Tradeoff DAs---BRAG Lab ---Wave 1
Notes
- If reading Politics, be careful with the interaction between the tradeoff args about
public popularity and the Politics link.
- A lot of the Space DA neg funding key evidence talks about all these proposed 2014
cuts to NASA’s budget – these didn’t actually end up happening so the DA still has UQ.
- Bolster the link about how the plan is expensive with lines from 1AC/2AC ev – they
are probably much more specific to the plan.
- The NOAA DA tradeoff arg isn’t that strong – frame it as the government only
funding the plan if they pull funding from Beaufort due to the current fiscal climate
Lali
Space Tradeoff DA
1NC Shell
1NC Space Tradeoff DA
Space spending high now but Obama is looking for excuses to cut it
Dreier 14 (Casey, The Planetary Society, 01.14.14, “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary
Exploration…Again¶ “, http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html,
Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
Pasadena, CA (January 14, 2014) - The FY2014 Omnibus spending bill, now before the U.S. Congress, once again rejects cuts
to NASA's Planetary Science Division that were sought by the White House. The Planetary Society commends Congress for this
action, and strongly encourages the White House to prioritize Planetary Science in its future budget requests commensurate with its strong
public and legislative support. The Society supports the passage of this bill for its additional Planetary Science funding as well as its overall
funding levels allocated for NASA.¶ Congress
plans to allocate $1.345 billion for NASA's Planetary Science
Division, $127 million more than requested by the White House. We strongly support the increase, but note that the
number is well below the program's historical average of $1.5 billion per year.¶ The additional funding ensures the steady
development of the next major mission to Mars in 2020, which will store samples of the red planet for eventual return to
Earth. It also provides $80 million for continued research into a flagship-class mission to explore Europa,
the enigmatic moon of Jupiter that was recently revealed to be spouting its liquid-water ocean into
space.¶ "Exploring Europa is no longer a 'should' but a 'must'," said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Societazy's Director of Advocacy,
"Congress made a smart decision to continue studying the Europa Clipper mission concept. There is bipartisan support and strong public
interest in exploring Europa, the mission is technically feasible, and it is high priority within the scientific community. The White House should
embrace this bold search for life and request a new start for this mission in FY2015."¶ The Society also supports the congressional
recommendation that NASA increase the pace of small planetary missions. We are particularly happy to see full congressional and White House
support for restarting the nation's Plutonium-238 production capability, which provides electrical power for many planetary science missions
that can't utilize solar panels.¶ The
White House has requested cuts to planetary science for two years in a row,
and for two years in a row Congress has rejected them. In light of this and the more than 50,000 messages sent to
Congress and President Obama in support of NASA's planetary science program last year, we urge the Office of Management and Budget to
recognize the unprecedented public and legislative support for solar system exploration, and propose $1.5 billion for this program in their
FY2015 budget request.
<<LINK>>
The public won’t let the government spend any more money on exploration –
investment in oceans has to come from the space budget
Nnamani 11 (Sally, International Development grad student at The New School, 10.31.11,
“Government Should Fund NOAA and Marine Research, Not NASA Space Research”,
http://mic.com/articles/2218/government-should-fund-noaa-and-marine-research-not-nasa-spaceresearch, Accessed 07.03.14)//LD
In the midst of the ongoing debt and budget crises, politicians and voters continue to engage in the
contentious debate regarding the faulty prioritization of U.S. government spending. Most Americans
remain concerned with the recklessness of large government spending in what they consider lesser priority
areas. Operating on a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, Congress awarded $18.7 billion to NASA, encouraging
the administration to reinvigorate its traditional role of innovation, technological development, and
scientific discovery. On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $4.5 billion,
$1 billion less than their requested amount.¶ ¶ This large discrepancy between the dollars allocated to these agencies is a clearcut example of the growing concern among Americans regarding profuse government spending . Given
that 95% of the underwater world remains unexplored and the space program has experienced little to no progress in recent years, should the
space program remain a priority?¶ ¶ The last half of the 20th century was marked by the ideological and technological warfare between the U.S.
and the Soviet bloc. The Cold War morphed itself in several arenas from proxy wars to political conflict to economic and technological
competition such as the Space Race. The Space Race is synonymous with the arms race, where one of the main frontiers where the Cold War
was waged. As a result, accomplishments and developments made in these areas not only enhanced American power, but were also received
with a strong sense of national pride. ¶ ¶ However, the backbone of the Information Age lies in developing innovative science and technology
that will enable us to explore new worlds and increase our understanding of the earth. Space exploration has contributed largely to this effort
as a result of relentless government support and a strong lobbyist backing. Lawmakers from Alabama, Maryland, and Utah, where NASA and
the corporations typically awarded its contracts operate, invest heavily in lobbyists and PACs to push their agendas forward in Washington. ¶ ¶
On the contrary, although oceans are exploited for economic activities such as mineral extraction, dumping, commercial transportation,
fisheries, and aquaculture, oceanic
exploration has lagged behind due to insufficient support from the U.S.
government. According to NOAA, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. GNP originates
in coastal areas, the ocean is key to transportation, recreation, and its resources may hold the cures to many diseases." Since its potential
contribution to human sustainability stands at equal footing with space research, government should apportion the necessary capital needed to
explore the deep-sea frontier. ¶ ¶ Moreover, since its establishment in 1957, NASA has always faced attack from social activists accusing the
agency of wasting resources that could be used here on earth. Given the daunting issues in the country today such as poverty, unemployment,
lack of access to health care, a broken education system, and many others, many
poured into space research could be used
believe that the large amount of money
to tackle these issues. Moreover, due to our limited understanding of oceanic
activities and processes, we continue to remain subject to the implications of natural disasters stemming from the ocean.
oceanic research
Investing in
may help discover preventive mechanisms against catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and oil spills.
Continuing NASA funding is key to new long-term projects like Mars colonization and
finding habitable planets
Siegel 14 (Ethan, astrophysicist, science communicator & NASA columnist, 06.05.14, “NASA’s Budget
‘Victory’ is Anything But¶ “, https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/nasas-budget-victory-is-anythingbut-2d6c4b28981, Accessed 07.05.14)//LD
There’s no doubt in terms of the technology developed, the education that’s arisen, the amount scientists
have learned, or the public benefits in terms of return-on-investment (not to mention job creation) that
these investments have all been a wild success by all metrics. Every time you use a GPS, make a cellphone call or send a
text, or even simply take the time to wonder about the Universe, you’re benefitting from the paltry investment we made in understanding and
exploring the Universe.¶ So stop it already with the small dreams of hanging on to the table scraps; dream of the main course. Dream of the big
missions and hopes that we can achieve right now, if we only invest the realistic and comparatively small amounts of capital necessary to make
it happen.¶ Dream of humans living on and studying Mars, something we could achieve with an investment of about $50
billion over 10 years. Could we do it with today’s technology? We could have done it with “modern” technology for that amount 20 years ago. If
we want it, we can do it; all we have to do is invest.¶ Are
you excited about the upcoming James Webb Space
Telescope? Yes, it’s expensive; it’s going to be an $8.7 billion project when all is said and done, but it’s
poised to teach us about the Universe nearly twice as far back, distance-wise, as Hubble can reach.¶ Are
you enthralled by the discoveries of planets around other stars, and what the Kepler mission has accomplished? Do you want to learn more
about the potentially habitable ones? About Earth-like (or smaller) planets in the habitable zones of stars?¶ Of course you are; our dreams of
what we can do on Earth are limited by the scope and scale of the planet, but the Universe? Now there’s something to dream about!¶ The thing
is, for
around $2-to-10 billion dollars apiece over the span of a few years, we could have any or all of the
following projects:¶ SAFIR, a far-infrared space telescope that would teach us about the Universe in
wavelengths we’ve never looked — about gas, dust, star-formation and distant galaxies — to approximately 100-1,000 times
greater precision than we’ve ever looked. This would be the next-generation successor to Spitzer.¶ IXO, or the
international X-ray observatory, the next-generation successor to Chandra. We could measure and
detect black holes to unprecedented accuracy, gain a better understanding of the supermassive ones
at the centers of galaxies, learn about regions of hot, colliding gas in galaxy clusters, study more
distant galaxies, AGNs, galactic outflows and more. This would be about 100 times more powerful than Chandra.¶ The
Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM PlanetQuest), both of which
would hunt for and take actual, direct images of Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones around
stars capable of supporting chemical-based life.¶ WFIRST, or the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, an infrared space
observatory that is the best-designed piece of equipment ever for studying dark energy, hitting on the three-pronged approach of measuring
baryon acoustic oscillations, measuring distant supernovae and weak gravitational lensing all to unprecedented accuracy. The plans for WFIRST
have grown out of first SNAP (the SuperNova Acceleration Probe) and then JDEM (the Joint Dark Energy Mission), projects that could have
flown every year for the past 13 years, if only the funding would materialize.¶ And LISA,
or the Laser Interferometer Space
Antenna, which would have accurately measured and directly detected gravitational waves for the
first time.
Space colonization is key to human survival, growth and wealth – we have to get off
the rock
Karoub 14 (Amabel, Michigan Daily Staff, 04.03.14, “NASA researcher explores idea of space
colonization”, http://www.michigandaily.com/news/nasa-researcher-talks-space-colonization, Accessed
07.06.14)//LD
Space: the final frontier? Well, that’s what Al Globus, a NASA researcher, thinks, anyway.¶ Globus is a strong advocate of
space colonization. At a lecture Thursday night hosted by Students for the Exploration and Development of Space, he told students why
living in space is the next step for humanity.¶ At the beginning of the lecture, Globus pulled up space residence designs
from the 1970s. The plans looked like they were taken directly from the science-fiction film “Elysium” – fully equipped with mansions and a
peaceful river. Globus said, technology wise, such proposals
are not ridiculous, but a matter of cost.¶ “This is the place to
live,” Globus said, referring to the renderings. “There’s a baseball field and a golf course!”¶ Globus gave three main reasons why space
settlement would be worth the high cost: survival, growth and wealth . In terms of survival, Globus said it is
only a matter of time until an asteroid or some other fatal event wipes out humans on Earth.¶
“Someday, something really bad is going to happen to the Earth and we’re all going to die,” Globus said.
“Before then, we’d like to have space settlements so that not all of humanity is exterminated.”¶ Discussing the
possibility for growth, Globus referenced how the land on Earth is virtually all owned by someone, but the area
available for orbital settlements is practically limitless.¶ “Somewhere between 100 and 1,000 times the
surface area of the Earth — that’s how much living area you’d get,” Globus said. “The solar system could easily
support trillions of people this way.Ӧ As for power and wealth, Globus said there were great possibilities to generate
energy and materials. In space, solar energy is equal to 625 million times the amount available on Earth.
Thousands of small asteroids in our solar system, contain materials worth tens of millions of dollars each,
Globus said.¶ Having articulated the reasons space colonization should be a priority, Globus proposed funding opportunities that
would also advance technology, tourism, solar power and planetary defense.
Uniqueness
2NC UQ Wall
Current NASA funding is high – Congress approved Orion and Europa missions
Baker 14 (David, PhD in Earth and Planetary Physics, 01.20.14, “NASA gets budget boost”,
http://www.bis-space.com/2014/01/20/12315/nasa-gets-budget-boost, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
In a suprise move, legislators have approved a budget for NASA higher than expected, approving a
spending plan for fiscal 2014 of $17.6 billion. This is only $100 million lower than the White House requested but $700
million more than the 2013 budget. That budget was subject to the severe sequestration which hit all US
government bodies last year.¶ Fiscal 2014 ends on 30 September but, since it began on 1 October 2013 NASA has been running on the ‘frozen’
2013 budget of $16.9 billion. Operating under the assumption that this year would, at best, be no better than last year, the surprise agreement
was reached in the House on 15 January and in the Senate on 16 January, being welcomed by President Obama.¶ The really good news for 2014
is that Congress has approved a record $696 million for commercial crew transportation services. This is less than the $821 million requested
and $171 million of that is being held pending a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Until that is completed, NASA will have to work under a
continuing spending limit of $525 million approved for fiscal 2013.¶ Congress
has also given its support for a ring-fenced
James Webb Space Telescope, projected to launch on an Ariane V in 2018, while endorsing the Space Launch
System rocket and the Orion spacecraft with full funding. Orion is expected to make its first flight into
space later this year on a Delta IV rocket, followed by the first SLS flight in 2017 and a projected
manned flight four years after that.¶ There is some concern, however, over NASA’s future deep-space programme, with
Congressional committees calling on the agency for clarity on specific missions being considered. The proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission in
which Orion would visit a small asteroid manoeuvred into a near-lunar location, lacks definition, says Congress. NASA has been asked to
conduct a mission concept analysis and not to go ahead until approved by appropriate Congressional committees.¶ Planetary
science
also fares well, getting over $1.3 billion for fiscal 2014, a 9% increase over the amount requested by the White
House, which had slashed planetary funding in a shock move last year. There is specific Congressional approval for a
new Discovery-class mission to be announced in May this year for selection in September 2015.¶ Congress has added funds for the
proposed Europa Clipper mission to the Jovian icy moon in 2021, increasing funds from $70 million in
2013 to $80 million this year.
NASA budget high now – recovered funding lost in the sequester
Nelson Newsroom 14 (Bill Nelson, Senator for Florida, 01.14.14, “Congressional budget deal a “win”
for NASA”,http://www.billnelson.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/congressional-budget-deal-awin-for-nasa¶ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Included in the massive budget bill unveiled last night by congressional leaders
from both sides of the political aisle is enough money for NASA to continue its deep space exploration
program and other priorities, according to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).¶ ¶ Nelson, who chairs the Senate
subcommittee that oversees the nation’s space program, is one of the leading architects of a plan to
build a new monster rocket and crew capsule for deep space exploration. The $1.1 trillion budget
includes $4.1 billion for exploration, or, as Nelson said Tuesday, enough to keep the new space launch
system on track. ¶ ¶ " This is a big win ," the lawmaker added. ¶ ¶ Overall, the space agency would get
$17.65 billion, which is significantly higher than the roughly $16.2 billion NASA would have received
had the so-called sequester or across-the-board budget cuts remained in effect.¶ ¶ In addition to funding
the space launch system, there's also nearly $700 million for the continued development of
commercial space ventures.
Funding is high now – any cuts would devastate NASA’s long-term missions
King 14 (Ledyard, USA Today Staff, 01.14.14, “Budget deal would preserve NASA's big missions”,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/spending-bill-would-preserve-major-nasamissions/4480537/, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
WASHINGTON — The nation's space program would fare reasonably well under a fiscal 2014 spending
bill expected to pass Congress later this week.¶ The $1.012 trillion package includes $17.65 billion for
NASA, only slightly below what President Obama had requested. It includes funding for the agency's
major space and science initiatives, including a crewed mission to Mars by the 2030s.¶ The fiscal year
began Oct. 1 and runs through Sept. 30.¶ "This is a big win," said Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who
chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee that handles space policy.¶
NASA officials had worried about the effect that prolonged sequestration spending cuts would have
on science and exploration. They warned lawmakers that another year of the automatic cuts would be
bad news for an agency that budgets for the long term and needs consistent funding sources for its
multi-year missions.¶ In fiscal 2013, NASA received nearly $16.9 billion. The House Appropriations
Committee had approved a NASA budget of $16.6 billion for fiscal 2014 while the Senate Appropriations
Committee called for $18 billion. Obama had asked for $17.7 billion.¶ STORY: Another year of
sequestration would delay NASA missions¶ STORY: White House extends space station support for 4
years¶ The spending bill would give NASA:¶ — $3.1 billion for the Mars mission, including $1.2 billion for
the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle that will carry astronauts to Mars and $1.9 billion for the Space
Launch System that will build and guide the rocket that will propel them to the Red Planet.¶ — $696
million for commercial space activities, mainly to further development of private spacecraft to carry
astronauts to the International Space Station. NASA has set 2017 as a target date for the first crewed
mission. Until then, American taxpayers must pay more than $70 million each time Russia gives an
astronaut a ride to the orbiting lab.¶ — $5.2 billion for science missions, including $80 million for a
mission to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.¶ — $566 million for aeronautics, including "cuttingedge research into cleaner and quieter airplanes," according to NASA.¶ The bill also would cap money for
the James Webb Space Telescope at $8 billion. The telescope, Hubbell's much-touted successor, has
been beset by cost overruns and schedule delays.¶ The bill also would continue to bar NASA from sharing
any sensitive information with China.¶ The bill keeps NASA's deep-space exploration program on track
and will continue to spur American innovation and keep the U.S. the world leader in space
exploration.
AT: Budget Cuts
House bill will restore money taken from NASA into the 2015 budget – Planetary
Society campaign has raised awareness
Plait 14 (Phil, Slate astronomer, 06.05.14, “The House Passes FY 2015 NASA Budget¶ “,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/05/nasa_budget_2015_house_bill_restores_cut
_funding.html, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
What’s good about the House budget is that it puts back in a lot of money the White House took out, for
reasons that are still somewhat mysterious, including devastating cuts to planetary exploration requested by
the president. This has been an ongoing battle, and I really wish the White House would stop screwing around trying to cut one
of NASA’s most successful and highly visible programs! Happily, a campaign run by the Planetary Society
has been very helpful in raising awareness in Congress over the need for planetary missions.¶ The bill specifically
outlays $100 million for the development of a mission to the icy moon Europa, which is simply fantastic. It’ll cost
a lot more than that in total, but that’s a darn good first step. Europa is a very, very desirable target for an outer
planets mission, since it has a vast ocean of liquid water under its icy surface. What treasures await beneath the
surface for us to discover?¶ Interestingly, the House budget restores funding for SOFIA, an infrared telescope
flown on an airplane, money that had been inexplicably taken away by the White House budget. The report on the bill is pretty clear
about this:¶ The Committee does not accept NASA’s request to terminate support for the Stratospheric
Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a project that is currently producing good science and has not been proposed for termination by
NASA’s internal or external scientific review boards. Instead, the recommendation provides $70,000,000 for SOFIA,
which should be sufficient to support the aircraft’s fixed costs (flight crews, required maintenance,
etc.) as well as a base level of scientific observations.¶ That’s pretty cool. Nice timing, too, since NASA is testing a
new instrument for SOFIA that will improve its ability to take spectra and investigate all manners of
celestial objects.¶ Speaking of infrared telescopes, I didn't see anything specific about Spitzer, which is in danger of being canceled.
Hopefully I'll be hearing more about that soon.¶ I'm happy to see an additional $15 million toward education and public
outreach in the budget, which also had been cut by the White House. That whole thing from the President was a
total mess, bordering on lunacy; instead of doing education through the various missions, as had been done for years, the White House wanted
to combine it all and outsource it to other groups. That would have been extremely harmful to NASA's E/PO effort, losing many years of wisdom
and experience gathered by many dozens of people. I'm glad money
has been restored to this.
Tradeoff
2NC Tradeoff Wall
Funding for ocean exploration would be taken from space programs – the current
fiscal climate demands zero-sum budgeting
Etzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶
Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 6574, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer2014.pdf)//LD
Every year, the federal budget process begins¶ with a White House-issued budget request,¶ which lays out
spending priorities for federal¶ programs. From this moment forward,¶ President Obama and his successors should¶ use this
opportunity to correct a longstanding¶ misalignment of federal research priorities:¶ excessive spending on space exploration and neglect¶
of ocean studies. The nation should begin transforming the¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)¶ into a greatly
reconstructed, independent, and effective federal¶ agency. In the present fiscal climate of zero-sum budgeting ,¶ the
additional funding necessary for this agency should¶ be taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration¶
(NASA).
Economic difficulty empirically forces us to make either/or decisions – this card is
specific to science investment
McClain 12 (Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center,
10.16.12, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt.2”, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-oceannasa-now-pt-2/, Accessed 07.03.14)//LD
We faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our
budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or situations : do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose
what appeared to be most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied
science because it was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was
easier to justify politically the expenditures involved.
No room for increasing science investment – bipartisan consensus has imploded
Broad 14 (William J, New York Times, 03.15.14, “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American
Science”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizingamerican-science.html?_r=0, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
In November 2012, the White House issued a thick and portentous update¶ on the health of the
nation's research complex. Produced by Mr. Obama's¶ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it
warned of American¶ declines, emphasized the rise of scientific rivals abroad and called for bold¶ policy
interventions.¶ "Without adequate support for such research," the experts wrote in their¶ cover letter,
"the United States risks losing its leadership in invention and¶ discovery."¶ The financial outlook had
fallen far and fast. Congress had long reached¶ across party lines to support government research, for
its economic and¶ military rewards and because the distribution of billions of dollars plays well¶ come
election time. After rising steadily for decades, federal science financing¶ hit a high point in 2009, in
the early days of the Obama administration, as¶ Congress, to stimulate the economy amid the global
financial crisis, allocated¶ about S40 billion for basic science.¶ That bipartisan consensus eroded with the
Republican takeover of the House¶ of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections and the budget
battles¶ that followed. Spending on basic research has fallen by roughly a quarter, to¶ S30 billion last
year, one of the sharpest declines ever .
The public supports ocean spending over space spending
Lilley 10 (Jonathan Charles, Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Studies, dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the University of Delaware, "Navigating a Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes
Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources", Summer 2010,
www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf, Accesed 07.07.14)//LD
Regarding action that could be taken to protect the marine environment, 85% thought the government
needs to do more, with 72% stating that funding for ocean exploration should take priority over
space exploration (17%). In terms of individual action that a person can take, 49% said they would be
almost certain to recycle used motor oil and 42% said they would be almost certain to pick up trash on
the beach. Much smaller percentages said they would be pay higher water bills to fund better sewage
treatment (20%); lobby their politicians to support positive ocean- related actions (18%); join an
environmental group (12%); or attend legislative meetings on ocean issues (10%). Regarding the
perceived effectiveness of such actions, 70% thought that recycling used motor oil would be very
effective in protecting the marine environment and 63% thought that picking up trash on the bead
would very effective.
AT: Private Investment Solves
Private investment can’t lead space exploration – too short-term and uncertain
Ha 14 (Anthony, Stanford, writer at TechCrunch, 03.08.14, “Neil deGrasse Tyson Says Private
Companies Won’t Take The Lead In Space Exploration”,http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/08/neildegrasse-tyson-sxsw/ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
Famed scientist and science popularizer Neil deGrasse Tyson talked about the importance of space exploration
today during his keynote at South by Southwest Interactive. Despite advances by private companies, particularly
SpaceX, he said they won’t be the ones making the biggest breakthroughs .¶ Tyson admitted that for him, the
appeal of space travel is the simple fact that it’s “a frontier.” However, there are more practical reasons to go into space. For
one thing, we need to be able to respond if we find out that an asteroid is headed for Earth.¶ “You know
the dinosuars would have if they could have,” Tyson said. He joked that failing to pursue a space program when we have
the scientific and technological capability would make us “the laughing stock” of other intelligent species: “They’d have human bones on display
in their museum. ‘Here they are, not building a spaceship.’”¶ He also suggested that space
travel is tied to other forms of
significant innovation like transportation, energy, and health — which he contrasted with people “who innovate
because you want to make a buck” and are trying to figure out “the next app.”¶ Tyson described space travel as “a long-term
investment”: “It’s an investment that private enterprise cannot lead.” He recalled the excitement around SpaceX’s delivery
of cargo the International Space Station, which sparked discussion about whether private companies would replace government as the main
engine behind space travel. Tyson’s response? “They brought
cargo to the space station! NASA’s been doing that for
30 years!”¶ The problem, he said, is that it’s hard to predict the risk and return on investment on “doing
anything big and expensive first.” He noted that the first Europeans to come to America were not the Dutch
East India Company, but Christopher Columbus and his crew, whose expedition was paid for by Spain. After the
initial exploration , there will be opportunities for private companies.
