prior to sampling. The interpretation of fi eld data In terms of dose/response relationships Is often obscured by multiple
environmental factors simultaneously varying in time and space and by the lack of replication. Mesocosms, experimental enclosures
that are designed to approximate natural conditions and that allow manipulation of environmental factors, provide
a powerful tool to link small-scale single species laboratory experiments with observational and correla* tlve
approaches applied In field surveys. A mesocosm study has an advantage over standard laboratory tests In that It maintains a natural
community under close to natural self-sustaining conditions, taking Into account relevant aspects of natural systems such as indi- rect effects,
biological compensation and recovery, and ecosystem resilience. Replicate enclosed populations can be experimentally manipulated and the
same populations can be sampled repeatedly over time. Further advantages of flexible-wall. In situ enclosures are that a large
volume of water and most of its associated organisms can be captured with minimal disturbance. The mesocosm
approach is therefore often considered the experimental ecosystem closest to the real world , without losing the
advantage of reliable reference conditions and replication. To Improve understanding of the under- lying mechanisms of observed responses,
which are often difficult to infer from mesocosm results, and to facilitate scaling up mesocosm results, large-scale enclosure experiments
should be closely inte- grated with well-controlled laboratory experiments and modeling of ecosystem responses. Taking advantage of a
recently developed mobile, flexible wall mesocosm system. EPOCA will conduct a joint mesocosm CO, perturbation experiment
In the high Arctic, involving marine and atmospheric chemists, molecular and cell biologists, marine ecolo- gists.
and biogeochemists. A total of nine mesocosm units 2 m In diameter and lS-m deep, each containing approximately 45,000 liters of water,
will be deployed In Kongsfjord off Ny-Alesund on Svalbard. The carbonate chemistry of the enclosed water will Initially be manipulated to cover
a range of pCO_, levels from pre-lndustrlal to projected year 2100 values (and possibly beyond) and will be allowed to float freely during the
course of the experiment to mimic varia- tions naturally occurring due to biological activity. The high level of scientific Integration and crossdisciplinary collaboration of this study Is expected to generate a comprehensive data set that lends itself to analyses of community-level ocean
acidification sensitivities and ecosyscem/biogeochemical model parameterizations