Internal Link
2NC Funding Key
Losing funding would sabotage NASA missions to deep space
Ghose 13 (Tia, LiveScience Staff, 04.11.13, “NASA Budget Cutbacks Would Cripple Planetary Science,
Critics Say“,http://www.space.com/20622-nasa-budget-planetary-science-2014.html, Accessed
07.04.14)//LD
Proposed cuts included in NASA's 2014 budget request would sabotage a mission to Europa, an icy moon of
Jupiter that could support life, scientists say.¶ The Obama administration released its 2014 budget proposal Wednesday (April 10).
While the budget would set aside $17.7 billion for NASA, it would cut the agency's previous $1.5 billion budget for the planetary science division
by $200 million, scientists said in a live webcast sponsored by the Planetary Society, an organization founded by scientist Carl Sagan to promote
solar-system exploration.¶ "We're a little disappointed that planetary science didn't get a little better shake," said Bill Nye, CEO of the society
and popularly known as television’s "Bill Nye the Science Guy." [NASA's 2014 Space Goals Explained in Pictures]¶ The new budget does not
follow the recommendations of the National Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey, a 410-page report that surveyed dozens of
planetary scientists to identify the top priorities for the field over the next decade, Nye said.¶ "This very-well-thought-out, strongly supported
list of suggestions has not really been embraced — or the better word would be 'ignored,'" Nye said.¶ Europa,
a mysterious moon
of Jupiter, has a churning ocean locked beneath its icy surface, making it one of the best potential
sources of extraterrestrial life in the solar system.¶ But the new budget doesn't include any money to
explore Europa's ice-covered ocean.¶ The budget does set aside funds to identify asteroids that could threaten Earth and to bring
back samples from an asteroid, said Bill Adkins, a consultant for the society.¶ The administration's budget also includes funding to send a rover,
much like the Curiosity rover, to Mars in 2020.¶ However, the
budget does not set aside funds to take rocks back from
the planet to study them on Earth, Adkins said.¶ "We want to bring back a piece of Mars," Adkins said. "Here
on Earth, we have physically much larger instruments — much higher-power instruments than we're
able to put on even our very best rovers."¶ The budgetary picture could get better, as Congress still has the option to amend
the 2014 budget request to include funding for Europa and other planetary priorities, Adkins noted.¶ But it could also get worse. The proposed
budget assumes that Congress and the president will end the sequester prior to the start of the 2014 budget cycle. If that doesn’t happen, more
cuts could be triggered, Adkins said.
AT: UQ o/w
Even a short-term cut to space funding would kill missions and break international
agreements
Harvey 12 (Ralph P, associate professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences, Case Western
Reserve University, 04.14.12, “Space exploration budget cuts would doom future missions: Ralph P.
Harvey,“ http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/04/space_exploration_budget_cuts.html,
Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
In general, our government gets this. We all know space exploration can't be cheap, but steady, modest support -in good economic times and bad -- has brought enormous positive returns. Continuing support for
planetary sciences has maintained our expertise and technological leadership. It has also allowed us to send rovers to
Mars to discover incredible evidence of that planet's past habitability; to capture cometary dust and bring it back to Earth; to witness water
geysers erupting on Saturn's moon Enceladus; and do dozens of other absolutely incredible things, all challenging and inspiring, that no other
nation has done. Almost as amazing is that these
incredible discoveries, so defining of our country's technological expertise, are
supported by a tiny fraction of the federal budget -- about four hundredths of one percent.¶ Unfortunately, this may
all change if we don't take action. The administration's proposed budget for the 2013 fiscal year -- now in front of Congress -- includes a
devastating 20 percent cut to planetary funding. A cut of that scale will eliminate several Mars missions, break
international agreements that jointly support other missions, eliminate any large-scale "flagship" missions for the
foreseeable future and force us to abandon any plans to explore the potential habitability of the
"water moons" Europa and Enceladus, circling Jupiter and Saturn.¶ Why is it so important to fix this? Can't planetary
exploration handle a little of the economic hardship the rest of us are dealing with? Answering this requires appreciation of two facts.¶ First is
that the proposed cut is hugely disproportionate. While other agencies are being asked to stay the course or slow their growth, planetary
exploration is having its guts cut out, with seemingly little regard for its extraordinary long-term value.¶ Second, for
planetary missions (like many things in life), timing is everything. Opportunities to economically launch
spacecraft to Mars, a relatively close planet, come by every two years. Opportunities to launch toward outer planets, where
spacecraft may need a little gravitational assist from other planets to get there, come along on decadal or even century time scales. Similarly,
you can't switch a Mars rover back on once you've turned it off and allowed it to go cold.¶ In a nutshell, turning
off funding now, even
if you mean to replace it in the next budget, is likely to kill rather than delay any typical planetary project.
It is the equivalent of axing a farmer's budget in planting season; even if you restore that funding mid-summer, the
harvest just isn't going to be there.
Impact
2NC Ext. Space Col Impact
Space colonization key to prevent tech stagnation, tyranny, war, and genocide – need
access to more resources to prevent conflict
Zubrin 11 (Robert, aerospace engineer, June 2011, “The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red
Planet and Why We Must”, Updated and Revised Edition, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
The tendency toward cultural homogenization on Earth can only¶ accelerate in the twenty-first century. Furthermore,
because of rapid¶ communication and transportation technologies shorting out inter-¶ cultural
barriers, it will become increasingly impossible to obtain the¶ degree of separation required to
develop new and different cultures on¶ Earth. If the Martian frontier is opened, however, this same process of¶ technological advance will
also enable us to establish a new, distinct,¶ and dynamic branch of human culture on Mars and eventually more¶ on
worlds beyond. The precious diversity of humanity can thus be pre-¶ served on a broader field, but only on a broader field. One world will¶ be just too small a
domain to allow the preservation and continued generation of the diversity needed not just to keep life interesting,
but to¶ assure the survival of the human race.¶ Without the opening of a new frontier on Mars, continued Western civilization
also faces the risk of technological stagnation. To some¶ this may appear to be an odd statement, as the present age is frequently¶ cited as one of
technological wonders. In fact, however, the rate of¶ progress within our society has been decreasing and at an alarming
rate.¶ To see this, it is only necessary to step back and compare the changes¶ that have occurred in the past thirty-five years with those that occurred¶ in the preceding thirty-five years
and the thirty-five years before that.¶ Between 1905 and 1940 the world was revolutionized: Cities were¶ electrified; washing machines and refrigerators appeared; telephones¶ and
broadcast radio became common; home stereos were born; talk-¶ ing motion pictures blossomed into a grand new art form; automobiles became practical; and aviation progressed from the
Wright Flyer¶ to the DC-3 and Hawker Hurricane. Between 1940 and 1975 the world¶ changed again, with the introduction of computers, television, antibiotics, nuclear power, Boeing 727s,
Compared to these changes, the
technological¶ innovations from 1975 to the present seem insignificant. Immense¶ changes should
have occurred during this period, but did not. Had¶ we been following the previous seventy years* technological trajectory,¶ we today would have flying cars, maglev
SR-71s, Atlas, Titan, and Saturn rockets, communication satellites, interplanetary spacecraft, and piloted¶ voyages to the Moon.
(magnetic levitation) trains,¶ robots, fusion reactors, hypersonic intercontinental travel, reliable and¶ inexpensive transportation to Earth orbit, undersea cities, open-sea¶ mariculture, and
today we see important technological developments, such as nuclear¶
power and biotechnology, being blocked or enmeshed in controversy—¶ we are slowing down.¶ Now,
consider a nascent Martian civilization: Its future will depend¶ critically upon the progress of science and
technology. Just as the inventions produced by the necessities of frontier America were a powerful¶ driving force on worldwide human progress in the nineteenth century, so the
"Martian ingenuity" born in a culture that puts the utmost¶ premium on intelligence, practical
education, and the determination¶ required to make real contributions will make much more than its
fair¶ share of the scientific and technological breakthroughs, which will dramatically advance the human condition in the twenty-first
century.¶ A prime example of the Martian frontier driving new technology¶ will undoubtedly be found in the arena of energy production. As on¶
Earth, an ample supply of energy will be crucial to the success of Mars¶ settlements. The Red Planet does have one major energy resource that¶ we currently know about: deuterium,
which can be used as the fuel¶ in nearly waste-free thermonuclear fusion reactors. Earth has large¶ amounts of deuterium
human settlements on the Moon and Mars. Instead,¶
too, but with all of the existing investments in¶ other, more polluting forms of energy production, the research that¶ would make possible practical fusion power reactors has been allowed¶
The Martian colonists are certain to be much more determined to get fusion online
to stagnate.
, and in doing so will
massively benefit the¶ mother planet as well.¶ The parallel between the Martian frontier and that of nineteenth-¶ century America as technology drivers is, if anything, vastly under-¶ stated.
America drove technological progress in the last century because¶ are increasingly being made by a plethora of regulatory agencies whose¶ officials do not even pretend to have been elected
by anyone.¶ Democracy in America and elsewhere in Western civilization needs¶ a shot in the arm. That boost can only come from the example of a¶ frontier people whose civilization
incorporates the ethos that breathed¶ the spirit into democracy in America in the first place. As Americans¶ showed Europe in the last century, so in the next the Martians can show¶ us the
There are greater threats that a humanist society faces in a closed¶ world than the return of
if the frontier remains closed,¶ we are certain to face them in the twenty-first century. These threats are¶ the spread of various
sorts of anti-human ideologies and the development of political institutions that incorporate the
notions that spring¶ from them as a basis of operation. At the top of the list of such destructive ideas that tend to spread naturally in a closed
society is the Mallhus¶ theory, which holds that since the world's resources are more or less¶ fixed, population
growth and living standards must be restricted or all¶ of us will descend into bottomless misery.¶
path away from oligarchy and stagnation.¶
oligarchy, and
Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt—all predictions made¶ upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the
development of¶ new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster¶ the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to .Vlalthus) as the worlds¶ population has increased, the
in a closed society Malthusianism has¶ the appearance of
self-evident truth, and herein lies the danger. It is not¶ enough to argue against Malthusianism in the abstract—such debates¶ are not settled in
academic journals. Unless people can see broad vistas¶ of unused resources in front of them, the belief in
standard of living has increased, and at an¶ accelerating rate. Nevertheless,
limited resources¶ tends to follow as a matter of course. And if the idea is accepted that¶ the worlds resources are fixed,
then each person is ultimately the¶ enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy
of¶ every other race or nation. The extreme result is tyranny war, and even¶ genocide . Only in a universe of
unlimited resources can all men be brothers.
2NC Laundry List Impact
Space research is key to life on Earth – better medicines, potable water, food security
Garan 14 (Ron, Astronaut, 03.05.14, “Why Spend Money on Space Exploration When We Have So
Many Problems Here on Earth?¶ “, http://unreasonable.is/opinion/why-spend-money-on-spaceexploration-when-we-have-so-many-problems-here-on-earth/, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
The ISS provides a unique environment for scientific discovery that simply cannot be duplicated
anywhere on Earth. Research on this orbiting laboratory is not only enabling humans to explore the
solar system, it is leading to countless improvements for life on Earth. For example, space based
science offers an environment to foster new materials, better medicines, improved methods to
provide clean water, and better ways to grow enough food to feed our increasing global population.
Studying astronauts living and working in space also enhances our understanding of the human body,
resulting in innovative ways to protect all humans from many different ailments. The list of benefits is
endless.
NASA missions have huge environmental and economic importance – climate change
and asteroid minerals
West 14 (Darrell, VP/Director of Governance Studies, Douglas Dillon Chair, Center for Technology
Innovation ad Brookings, 05.13.14, “How Space Exploration Propels Scientific Discovery, Tourism,
Mining, and the Economy”, http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/techtank/posts/2014/05/13-spaceexploration-west, Accessed 07.06.14)
Questions about the space program take on special importance during a period of budget scarcity and
uncertainty regarding future missions. For example, should exploration focus on Mars or asteroids that
have the potential to devastate Earth? There are both economic and environmental benefits of
exploration. Mars long has tantalized humans curious about its origins and wondering how a warm and
wet planet turned into a cold and desolate place. The lessons for Earthlings about climate change and
large-scale environmental catastrophe are quite clear. Paying attention to long-term climate trends is
very much in our self-interest.¶ At the same time, scientists understand that asteroids represent a
potential threat to life on Earth and that many of them are likely to contain valuable minerals. Several
companies financed by billionaires are touting the economic benefits of future space mining.
Recognizing both the opportunities and the risks, NASA has a mission planned that hopes to capture an
asteroid and place it in orbit around the Moon for extended study and analysis. If that mission turns
out well, it could represent a prototype for future economic enterprise. It may be that future
generations reap considerable economic benefits of space exploration.
2NC Structural Impact
Space technology has huge implications for the developing world – for example the
solar refrigerator can allow access to free cooling
Garan 14 (Ron, Astronaut, 03.05.14, “Why Spend Money on Space Exploration When We Have So
Many Problems Here on Earth?¶ “, http://unreasonable.is/opinion/why-spend-money-on-spaceexploration-when-we-have-so-many-problems-here-on-earth/, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
I like to point out that the space program technology transfer is two-way. Many NASA engineers give their expertise and spare
time to apply space program technology to problems facing the developing world. In doing so, they learn
valuable lessons that will allow us to push space exploration beyond low-earth orbit. The highly efficient engineering
approaches that are required in the developing world – robust solutions that do not require a lot of
maintenance, resupply or training – are the same approaches we need to employ if we are going to break out
of the bounds of low-earth orbit.2¶ Each year, NASA celebrates one invention out of many spinoff technologies as the NASA
Commercial Invention of the Year. A solar powered refrigerator designed to support life on the Moon, but with
huge application on Earth, earned the prestigious title for 2011. With approximately 2 billion of Earth’s inhabitants
lacking access to electricity, this technology developed at NASA’s Johnson Space Center will help us explore space as well as
significantly improve the lives of so many on Earth.¶ Co-developers, Mike Ewert and David Bergeron, worked on NASA’s
Advanced Thermal Team to develop solar refrigeration technology to cool habitats in space. They also realized the need for a
comparable solar refrigerator that could operate in conjunction with the simple solar lighting systems already in place on Earth. A modified
lunar “solar photovoltaic heat pump” was developed to produce a
refrigerator with a vapor compression, battery-free
cooling system that converts electricity from solar panels into thermal energy stored internally, using
low-cost phase-change materials that control temperature swings. This system eliminates reliance on an
electric grid, requires no batteries, stores thermal energy for efficient use when sunlight is absent, and
works anywhere in the world.¶ Such a scalable, energy-efficient resource can be an incredible asset in places
people don’t have refrigeration, including remote medical centers and underdeveloped areas. Electricity is
essential for storage of vaccines and medicine. This technology can greatly reduce the cost and increase the
availability of vaccines delivered to the most impoverished regions of the world.
2NC Turns Heg
Continued investment in NASA’s deep space missions are key to maintain US
leadership
Walker 14 (Charles, former engineer and astronaut, 04.27.14, “Congress must fund deep-space travel
for U.S.'s sake¶ “, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-27/news/os-ed-deep-space-exploration042714-20140425_1_deep-space-deep-space-missions-nasa-missions, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
With our economy stuck in a slow recovery, voters want leaders in Washington to create high-tech jobs, support
new technologies for American industry and help inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers and
innovators that will grow our economy for the future. It's a tall order, but I'm glad to see so many congressional
representatives from Florida are meeting this challenge, in part by supporting NASA missions to explore
deep space.¶ In a recent letter cosigned with 28 other members of the House, Reps. Frederica S. Wilson, Corrine Brown, Bill Posey and Alan
Grayson urged the White House to put a greater emphasis on efforts to send American astronauts to explore space beyond earth's orbit.¶
Deep-space missions would restore America's forward-leaning space leadership in a way not seen since the Apollo
program that landed us on the moon and generated thousands of technology spinoffs — like the integrated circuit. This is a great
challenge our country and our economy need. While developing countries like China are trying to catch
us in space with missions to earth orbit and the moon, we should continue our leadership by reaching past them
to Mars and beyond.¶ NASA is already building the systems we need. Contractors have started construction of the
most powerful rocket in history, the Space Launch System, which will be capable of sending nine school buses worth of cargo beyond Earth's
orbit. Later this year, NASA will test a prototype of the manned Orion space capsule that would ride atop the SLS. And NASA scientists
are working on the tough challenges posed by deep-space missions that could last years, like how to shield
astronauts from deep-space radiation and maintain efficient life support.¶ NASA's deep-space efforts complement the flurry of activity by
private companies to reach the International Space Station. As the first astronaut to fly with NASA on behalf of a commercial space company,
I've seen how a smart division between NASA and the private sector can drive costs down for profitable missions, leaving NASA with more
money to pursue greater space exploration.¶ As commercial space companies make it cheaper and more efficient to send astronauts to the ISS,
NASA should be allocating more funding to new technologies that will send astronauts into deep
space.
Space leadership key to preserve US hegemony
Stone 11 (Christopher, space policy analyst, 03.14.11, “American leadership in space: leadership
through capability¶ “,http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1797/1¶ , Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
First, let me start by saying that I agree with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that “American leadership is a phrase we hear bandied about a lot in political circles in the
United States, as well as in many space policy discussions.” I have been at many space forums in my career where I’ve heard the phrase used by speakers of various
backgrounds, political ideologies, and nation. Like Mr. Friedman states, “it has many different meanings, most derived from cultural or political biases, some of them
contradictory”. This is true: many nations, as well as organizations and individuals worldwide, have different preferences and views as to what American leadership
in space is, and/or what it should be. He also concludes that paragraph by stating that American
leadership in space could also be
viewed as “ synonymous with American… hegemony ”. I again will agree that some people within the United Stats and elsewhere
have this view toward American leadership. However, just because people believe certain viewpoints regarding American leadership does not mean that those
views are accurate assessments or definitions of what actions demonstrate US leadership in the space medium.¶ When it comes to space exploration and
development, including national security space and commercial, I would disagree somewhat with Mr. Friedman’s assertion that space is “often” overlooked in
“foreign relations and geopolitical strategies”. My contention is that while space is indeed overlooked in national grand geopolitical strategies by many in national
leadership, space
is used as a tool for foreign policy and relations more often than not. In fact, I will say that the US
space program has become less of an effort for the advancement of US space power and exploration, and is used more as a foreign policy
tool to “shape” the strategic environment to what President Obama referred to in his National Security Strategy as “The World We Seek”.
Using space to shape the strategic environment is not a bad thing in and of itself. What concerns me with this form of “shaping” is that we appear to have changed
the definition of American leadership as a nation away from the traditional sense of the word. Some seem to want to base our future national foundations in space
using the important international collaboration piece as the starting point. Traditional national leadership would start by advancing United States’ space power
The United States’
goal should be leadership through spacefaring capabilities, in all sectors. Achieving and maintaining
such leadership through capability will allow for increased space security and opportunities for all and
for America to lead the international space community by both technological and political example.¶
capabilities and strategies first, then proceed toward shaping the international environment through allied cooperation efforts.
As other nations pursue excellence in space, we should take our responsibilities seriously, both from a
national capability standpoint, and as country who desires expanded international engagement in space. ¶ The world has recognized America
as the leaders in space because it demonstrated technological advancement by the Apollo lunar landings, our
deep space exploration probes to the outer planets, and deploying national security space missions. We did not become the
recognized leaders in astronautics and space technology because we decided to fund billions into research programs with no
firm budgetary commitment or attainable goals. We did it because we made a national level decision to do each of them, stuck
with it, and achieved exceptional things in manned and unmanned spaceflight. We have allowed ourselves to drift
from this traditional strategic definition of leadership in space exploration, rapidly becoming participants in spaceflight rather than the leader of the global space
community. One example is shutting down the space shuttle program without a viable domestic spacecraft chosen and funded to commence operations upon
retirement of the fleet. We are paying millions to rely on Russia to ferry our astronauts to an International Space Station that US taxpayers paid the lion’s share of
the cost of construction. Why would we, as United States citizens and space advocates, settle for this? The current debate on commercial crew and cargo as the
stopgap between shuttle and whatever comes next could and hopefully will provide some new and exciting solutions to this particular issue. However, we need to
made a decision sooner rather than later.
Hegemony is good – solves great power war and multiple flashpoints of conflict – also
ensures multilateral cooperation – retrenchment collapses it all
Ikenberry et. al, 13 – John Ikenberry, Ph. D in Political Science from Chicago, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at the
Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, Co-Director of Princeton’s Center for International
Security Studies; William Wohlforth, Ph. D in Political Science from Yale, Webster Professor of Government at Dartmouth College; Stephen
Brooks, Ph. D in Political Science from Yale, Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs at Harvard University; “Don’t Come Home, America: The Case Against Retrenchment”,
http://live.belfercenter.org/files/IS3703_Brooks%20Wohlforth%20Ikenberry.pdf
Assessing the Security Benefits of Deep Engagement Even if deep engagement’s costs are far less than retrenchment advocates claim, they are not worth bearing unless they yield greater
benefits. We focus here on the strategy’s major security benefits; in the next section, we take up the wider payoffs of the United States’ security role for its interests in other realms, notably
A core premise of deep engagement is that it
prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security environment . For one thing, as noted above, the
United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to restrain partners from taking provocative
action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states with aspirations to regional
hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive
to adopt solutions to their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas.
The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of anarchy is consistent with
the global economy—an interaction relatively unexplored by international relations scholars.
influential variants of realist theory . Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge
absent the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts
dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition, arms races, nuclear proliferation
and associated preventive war temptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony
and full-scale great power war . 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two
capture most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S.
interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to
each of these responses is nonetheless a
weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first response flows from defensive realism as well as other
Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a certain answer is impossible,
international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high ex pected costs of
territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional
multipolarity peacefully without the American pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist theories point to—
There are three other major bodies of
scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise.
such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present.
Needless to say, there is no consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of intense great
power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing
The result might be a Europe that is incapable of securing itself from various threats that
could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for
global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation, and is vulnerable to
the influence of outside rising powers. What about the other parts of Eurasia where the United States has a substantial military presence? Regarding
the Middle East, the balance begins to swing toward pessimists concerned that states currently
military outlays. 74
backed by Washington— notably Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia —might take actions upon U.S.
retrenchment that would intensify security dilemmas . And concerning East Asia, pessimism regarding the
region’s prospects without the American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that
Japan and South Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military
commitments, which could stoke a destabilizing reaction from China. It is notable that during the Cold War,
both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained
from doing so by a still-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on the
bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of
state preferences. Defensive realism’s optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on its particular—and highly restrictive—
assumption about state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes.
Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that
security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection from violent external attacks on the homeland.
Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly
distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research across the social and other sciences,
however, undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for prestige, status, and
other aims, and they engage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define security not just in terms of
territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even states that are relatively secure may nevertheless
engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77
In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major countries will never
allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge
have predictive leverage, U.S. retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security
environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of scholarship.
Offensive realism predicts that the withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive regional
multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability, nuclear proliferation ,
and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great powers
to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including
regional great power war).
Hence it is unsurprising that retrenchment advocates are prone to focus on the second argument noted above: that avoiding wars and
security dilemmas in the world’s core regions is not a U.S. national interest. Few doubt that the United States could survive the return of insecurity and conflict among Eurasian powers, but at
what cost? Much of the work in this area has focused on the economic externalities of a renewed threat of insecurity and war, which we discuss below. Focusing on the pure security
overall higher levels of conflict
make the world a more dangerous place. Were Eurasia to return to higher levels of interstate military
competition, one would see overall higher levels of military spending and innovation and a higher
likelihood of competitive regional proxy wars and arming of client states—all of which would be
concerning, in part because it would promote a faster diffusion of military power away from the
United States. Greater regional insecurity could well feed proliferation cascades, as states such as
Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Saudi Arabia all might choose to create nuclear forces . 78 It is unlikely
that proliferation decisions by any of these actors would be the end of the game: they would likely generate pressure locally for more
ramifications, there are two main reasons why decisionmakers may be rationally reluctant to run the retrenchment experiment. First,
proliferation . Following Kenneth Waltz, many retrenchment advocates are proliferation optimists, assuming that
nuclear deterrence solves the security problem. 79 Usually carried out in dyadic terms, the debate over the stability of
proliferation changes as the numbers go up. Proliferation optimism rests on assumptions of
rationality and narrow security preferences . In social science, however, such assumptions are inevitably probabilistic. Optimists assume
that most states are led by rational leaders, most will overcome organizational problems and resist
the temptation to preempt before feared neighbors nuclearize, and most pursue only security and are
risk averse. Confidence in such probabilistic assumptions declines if the world were to move from nine
to twenty, thirty, or forty nuclear states. In addition, many of the other dangers noted by analysts who are
concerned about the destabilizing effects of nuclear proliferation—including the risk of accidents and
the prospects that some new nuclear powers will not have truly survivable forces—seem prone to go
up as the number of nuclear powers grows. 80 Moreover, the risk of “unforeseen crisis dynamics” that
could spin out of control is also higher as the number of nuclear powers increases . Finally, add to these
concerns the enhanced danger of nuclear leakage, and a world with overall higher levels of security
competition becomes yet more worrisome. The argument that maintaining Eurasian peace is not a U.S. interest faces a second problem. On widely
accepted realist assumptions, acknowledging that U.S. engagement preserves peace dramatically narrows the difference between retrenchment and deep engagement. For many supporters
of retrenchment, the optimal strategy for a power such as the United States, which has attained regional hegemony and is separated from other great powers by oceans, is offshore balancing:
stay over the horizon and “pass the buck” to local powers to do the dangerous work of counterbalancing any local rising power. The United States should commit to onshore balancing only
when local balancing is likely to fail and a great power appears to be a credible contender for regional hegemony, as in the cases of Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union in the midtwentieth
China’s rise puts the possibility of its attaining regional hegemony on the table, at least in the
medium to long term. As Mearsheimer notes, “The United States will have to play a key role in countering China, because its
Asian neighbors are not strong enough to do it by them selves.” 81 Therefore, unless China’s rise stalls, “the United States is likely to act
century. The problem is that
toward China similar to the way it behaved toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War.” 82 It follows that the United States should take no action that would compromise its capacity to
It will need to maintain key alliance relationships in Asia as well as the
formidably expensive military capacity to intervene there. The implication is to get out of Iraq and
Afghanistan, reduce the presence in Europe, and pivot to Asia— just what the United States is doing. 83
In sum, the argument that U.S. security commitments are unnecessary for peace is countered by a lot of
scholarship, including highly influential realist scholarship. In addition, the argument that Eurasian peace is unnecessary for U.S.
security is weakened by the potential for a large number of nasty security consequences as well as the
need to retain a latent onshore balancing capacity that dramatically reduces the savings retrenchment
might bring. Moreover, switching between offshore and onshore balancing could well be difficult. Bringing
together the thrust of many of the arguments discussed so far underlines the degree to which the case for retrenchment misses the underlying logic of the deep engagement strategy. By
supplying reassurance, deterrence, and active management, the United States lowers security
competition in the world’s key regions, thereby preventing the emergence of a hothouse atmosphere
move to onshore balancing in the future.
for growing new military capabilities . Alliance ties dissuade partners from ramping up and also
provide leverage to prevent military transfers to potential rivals . On top of all this, the United States’
formidable military machine may deter entry by potential rivals . Current great power military
expenditures as a percentage of GDP are at historical lows, and thus far other major powers have
shied away from seeking to match top-end U.S. military capabilities. In addition, they have so far been
careful to avoid attracting the “focused en mity” of the United States. 84 All of the world’s most modern
militaries are U.S. allies (America’s alliance system of more than sixty countries now accounts for some 80 percent of global military spending), and the gap
between the U.S. military capability and that of potential rivals is by many measures growing rather
than shrinking . 85 In the end, therefore, deep engagement reduces security competition and does so in a way
that slows the diffusion of power away from the United States . This in turn makes it easier to sustain the policy over the long term. THE
WIDER BENE FITS OF DEEP ENGAGEMENT The case against deep engagement overstates its costs and underestimates its security benefits. Perhaps its most important weakness, however, is
that its preoccupation with security issues diverts attention from some of deep engagement’s most important benefits: sustaining the global economy and fostering institutionalized
cooperation in ways advantageous to U.S. national interests. ECONOMIC BENE FITS Deep engagement is based on a premise central to realist scholarship from E.H. Carr to Robert Gilpin:
economic orders do not just emerge spontaneously; they are created and sustained by and for powerful states. 86 To be sure, the sheer size of its economy would guarantee the United States
the fact that it is the leading military power and
security provider also enables economic leadership . The security role figures in the creation,
maintenance, and expansion of the system. In part because other states—including all but one of the world’s
largest economies—were heavily dependent on U.S. security protection during the Cold War, the
United States was able not only to foster the economic order but also to prod other states to buy into
it and to support plans for its progressive expansion. 87 Today, as the discussion in the previous section underscores, the security
commitments of deep engagement support the global economic order by reducing the likelihood of
security dilemmas, arms racing, instability, regional conflicts and, in extremis, major power war. In so doing,
a significant role in the politics of the global economy whatever grand strategy it adopted. Yet
the strategy helps to maintain a stable and comparatively open world economy —a long-standing
U.S. national interest. In addition to ensuring the global economy against important sources of
insecurity, the extensive set of U.S. military commitments and deployments helps to protect the
“global economic commons.” One key way is by helping to keep sea-lanes and other shipping
corridors freely available for commerce. 88 A second key way is by helping to establish and protect
property/sovereignty rights in the oceans. Although it is not the only global actor relevant to protecting the global economic commons, the
United States has by far the most important role given its massive naval superiority and the
leadership role it plays in international economic institutions . If the United States were to pull back
from the world, protecting the global economic commons would likely be much harder to accomplish
for a number of reasons: cooperating with other nations on these matters would be less likely to
occur; maintaining the relevant institutional foundations for promoting this goal would be harder ;
and preserving access to bases throughout the world—which is needed to accomplish this mission—
would likely be curtailed to some degree.
2NC Econ Impact
Deep space missions are key to economic recovery – investment generates huge
returns
Walker 14 (Charles, former engineer and astronaut, 04.27.14, “Congress must fund deep-space travel
for U.S.'s sake¶ “, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-04-27/news/os-ed-deep-space-exploration042714-20140425_1_deep-space-deep-space-missions-nasa-missions, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
Exploring deep space will unlock incredible rewards for science and our economy. Designing and
building deep-space technologies will create thousands of jobs and generate lucrative commercial
spinoffs that drive our economy — like GPS and cellphone cameras, and medical technologies like inear thermometers — just like every prior phase of our space program from Apollo to the shuttle. In
2011 alone, NASA invested roughly $900 million in Florida, driving critical economic growth.¶ These
missions will also uncover new clues about the beginnings of the universe and how our solar system
evolved. The discoveries we make will, in turn, inspire the next generation of American scientists and
engineers so we continue to lead in space for decades to come.¶ Some argue that space exploration is a
luxury we can't afford. But if we want to continue America's global economic leadership, I'd say it's a
necessity, not a luxury. Investing in NASA generates enormous returns — upwards of $10 in lucrative
spinoffs for each dollar spent in research and development — at very little cost. The entire NASA
budget is less than half a penny out of each taxpayer dollar. And deep-space missions would not break
our budget. To put them in perspective, we spend as much to maintain empty government buildings
every two years as it would cost to build the SLS and Orion capsule needed to reach Mars.¶ Sending
American astronauts into deep space could become the defining technology challenge of this
generation. NASA is ready to meet that challenge — all it needs is unified support from Washington
and clear direction on specific goals. I stand with the representatives from Florida in calling on President
Obama and others in Congress to support NASA's human exploration into deep space by fully funding
the SLS, Orion space capsule and other critical deep-space technologies.
US economy is key to the global economy
IMF 13 (IMF, International Monetary Fund, September 19th 2013 “Strong U.S. Economy, Strong Global Economy—Two Sides of Same
Coin,” http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2013/new091913a.htm)
In a world of increasing economic interconnections, the United States’s stake in the global recovery is
greater than ever, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said in a speech to business leaders at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in
Washington, D.C. “What happens elsewhere in the world—be it the success of recovery in Europe or the continued smooth functioning of
supply chains in Asia—matters increasingly for the United States,” Lagarde said. “The converse is also true.
What happens here
matters increasingly for the global economy.” Her remarks, which focused on the interplay between the
global economy and the U.S. economy, also highlighted the need to find joint solutions to secure a
lasting, balanced and widely shared global recovery. “Job creation is a critical ingredient of any economic recovery,
domestic or global,” she emphasized. Businesses have a key role to play, Lagarde said, but at the same time, policymakers have an important
responsibility to help “shape the environment in which businesses and citizens can thrive—and jobs can be created.” Changing global picture
Lagarde said that global growth remains subdued, while acknowledging that the global economic environment is changing. She emphasized
that economies are moving at different speeds and that the fruits of growth are not evenly shared, both in the United States and other
countries. The U.S. economy is growing and, after a long time, so is the Euro Area. In Japan, aggressive policy support and the ongoing reform
process is helping to spur growth. The emerging market economies, on the other hand, are slowing. “For some, this may be a shift toward more
balanced and sustainable growth,” Lagarde told the audience. “For others, it reflects the need to address imbalances that have made them
more vulnerable to the recent market turbulence.” Reinforcing the point about global interconnections, Lagarde cited the IMF’s recent
“spillover” analysis, which suggests that if the world’s five major economies were to work together to adopt a more rigorous, comprehensive,
and compatible set of policies, it could boost global GDP by about 3 percent over the longer run. U.S. recovery gaining strength Lagarde noted
that the U.S. economy is gaining strength, calling this good news for America—and good news for the world economy. Although growth is still
modest—well under 2 percent—it should accelerate by a full percentage point next year, Lagarde said, adding that the private sector is playing
a key role as the engine of growth and job creation. Despite signs of strengthening, the latest jobs data present a mixed picture, with
employment remaining well below pre-crisis levels. “The issue of jobs remains paramount,” said Lagarde, noting that jobs and growth is an
increasingly important component of the IMF’s policy advice. Lagarde highlighted three key recommendations for U.S. policymakers, drawn
from the IMF’s most recent assessment of the U.S. economy. • Fix public finances. Fiscal consolidation could be slower in the short run, but
more action is needed to reduce long-run pressures on the budget. Lagarde also warned that political uncertainty over the budget and debt
ceiling were not helpful to the recovery. “It is essential to resolve this, and the earlier the better,” she said, “for confidence, for markets, and for
the real economy.” • Appropriately calibrate monetary policy. When the time comes, exit from unconventional monetary policy should be
gradual, tied to progress in economic recovery and unemployment, and should be clearly communicated and in a dialogue. • Complete financial
sector reform. While there has been progress on this front, attention needs to focus on the outstanding “danger zones,” such as derivatives and
shadow banking. Global interconnections and role of IMF Lagarde
underscored the unique role of the U.S. in the global
economy, noting that the economy accounts for 11 percent of global trade and 20 percent of global
manufacturing. The country’s global financial ties run deep too, she said. Foreign banks hold about
$5.5 trillion of U.S. assets, and U.S. banks hold $3 trillion of foreign assets. While these interconnections have
great benefits for the United States, they are not without risks, Lagarde cautioned, referring to the collapse of Lehman Brothers five years ago
that ushered in “a harsh new reality” across sectors, countries, and the world. That is why an effective IMF is important for the global
membership. “Our policy advice, for example—including in core areas like exchange rates or external imbalances—has helped to prevent or to
ease the hardship of crises around the world,” said Lagarde. “That, in turn, has helped reduce the possible negative fallout for the U.S. and for
all countries.” An effective IMF must also continue to evolve and anticipate what lies ahead. In this connection, the IMF
has placed
greater emphasis on global interconnections—the economic spillovers between countries and the financial sector. Lagarde
also highlighted the set of governance reforms that the IMF is working toward that will help strengthen its capacity to prevent and resolve
crises, and at the same time, help broaden its representation to better reflect the changing dynamics of the global economy. “These quota
reforms need the support of all our member countries—including the United States,” she said. The IMF is grounded in the principle of good
global citizenship. “If countries work together to serve the common interests, everybody wins,” she concluded. “We
all have a large
stake in these interconnections.”
Statistics show rapid economic recovery key to prevent war
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in
Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p.
213-214
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature
has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in
this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances
Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with
the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader
to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative
power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver,
1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment
for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows
that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests
that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future
expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding
economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from
trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for
difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use
force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations
either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between
economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to
spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic
decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which
has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government.
"Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting
governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around
the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of
force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally
more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak
economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically
linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an
increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external
conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not
featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
2NC Asia War Impact – Econ i/L
Economic collapse causes Asian war, escalates
Auslin 9 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 2/6/09,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/115jtnqw.asp?pg=2)
AS THEY DEAL WITH a
collapsing world economy, policymakers in Washington and around the globe must not
forget that when a depression strikes, war can follow . Nowhere is this truer than in Asia , the most
heavily armed region on earth and riven with ancient hatreds and territorial rivalries. Collapsing trade
flows can lead to political tension, nationalist outbursts, growing distrust, and ultimately, military
miscalculation . The result would be disaster on top of an already dire situation. No one should think that Asia is on the verge of conflict. But it is also
has helped keep the peace in this region for so long. Phenomenal growth rates in
Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, China and elsewhere since the 1960s have naturally turned national attention inward , to
important to remember what
development and stability. This has gradually led to increased political confidence, diplomatic initiatives, and in many nations the move toward more democratic
systems. America has directly benefited as well, and not merely from years of lower consumer prices, but also from the general conditions of peace in Asia. Yet
policymakers need to remember that even during these decades of growth, moments of economic shock, such as the 1973 Oil Crisis, led to instability and bursts of
terrorist activity in Japan, while the uneven pace of growth in China has led to tens of thousands of armed clashes in the poor interior of the country. Now imagine
such instability multiplied region-wide. The economic collapse Japan is facing, and China's potential slowdown, dwarfs any previous economic troubles, including the
1998 Asian Currency Crisis. Newly urbanized workers rioting for jobs or living wages, conflict over natural resources, further saber-rattling from North Korea, all can
take on lives of their own. This is the nightmare of governments in the region, and particularly of democracies from newer ones like Thailand and Mongolia to
established states like Japan and South Korea. How
will overburdened political leaders react to internal unrest? What
happens if Chinese shopkeepers in Indonesia are attacked, or a Japanese naval ship collides with a Korean fishing vessel? Quite simply, Asia's
political infrastructure may not be strong enough to resist the slide towards confrontation and
conflict. This would be a political and humanitarian disaster turning the clock back decades in Asia. It would almost certainly
drag America in at some point, as well. First of all, we have alliance responsibilities to Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines should
any of them come under armed attack. Failure on our part to live up to those responsibilities could mean the end of America's credibility in Asia. Secondly, peace in
Asia has been kept in good measure by the continued U.S. military presence since World War II. There have been terrible localized conflicts, of course, but nothing
approaching a systemic conflagration like the 1940s. Today, such a conflict would be far more bloody, and it
is unclear if the American
military, already stretched too thin by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, could contain the crisis. Nor is it
clear that the American people, worn out from war and economic distress, would be willing to shed even more blood
and treasure for lands across the ocean.
Econ collapse also draws Russia and China into Asian flashpoints, great power war
outweighs
South China Morning Post 9 (March 27, “Failure of G20 could raise the threat of war”, lexis)
The relationship between economic troubles and war is always close, if sometimes indefinable. Storm
clouds loom over northeast Asia as North Korea prepares to launch a Taepodong-2 missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as the
west coast of the US. North Korea already has an array of short- and mid-range missiles that can inundate all of South Korea and most of Japan. The tensions
may very well worsen, and the threats of war become harshly real , if the global leaders are unable to
deal effectively with economic crisis, or near-crisis. Just think of the desperation that might drive
leaders in such disparate, large powers as China, Russia and Japan, all of which have enormous stakes
and long, sinister histories on the Korean peninsula, to compete again militarily in the region.
2NC Russia Impact – Econ i/L
Economic decline causes US-Russian war
Ockham Research 8 (“Economic Distress and Geopolitical Risks”, November, http://seekingalpha.com/article/106562-economicdistress-and-geopolitical-risks)
Russia, whose economy, stock markets and financial system have literally imploded over the past few
months, could become increasingly problematic if faced with a protracted economic downturn. The
increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already showing signs of anger projection. Its
invasion of Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West reflect a desire to
stoke the pride and anger of its people against foreign powers—particularly the United States. It is no accident that
the Russians announced a willingness to deploy tactical missile systems to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama’s election in the U.S. This
was a clear “shot across the bow” of the new administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational
foreign policy going forward. Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia’s economy. The Russian budget reputedly
needs oil at $70 per barrel or higher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over
the past few months by ham-fisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system. Bristling
with nuclear
weapons and nursing an ego still badly bruised by the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of
superpower status, an impoverished and unstable Russia would be a dangerous thing to behold.
Outweighs everything, extinction
Wickersham 11 (Bill, University of Missouri adjunct professor of Peace Studies and a member of The Missouri University Nuclear
Disarmament Education Team, citing: Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, “Nuclear weapons still a threat”,
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2011/sep/27/nuclear-weapons-still-a-threat/, 9/27/11)
Nearly 20 years after the Cold War ended, humankind still faces
the distinct possibility of instant extinction without
representation. If nuclear war occurs between Russia and the United States, there will be no parliamentary or
Congressional debates nor declarations of war.¶ In a time of crisis or perceived attack, the Russian and U.S. presidents each
have only a few minutes to make a decision to order an attack against each other. The time frame for those decisions could be
as short as seven minutes , depending on the nature of the perceived attack and the efficiency of communications within the
respective early-warning chains of command. Launch-to-landing time for submarine-launched nuclear missiles can occur in as few as four
minutes. Launch-to-landing time for hundreds of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles is about 25 minutes. An
attack with just
two 1-megaton nuclear warheads would unleash explosive power equivalent to that caused by all the bombs
used during World War II.¶ For the duration of the Cold War, leaders of the United States and USSR were concerned about the
devastation both countries would experience if a nuclear war were triggered by a false alarm attributable to human or technological error. The
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York killed nearly 3,000 people, causing massive destruction, chaos and grief. In comparison, a
purposeful or accidental nuclear
strike between the United States and Russia would kill hundreds of millions in the short
term and many more over time caused by worldwide, wind-driven nuclear fallout. Thus, the threat of nuclear war is the most serious
potential health, environmental, agricultural, educational and moral problem facing humanity .¶ Steven
Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, said research makes clear the environmental consequences of a U.S.-Russian
nuclear war: “If
these weapons are detonated in the large cities of either of their nations, they will cause such
catastrophic damage to the global environment that the Earth will become virtually uninhabitable
most humans and many other complex forms of life.” (See www.nucleardarkness.org.)¶ It is important for Missourians to be aware that a
Russian nuclear attack on the United States would probably incinerate the Honeywell nuclear bomb parts factory in Kansas City, the Boeing
Defense, Space and Security plant near St. Louis, and Whiteman Air Force Base, home of U.S. B-2 bombers deployed at Knob Noster.
for
2NC Terror Impact – Econ i/L
Econ decline makes a major terrorist attack likely
Washington Post 8 (“Experts See Security Risks in Downturn”, November, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403864.html)
Intelligence officials are warning that the
deepening global financial crisis could weaken fragile governments in
the world's most dangerous areas and undermine the ability of the United States and its allies to
respond to a new wave of security threats. U.S. government officials and private analysts say the
economic turmoil has heightened the short-term risk of a terrorist attack, as radical groups probe for
weakening border protections and new gaps in defenses. A protracted financial crisis could threaten
the survival of friendly regimes from Pakistan to the Middle East while forcing Western nations to cut
spending on defense, intelligence and foreign aid, the sources said. The crisis could also accelerate the shift to a
more Asia-centric globe, as rising powers such as China gain more leverage over international financial institutions and greater influence in
world capitals. Some
of the more troubling and immediate scenarios analysts are weighing involve
nuclear-armed Pakistan, which already was being battered by inflation and unemployment before the
global financial tsunami hit. Since September, Pakistan has seen its national currency devalued and its hard-currency reserves nearly
wiped out. Analysts also worry about the impact of plummeting crude prices on oil-dependent nations
such as Yemen, which has a large population of unemployed youths and a history of support for
militant Islamic groups. The underlying problems and trends -- especially regional instability and the waning
influence of the West -- were already well established, but they are now "being accelerated by the
current global financial crisis," the nation's top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said in a
recent speech. McConnell is among several top U.S. intelligence officials warning that deep cuts in military and intelligence budgets could
undermine the country's ability to anticipate and defend against new threats. Annual spending for U.S. intelligence operations currently totals
$47.5 billion, a figure that does not include expensive satellites that fall under the Pentagon's budget. At a recent gathering of geospatial
intelligence officials and contractors in Nashville, the outlook for the coming fiscal cycles was uniformly grim: fewer dollars for buying and
maintaining sophisticated spy systems. "I worry where we'll be five or 10 years from now," Charles Allen, intelligence director for the
Department of Homeland Security, said in an interview. "I am deeply worried that we will not have the funding necessary to operate and build
the systems already approved." Intelligence officials say they have no hard evidence of a pending terrorist attack, and CIA Director Michael V.
Hayden said in a news conference Thursday that his agency has not detected increased al-Qaeda communications or other signs of an imminent
strike. But many
government and private terrorism experts say the financial crisis has given al-Qaeda an
opening, and judging from public statements and intercepted communications, senior al-Qaeda
leaders are elated by the West's economic troubles, which they regard as a vindication of their efforts
and a sign of the superpower's weakness. "Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm is constantly banging the drum saying that the U.S.
economy is on the precipice -- and it's the force of the jihadists that's going to push us over the edge," said Bruce Hoffman, a former scholar-inresidence at the CIA and now a professor at Georgetown University. Whether
terrorist leader Osama bin Laden is
technically capable of another Sept. 11-style attack is unclear, but U.S. officials say he has traditionally
picked times of transition to launch major strikes. The two major al-Qaeda-linked attacks on U.S. soil -- the World
Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the 2001 hijackings -- occurred in the early months of new administrations.
Global nuclear war
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New
Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington,“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic
Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, Available Online to Subscribing
Institutions via InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily represent the worst of the nuclear worlds
imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with
the global catastrophe that would come from a massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst
terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in the Cold War period. And it
must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful
nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear
exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially
an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate
a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this
context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising
the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear
proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a
massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought
into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved
how might
the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of
nuclear terrorism had come from Russian stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct
attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the
in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example,
observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable
and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear
material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or
suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors.
responsible at all)
Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France,
and probably Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and possibly Pakistan. But at
if the act of nuclear terrorism occurred
against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a time when
threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to assume the
worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or
China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should
a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict
with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of
what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular,
the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China.
For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its
it is just possible that Moscow
and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against
them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would
nuclear arsenal, on a higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality,
probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional
(or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these
targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty.
One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as
Chechnya, perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would
almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide. There is also the
question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist
attack on the United States, both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But
there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished
to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or
against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had some
connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously
modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the
responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was
especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear
use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect,
there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of
the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be informative
to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an
attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the
group and any of its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional
sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and
seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur?
In the charged atmosphere immediately
after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how
dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This might
not help the chances of nuclear restraint.
NOAA Tradeoff DA
1NC Shells
1NC NOAA Tradeoff
NOAA’s Beaufort lab is on the chopping block but will survive -- lobbyists
Martinez 14 (Rebecca, WUNC, James Madison University, 04.01.14, “Federal Cuts Could Close 115
Year Old Beaufort Marine Lab”, http://wunc.org/post/federal-cuts-could-close-115-year-old-beaufortmarine-lab, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
If Congress passes the president's proposed 2015 budget, North Carolina's coast could lose a centuryold marine lab.¶ The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's lab in Beaufort is on the
chopping block .¶ Ciaran Clayton is a spokeswoman for NOAA.¶ “The current cost per year to operate
and maintain the facility (is) about $1.6 million per year,” Clayton said. “It's an aging facility and would
require additional funding to make those improvements, something that is just not currently in our
current budget or in our future budgets.Ӧ Clayton said the research and federal employees there would
be relocated to other lab sites.¶ Myles Stempin directs the Carteret County Economic Development
Council.¶ “As a whole, it would be the loss of over 108 jobs and some additional related employment
positions that have been created to support NOAA's operations here, so we'd be losing that,” Stempin
said.¶ “That all comes to a county that ranks 17th from the bottom in average annual wages. So these
federal high-paying, wage-producing jobs would be a real loss to this community.Ӧ The Coastal
Conservation Association of North Carolina says Beaufort is an ideal location for this research lab,
which provides valuable data for the non-profit. State Chairman Greg Hurt wrote this in an e-mail:¶
“Scientists at the lab have built strong partnerships with recreational and commercial fishermen,
businesses, and communities along the southeast coast. It is imperative that the lab remains in
Beaufort, because this location provides direct access to study the marine environment and conduct
ecosystem-based research that cannot be duplicated anywhere else.Ӧ Marine researchers from
different organizations have voiced their support for the lab and asked the House Appropriations
Committee to spare it.
NOAA funding is zero-sum – total funding doesn’t change – increases funding for one
program decreases for another
Smith 13 (Marcia S, President of Space and Technology Policy Group, 03.04.13, “New House CR Adds
Money for NASA Exploration, NOAA GOES-R, But It's a Zero Sum Game”,
http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/new-house-cr-adds-money-for-nasa-exploration-noaa-goes-rbut-its-a-zero-sum-game, Accessed 07.10.14)//LD
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) introduced the House version of a "full year" Continuing Resolution (CR) today
that would fund the government for the rest of FY2013. The bulk of the bill is about the Department of
Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs, but it covers all government agencies. It gives special attention to
NASA's exploration program and NOAA's geostationary weather satellite program, but in the end the
totals for those agencies do not change .¶ Under a CR, agencies are generally held to their prior year
funding levels not only at the account level, but for particular projects. In this case, that would be the
funding provided in the FY2012 appropriations bill (P.L. 112-55). Exceptions can always be made,
however, and a number of them are in the Rogers bill, H.R. 933. For NASA and NOAA, though, it still is
zero sum game where the total appropriation is the same, but certain programs get more than
others.
Beaufort lab key to marine research including studying invasive lionfish
Schoof and Price 14 (Renee and Jay, McClatchy Washington Bureau, 03.28.14, “After more than a
century, a jewel of ocean research targeted for closure”,
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/28/222770/after-more-than-a-century-ajewel.html#storylink=cpy, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
WASHINGTON — For more than a century, federal scientists have worked on Pivers Island near the historic town of
Beaufort, N.C., and the beaches of Emerald Isle studying the ocean, and the fish, turtles and dolphins of its sea
grass estuaries and rocky reefs.¶ Surrounded by three university labs, it’s one of a handful of oceanography hubs in
the nation and the only government research center between New Jersey and Miami studying Atlantic fish
populations.¶ So it came as a surprise recently that the federal government has proposed doing away with the ocean science laboratory, which opened in 1899. ¶
Tucked in President Barack Obama’s 218-page proposed budget for 2015 was a one-sentence mention of a plan to close one lab to save money. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration subsequently identified it as North Carolina’s historic research station. ¶ “NOAA’s
Beaufort lab has
conducted valuable fisheries and coastal science for more than 100 years,” said NOAA spokeswoman Ciaran Clayton.
“However, this aging facility requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future.” ¶ The
coastal and ocean agency plans to shift instead to grants to non-agency scientists. Closing the lab would mean the loss of 108 jobs locally. NOAA intends to relocate
the federal scientists. What will happen to the lab’s 31 government contractors is less clear. ¶ Members of the North Carolina congressional delegation say they’ll
fight to keep the lab open, but its prospects are unclear. It’s one of few cuts proposed in the Commerce Department’s $8.8 billion budget. ¶ Rep. Walter Jones, a
Republican who represents the coastal district that includes Beaufort, was building a coalition to oppose the closure, said his spokeswoman, Sarah Howard.¶ “I am
seriously troubled by the fact . . . President Barack Obama has proposed closing a research lab in eastern North Carolina while continuing to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars on infrastructure projects in Afghanistan,” Jones said in a statement. ¶ Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said she’d fight
the closure to
protect jobs and research that helps preserve coastal marine life. Rep. David Price, a Democrat from Chapel Hill and a
member of the House Appropriations Committee, said he’d be “sharply questioning” the decision when the committee reviews the budget on Monday. ¶ “The
NOAA Beaufort Laboratory is a prime location and provides the only federal access to the most
diverse marine ecosystem in the United States,” David B. Eggleston, a professor at North Carolina State University and director of its
Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, wrote the committee. ¶ Eggleston’s letter cited examples of the lab’s contributions,
including pioneering work on harmful algal blooms that made forecasting them possible and the first
study of invasive lionfish in the U.S. South Atlantic.¶ The lab sits just inside Beaufort Inlet, one of a handful of safe deepwater
passages through the state’s barrier islands to the open sea. Duke University has a research station next door. North Carolina State and the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill labs are a short drive away. ¶ Most people in the state think of coastal Carteret County, with its beaches, rental cottages and Beaufort’s
historic district, as being all about tourism. But marine
science has grown into a major local employer. Between them, NOAA
and the three universities have 163,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 labs. All told, marine
science directly employs more than 500 people locally and injects $58 million into the economy, according to the county economic
development council.¶ NOAA has said that the lab needed $55 million in work, though the lab’s supporters contend that the costs are
overstated.¶ An engineering report showed the facility is structurally sound, they said. NOAA has invested some $14 million in upgrades in recent years,
including a new administrative building in 2006 and a new bridge to the island, a cost shared with Duke. ¶ The Beaufort lab over the decades has been known for
work on Atlantic menhaden _ a silvery herring _ and sea grass, said Charles H. “Pete” Peterson, a professor at the University of North Carolina’s Institute of Marine
Sciences in Morehead City.¶ “It’s more costly and less in your mind if you’re separated from the problems or assets you’re charged with to protect or research,” he
said.¶ In addition, the lab should remain at Beaufort because the
North Carolina coast is one of the three places _ along with south Florida
global climate change has the potential to cause radical changes from
storms and sea level rise, Peterson said.¶ Mike Schoenfeld, Duke’s vice president for public affairs and governmental relations, said that the
university’s scientists were working with NOAA scientists on several important projects, including one
involving salt marshes and another on how to analyze data to make better environmental decisions , a project that also includes
the U.S. Marine Corps’ Camp Lejeune.¶ “We hope that the federal government carefully considers all the impacts before
and the Mississippi Delta in Louisiana_ where
it makes its decision,” Schoenfeld said.¶ The lab also is headquarters for staff of the North Carolina Coastal Reserve and Natural Estuarine Research Reserve.
Teacher training workshops take place here. So do school field trips. Five minutes away by boat is the Rachel Carson Reserve, named for
the author of “Silent Spring,” who worked in the lab. ¶ Patricia Tester, who came to Beaufort as an Oregon State University graduate student in 1976, married a local
man and ended up working for NOAA as a scientist for 33 years, said the lab has done practical work solving fisheries problems in North Carolina and beyond.¶
Tester said that after the
lab studied harmful algal blooms that caused the “red tide” of 1987, the Quinault
Indians of La Push, Wash., asked for help to develop a new type of test they needed for their shellfish
harvests.¶ “The problems were intractable with the skill sets we had at the time, but we incorporated molecular work and were able to help the
Quinaults,” she said.¶ Tester retired but has returned to the lab as a contractor and continues her research. She said she’d never move, because she and her
husband have made their lives in Beaufort. ¶ Conservation and fishing groups also want Congress to keep the lab open and are calling lawmakers.¶ The North
Carolina chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, a group devoted to protecting the coast for the general public, was calling on Congress to keep it running,
the future of fishing and the health of our
states’ marine resources depend upon access to the best scientific data available,” he said.¶ Closing the lab would
worsen the problem of getting timely assessments of the health of fish stocks, he said, adding that the NOAA Beaufort lab “has an excellent
reputation for providing high quality data for management.Ӧ Jerry Schill, interim executive director of the North Carolina
said the chapter’s chairman, Greg Hurt.¶ “Our organization and its members firmly believe that
Fisheries Association, a commercial fishing trade group, agreed.¶ “All we expect from these people is objectivity,” he said. “With the National Marine Fisheries
Service Beaufort lab, we got it.”¶ Jackie Savitz, acting vice president for U.S. oceans at the conservation group Oceana, said NOAA “is the braintrust in helping us
understand the impacts of what we do in our oceans.”¶ “We
need more Beaufort labs, not fewer,” she said.
Research and action key to prevent lionfish from decimating ocean biodiversity
Green et al 12 (Stephanie J + Aleksandra Maljković + Isabelle M. Côté, Department of Biological
Sciences, Simon Fraser University, John L Akins, Reef Environmental Education Foundation, Key Largo,
Florida, 03.07.12, “Invasive Lionfish Drive Atlantic Coral Reef Fish Declines”, PLoS One, Vol. 7, Issue
3)//LD
Introduction¶ The successful invasion of a marine ecosystem by vertebrate predators is exceedingly rare
[1]. Nevertheless, one such invasion is currently unfolding. Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) have
spread rapidly across the Western Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, producing a marine
predator invasion of unparalleled speed and magnitude. Lionfish were first reported off the southeast coast of Florida in
the 1980s and have since become established to varying extents across the entire Caribbean region via larval dispersal in ocean currents [2].
These ambush predators consume a wide variety of native fish and invertebrate species at high rates,
and are well defended from predation by venomous fin spines [3], [4].¶ There is growing concern, largely based on the
results of small-scale experiments [5], that lionfish will affect the structure and function of invaded marine
ecosystems (e.g. [6], [7]) but detrimental impacts on natural communities have yet to be measured. To determine whether
predation by lionfish is having negative effects on native reef fish communities, we studied nine sites
along a 15 km stretch of continuous reef off the southwest coast of New Providence Island, Bahamas
(24°59.072 N, 77°32.207 W), where lionfish were first sighted in 2004. We conducted visual transect surveys of both native fish and lionfish, and
identified lionfish prey through stomach contents analysis of 567 lionfish collected from the study reefs in 2008 and 2010. Standardized roving
diver surveys conducted at the sites each year since 2004 were used to assess changes in lionfish abundance over time within the study area.¶
Results and Discussion¶ Lionfish
abundance increased swiftly between 2004 and 2010 off southwest New
Providence, Bahamas (Figure 1). Between 2008 and 2010, abundant lionfish populations coincided with rapid declines in native fishes.
During this period lionfish increased from 23% to nearly 40% of the total biomass of predators residing in
the study area, which included 16 ecologically-similar native fishes, in terms of body size and diet [8],
[9]. Ninety percent of the prey consumed by lionfish were small-bodied reef fishes from 42 species (Table S1). Between 2008 and 2010, the
combined biomass of these 42 species declined by 65%, on average, across the study reefs (Figure 2; linear
mixed-effects model (LMM); P<0.001, t = 4.5, df = 105). Since lionfish were already abundant within the study area in the year prior to our
observations (Figure 1), the
cumulative decline in prey fish biomass since lionfish first colonized the area
undoubtedly exceeds what we observed between 2008 and 2010.¶ Aside from predation by lionfish, at least three
alternative factors could cause such a rapid decline in the abundance of so many species: recruitment failure, increased predation by native
species, or disease. Wholesale
recruitment failure, owing to unfavourable oceanographic conditions for the pelagic larvae of reef
fish, is unlikely to be a factor in the decline of lionfish prey, since the biomass of several species of small-bodied gobies
(Elacatinus spp.; Table S1), which also have pelagic larvae but have never been recorded in diet of lionfish [3]–[5], [10] and may contain a
chemical defense against predation [11], remained stable over the two-year period (Figure 2; LMM; P = 0.45, t = 0.78, df = 105). The
decline in prey species was also not caused by an increase in native predators, as the biomass of the 16 ‘lionfishanalogous’ species also declined by 44% (Figure 2; LMM; P = 0.02, t = 2.1, df = 55), a change likely attributable to fishing pressure and/or
competition with lionfish. By contrast, the biomass of non-predatory but large-bodied fishes, which were not vulnerable to lionfish predation
(because they were already too large to be lionfish prey in 2008) or competition over this period but many of which are exploited to some
degree, remained unchanged (Table S1; Figure 2; LMM; P = 0.13, t = 1.54, df = 55). Finally, no
fish disease epidemic was
reported during the study period, leaving lionfish predation as the most likely cause of the changes in
prey fish abundance documented here.¶ Without prompt action , increasing lionfish populations are likely
to have similar impacts on prey fish biomass across the region. The impacts of lionfish may not be limited to small-
bodied prey species. In time, the
abundance of large-bodied fishes which are consumed as juveniles by lionfish
may be also be affected; these prey species fulfill important functional roles on coral reefs (Table S1). Given the
broad geographic extent of the invasion, complete eradication of lionfish from the Atlantic appears unlikely [12]. However, lionfish control
programs, which are being initiated across the Caribbean, may successfully mitigate the effects of lionfish at local scales within high-priority
areas, such as Marine Protected Areas and fish nursery habitats [13]. In
the absence of effective local action, the effects of the
lionfish invasion may have long-term implications for the structure of Atlantic marine communities,
as well as the societies and economies that depend on them.
Loss of marine biodiversity dooms all terrestrial life
Davidson 3 (Founder – Turtle House Foundation and Award-Winning Journalist, Fire in the Turtle House, p. 47-51)
But surely the Athenians had it backward; it’s the land that rests in the lap of the sea. Thalassa, not Gaia, is the guardian of life on the blue
planet. A simple, albeit apocalyptic, experiment suggests Thalassa’s power. Destroy
all life on land; the ocean creatures will
survive just fine. Given time, they’ll even repopulate the land. But wipe out the organisms that inhabit the oceans and
all life on land is doomed. “Dust to dust,” says the Bible, but “water to water” is more like it, for all life comes from and
returns to the sea. Our ocean origins abid within us, our secret marine history. The chemical makeup of our blood is strikingly similar to
seawater. Every carbon atom in our body has cycled through the ocean many times. Even the human embryo reveals our watery past. Tiny gill
slits form and then fade during our development in the womb. The
ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the
axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological
cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate. The astonishing biodiversity is most evident on coral
reefs, often called the “rain forests of the sea.” Occupying less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the global ocean, coral reefs are home to nearly
a third of all marine fish species and to as many as nine million species in all. But life exists in profusion in every corner of the ocean, right down
to the hydrothermal vents on the seafloor (discovered only in 1977), where more than a hundred newly described species thrive around
superheated plumes of sulfurous gasses. The abundance of organisms in the ocean isn’t surprising given that the sea was, as already
mentioned, the crucible of life on Earth. It is the original ecosystem, the environment in which the “primordial soup” of nucleic acids (which can
self-replicate, but are not alive) and other molecules made the inexplicable and miraculous leap into life, probably as simple bacteria, close to
3.9 billion years ago. A spectacular burst of new life forms called the Cambrian explosion took place in the oceans some 500 million years ago,
an evolutionary experiment that produced countless body forms, the prototypes of virtually all organisms alive today. It wasn’t until 100 million
years later that the first primitive plants took up residence on terra firma. Another 30 million years passed before the first amphibians climbed
out of the ocean. After this head start, it’s not surprising that evolution on that newcomer-dry land-has never caught up with the diversity of
the sea. Of the thirty-three higher-level groupings of animals (called phyla), thirty-two are found in the oceans and just twelve on land.
UQ
2NC UQ Wall
Beaufort will be saved from the chopping block but NOAA is looking for a funding
excuse to cut it
Queram 14 (Kate Elizabeth, University of Michigan, University of Maryland, Star News, 04.13.14,
“Congressmen scramble to try to save NOAA research lab”,
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20140413/ARTICLES/140419888?Title=Congressmen-scrambleto-try-to-save-NOAA-research-lab, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
A century-old research lab near Beaufort may be saved from the chopping block , depending on the
success of legislative wrangling by two North Carolina congressmen.¶ ¶ The facility, owned and operated
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean Service, sits on Pivers Island, just across
the bridge from Beaufort. The lab opened in 1902 and employs more than 100 workers, including seven
staff members from the state Division of Coastal Management. Research conducted there encompasses
almost every aspect of marine and coastal science, including algal blooms, estuary habitats and
endangered sea turtles, among many others. The majority of those issues have direct ties to
Southeastern North Carolina.¶ "You name the coastal issue, they've got their neck in it," said Josh
Bowlen, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones, a Republican who represents the 3rd Congressional
District. "Whether it be turtles, marine mammals, dolphins and whales or any of the fish populations
that are present off North Carolina - they are working on or have worked on all of those."¶ The lab is in
danger of shutting down because a line item in President Barack Obama's budget proposal for the
coming fiscal year recommends its closure for financial reasons . According to NOAA, the lab "requires
infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the
foreseeable future." But Jones and 7th District U.S. Rep. Mike McIntyre have protested that logic,
noting that the agency invested roughly $14 million to upgrade the research facility in the past few
years.
Obama is trying to cut the Beaufort lab but scientists and Congress people are pushing
back
Kollipara 14 (Puneet, Science AAAS, 04.07.14, “Opponents Assail White House Plan to Close NOAA Lab
in North Carolina”, http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2014/04/opponents-assail-white-house-planclose-noaa-lab-north-carolina, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
A proposal by the Obama administration to close a historic marine research laboratory near Beaufort, North Carolina, is
drawing pushback from the scientific community and local members of Congress. Although the administration
frames it as a tough choice in a time of fiscal restraint, critics argue that the proposed closure of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lab would endanger crucial marine research.¶ Founded more than 100 years ago, the
NOAA laboratory on Pivers Island near Beaufort conducts research into a variety of marine science subjects, including fish stocks, ecosystem
function, and the health of aquatic creatures. Its work has helped scientists improve how they forecast harmful algal blooms, and it set in place
the first study of invasive lionfish in the South Atlantic, those familiar with the lab say. And it is the only NOAA lab between Miami, Florida, and
Sandy Hook, New Jersey.¶ The Obama administration quietly
proposed closing the lab in the president’s fiscal year
2015 budget request released last month, citing the tough fiscal environment. The lab, which employs 108 workers and
contractors, has a roughly $1.6 million operating and maintenance budget (which does not include salaries).¶ The closure is far from
set in stone. Congress would have to approve the request as part of the spending plan for the 2015 fiscal
year, which begins 1 October. But that work isn’t expected to be finished until late this year, after the November elections.¶ In the meantime,
some scientists
and lawmakers are baffled by the proposal, which they say doesn’t have a clear rationale.
And they are making the case for why the lab deserves to stay open.¶ “This lab is a vital part of the local, national, and
international marine science community and provides important research and information for sustaining fisheries and coastal ecosystems of
the Mid- and South-Atlantic, and to U.S territories in the Caribbean Sea to the people of this nation,” said David Eggleston, a professor and the
director of North Carolina State University’s Center for Marine Sciences and Technology, in a 28 March letter to lawmakers.¶ Even if the lab is
closed, NOAA won’t be letting go of the lab’s 62 permanent staff members, according to a presentation on the proposed budget. “Fisheries
employees will continue the research they are currently undertaking at a different location,” the presentation says. It’s uncertain what will
happen to the others. But proponents of keeping the lab open say they’re
skeptical that the relocated NOAA researchers
would be able to continue doing the same work they have long been doing at the Beaufort lab.
AT: Too Expensive
Problem isn’t funding – NOAA is lying about the cost
Jones 14 (Walter B, Congressman, 04.01.14, “Jones to lead effort to oppose NOAA Beaufort lab
closure”, http://www.jdnews.com/jdnewstream/jones-to-lead-effort-to-oppose-noaa-beaufort-labclosure-1.298695, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) is leading the effort to oppose the Department of Commerce’s Fiscal Year 2015
budget request to close the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) marine lab in Beaufort, North
Carolina. The lab is the sole government research center between New Jersey and Miami studying Atlantic fish populations and is
uniquely situated at the intersection of the ranges of northern and southern fish species. This location
has allowed the lab to contribute valuable research on an abundance of issues, including sustainable fisheries;
conservation of sea turtles, dolphins, seagrass estuaries, and offshore reefs; algal blooms; invasive species;
and changes in climate and sea levels. Furthermore, marine science provides a $58 million boost to the local economy, with the
Beaufort lab specifically employing over 100 people. ¶ NOAA has indicated that the closure was proposed because the lab “requires
infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the foreseeable future.” However, the agency has not
provided any evidence to support this claim and has in fact acted to the contrary by investing $14 million in facilities upgrades in recent years. ¶
Congressman Jones was joined by Congressman Mike McIntyre (NC-7) in penning a letter detailing each
of these facts to House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science Chairman Frank Wolf and
Ranking Member Chaka Fattah, requesting that language forbidding the closure of the lab be included in the Fiscal Year 2015 Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act. ¶ “The
Beaufort lab is an important provider of scientific research affecting not just the state
entire East Coast,” said Congressman Jones. “I will continue to strongly oppose the closure
of this invaluable resource – especially at a time when NOAA has provided no evidence in support of their
claim that they lack the funding to maintain the lab and the United States continues to spend billions of
dollars to improve the infrastructure of nations overseas while neglecting projects here at home.”
of North Carolina but the
Link
AT: Plan isn’t NOAA
<<Informing policy, Integration, Baseline exploration, Improving technical capability,
Educating the public>> would be done by the NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and
Research
NOAA 13 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 09.21.13, “OER Mission and Vision”,
http://explore.noaa.gov/, Accessed 07.10.14)//LD
Vision Statement: The Office of Ocean Exploration and Research catalyzes discovery to transform
understanding of the global ocean.¶ Mission Statement: OER explores the ocean to enhance research,
policy and management decisions, to develop new lines of scientific inquiry, and to advise NOAA and
the Nation on critical issues by:¶ Leading partnerships to accomplish national ocean exploration
goals;¶ Conducting interdisciplinary baseline characterizations of unknown or poorly-known ocean
areas, processes, and resources;¶ Increasing the pace, scope, and efficiency of exploration and research
to improve the technical capability of the United States marine science community; and¶ Engaging and
educating audiences in ocean exploration through innovative means.
New ocean exploration programs are sponsored and hosted by the NOAA
Aquarium of the Pacific 13 (Non-Profit, 07.18.13, “Ocean Explorers to Join NOAA and Aquarium of
the Pacific at First Forum to Develop a U.S. National Ocean Exploration Program”,
http://www.aquariumofpacific.org/downloads/pr_OceanExplorationForumEventFactSheet.pdf,
Accessed 07.10.14)//LD
While the health and our understanding of the ocean are intricately connected to the health of our ¶
nation’s economy, 95 percent of our ocean remains unexplored. However, experts hope that will ¶
change. More than 100 ocean explorers and representatives from federal agencies, state ¶
governments, non-governmental organizations, universities, ocean institutes and industry will gather ¶
to develop a National Ocean Exploration Program for the United States. The National Oceanic and ¶
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Aquarium of the Pacific are the hosting the invitation-only ¶
forum, on July 19-20 at the Southern California aquarium. The public can view live streaming video ¶
from the forum and share their comments with the explorers on ¶
oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020. The forum culminates on July 21 with Explorers Day, ¶
an event where the public can meet ocean explorers at the Aquarium, see remotely operated ¶
vehicles, interact with explorers at sea, see live video of the deep ocean and meet the lead character ¶
and creators of the children’s television program Octonauts. Explorers Day was made possible by ¶
support from Felix Williams and Susan Slavik Williams. The event is part of the Aquarium’s Ocean ¶
Exploration program, which includes the new Wonders of the Deep gallery featuring exhibits funded ¶
by the Richard Lounsbery Foundation. More people have walked on the moon, more than 240,000 ¶
miles away, than have gone to the deepest part of the ocean, less than seven miles deep. Humans ¶ rely
on the ocean for oxygen, food, recreation, medicines, commerce and other resources.
Tradeoff
2NC Tradeoff Wall
Plan is an excuse to cut Beaufort -- NOAA funding empirically trades off at the expense
of research
McClain 12 (Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center,
10.16.12, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt.2”, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-oceannasa-now-pt-2/, Accessed 07.03.14)//LD
In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we lacked an
understanding of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science, society, and often
to applied research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and
exploration but greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased
funding for climate change research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our
environment and economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our
country’s capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change work
relies upon?
NOAA relies on the priorities of the administration and removes funding from
elsewhere to meet requests
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 12 (Press Release, Congress, 03.28.12, “To
Observe and Protect: Members Criticize NOAA’s Weather Observing System Prioritization, DecisionMaking Process”, http://science.house.gov/press-release/observe-and-protect-members-criticizenoaa%E2%80%99s-weather-observing-system-prioritization, Accessed 07.09.14)//LD
Up from 27 percent in 2009, the 2013 budget request for NOAA’s satellite office now comprises over
40 percent of the total request. Most of this funding would go toward two satellite programs: the Joint
Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite R-Series (GOESR). Witnesses today questioned the growing percentage of NOAA’s budget dedicated to satellites that
come at the expense of other less expensive, yet important, monitoring systems.¶ “NOAA’s ‘tough
choices’ have resulted in placing nearly all of its weather-forecasting eggs in a single basket: satellite
systems fraught with a long history of major problems,” noted Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris (RMD). “These decisions are causing trade-offs with other valuable weather measurement systems.”¶
Harris said, “Rather than relying on the whims of an individual Administration or the opinions of
subject matter experts divorced from fiscal realities or program managers wedded to certain systems,
NOAA needs to undertake comprehensive, objective, and quantitative evaluations of observing systems
that incorporate cost.”
AT: No Internal Tradeoff
NOAA isn’t the one redirecting funds – fiscal climate means that government only
funds programs by taking from another
Plait 13 (Phil, Slate astronomer, 07.29.13, “Another Congressional Attack on Climate Science?”,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/07/29/climate_change_new_bill_in_congress_woul
d_de_emphasize_noaa_climate_funding.html, Accessed 07.09.14)//LD
It turns out I may have good reason to be concerned. Freshman congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.)
has sponsored a bill (H. R. 2413) that would likely defund at least some of the climate research done by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in favor of weather prediction. The bill
actually doesn’t say this out loud, of course—it doesn’t even have the word climate in it, bizarrely
enough—but it specifically uses the phrase “ redirect NOAA resources ,” which is clear enough. By
making weather forecasting a priority, coupled with the limited budget for NOAA in the House
funding, the bill (currently in committee) will certainly de-emphasize and deprioritize other work done
by NOAA. That includes, of course, climate research.
Impact
2NC Ext. Biodiversity Impact
Preservation of ocean biod is key to all life on earth – maintains geochemical cycling
Craig 3, Associate Professor of Law, Indiana U School Law, McGeorge Law Review, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155 Lexis
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but
these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically
valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen other environmental fluctuations,
services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. n856 Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive
ecosystem function that intact coral reef ecosystems provide. n857 More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in
the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the basic building blocks of living
organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but
necessary elements." n858 In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems
impairs the planet's ability to support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the
functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an ecosystem's ability to keep
functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more
diverse ecosystems are more stable." n859 Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. [*265] Most
ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in
any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued components is also complex
and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. n860 Thus,
maintaining
and restoring the biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the
ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of
marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. n861 Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean
ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force and merit." n862 At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of
how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The
U nited S tates has
traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to
the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not completely sure about causation or about how to fix
every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to
admit that most of the time we really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness
whenever we can - especially when the United States has within its territory relatively pristine marine ecosystems
that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much: if we kill the ocean
we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us.
2NC HABs Impact
Beaufort lab research is key to monitoring and mitigating harmful algal blooms
NCCOS 14 (National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, research office of NOAA, 06.03.14, “Center for
Coastal Fisheries and Habitat Research”, http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/about/centers/ccfhr, Accessed
07.10.14)//LD
We conduct research on the effects of coastal habitat change and restoration on living marine resources such as seagrasses,
marshes, reefs, and fish. Major programs include:¶ Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms¶ Marine Restoration and Spatial Planning¶
Ecological Responses to Climate Change¶ Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms¶ We develop tools for detecting and mitigating
the risks of harmful algal to human health and coastal economies and ecosystems. Our algal toxin test kits and other
molecular-based tools enhance the HAB monitoring capabilities of public health officials, tribal and state
marine resource managers, commercial and subsistence fishermen, aquaculture facilities, and
academic research programs. We are improving seafood safety and food security within the US and
internationally.¶ Key Actions and Accomplishments¶ Developed and commercialized an algal toxin test kit for domoic acid
in razor clams at the request of the northwest Pacific tribes.¶ Developed new approaches for rapidly identifying the toxic
algae that cause ciguatera fish poisoning (CFP). Trained 30 Asian scientists in sampling and detection of CFP causing species.¶ Developed
assays for the toxic algae causing paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) in Alaska and trained Alaskan public health
officials, shellfish growers, state and federal resources managers and academic scientists.¶ Characterized environmental and
physiological tolerances of toxic species to predict HAB range extensions and toxicity changes as a result of climate
change.¶ Determined the sensitivity of toxic species to changes in nutrient availability. This information is used
by water district and resource managers to decide on timing and volume of freshwater releases into coastal ecosystems.¶ Marine Restoration
and Spatial Planning¶ We provide research and management guidance to improve marine spatial planning, specializing in evaluating
effectiveness of protected areas and in siting aquaculture and restoration projects. Our capabilities include scientific and deep-technical diving
and ROV and underwater acoustics. We also have expertise in the delineation, recovery and restoration of injured habitats and support federal,
state and local habitat protection and restoration, including Department of Justice litigation of habitat injuries in public trust waters.¶ Key
Actions and Accomplishments¶ Modeled wave energy and its impact on marine habitat and shoreline erosion. The models are used to site ferry
terminals, marinas, and restoration projects.¶ Created a program to track, predict impacts, and slow the spread of the invasive species in
Atlantic waters, including lionfish, Asian tiger shrimp, and tunicates.¶ Identified high productivity areas in Flower Garden Banks National Marine
Sanctuary to inform design of research-only area to reduce fishing impacts on coral reef ecosystems.¶ Developed seagrass and coral injury
recovery models for damage assessment and restoration that have been used to negotiate over $1 million in compensatory claims.¶ Provided a
geospatial framework for coastal resource management, spill response, tidal energy and spill response in Kachemak Bay Alaska.¶ Developed
best management practices (BMPs) and use of models to reduce impacts of aquaculture activities in the coastal ocean.¶ Ecological Responses to
Climate Change¶ We develop information and tools to help communities understand how sea level rise and weather extremes will impact their
shorelines and waterfront properties. We also offer guidance for effective shoreline management based on enhancing the stabilization
capabilities of natural shorelines, and we assist coastal communities in adapting to changing shorelines. Our Alaska team works with coastal
managers and Alaska communities to anticipate and adapt to a changing environment, balance multiple coastal uses, and sustainably manage
coastal resources.¶ Key Actions and Accomplishments¶ Developed the salt marsh monitoring protocol for the National Estuarine Research
Reserve’s biological monitoring program¶ Mapped shorelines and assessed their vulnerability to erosion from sea level rise and boat wakes for
the Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program.¶ Evaluated effectiveness of living vs. engineered
shorelines for stabilization.¶ Identified factors affecting rates of carbon sequestration in marsh habitats.¶ Quantified ecosystem changes and
assessed variability in ocean acidification in nearshore subarctic Alaska habitats.¶ Facility and Personnel¶ Leadership: B. William Gottholm,
Director, 252-728-8746¶ Jim Guyton Research Coordination & Admin Services, 252-728-8773¶ Over
100 NOAA employees are
housed in our Beaufort, North Carolina and Kasitsna Bay, Alaska campuses. NCCOS owns and maintains the campuses. We share
space with NOAA Fisheries and the North Carolina Estuarine Research Reserve staff in Beaufort, and offer field-housing to visiting researchers
and students in Kasitsna Bay.
HABs are increasing in frequency and magnitude – if we don’t act they will devastate
fish stocks
Glibert et al 14 (Patricia M, Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental
Science, J. Icarus Allen + Robert Holmes + Yuri Artioli, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, The Hoe, Plymouth,
Arthur Beusen + Lex Bouwman, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Bilthoven, James
Harle + Jason Holt, Natural Environmental Research Council, National Oceanography Centre, 07.09.14,
“Vulnerability of coastal ecosystems to changes in harmful algal bloom distribution in response to
climate change: projections based on model analysis”, Global Change Biology)//LD
Harmful algal blooms (HABs), those proliferations of algae that can cause fish kills, contaminate seafood with
toxins, form unsightly scums, or detrimentally alter ecosystem function have been increasing in frequency,
magnitude, and duration worldwide. Here, using a global modeling approach, we show, for three regions of the globe, the
potential effects of nutrient loading and climate change for two HAB genera, pelagic Prorocentrum and Karenia, each
with differing physiological characteristics for growth. The projections (end of century, 2090–2100) are based on climate change resulting from
the A1B scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Climate Model (IPCC, IPSL-CM4), applied in a
coupled oceanographic-biogeochemical model, combined with a suite of assumed physiological ‘rules’ for genera-specific bloom development.
Based on these models, an
expansion in area and/or number of months annually conducive to development
of these HABs along the NW European Shelf-Baltic Sea system and NE Asia was projected for both HAB genera, but no expansion
(Prorocentrum spp.), or actual contraction in area and months conducive for blooms (Karenia spp.), was projected in the SE Asian domain.
The implications of these projections, especially for Northern Europe, are shifts in vulnerability of coastal
systems to HAB events, increased regional HAB impacts to aquaculture, increased risks to human
health and ecosystems, and economic consequences of these events due to losses to fisheries and
ecosystem services.
Fishery management prevents extinction
VOA 10 (Voice of America News, “Bluefin Tuna Endangered by Overfishing,” 12/1,
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Bluefin-Tuna-Endangered-by-Overfishing-111159869.html)
Predatory fish are at the top of the ocean food chain. They help keep the balance of marine life in
check. Without their eating habits, an overabundance of smaller organisms might affect the entire
underwater ecosystem. Some scientists say such a shift could lead to a total collapse of the oceans. Yet so far, those in
charge of regulating international fisheries have done little to protect at least one endangered species. Scientists say this species is on the brink of extinction… and it is all our fault. "Nobody's
free of blame in this game," said Kate Wilson. Kate Willson is an investigative journalist who recently exposed what she says is a $4-billion, black market trade in the sale of bluefin tuna.
when a top predator like bluefin or another big fish is depleted, that will affect the entire
ecosystem," she said. "Scientists say you better get used to eating jellyfish sashimi and algae burgers if you let these large fish become depleted because they
anchor the ecosystem." Ecosystems are how living things interact with their environments and each other. Scientists agree they can change dramatically if a link disappears
from the food chain. Government officials and members of environmental groups met in Paris in mid-November to discuss fishing regulations that may affect all life
on Earth. Sue Lieberman is Director of International Policy with the Pew Environment Group: a Washington-based, non-profit agency. She says the bluefin is in
jeopardy. "The fish is in worse shape than we thought, and that's why we're calling for the meeting of this commission to suspend this fishery ... to put on the brakes and say, 'let's
"Scientists tell us that
stop," said Sue Lieberman. "Let's stop mismanaging and start managing the right way to ensure a future for this species.'" Both Lieberman and Willson say that greed, corruption and poor
The quotas are designed to let fish recover, but quotas are more than scientists recommend,
but even within quotas, there's consistent lack of enforcement, fraud, fish being traded without documents to the point where it's a multibillion dollar
management of fishing quotas brought us to this point. "
business that will cause the depletion of an incredible species," said Lieberman. Willson says that fishing the bluefin to near-extinction followed increased Japanese demand for fresh sushi
starting in the 1970s and 80s. And fishing practices that target the two primary regions in which blue fin spawn: the Gulf of Mexico and the Mediterranean Sea. "You don't need a PhD in
fisheries to know that's really not very smart," said Sue Lieberman. "If you want the species to continue into the future, you don't take them when they come to breed." And that practice
shines light on a bigger problem. "Ninety per cent of all large fish it's estimated have been depleted," said Kate Wilson. "Bluefin is just a bellwether for what's happening to what's left of the
world's large fish." "We're not saying there should be no fishing, but we are saying there should be no fishing like that," said Lieberman. "This isn't single individuals with a pole and a line; this
isn't recreational fishermen; this is massive, industrial scale fishing. Governments can change this; this isn't an environmental threat that we throw up our hands and there's nothing to do
"If countries really want to protect the remaining stocks of bluefin, they have to get serious
about enforcing the rules and listening to their scientists when they set catch limits," said Wilson. "Management of fish species on the high
seas isn't just about making sure people have nice seafood when they go to a restaurant; it's about the very future of our planet," continued Lieberman.
about it."
"And we have to get management of the oceans correct and we can't keep … and governments can't keep acting like we'll take care of that next year. We'll worry about making money in the
short term, we'll listen to the fishing industry; we'll worry about the ocean & the environment later. We don't have that luxury."
Case Specific Links
Top Shelf
Generic Link
Ocean activity is extremely expensive
Carlyle 13 (Ryan, BSChE, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 1/31/2013 @ 12:11PM , Forbes, “Why Don't We
Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space
Exploration?”,http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-onexploring-the-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/)
So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I
can tell you that
the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50
miles offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer
space, but in space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes
or telescopes. The goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep
oceans, visibility is less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple
seafloor survey to run a 100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and
difficult/expensive to explore — so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like
geothermal vents and coral reefs. But throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between.
This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot: Despite the difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a pretty good
public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’OCes a blog entry
from that team where they talk about how boring the sea floor is: 2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life.
You see some crazy animals that are often not well-known to science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what the hell was that?” and no
one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but occasionally we find giant* isopods: Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface.
Their bodies are acclimated to the high pressures (hundreds of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals is very
limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is through a few food chain connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths.
We’re fundamentally quite disconnected from deep ocean life. Also, there is no hope of ever establishing
human habitation more than about 1000 ft deep. The pressures are too great, and no engineering or
materials conceivable today would allow us to build livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor. The two
times humans have reached the deepest part of the ocean, it required a foot-thick flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far
as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a habitable moon base would be vastly easier to
engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space Station: Given the actual space station ISS, would it be cheaper to build
the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why? To recap: we don’t spend more time/money exploring the ocean
because it’s expensive , difficult, and uninspiring. We stare up at the stars and dream of reaching
them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go down there.
Ocean exploration costs unpredictable – can cost up to three times original budget
Broad 8 (Wiliam, a science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times. He shared two Pulitzer
Prizes, “New Sphere in Exploring the Abyss”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26alvi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
The United States used to have several submersibles — tiny submarines that dive extraordinarily deep.
Alvin is the only one left, and after more than four decades of probing the sea’s depths it is to be retired. Its replacement, costing some $50
million, is to go deeper, move faster, stay down longer, cut the dark better, carry more scientific gear
and maybe — just maybe — open a new era of exploration. Its architects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on
Cape Cod describe it as “the most capable deep-sea research vehicle in the world.” Alvin can transport a pilot and
two scientists down 2.8 miles,
providing access to 62 percent of the dark seabed. The new vehicle is expected to descend more
than four miles, opening 99 percent of the ocean floor to inquiry. But the greater depth means that the vehicle’s personnel
sphere and its many other systems will face added tons of crushing pressure. “Technologically, it’s quite challenging,” Robert S. Detrick Jr., a senior scientist and vice
president for marine facilities and operations at Woods Hole, said of forging the new personnel sphere. “It’s also something that hasn’t been done for a long time in
the United States.” To better resist the sea’s pressure, the wall of the new personnel sphere is to be nearly three inches thick, up from Alvin’s two inches. Deep
explorers always use spheres to make crew compartments because that geometry best resists the
crushing force. “We have confidence it can be done,” Dr. Detrick said in January of the sphere’s forging. “But we don’t have a lot of
margin for error. If the first forging is bad, it would be quite expensive to redo it.” Just when the replacement Alvin
will join the world’s small fleet of submersibles has become uncertain. Like many federal projects, i t faces cost overruns and financing
troubles. When first proposed in 2004, the anticipated bill ran to $21.6 million. But delays set in and the
price of materials, planning and contracting ran higher than expected. Officials say titanium alone has
seen a fivefold price increase. The National Science Foundation, the federal agency that sponsors the
project, has too many competing needs to meet the new estimated cost of about $50 million. So officials at
Woods Hole came up with a phased approach that promises to lower the immediate expense. In an Aug. 8 letter, Susan K. Avery, the president of Woods Hole,
outlined the plan to Deborah Kelley, a University of Washington oceanographer and chairwoman of the Deep Submergence Science Committee, a team of
researchers that advises the government on abyssal exploration. The new personnel sphere, she said, might first be fitted onto Alvin’s body, giving the old
submersible a life extension and a capability boost. Alvin would also get new batteries, new electronics, better lights, cameras and video systems. But the hybrid
would be limited to Alvin’s depth of 2.8 miles. The second phase, Dr. Avery said, would build a new submersible body that would let the replacement vehicle dive to
the full intended depth of four miles. How soon? The
original schedule of 2004 foresaw the replacement vehicle as ready
in 2008. Early this year, amid growing uncertainty, the keepers of the schedule put the date at 2010.
Now, the soonest the upgraded Alvin might hit the water is estimated to be 2011. And the full
replacement, according to Woods Hole officials, might not materialize until 2015. “Phase 2 is about finding
additional resources,” Dr. Detrick said. “It’s a matter of money.” Officials talk about a $25 million shortfall and hopes that a
private donor might materialize who could close the gap and ensure the speedy debut of the new
submersible and its program of deep inquiry.
Energy
OTEC Link
OTEC is super expensive – initial construction for just one plant is 100 million and
requires constant maintenance
Friedman 14 (Becca, Ocean Energy Council, 03.14, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion”, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energyconversion/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of
building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual
components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research
estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to
100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s
still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that
could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR.¶ Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in
the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy
production by mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating.
In addition, there is a risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or
corrode” or “fill up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.¶ Even
environmentalists have impeded OTEC’s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants
when they look at the ocean. When they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution.
OTEC plants cost tons to build and maintain
Mario 1 (Rupeni, Team Leader at Secretariat of the Pacific Community Adviser at SOPAC Project Officer
at SOPAC, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION AND ¶ THE PACIFIC ISLANDS”. March 2001, SOPAC)
One of the disadvantages
of land-based OTEC plants is the need for a 3 km long cold water pipe to
transport the large volumes of deep seawater required from a depth of about 1000 m. The cost
associated with the cold water pipe represents 75% of the costs of current plant designs. Studies show that
OTEC plants smaller than 50 MW cannot compete economically with other present energy alternatives. A 50 MW plant will require 150 m3 /s of
cold water thus, the 3 km long cold water pipeline has to be at least 8 m in diameter. Another
disadvantage of a land-based plant
would be the discharging of the cold and warm seawater. This may need to be carried out several
hundred metres offshore so as to reach an appropriate depth before discharging the water to avoid
any up dwelling impact on coastal fringes (i.e., fish, reef, etc). The arrangement also requires additional expense in the
construction and maintenance. To minimise construction costs of the cold water and discharge pipes, a floating OTEC plant could
be an option. However, the costs associated with the maintenance and mooring facility of such a
structure is of significance. Further to the structural needs of the OTEC plant there is also energy required
for pumping the sea water from depths of about 1000 m. Meeting the energy requirements for the OTEC
plant’s operation is a factor to be noted as the need to install diesel generators may arise. The economics
of energy production have delayed the financing of permanent OTEC plants. At present, the cost per kWh from OTEC is more
than that of the electricity generated from fossil fuels and decreases with increasing capacity of the
power plant.
Tidal Link
Tidal is expensive – each MW is at least 12 million dollars
Giles 13 (George, Siemens Institute, 08.21.13, “Time for tidal power?”,
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/34087/time-for-tidal-power/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
While it is believed that tidal development trails wind by some 15-20 years, that gap can be cut to 5-10 years with proper
investment, quicker technology development and Government support. Turning tidal potential into an energy source is
expensive to do and the Government recognises this fact.¶ Incentives are helping. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) have been
increased for tidal energy with five available for every MW installed. This outstrips wind generation considerably. However, this incentive only
lasts until 2017 when a longer timeframe is needed, and is capped at 30 MW schemes. But nonetheless it does provide cause for optimism for
the establishment of a viable and commercially attractive solution for tidal energy generation. The
current cost of generation of
each MW remains very high at approximately £7 million per MW. This needs to be cut by at least 50% to prove
financially successful and attractive.¶ A large number of companies, including Siemens, are now heavily involved with tackling the technology
challenges tidal energy presents. As mentioned, many
potential technologies are under development in the absence
of a single preferred solution as seen in the case of wind.¶ The majority of current schemes are small-scale – up to 2MW – and they
need to prove their viability, while at the same time research and development continues apace. However a lack of investment support
continues to hamper the progress of many, with institutions somewhat reluctant to provide the necessary funding for next stage development.
Overlap that could see the deployment of existing oil and gas sector technologies are currently
deemed to be too expensive.
Tidal energy is super expensive -- the costs are 3 times that of coal energy
Kishore et. al 13 (Shalinee, is an associate professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pa. She obtained doctoral and master's degrees in electrical engineering from Princeton University in 2003 and 2001, and an M.S.
and B.S. in electrical engineering from Rutgers University in 1999 and 1996, “Electricity from Ocean Wave Energy: Technologies, Opportunities
and Challenges”, IEE SMART GRID, http://smartgrid.ieee.org/february-2013/794-electricity-from-ocean-wave-energy-technologiesopportunities-and-challenges)
The energy from ocean waves is a largely untapped resource that could play an important role in our
electricity future. It is more consistent and predictable than that of other renewable resources such as
wind and solar. Although several pilot projects have been successfully deployed worldwide, and some of them are gridconnected, the economic production of electric power from wave energy remains to be demonstrated.
A key path forward will be the integration of smart technologies that harness vast amounts of sensor
and meteorological data to support wave farm operations. With estimates of economically recoverable wave energy
resources ranging from 140 to 750 TWh/year worldwide with existing technology, energy from ocean waves is a largely untapped resource that
could play an important role in our electricity future. It is more consistent and predictable than other renewable resources like wind and solar.
What is more, the maximum energy density of waves (between 40 and 60 degrees latitude) is found in both hemispheres—where the advanced
industrial economies of Europe, the United States and Japan reside. A
key barrier to making wave energy a reality,
however, is cost . According to current estimates, the levelized cost per MWh of wave energy production is
more than 1.5 times that of wind and nearly three times that of coal -based power. Wave energy is more
expensive than wind energy in part because wave energy conversion is in a much earlier development
phase. Looking forward, this barrier will have to be overcome for wave energy production to reach its full
potential. A key to reducing costs will be predicting the characteristics of waves, which can be reliably determined days in advance. This
predictability will give wave energy producers—with low operational costs and a non-polluting technology—attractive market opportunities in
the near future. Many different techniques have already been proposed and tested for both on-shore, near-shore and off-shore wave energy
extraction. The process of energy generation at a wave energy converter (WEC) consists of a number of steps, which include energy absorption
from ocean waves by a type of energy capture mechanism, transmission of mechanical power to the generator by a power take-off mechanism
and controlling power output by means of suitable power electronics or arrays of similar WECs, or both.
OSW Link
Offshore wind is expensive and doesn’t return on investment – can’t compete with
natural gas and terrestrial wind
Silverstein 14 (Ken, Forbes, 07.08.14, “Offshore Wind Energy Traversing Regulatory And Financial
Currents”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/07/08/offshore-wind-energy-traversingregulatory-and-financial-currents/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
While such electricity generation has lots of potential, the reality is that it is expensive to build
compared to other types of energy production. But offshore wind deals have generally succeeded in
Europe, which has committed itself to reducing greenhouse gases and which has set a price on carbon.
Meantime, the landmass there is built out, making it more feasible to go offshore.¶ The United States, by
contrast, has long-considered offshore wind generation but it has yet to start building any such
facilities, although that could change this year with the potential construction of Cape Wind off the
coast of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Here in this country, there has not only been a regulatory quagmire
that developers must traverse but there is also a host of competing fuels that are more economical,
including land-based wind deals that are half the cost.¶ “It’s more challenging in the United States
because natural gas prices are lower and because terrestrial wind energy prices are also declining,
making it hard for offshore wind to compete ,” says Peter Asmus, principal with Navigant Consulting
NCI -1.07% in San Francisco, in an interview. “The Obama administration’s recent executive order to cut
carbon emissions helps but it is not enough to push it over the hump.”
Offshore wind is overly expensive -- resource limitations increase costs of structures
Ocean Energy Council 14(“Offshore Wind Energy”, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ocean-energy/offshore-wind-energy/)
Although it would be technically feasible to mount wind turbines on floating structures, studies have shown that
it would be very expensive to do this. However, technical developments may make floating offshore wind farms economically
feasible in the future. WHY OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY? There are several factors which suggest the development of an offshore wind energy
industry. The resource is extremely large, the energy costs, although initially higher than for onshore, are
cheaper than other renewable technologies and the risks are low, as several demonstration projects elsewhere have shown. Many people,
while agreeing that wind turbines are a useful strategy, are not happy to see them in their area. This is the NIMBY principle – not in my back
yard. Siting
wind turbines at sea will reduce the constraints that can be found on land, such as the visual
impact and planning challenges. Greater distance will reduce visual impact from land Opportunity to apply new technologies
Similar issues on the potential impact on fish and mollusc stocks, bird life and seabed sediment, Navigation and fishing issues may be greater
Water may be deeper Weather and the sea state may be rougher Economics may dictate larger turbines with limited proven performance
Installation will be more difficult and costly Connection costs will be greater Maintenance will be more difficult and costly Wind farms will have
to be larger to provide economies of scale to cover these costs Investment and risk will be greater America currently uses some 95 Quad – - one
quad is equivalent to 1 quadrillion BTU or a one followed by 15 zeros. Some estimate that we could generate 100 Quad if we deployed
anywhere from 3-10 million wind machines, (on Alaskan coastal plain?) depending on the size of the machines used. The electricity produced by
these machines would be converted to hydrogen, which in turn can be stored and shipped via pipeline, tanker or cryogenic bulk carrier. The
technology is well developed but off-shore wind is expensive because of construction costs and bringing the power to grid. Disadvantages:
Wind is not predictable so other forms of power must be available to make up any shortfall. Harry Braun, Hydrogen News, proposes: The cost of
electricity is a major factor in hydrogen production costs. Although
any solar energy option can generate the electricity
needed for hydrogen production, the cost of electricity generated from photovoltaic solar cells is
approximately 10-times more expensive than the electricity generated from megawatt-scale wind
machines. State-of-the-art wind systems, which have an installed capital cost of approximately $1,000 per kW and a 35% capacity factor,
are able to generate electricity for approximately 4-cents per kWh. If the wind systems are mass-produced like automobiles for large-scale
hydrogen production, their capital costs will be expected to drop to well below $300/kW, which will reduce the cost of electricity to 1 or 2-cents
per kilowatt hour (kWh). There is some scope for reversing the whole way we look at power supply, in its 24-hour, 7-day cycle, using peak load
equipment simply to meet the daily peaks. Today’s peak-load equipment could be used to some extent to provide infill capacity in a system
relying heavily on renewables. The peak capacity would complement large-scale solar thermal and wind generation, providing power when they
were unable to. Improved ability to predict the intermittent availability of wind enables better use of this resource. In Germany it is now
possible to predict wind generation output with 90% certainty 24 hours ahead. This means that it is possible to deploy other plant more
effectively so that the economic value of that wind contribution is greatly increased.
SMRs Link
SMRs would need tons of government money to get off the ground
Union of Concerned Scientists 13 (09.10.13, “Small Modular Reactors: Safety, Security and Cost
Concerns”, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_technology/small-modularreactors.html, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
SMR-based power plants can be built with a smaller capital investment than plants based on larger
reactors. Proponents suggest that this will remove financial barriers that have slowed the growth of
nuclear power in recent years.¶ However, there's a catch : “affordable” doesn’t necessarily mean “costeffective.” Economies of scale dictate that, all other things being equal, larger reactors will generate
cheaper power. SMR proponents suggest that mass production of modular reactors could offset
economies of scale, but a 2011 study concluded that SMRs would still be more expensive than current
reactors.¶ Even if SMRs could eventually be more cost-effective than larger reactors due to mass
production, this advantage will only come into play when many SMRs are in operation. But utilities are
unlikely to invest in SMRs until they can produce competitively priced electric power. This Catch-22
has led some observers to conclude that the technology will require significant government financial
help to get off the ground.
SMR’s extremely expensive -- development and productions cost billions
Bullis 13 (Kevin, reporting as MIT Technology Review’s senior editor for energy has taken me, among other places, to the oil-rich deserts
of the Middle East and to China, where mountains are being carved away to build the looming cities., “Can Small Reactors Ignite a Nuclear
Renaissance?”, March 28, 2013, http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512896/can-small-reactors-ignite-a-nuclear-renaissance/)
Small, modular nuclear reactor designs could be relatively cheap to build and safe to operate, and there’s plenty of corporate and
government momentum behind a push to develop and license them. But will they be able to offer power cheap
enough to compete with natural gas? And will they really help revive the moribund nuclear industry in the United States? Last year, the U.S.
Department of Energy announced that it would provide $452 million in grants to companies
developing small modular reactors, provided the companies matched the funds (bringing the total to $900
million). In November it announced the first grant winner—Babcock & Wilcox, a maker of reactors for nuclear ships and
submarines—and this month it requested applications for a second round of funding. The program funding is
expected to be enough to certify two or three designs. The new funding is on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars
Babcock & Wilcox has already spent on developing its 180-megawatt reactor design, along with a test facility
to confirm its computer models of the reactor. Several other companies have also invested in small modular reactors,
including Holtec, Westinghouse Electric, and the startup NuScale, which is supported by the engineering firm Fluor (see
“Small Nukes Get a Boost,” “Small Nuclear Reactors Get a Customer,” and “Giant Holes in the Ground”). The companies are investing in the
technology partly in response to requests from power providers. One utility, Ameren Missouri, the biggest electricity supplier in that state, is
working with Westinghouse to help in the certification process for that company’s small reactor design. Ameren is particularly worried about
potential emissions regulations, because it relies on carbon-intensive coal plants for about 80 percent of its electricity production. As Ameren
anticipates shutting down coal plants, it needs reliable power to replace the baseload electricity they produce. Solar and wind power are
intermittent, requiring fossil-fuel backup, notes Pat Cryderman, the manager for nuclear generation development at Ameren. “You’re really
building out twice,” he says. That adds to the costs. And burning the backup fuel, natural gas, emits carbon dioxide. Nuclear reactors that
generate over 1,000 megawatts each can cost more than $10 billion to build, an investment that’s extremely risky for a company whose total
assets are only $23 billion. Power
plants based on small modular reactors, which produce roughly 200 to 300
megawatts, are expected to cost only a few billion dollars, a more manageable investment. “They’re simply more
affordable,” says Robert Rosner, coauthor of a University of Chicago study of potential costs that the DOE has drawn on in evaluating the
potential of small reactors.
Resource Extraction
Oil Drilling Link
Oil drilling costs tons – easy-to-reach deposits are empty and new reserves are
expensive to access
Heinrich 13 (Holly, StateImpact Texas, 08.02.13, “During Domestic Drilling Boom, Why Are Gas Prices
Still High?”, https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/08/01/during-domestic-drilling-boom-why-are-gasprices-still-high/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
The crude oil reserves that are currently being produced by hydraulic fracturing are fairly expensive to
access. Today, American oil reserves tend to lie in shale formations or in deposits under the ocean floor. The higher
production costs become part of higher gasoline prices.¶ Crude oil, not natural gas, is the main substance in gasoline, which powers our cars,
airplanes, and many other forms of transportation—so increased natural gas production does not drive gasoline prices down.¶ Financial
institutions, such as major banks, speculate on raw materials like oil and natural gas. Companies such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs
provide financing for the development of oil and natural gas projects—but they also exert influence over the prices of these resources, and thus
can keep them relatively high.¶ Since many
easy-to-access oil reserves have already been tapped, more
expensive technology is required to reach new reserves.¶ “In the good olden days, it was enough for the Saudis to drill a
well, and that well would produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day,” Patzek said, adding that this would be the output of a good well, not every well
drilled. “All you needed to do was sit by the well and sip Coke or whatever they sip… To recover it was either cents or single dollars per barrel.
The rest of it was profit. Today,
it’s no longer true. It’s not true for Saudi Arabia. But it’s definitely not true in the Bakken, in the Eagle
expensive oil.Ӧ According to Patzek, wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico can
produce a significant supply of oil, but drilling in the ocean is risky, and requires expensive platforms ,
pipelines, and separation facilities. On land, shale formations such as Montana and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale may contain
major oil deposits, but individual wells tend to produce little oil, so drilling there can require high
Ford, or in the deep Gulf of Mexico. This is
investments
(and many wells).
Offshore drilling is ridiculously expensive and an unnecessary risk -- oil wells are
drying up now and it’s expensive to find new wells
PetroChase 12 (Independent oil and gas investments firm specializing in the acquisition and development of drilling sites, PetroChase,
“OIL DRILLING INVESTMENTS- AN EXPENSIVE AND RISKY VENTURE”, http://petrochase.com/blog/2012/04/oil-drilling-investments-anexpensive-and-risky-venture/)
One of the
most expensive and risky ventures in terms of investment is oil drilling. We can take an example to understand it.
Mukluk Island is a place where drilling process was carried out in 1983. In this project, about 12 oil
companies spent practically $2 billion for oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea, North of Alaska. This oil exploration
investment was based on oil stains discovered by the experts. However, the well was only a dry hole where oil did not exist at
all. Thus, oil drilling is not only expensive but risky as well. According to the Arizona Geological Survey, in Arizona, an oil drilling companies
project costs around $1,000,000 depending upon the location and depth of hole. A rig which can drill the
most exploratory holes can cost from $8,000 to $15,000 per day. This might not be an expensive deal for big companies. However,
below mentioned an oil drilling companies project costs around $1,000,000 depending upon the location and
depth of hole, making it expensive: Costs associated with hiring welders, contractors, engineers, mud loggers,
scientists, geologists, and supervisors Personnel for logging, drilling, casing, cementing and other
logistics Settlements with landowner such as for offshore locations, territorial payments, attorney fees, permission to perform well drilling and various other
tax payments Maintenance costs including staffing. Specialized personnel would work in three shifts to supervise the
location 24 hours a day. Amenities for personnel such as restaurants, motels, transport, food & water. Not only is the
drilling process expensive for oil exploration companies, but the contractors are also costly to hire and
the major reasons are mentioned as follows: It is very difficult and rare to find new oil wells Very low yields from the
aged and mature wells Risks associated in the process of exploration The price of oil & gas is very fluctuating Elevated
demand for drilling contractors and oil Drilling tasks are performed by specialized oil drilling companies such as Diamond offshore drilling Inc., Transocean, and
Noble. Generally, these companies lease or rent their drilling rigs to oil & gas companies such as BP, Royal Dutch, ExxonMobil and Shell. This way, they can earn
revenue based on day rates. Due
to the high costs and complicated drilling processes, oil companies always look
for alternative and better techniques so that costs can be reduced and drilling process can be increased. New
technologies and innovations are taking place on a regular basis. However, it might take a few more years to experience real changes for enhancement in the oil &
gas investing industry.
Natural Gas Link
Gas drilling costs tons – easy-to-reach deposits are empty and new reserves are
expensive to access
Heinrich 13 (Holly, StateImpact Texas, 08.02.13, “During Domestic Drilling Boom, Why Are Gas Prices
Still High?”, https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/08/01/during-domestic-drilling-boom-why-are-gasprices-still-high/, Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
The crude oil reserves that are currently being produced by hydraulic fracturing are fairly expensive to
access. Today, American oil reserves tend to lie in shale formations or in deposits under the ocean floor. The higher
production costs become part of higher gasoline prices.¶ Crude oil, not natural gas, is the main substance in gasoline, which powers our cars,
airplanes, and many other forms of transportation—so increased natural gas production does not drive gasoline prices down.¶ Financial
institutions, such as major banks, speculate on raw materials like oil and natural gas. Companies such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs
provide financing for the development of oil and natural gas projects—but they also exert influence over the prices of these resources, and thus
can keep them relatively high.¶ Since many
easy-to-access oil reserves have already been tapped, more
expensive technology is required to reach new reserves.¶ “In the good olden days, it was enough for the Saudis to drill a
well, and that well would produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day,” Patzek said, adding that this would be the output of a good well, not every well
drilled. “All you needed to do was sit by the well and sip Coke or whatever they sip… To recover it was either cents or single dollars per barrel.
The rest of it was profit. Today,
it’s no longer true. It’s not true for Saudi Arabia. But it’s definitely not true in the Bakken, in the Eagle
expensive oil.Ӧ According to Patzek, wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico can
produce a significant supply of oil, but drilling in the ocean is risky, and requires expensive platforms ,
pipelines, and separation facilities. On land, shale formations such as Montana and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale may contain
major oil deposits, but individual wells tend to produce little oil, so drilling there can require high
Ford, or in the deep Gulf of Mexico. This is
investments
(and many wells).
Extracting Natural Gas is too expensive and unprofitable-companies switching to oil
drilling to recover profits
Rynn 11 (John, author of the book Manufacturing Green Prosperity: The power to rebuild the
American middle class, Roosevelt Institute, http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/fracking-messnatural-gas-not-fuel-future)
Natural gas is being touted as a fuel of the future, a way to bridge the gap between a dirty energy and
clean energy economy. But according to numerous articles and a report from David Hughes at the Post-Carbon Institute, what we
may have is another bridge to nowhere (page numbers in this post refer to Hughes’ study). Fracking, the rapidly expanding
technique
for pulling natural gas out of the ground, may be worse for global warming than coal, ultimately very
expensive , and not productive enough to make much of a difference in natural gas supply anyway.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a 60-year old technique that has recently been applied to the huge deposits of what is called shale, a form of
rock that can contain large amounts of natural gas or oil. Now
natural gas companies are drilling thousands of these
wells, fracturing the shale, and pumping millions of gallons of water laced with hundreds of chemicals to
release the natural gas (pages 22-24). While burning natural gas emits about half the greenhouse gases of coal, transporting,
processing, and delivering that gas significantly reduces its advantages. And methane — natural gas — is a much stronger greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide for about 20 years. According to a recent study and other research, shale gas actually leads to more greenhouse gas emissions
than conventional drilling. The main problem seems to be that the drilling
companies and trucking companies do a sloppy
job and let gas escape into the atmosphere – and into drinking water. This was best exemplified in the movie
GasLand, which showed that people near drilling sites could light their tap water on fire. An enormous controversy has erupted around this
technique, with some making accusations of potentially catastrophic environmental impacts, while others call fracking a ”game changer.” A
new study shows that drinking water near fracking sites contains large amounts of natural gas, while proponents claim that none of the toxic
chemicals that make up the fracking mixture have contaminated water supplies. New York State has temporarily banned the procedure,
although Governor Cuomo has indicated he will lift the ban for most of the state. New Jersey (and France) will probably ban it. The EPA is still
studying the issue, but Dick Cheney and company made sure that fracking is not covered by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and states have less
expertise, money and motivation to monitor the situation. The Federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) gets more and more bullish
about the prospects for shale gas, recently claiming that 45% of natural gas in this country will come from shale gas by 2034. Currently, the
number is only 25% (pages 28-30). But according to the New York Times, this opinion is contested from within the agency itself. There are signs
that the EIA is following the lead of the natural gas industry, not doing independent research. Meanwhile,
the current price for
natural gas, about 4 dollars per thousand cubic feet (mcf), is below the level needed to make shale gas
profitable for most drilling – costs estimates range from a bit over 4 dollars to an average of 7 dollars
and even 11 dollars per mcf (page 31). And many fracking firms are now moving to drill for oil, not gas,
because the price for gas is too low to justify the added expense
Methane Hydrates Link
Methane hydrate extraction too expensive and not viable yet – Japan proves
Nelder 13 (Chris Nedler, Energy analyst for The Atlantic, May 2nd 2013 “Are Methane Hydrates Really Going to Change Geopolitics?”
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/are-methane-hydrates-really-going-to-change-geopolitics/275275/)
If Mann's data on methane hydrates is correct, then Japan's experiment so far has taken 10 years and
$700 million to produce four million cubic feet of gas, which is worth about $16,000 at today's U.S. gas prices,
or about $50,000 at today's prices for imported LNG in Japan. At this point, it is an enormously expensive experimental
pilot project , and nothing more. We do not yet know when it might be able to recover commercial volumes of gas, or at what rate, or at
what price. We have no reason to believe that if commercial quantities are recoverable by 2018 as Japan hopes-which seems incredibly optimistic--that the price of that gas will be competitive with imported LNG.
Methane hydrate extraction is super expensive
Mead 13 (Derek Mead, Editor-in-Chief at Motherboard.com, July 30th 2013, Oil Companies Are Preparing to Tackle Methane Hydrate,
Assuming It Doesn't Melt First)
Japan is currently leading the charge, which comes as no surprise, as the country has at least 10 years' worth of proven reserves off its coasts
and natural gas prices that are four times higher than in the US. As of right now,
methane hydrate extraction remains
incredibly costly and fairly theoretical, but a successful Japanese extraction test in March led the country to state it would try
to have viable extraction operations by 2023. That decade timetable is tight, but Japan's not alone. According to a big report in the Wall Street
Journal, India and China are also heavily interested in exploiting methane hydrates to help feed their huge energy demands. (Those energy
needs have also fueled Chinese and Indian interest in alternative energy sources like thorium.) Currently, costs
remain high—the
Journal pegs methane hydrate extraction at somewhere between $30 and $60 per million BTUs, while
in the US natural gas is $4 per million BTUs—but experiments are ongoing in Asia and North America.
Desalination Link
Desalination plants are super expensive -- cost upwards of a billion dollars
Fagan 14 (Kevin, Reporter at San Francisco Chronicle Reporter at San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, “Desalination plants a pricey
option if drought persists”, February 15, 2014, http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pricey-option-if-drought5239096.php#page-2)
Machines that filter salt out of water still face the same opposition they have for generations from critics who say
they are too expensive to run, kill fish as they suck in briny water, and spew greenhouse gases into the air from the energy they
require to run. But in recent years, as technology and techniques for desalination have improved, such plants have gained momentum - enough
so that in Carlsbad near San Diego, the
biggest desalination facility in the Western Hemisphere is under
construction and set to begin operation in two years. The $ 1 billion plant will tap the biggest water tank around, the
Pacific Ocean. It will produce 50 million gallons of potable water daily, supplying more than 110,000 customers throughout San Diego
County. Another large plant, with a potential price tag of $400 million, could begin construction in
Monterey County by 2018. It would be near the only desalination plant in California that fills the needs of an entire municipality - the
one that has been supplying water to Sand City, population 334, since 2010. "It's a miracle how we managed to get this plant," said Sand City
Mayor David Pendergrass. "If we didn't have it, the whole area would be in trouble. We're not under any rationing here, but then we've been
practicing conservation for years already, so we are responsible about our water use. "I would absolutely recommend desalination for other
areas." Bay
Area project Two hours north of Sand City, there is cautious enthusiasm for the $150 million
Bay Area Regional Desalination Plant - as well as serious reservations. The biggest water agencies in the area,
including San Francisco's, have been developing the plant since 2003 and ran a successful small pilot version of it three years ago to make sure
the location would work. The plant would sit in windswept Mallard Slough outside Bay Point and draw from delta waters flowing into Suisun
Bay. "Certainly, the
project is years out from being done, but it could be in the back of people's minds as
a 'what if' - and if we got into dire straits, money could be mobilized fast to finish it," said Steve Ritchie,
assistant general manager for water for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. San Francisco has been developing the plant with the
East Bay Municipal Utility District, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Contra Costa Water District and the Zone 7 Water Agency, which
serves the Livermore region. So
far the consortium has spent $2.5 million in mostly state grant money on the
plan.
Structural cost of desalination makes the process too expensive
White Paper 11 (Committee for sustainable solutions for a thirsty planet, “Water Reuse Association”,
https://www.watereuse.org/sites/default/files/u8/WateReuse_Desal_Cost_White_Paper.pdf)
Feed water intake configuration directly affects capital and operational costs of the treatment process. For
example, open intake costs will represent approximately US$ 0.5 – 1.5MM per MGD and up to US$
3.0MM per MGD for complex tunnel and offshore intake systems. Without consideration for the cost of land associated with each
option, beach well intakes are usually less costly on an equipment basis. However, once land acquisition and easements are
factored into the process, this intake type is typically 40 to 50% more costly than an open intake of
similar capacity. Horizontal and slant wells are comparable to open intake (yet more costly than co-located open intakes using existing
infrastructure), and infiltration galleries typically cost more than open intakes. Of all the intake options, only open intakes have the longestrunning 8 Dietrich Consulting Group, LLC. 9 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97. Cost estimate classification system-as
applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industries. Seawater Desalination Costs Page 7 installation history and
reliability necessary to support the full-scale development of a large desalination facility at a new site. As a result, there
is a significant
depth of understanding related to the costs associated with constructing open intakes as well as the
associated discharge pipeline. The intake and feed water source selection cost impact is demonstrated in Figure 3. In
Australia, for example, costs for newly constructed intake/outfall structures can approach a third of the total project cost (based on distance to
the facility and related infrastructure costs) and are much more expensive than the proposed 50 MGD Carlsbad, California seawater
desalination project, largely due to this project’s access to the adjacent power plant intake and discharge infrastructure. Alternatively,
the proposed 50 – 150 MGD Camp Pendleton project, which is currently in the development phase with the San Diego
County Water Authority (SDCWA), cost estimates approach US$ 1.3B to US$ 1.9B (2009 constant dollars) for Phase 1 that
incorporates dedicated intake and outfall structures approximately 2-miles offshore, and 13 miles of conveyance pipeline. This is more
for
than two times the construction cost of the Carlsbad facility10. Few SWRO facilities exist employing an
intake type differing from the conventional open-intake. This lack of available installations for use as a qualitative
benchmark for costing same-site alternatives is important for planners and engineers focused on process considerations and/or cost
comparisons. However, published information is limited and can be site-specific. Generalized guidance is contained in Table 1. Source types
range from beach wells to open-ocean intakes.
Environment
Aquaculture/Fisheries Link
Aquaculture is expensive – feed, brood stock, operations costs
Future of Fish 14 (We accelerate the widespread adoption of business solutions that end overfishing
by supporting collective impact of entrepreneurs and strategic partners, 01.14.14, “Breakthrough
Aquaculture”,
http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.pdf,
Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
Aquaculture¶ From an economic perspective, commercial-scale¶ aquaculture is expensive. Start-up
costs are high due¶ to the need for land, physical infrastructure, and¶ sophisticated technology. Inputs
such as water, feed,¶ and brood stock are pricey, and operations costs—¶ including skilled labor,
energy, and insurance—can¶ inhibit profitability. Add to that the fact that raising¶ fish, especially on
land, is hard work. Fish farming¶ requires both scientific and operational expertise,¶ constant
maintenance and monitoring, and above all,¶ precision. Fish lack the resilience of crops or other¶
livestock and are vulnerable to changes in ambient¶ conditions. For that reason, fish farmers must be
sharp¶ troubleshooters to react quickly when something goes¶ wrong, or risk losing an entire cohort
of fish.
Raising fish stocks is expensive – feed, infrastructure, insurance, maintenance, labor,
energy
Future of Fish 14 (We accelerate the widespread adoption of business solutions that end overfishing
by supporting collective impact of entrepreneurs and strategic partners, 01.14.14, “Breakthrough
Aquaculture”,
http://www.futureoffish.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/Aquaculture_Report_FoF_2014.pdf,
Accessed 07.08.14)//LD
Fish farming is an expensive venture , both in the¶ sea and on land. Feed, infrastructure, insurance,¶
maintenance, labor, and energy costs are all high. To¶ make the model work, farmers need to grow
high-¶ value fish, maximizing the return per unit effort.¶ Consumer demand is greatest for fish high on
the¶ food chain: tuna, snapper, salmon, and sea bass.¶ However, growing these species requires lots of
wild-¶ caught forage fish such as anchovies, menhaden, and¶ herring to make feed. That demand
contributes to¶ overfishing and depleted stocks of these smaller fish.¶ Raising vegetarian fish, such as
tilapia, is far more¶ environmentally friendly and cost effective, but not¶ nearly as lucrative.
Exploration
Ocean Mapping Link
Mapping is too expensive -- roughly 56 million per 1000 square miles of the ocean
Escritt 14 (Thomas, Reuters Correspondent, “Dutch survey vessel begins mapping ocean floor to aid hunt for MH370”, Jun, 19, 2014,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/19/malaysia-airlines-mapping-netherlands-idUSL6N0P03OM20140619)
A survey
ship from Dutch engineering company Fugro , carrying 40 crew and technicians, began mapping out an
area larger than the Netherlands, some 1000 miles (1,600 km) east of the northwest coast of Australia. The
search for the lost plane is being coordinated by the Australian Transportation Safety Board and is
expected to cost 60 million Australian dollars ($ 56 million ) over the first year. "It's a rough area," Rob Luijnenburg, strategy
director at Fugro, which usually conducts surveys for oil and telecommunications companies, said in an interview on Thursday. "The area
has mountains, ridges, valleys, and you can't see a lot down there unless you make it visible with
technology," he said. "For the first phase you need a good map. Once you have that you can plan the
next phase." It will take roughly three months for the Fugro Equator survey ship, which is being assisted by a Chinese naval
vessel, to map out the typography of the ocean floor. Once an accurate map has been constructed with the aid of computers on board the ship,
searchers can begin more detailed, slower surveys in a bid to find the wreck itself, using unmanned robots and submarines to search the ocean
floor.
Find the Plane Link
Search for MH370 will cost a quarter of a billion dollars -- costs could increase from
unforeseen circumstances
Molko 14 ( David, CNN International correspondent has followed MH 370 events since their inception, “MH370: Undersea Search Could
Cost a Quarter Billion Dollars, Official Says,” 4/17, http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/17/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-plane)
A prolonged
undersea search for the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could cost nearly a quarter of a
billion U.S. dollars if private companies are used, Australia's top transport official said Thursday. Martin Dolan emphasized
that the $234 million price tag is a "ballpark rough estimate" of an extended search and salvage mission that
includes an underwater vehicle. The Bluefin-21 is back at work Friday morning on a fifth trip into the southern Indian Ocean.
Authorities said the vessel has scanned a total of 110 square kilometers (42.5 square miles) without making any "contacts of interest."
Searchers seem to be preparing for the possibility that an underwater drone scan of the ocean may not
yield debris from the plane immediately. Lack of progress angers Chinese families Underwater drone aborts first mission How
hard is it to find a black box? The search for Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Malaysia's acting transport minister, Hishammuddin Hussein, said that
authorities are looking at deploying more unmanned underwater probes. Officials might consider
searching along a large
portion of sea highlighted by a partial digital "handshake" between the jetliner and an Inmarsat PLC
satellite, Dolan said. That arc of sea is over 370 miles long and 30 miles wide.
Search will cost hundreds of millions – US entrance will result in them paying the bill
Gollom 14 (Mark, syndicated foreign affairs columnist, “Malaysia Airlines MH370: Search Enters New Phase with New Hope,” 5/8, CBC
News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/malaysia-airlines-mh370-search-enters-new-phase-with-new-hope-1.263472)
Who will foot the bill? “If
you knew the initial region you could easily program your vehicle and your survey ,
now
they’re probably doing the first really detailed sea bed maps that have ever been done there." But all
because you know what you’re going to find, more or less. And then you're just looking for an airplane," deYoung said. "Right
this is costly and has raised questions as to who will foot the bill . "What I’m worried about is the
[Malaysian] government not going to pour any more money to Malaysia Airlines," Schiavo said. "So if
they stop funding the airlines, how committed are they going to be financially to this investigation?" Cost
estimates for the first phase of the search have hovered around $ 50 million , with the second phase pinned at
another $ 60
million . But most experts predict the costs could end up being in the hundreds of millions
of
they’re at a crossroads in terms of where to get equipment to do it and where to get
money," Schiavo said. Truss suggested there will be future discussions about cost sharing with Malaysia, China
and other parties, including companies like Boeing and Rolls Royce, who may have vested interests in what happened.
He said they will also seek out international partners to acquire more equipment, and that the majority will
dollars “I think
have to be provided by the private sector. "Clearly they now realize that this
is going to be an 'in for the long haul' kind of
a search ," deYoung said. "If they open up their search radius significantly in the next phase then that might be a
sign that they're not completely confident the pings were from the plane. And if that’s true, now the time scale for the searching
goes up from a few years to many years and many ships."
Aff Answers – Space Tradeoff DA
Uniqueness
2AC Non-UQ
NASA’s budget has been declining for decades – tons of missions will be cancelled
Foust 14 (Jeff, National Geographic, 05.30.14, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-fundingexploration/, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
Funding for NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003 and still producing good science, may be cut.¶ Alien worlds
and the search for extraterrestrial life recently took center stage on Capitol Hill, a break from standard political fare in Washington D.C.
(Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ "Finding other sentient life in the universe would be the most significant discovery in human history," began
Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who's chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, at the May 21 astrobiology
hearing.¶ "The unknown and unexplored areas of space spark human curiosity," he went on, applauding recent discoveries such as the most
Earth-like world orbiting a nearby star discovered so far by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope.¶ But the reality is that while
the stars and
planets beckon, a budget battle is brewing over NASA, the $17.6-billion civilian space agency. Cuts threaten
spacecraft and telescopes, even as NASA struggles to clarify its mission in the post-space shuttle era.
(Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ Since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, the space agency's budget has
steadily declined from 1.35 percent of federal spending to less than 0.6 percent. A long-running
annual drop in inflation-adjusted funds took a sharp downward turn in the past two years, as budget cuts,
including mandatory ones ordered by Congress, trimmed almost a billion dollars from 2012 to 2013 . The
2014 budget recovered some, but not all, of that cut.¶ In addition, a fundamental debate is under way over the future exploration aims of
NASA. The Obama Administration favors "stepping stone" plans leading to an asteroid visit in the next decade; congressional representatives
call for a return to the moon.¶ A
National Research Council report released in late 2012 called NASA's strategic plan
to explore asteroids "vague," adding that the agency's explanations did not explain "why it is worthy of
taxpayer investment."¶ The debate over funding the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)—which was barred from receiving
federal dollars in a 1993 congressional vote that scrubbed its ten-million-dollar yearly operating cost—mirrors, in microcosm, the larger debate
about paying for space science. Already
squeezed by decades of straitened funding, a variety of NASA missions,
ranging from an infrared space telescope to a 747-mounted observatory, now face cancellation .
1AR Non-UQ
NASA’s thin budget is forcing it to shut down programs producing good science
Foust 14 (Jeff, National Geographic, 05.30.14, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-fundingexploration/, Accessed 07.06.14)//LD
Unless NASA finds a new partner to take over its share of SOFIA's operating costs, about $85 million a year, the proposed budget
would force the agency to mothball the observatory—even though it began routine operations earlier
this year.¶ NASA administrator Charles Bolden said SOFIA was a victim of limited budgets that had led the agency to
prioritize other programs, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and a 2020 Mars rover mission.¶ "It turned out that we had to
make very difficult choices about where we go with astrophysics and planetary science and Earth science, and SOFIA
happened to be what fell off the plate this time," he said shortly after the budget proposal came out.¶ The space agency
is also facing some difficult choices about what ongoing space missions it can afford to keep running .
Every two years NASA convenes panels, known as senior reviews, to examine the performance of missions that have exceeded their original
lifetimes. The reviews are designed to ensure that the science these missions produce is worth the continuing expense, but it's
rare for
such reviews to recommend ending a mission before the spacecraft can simply no longer operate. ¶
This year, though, is different.¶ Robbing Peter¶ This month the senior review panel charged with reviewing NASA's
astrophysics programs recommended that, in the absence of additional funding, the Spitzer Space Telescope be shut
down. This infrared telescope, launched in 2003, costs NASA about $15 million a year to operate. Although the spacecraft is in good
health and producing good science , the panel concluded that there wasn't enough funding to keep it running
without jeopardizing other astronomy missions.¶ The senior review panel (SRP) also included a warning in its report. "The operation of
the nation's space-borne observatories is so severely impacted by the current funding climate in
Washington that the SRP feels that American preeminence in the study of the universe from space is
threatened to the point of irreparable damage if additional funds cannot be found to fill the projected funding gaps," it
stated, a comment printed in bold in the report.¶ NASA's planetary science missions are undergoing their own senior review, to be completed
by summer. Some scientists
fear current budgets could force NASA to decide which of two large missions,
the Curiosity Mars rover and Cassini Saturn orbiter, it can afford to keep operating. Plans are already under way to end the
Cassini spacecraft's mission in 2017, by sending it plummeting into Saturn's atmosphere.¶ Jim Green, head of NASA's planetary science division,
said at a recent science meeting that NASA can afford to keep operating all its existing planetary missions, provided it receives an additional $35
million contained in a supplemental budget request.¶ The
space agency lost a lot of goodwill in 2011 with news that
the budget of the Hubble Space Telescope's successor, the JWST, had ballooned to more than eight billion dollars,
up from the previous estimate of five billion. Paying for the cost overruns of the telescope, scheduled for launch in
2018, has eaten into the agency's already thin funds .
Mars mission would never happen with current budget – unreasonable and uncertain
Kramer 14 (Miriam, Space Staff, 01.14.14, “Manned Mission to Mars By 2030s Is Really Possible,
Experts Say¶ “,¶ http://www.space.com/24268-manned-mars-mission-nasa-feasibility.html¶ , Accessed
07.06.14)//LD
While Carberry said that it is possible to launch a manned mission to Mars by the 2030s under presequestration budget levels, a NASA-led human mission to Mars will probably never launch under
current budgetary constraints, Carberry said.¶ "We're not far off from what we need," Carberry said.
"We just need to get back into a reasonable budget, which we're not in right now."¶ President Barack
Obama requested about $17.7 billion for NASA during his 2013 budget proposal, $59 million less than
what the space agency received in 2012.¶ "[NASA] funds are divided between various missions,
directorates and centers," Carberry said via email. "Unless there was a MAJOR restructuring, it would
be hard to accomplish a NASA-led Mars mission [under the current budget]. That said, major disruptive
technology gains could always occur that could make it viable — we just can't count on that happening."
Link
2AC Link Non-UQ
Link is non-unique – plan is a drop in the bucket compared to proposed increases –
and tradeoff happens internally not with space
Carr and Gropp 14 (Julia Palakovich, Public Policy Manager, Robert, PhD, Director, 03.12.14,
“Analysis of the President’s FY 2015 Budget Request for Biological Sciences Research and Education”,
http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/resources/AIBS_Budget_Report_FY2015.pdf, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
Under the President’s budget, funding for NOAA would increase 3.2 percent. Although ¶ the trend of
escalating procurement costs for weather and climate satellites continues, ¶ funding would also rise for
many research and natural resource management activities. ¶ ¶ The Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
Research would see a sizeable increase next ¶ year. At $ 462.2 million , the budget request represents
a 7.4 percent increase. The ¶ largest increase would be directed to climate research. Research on ocean
acidification ¶ would jump 148 percent. Proposed cuts include 7.6 percent from ocean, coastal, and ¶
Great Lakes research and a 6.7 percent cut from the National Sea Grant College ¶ Program, funds that
previously supported competitively awarded research. ¶ ¶ The FY 2015 budget proposes increased
funding for the National Ocean Service (+2.9 ¶ percent). In addition to supporting new investments in
coastal management, a large ¶ increase is proposed for competitively awarded research to address
coastal ocean ¶ issues including harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and coastal ecosystem management ¶
(+$6.0 million). ¶ ¶ Funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service would decline by $79.5 million (-8.0
¶ percent). Protected species and fisheries research and management would benefit ¶ from small
increases in funding. ¶ ¶ NOAA proposes to make a smaller contribution to education programs.
Competitive ¶ education grants would be terminated (-$3.6 million), as would regional watershed ¶
education programs (-$7.2 million). NOAA would contribute $2 million in new funding to help NSF and
the Department of Education to translate NOAA science into educational ¶ materials and strategies.
Tradeoff
2AC No Tradeoff
Funding’s not an issue – no tradeoff between ocean and space
Shiro 13 (Brian, MS in Space Studies from University of North Dakota, 4 years of employment at NOAA,
09.28.13, “splashdown 2013: space vs. ocean”, http://www.astronautforhire.com/2013/09/splashdown2013-space-vs-ocean.html, Accessed 07.03.14)//LD
As someone who works for NOAA and collaborates routinely with NASA, I have a foot in both worlds.
My perspective is that they are synergistic. There is more than enough exploration capital to spread
around, so choosing between the two is a false dichotomy . Plus, the technologies and strategies
developed in one setting often translate well to the other. We can learn to live in space by tackling the
challenge of living underwater, for example. Of course, this presumes that manned undersea
exploration isn't dead, as evidenced by the recent re-opening of the re-opening of the Aquarius Reef
Base. I think the potential benefits of exploring the ocean are great enough that there will always be a
driver to do so, no matter how far we push the frontier beyond Earth.
1AR No Tradeoff
No tradeoff – zero-sum mindset is just a historical quirk, not reality
Mangu-Ward 13 (Katherine, Reason magazine, New America Foundation, 09.04.13, “Is the Ocean the
Real Final Frontier?”,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_fin
al_frontier.html, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
Is Hawkes right? Should we all be crawling back into the seas from which we came? Ocean exploration is certainly the underdog, so to
speak, in the sea vs. space face-off. There’s no doubt that the general public considers space the sexier realm. The occasional James Cameron
joint aside, there’s much more cultural celebration of space travel, exploration, and colonization than there is of equivalent underwater adventures. In a celebrity
death match between Captain Kirk and Jacques Cousteau, Kirk is going to kick butt every time.¶ In fact, the
rivalry can feel a bit lopsided—the
jocks aren’t losing much sleep over the
price of pawns and cheerleaders rarely turn out for chess tournaments. But somehow the debate rages on in dorm
rooms, congressional committee rooms, and Internet chat rooms. ¶ Damp ocean boosters often aim to borrow from the rocketfueled glamour of space. Submersible entrepreneur Marin Beck talks a big game when he says, “We can go to Mars, but the deep ocean really is our
chess club may consider the football program a competitor for funds and attention, but the
final frontier,” but he giggles when a reporter calls him the “Elon Musk of the deep sea,” an allusion to the founder of the for-profit company Space X who is
rumored to be the real-life model for Iron Man’s Tony Stark.¶ Even Hawkes admits that he “grew up dreaming of aircraft”—though he means planes, not
spaceships—but “then I got to look at this subsea stuff and I saw this is where aviation was all those years ago. The whole field was completely backwards, and
that’s why I jumped in.”¶ While many
of the technologies for space and sky are the similar, right down to the
goofy suits with bubble heads—the main difference is that in space, you’re looking to keep pressure inside your vehicle and underwater you’re
looking to keep pressure out—there’s often a sense that that sea and space are competitors rather than compadres.¶ They
needn’t be, says Guillermo Söhnlein, a man who straddles both realms. Söhnlein is a serial space entrepreneur and the
founder of the Space Angels Network. (Disclosure: My husband’s a member.) The network funds startups aimed for the stars, but his most recent venture is Blue
Marble Exploration, which organizes expeditions in manned submersibles to exotic underwater locales. (Further disclosure: I have made a very small investment in
Blue Marble, but am fiscally neutral in the sea vs. space fight, since I have a similar amount riding on a space company, Planetary Resources.)¶ As usual, the
fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007
poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the
pie. At about $17 billion, government-funded space exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration—NASA’s soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse. ¶ But
the
way Söhnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk:
For most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous
examples of state-backed exploration—Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s
quest to climb to the top of Everest—were actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits.
2AC Tradeoff Good
Ocean exploration is more important that NASA missions
Etzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶
Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 6574, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer2014.pdf)//LD
Setting priorities for research and exploration is always¶ needed, but this is especially true in the
present age of tight¶ budgets. It is clear that oceans are a little-studied but very¶ promising area for
much enhanced exploration. By contrast,¶ NASA's projects, especially those dedicated to further
exploring deep space and to manned missions and stellar¶ colonies, can readily be cut. More than
moving a few billion¶ dollars from the faraway planets to the nearby oceans is called¶ for, however. The
United States needs an agency that can¶ spearhead a major drive to explore the oceans—an agency¶ that
has yet to be envisioned and created.
Internal Link
2AC Funding Not Key
NASA can survive cuts – innovation solves for cutting costs
Hsu 12 (Jeremy, Innovation News Daily, 09.12.12, “Can US Spaceflight Innovation Survive Deep Budget
Cuts?”, http://www.space.com/17560-spaceflight-innovation-budget-cuts.html, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
PASADENA, Calif. — A U.S. space industry stuck with the "tyranny of the rocket equation" faces tighter
budgets and possibly several decades without a major revolution in spaceflight technologies. ¶ Those sobering conclusions came from
spaceflight industry experts in the opening talk here at the Space 2012 conference by the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics on Tuesday (Sept. 11). Space systems such as weather satellites, GPS satellites, and communications
networks have become necessary to sustaining the lifestyle millions of Americans take for granted — but
the U.S. faces the challenge of maintaining such capabilities while investing in new innovations aimed
at cutting costs rather than necessarily boosting space technologies.¶ "I predict that the next 30 or 40 years for the
sustainability of space is about driving more efficiency and economics into the technology we have today," said Roger Krone, president of network and space
systems at Boeing.¶ The conference began with the arrival of a U.S. Air Force honor guard and the playing of the U.S. national anthem to commemorate the
anniversary of the September 11 attacks of 2001, followed by a moment of silence for Neil Armstrong, first person to walk on the moon. The somber opening
seemed to carry over into the panel discussion of how to innovate in a cost-cutting era.¶ Krone referred to the "tyranny of the rocket equation," a quote by NASA
astronaut and flight engineer Don Pettit, that describes the laws of physics that still rules over spaceflight and keeps launch costs high. A
true revolution
in spaceflight might find a way to break that "tyranny," but until then Krone said that innovation would have to
focus on making existing technology better and cheaper.¶ The U.S. military faces the problem of increasing reliance upon GPS
navigation and communications satellites for guiding its missiles, aircraft, drones and soldiers on the battlefield, even as its space budget shrinks. Such military
systems must survive a space environment that has become crowded with more than 1,000 satellites and growing numbers of both government and commercial
missions.¶ "We can't live without it," said Lt. Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center in the Air Force Space Command at the
Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif. "It's
a congested and contested environment, and we have to do it in an
affordable way."¶ The U.S. military has already begun looking toward smaller, cheaper satellites that
can launch in shorter timeframes than the seven to 10 years required for major commercial satellites ,
Pawlikowski said. She expressed a wish for innovation that could drive down costs for existing technologies rather than
push the technological envelope. [Military Seeks Cheap Satellites to Aid Soldiers]¶ Aerospace giants such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin face an
added dilemma because many of their programs have shifted from a design to production mode — a time when many aerospace engineers face job cuts or simply
lose interest. The U.S.
companies want to figure out how to keep those skilled engineers employed and
productive.¶ "We need a good balance of production and a good set of folks still working in design," said Mark Valerio vice president and general manager of
Lockheed Martin.¶ Charles Elachi, director of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, pointed as encouragement to NASA's successes in the past decade despite generally
tight budgets. He described the innovations that went into launching and landing NASA's Curiosity Mars rover a "series of steps" by both NASA and dozens of
contractor or sub-contractor companies.¶ "Innovation
doesn't have to be expensive," Elachi said.
2AC Private Funding Solves
Federal funding tradeoff doesn’t matter – private funding for space solves
Broad 14 (William J, New York Times, 03.15.14, “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American
Science”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizingamerican-science.html?_r=0, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
American science, long a source of national power and pride, is increasingly¶ becoming a private enterprise.¶ In
Washington, budget cuts have left the nation's research complex reeling.¶ Labs are closing. Scientists are being laid off. Projects are being put
on the¶ shelf, especially in the risky, freewheeling realm of basic research. Yet from¶
Silicon Valley to Wall Street, science
philanthropy is hot, as many of the¶ richest Americans seek to reinvent themselves as patrons of social
progress¶ through science research.¶ The result is a new calculus of influence and priorities that the scientific¶ community views with a
mix of gratitude and trepidation.¶ "For better or worse," said Steven A- Edwards, a policy analyst at the¶ American Association for the
Advancement of Science, "the practice of¶ science in the 21st century is
becoming shaped less by national priorities or¶ by peer-
review groups and more by the particular preferences of individuals¶ with huge amounts of money."¶ They have mounted a
private war on disease, with new protocols that break¶ down walls between academia and industry to turn basic discoveries into¶ effective
treatments. They have rekindled traditions of scientific exploration¶ by financing hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures. They
are
to challenge Washington in the costly game of big science, with¶ innovative ships, undersea craft
and giant telescopes — as well as the first¶ private mission to deep space .¶ The new philanthropists represent
the breadth of American business, people¶ like Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor (and founder of the¶ media
even¶ beginning
company that bears his name), James Simons (hedge funds) and¶ David H. Koch (oil and chemicals), among hundreds of wealthy donors.¶
Especially prominent, though, are some of the boldest-face names of the tech¶ world, among them Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric E. Schmidt
(Google) and¶ Lawrence J. Ellison (Oracle).¶ This is philanthropy in the age of the new economy — financed with its¶ outsize riches, practiced
according to its individualistic, entrepreneurial¶ creed. The donors are impatient with the deliberate, and often politicized,¶ pace of public
science, they say, and willing to take risks that government¶ cannot or simply will not consider.¶ Yet that personal setting of priorities is
precisely what troubles some in the¶ science establishment. Many
of the patrons, they say, are ignoring basic¶ research — the kind
that investigates the riddles of nature and has produced¶ centuries of breakthroughs, even whole industries — for a jumble of popular,¶
feel-good fields like environmental studies and space exploration.
With a steady decline in federal funding for NASA programs, commercial companies are looking to fill
a void through privately funded space exploration. Whether it's sending humans to Mars or using
technologies to mine extraterrestrial minerals for medicinal purposes, the US space program is going
through a major transformation.
1AR Private Funding Solves
“New space” is funded by the private sector – exploration doesn’t rely on the
government
Malykhina 14 (Elena, WSJ, 05.19.14, “Private Firms Flock To Space Exploration”,
http://www.informationweek.com/government/leadership/private-firms-flock-to-spaceexploration/d/d-id/1252897, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
On May 14, a panel of experts from the private sector convened at the Brookings Institution in Washington to discuss
how the economy is moving toward commercial companies getting involved in space. "This is no longer your
grandfather's space program," Darrell West, Brookings Institution's VP and director of governance studies, said at the start of the panel
discussion.¶ Commercial
firms are increasingly launching satellites, supplying the International Space Station (ISS)
with cargo, and even developing options for space tourism in the near future. While in the past most US manned
and unmanned missions were funded by the federal government, space economy is moving toward entrepreneurs and
commercial companies getting involved . John Roth, VP of business development for Sierra Nevada Corporation's space
systems, called this shift "old space versus new space."¶ [NASA reveals its latest prototype of the "Z" series spacesuit, designed for humans to
walk on Mars by the 2030s. See NASA's Next Spacesuit: Mars Fashion.]¶ "There's
a proliferation of companies doing what
NASA and the [Defense Department] have no interest in doing, such as taking tourists up to space.
There's a huge thrust of economic activity going on in space," said Roth.¶ Sierra Nevada has a partnership with NASA to
fly its Dream Chaser spacecraft into orbit from Florida's Space Coast in November 2016. Dream Chaser is capable of carrying crew and cargo, as
well as performing service and science in low-Earth orbit. Earlier this year, the company announced additional plans to include the purchase of
an Atlas V rocket from United Launch Alliance for the launch, sharing the Operations and Checkout development and testing facility with
Lockheed Martin Space Systems, and establishing an operation center at the Kennedy Space Center.¶ SpaceX Dragon C2. (Image: Wikimedia
Commons)¶ SpaceX Dragon C2. (Image: Wikimedia Commons)¶ SpaceX
is another private firm that holds a $1.6 billion
contract with NASA. SpaceX developed a rocket and capsule to deliver supplies to the ISS, as part of NASA's
Commercial Resupply Services program. Adam Harris, VP of government sales at SpaceX, said NASA sets an example for other
government agencies with its fixed price contract model. "Companies sign up for a price they won't go over and they
get the job done," Harris said.¶ NASA's vision going forward is to send astronauts to space from US soil through its Commercial
Crew Program. "We pay the Russians quite a bit of money to do that right now -- over $70 million per seat. We think there's an American way
to take astronauts up to space," said Harris. Under
a $440 million agreement with NASA, SpaceX is modifying its
Dragon spacecraft to make it crew-ready. SpaceX is also interested in providing space tourism in the near future -- along with
companies like Virgin Galactic, Space Adventures, Boeing, Bigelow Aerospace, and Blue Origins.
Impact
AT: Space Col Impact – Not Feasible
Mars colonization isn’t feasible – radiation, space sickness, sustainability
Lemind 14 (Anna, University of Piraeus, 02.20.14, “The Other Side of Mars Colonization: Potential
Dangers of the Red Planet”, http://www.learning-mind.com/the-other-side-of-mars-colonizationpotential-dangers-of-the-red-planet/#Ay8spY2O4ifCbzcy.99, Accessed 07.04.14)//LD
As the prospect of a permanent colony on Mars is getting closer with every new press release from the
Mars One project, it probably makes sense to remember that any person who will move permanently
to Mars will most likely die untimely and painful death.¶ Here are some things that are most likely to
cause it (all kinds of technical problems are excluded from consideration):¶ First of all, the Mars colonists
will be subjected to radiation before having set foot on the threshold of their new home. Technically,
the radiation level during the trip from Earth to Mars does not exceed the capacity of the human body,
but one should remember that the Sun is a huge unpredictable radioactive destructive mass.¶ Just one
solar flare during the trip to Mars will send a stream of high-energy particles that will damage any
shielding that can be created today. In fact, it will ‘roast’ any creature that is not protected by the
planetary magnetic fields. In 2022, just a couple of years before the planned start of the expedition, the
Sun will be at the peak of its 11-year cycle.¶ Then, on the surface of Mars, the colonists would have to
find a way to deal with a reduced gravitational field of the planet. Since Mars has only a third of the
earth’s gravity, this factor can be fatal in the long term perspective. All aspects of our biological
structure – from heart rate to the strength of our bones – are related to gravity.¶ As soon as this force is
removed, we begin to lose bone marrow and our heart and vestibular system start to malfunction. It is
the reason why the astronauts do not stay on the ISS for longer than necessary. The effects of the socalled “space sickness” on Mars will be reduced compared to the microgravity of outer space, but in the
long run they will likely lead to the terminal health problems.¶ And finally, there is a problem of selfsustaining life on the Red Planet. Since the supply missions to Mars will cost billions of dollars, they will
be probably delayed if the colonists suddenly run out of something important, like the air, water or
food.¶ Of course, each colony on Mars is planned as a self-sustaining system. However, just one serious
crop failure will lead to the lack of oxygen, which will be produced by plants, and will raise the
question of survival of the colonists.
AT: Space Col Impact – No Asteroids
No risk of extinction level asteroid
Schweickart and Graham 08 (Thomas and Russell, Scientific American, 02.04.08, NASA's Flimsy
Argument for Nuclear Weapons, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-flimsyargument-for-nuclear-weapons, Accessed 07.07.14)//LD
Nuclear explosives would be needed only for deflecting the largest NEOs, which are the least common
and most easily detectable objects. Scientists are not concerned about a collision with an extremely
large NEO—say, 10 kilometers in diameter—because all these objects have been discovered and none
currently threatens Earth. Big things are easy for astronomers to find; the smaller objects are what we
have to worry about./Of the estimated 4,000 NEOs with diameters of 400 meters or more—which
includes all objects that might conceivably require nuclear explosives to divert them—researchers have
so far identified about 1,500. And if NASA meets the search goals mandated by Congress, it will locate
98 percent of these objects and calculate 100-year projections of their orbits by 2020. As NASA
continues to find big NEOs, the calculations of risk change accordingly. A decade ago, before
astronomers began to systematically locate NEOs larger than 400 meters in diameter, they estimated
that we faced a statistical risk of being struck by such an object once every 100,000 years. But now
that researchers have identified and are tracking about 37 percent of these NEOs, the frequency of
being hit by one of the remaining large objects has dropped to once in 160,000 years. Unless NASA
finds a large NEO on an immediate collision course by 2020 (a very unlikely event), the frequency of a
collision with one of the 80 still undiscovered objects (2 percent of 4,000) will drop to once every five
million years. Thus, the probability that nuclear explosives might be needed to deflect an NEO is
extremely small. And even this minuscule probability will diminish to the vanishing point as
researchers improve nonnuclear interception technologies. After 2020 the need to keep nuclear
devices on standby to defend against an NEO virtually disappears. As a result, the decision to move
toward the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons can be made strictly on the basis of human
threats to global security. Extraterrestrial dangers need not be considered.
AT: Space Col Impact – No Resource Wars
No resource wars – unlikely and no motivation
Tetrais 12 (Senior Research Fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratgique (FRS). Past positions
include: Director, Civilian Affairs Committee, NATO Assembly (1990-1993); European affairs desk officer,
Ministry of Defense (1993-1995); Visiting Fellow, the Rand Corporation (1995-1996); Special Assistant to
the Director of Strategic Affairs, Ministry of Defense (1996-2001).(Bruno, The Demise of Ares,
csis.org/files/publication/twq12SummerTertrais.pdf)
The Unconvincing Case for ‘‘New Wars’’ ¶ Is the demise of war reversible? In recent years, the metaphor of a new ‘‘Dark Age’’ or ‘‘Middle Ages’’
has flourished. 57 The rise of political Islam, Western policies in the Middle East, the fast development
of emerging countries,
population growth, and climate change have led to fears of ‘‘civilization,’’ ‘‘resource,’’ and ‘‘environmental’’
wars. We have heard the New Middle Age theme before. In 1973, Italian writer Roberto Vacca famously suggested that
mankind was about to enter an era of famine, nuclear war, and civilizational collapse. U.S. economist Robert
Heilbroner made the same suggestion one year later. And in 1977, the great Australian political scientist Hedley Bull also heralded such an age.
58 But
the case for ‘‘new wars’’ remains as flimsy as
it was
in the 1970s .¶ Admittedly, there is a stronger role of
religion in civil conflicts. The proportion of internal wars with a religious dimension was about 25 percent between 1940 and 1960, but 43
percent in the first years of the 21st century. 59 This may be an effect of the demise of traditional territorial conflict, but as seen above, this has
not increased the number or frequency of wars at the global level. Over the past decade, neither Western governments nor Arab/Muslim
countries have fallen into the trap of the clash of civilizations into which Osama bin Laden wanted to plunge them. And ‘‘ancestral hatreds’’ are
a reductionist and unsatisfactory approach to explaining collective violence. Professor Yahya Sadowski concluded his analysis of post-Cold War
crises and wars, The Myth of Global Chaos, by stating, ‘‘most of the conflicts around the world are
not rooted in thousands of years
of history they are new and can be concluded as quickly as they started .’’ 60¶ Future resource wars are
unlikely. There are fewer and fewer conquest wars.
Between the Westphalia peace and the end of World War II, nearly
half of conflicts were fought over territory. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been less than 30 percent. 61 The invasion of Kuwait a
nationwide bank robbery may go down in history as being the last great resource war. The U.S.-led intervention of 1991 was partly driven by
the need to maintain the free flow of oil, but not by the temptation to capture it. (Nor was the 2003 war against Iraq motivated by oil.) As for
the current tensions between the two Sudans over oil, they are the remnants of a civil war and an offshoot of a botched secession process, not
a desire to control new resources.¶ China’s and India’s energy needs are sometimes seen with apprehension: in light of growing oil and gas
scarcity, is there not a risk of military clashes over the control of such resources? This seemingly consensual idea
rests on two
fallacies. One is that there is such a thing as oil and gas scarcity, a notion challenged by many energy experts. 62 As
prices rise, previously untapped reserves and non-conventional hydrocarbons become economically
attractive. The other is that spilling blood is a rational way to access resources. As shown by the work of historians and political
scientists such as Quincy Wright, the economic rationale for war has always been overstated . And because of
globalization, it has become cheaper to buy than to steal. We no longer live in the world of 1941, when fear of lacking oil
and raw materials was a key motivation for Japan’s decision to go to war. In an era of liberalizing trade, many natural resources
are fungible goods. (Here, Beijing behaves as any other actor: 90 percent of the oil its companies produce outside of China goes to the
global market, not to the domestic one.) 63 There may be clashes or conflicts in regions in maritime resource-rich areas such as the South China
and East China seas or the Mediterranean, but they will be driven by nationalist passions, not the desperate hunger for hydrocarbons.
AT: Structural Impact
The status quo is structurally improving
Goklany 9 (Indur, Assistant Director for Science and Technology Policy, PhD electrical engineering from
MSU, “Have Increases In Population, Affluence And Technology Worsened Human And Environmental
Well-Being?”, http://173-45-244-96.slicehost.net/public/journal_article/11)
Although global population is no longer growing exponentially, it has quadrupled since 1900 . Concurrently,
affluence (or GDP per capita) has sextupled, global economic product (a measure of aggregate consumption) has increased 23-fold and carbon dioxide has increased
over 15-fold (Maddison 2003; GGDC 2008; World Bank 2008a; Marland et al. 2007).4 But
contrary to Neo-Malthusian fears, average
human well-being, measured by any objective indicator, has never been higher. Food supplies, Malthus’ original
concern, are up worldwide. Global food supplies per capita increased from 2,254 Cals/day in 1961 to 2,810 in
2003 (FAOSTAT 2008). This helped reduce hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The proportion of the population in the
developing world, suffering from chronic hunger declined from 37 percent to 17 percent between
1969-71 and 2001-2003 despite an 87 percent population increase (Goklany 2007a; FAO 2006). The reduction in
hunger and malnutrition, along with improvements in basic hygiene, improved access to safer water
and sanitation, broad adoption of vaccinations, antibiotics, pasteurization and other public health
measures, helped reduce mortality and increase life expectancies. These improvements first became evident in today’s
developed countries in the mid- to late-1800s and started to spread in earnest to developing countries from the 1950s. The infant mortality rate in developing
countries was 180 per 1,000 live births in the early 1950s; today it is 57. Consequently, global life expectancy, perhaps the single most important measure of human
well-being, increased from 31 years in 1900 to 47 years in the early 1950s to 67 years today (Goklany 2007a). Globally,
average annual per
capita incomes tripled since 1950. The proportion of the world’s population outside of high-income
OECD countries living in absolute poverty (average consumption of less than $1 per day in 1985 International dollars adjusted for
purchasing power parity), fell
from 84 percent in 1820 to 40 percent in 1981 to 20 percent in 2007 (Goklany 2007a; WRI 2008;
World Bank 2007). Equally
important, the world is more literate and better educated. Child labor in low income countries
most countries, people are freer politically, economically and
socially to pursue their goals as they see fit. More people choose their own rulers, and have freedom of expression. They are more likely to
live under rule of law, and less likely to be arbitrarily deprived of life, limb and property. Social and professional mobility has never
been greater. It is easier to transcend the bonds of caste, place, gender, and other accidents of birth in the lottery of life. People work fewer hours, and have
declined from 30 to 18 percent between 1960 and 2003. In
more money and better health to enjoy their leisure time (Goklany 2007a). Figure 3 summarizes the U.S. experience over the 20th century with respect to growth of
population, affluence, material, fossil fuel energy and chemical consumption, and life expectancy. It indicates that population has multiplied 3.7-fold; income, 6.9fold; carbon dioxide emissions, 8.5-fold; material use, 26.5-fold; and organic chemical use, 101-fold. Yet its life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years and
infant mortality (not shown) declined from over 100 per 1,000 live births to 7 per 1,000. It is also important to note that not only are people living longer, they are
healthier. The disability rate for seniors declined 28 percent between 1982 and 2004/2005 and, despite better diagnostic tools, major diseases (e.g., cancer, and
heart and respiratory diseases) occur 8–11 years later now than a century ago (Fogel 2003; Manton et al. 2006). If similar figures could be constructed for other
countries, most would indicate qualitatively similar trends, especially after 1950, except Sub-Saharan Africa and the erstwhile members of the Soviet Union. In the
latter two cases, life expectancy, which had increased following World War II, declined after the late 1980s to the early 2000s, possibly due poor economic
performance compounded, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, by AIDS, resurgence of malaria, and tuberculosis due mainly to poor governance (breakdown of public
health services) and other manmade causes (Goklany 2007a, pp.66-69, pp.178-181, and references therein). However, there are signs of a turnaround, perhaps
related to increased economic growth since the early 2000s, although this could, of course, be a temporary blip (Goklany 2007a; World Bank 2008a). Notably,
in most areas of the world, the health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE), that is, life expectancy
adjusted downward for the severity and length of time spent by the average individual in a less-thanhealthy condition, is greater now than the unadjusted life expectancy was 30 years ago. HALE for the China and
India in 2002, for instance, were 64.1 and 53.5 years, which exceeded their unadjusted life expectancy of 63.2 and 50.7 years in 1970-1975 (WRI 2008). Figure
4, based on cross country data, indicates that contrary to Neo-Malthusian fears, both life expectancy
and infant mortality improve with the level of affluence (economic development) and time, a surrogate for technological change
(Goklany 2007a). Other indicators of human well-being that improve over time and as affluence rises are: access to safe water and sanitation (see below), literacy,
level of education, food supplies per capita, and the prevalence of malnutrition (Goklany 2007a, 2007b).
AT: Heg Impact
Heg solves nothing
Kagan, 2012 [Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Center on the United States and Europe, 1/5/12,
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2012/0105_international_relations_kagan.aspx]
isn’t it true that its influence has diminished
The
almost universal assumption is that the United States has indeed lost influence Whatever the
explanation may be
it is broadly
accepted that the United States can no longer shape the world to suit its interests and ideals as it
If the United States is not suffering decline in these basic measures of power,
, that it is having a harder time getting its way in the world?
.
—American decline, the “rise of the rest,” the apparent failure of the American capitalist model, the dysfunctional nature of American politics, the increasing complexity of the international system—
once did Every day seems to bring more proof as things happen in the world that seem both contrary
.
,
to American interests and beyond American control.
what it wants much of the time
And of course it is true that
the United States is not able to get
. But then it never could. Much of today’s impressions about declining American influence are based on a nostalgic fallacy: that there was once a time when the United States could shape the whole
If we are to gauge
America’s relative position today, it is important to recognize that this image of the past is an illusion
There never was such a time. We tend to think back on the
Cold War as a moment of complete
American global dominance. They were nothing of the sort
Yet for every great achievement in the early Cold War, there was at
least one equally monumental setback.
world to suit its desires, and could get other nations to do what it wanted them to do, and, as the political scientist Stephen M. Walt put it, “manage the politics, economics and security arrangements for nearly the entire globe.”
.
early years of the
. The United States did accomplish extraordinary things in that era: the Marshall Plan, the NATO alliance, the United
Nations, and the Bretton Woods economic system all shaped the world we know today.
During the Truman years, there was the triumph of the Communist Revolution in China in 1949, which American officials regarded as a disaster for American interests in the
region and which did indeed prove costly; if nothing else, it was a major factor in spurring North Korea to attack the South in 1950. But as Dean Acheson concluded, “the ominous result of the civil war in China” had proved “beyond the control of the ... United States,” the product of
“forces which this country tried to influence but could not.” A year later came the unanticipated and unprepared-for North Korean attack on South Korea, and America’s intervention, which, after more than 35,000 American dead and almost 100,000 wounded, left the situation almost
exactly as it had been before the war. In 1949, there came perhaps the worst news of all: the Soviet acquisition of the atomic bomb and the end of the nuclear monopoly on which American military strategy and defense budgeting had been predicated. A year later, NSC-68, the famous
strategy document, warned of the growing gap between America’s military strength and its global strategic commitments. If current trends continued, it declared, the result would be “a serious decline in the str ength of the free world relative to the Soviet Union and its satellites.” The
“integrity and vitality of our system,” the document stated, was “in greater jeopardy than ever before in our history.” Douglas MacArthur, giving the keynote address at the Republican National Convention in 1952, lamented the “alarming change in the balance of world power,” “the
rising burden of our fiscal commitments,” the ascendant power of the Soviet Union, “and our own relative decline.” In 1957, the Gaither Commission reported that the Russian economy was growing at a much faster pace than that of the United States and that by 1959 Russia would be
Nor
was the United States always able to persuade others, even its closest allies, to do what it wanted, or
to refrain from doing what it did not want
able to hit American soil with one hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles, prompting Sam Rayburn, the speaker of the House, to ask, “What good are a sound economy and a balanced budget if we lose our national lives and Russian rubles become the coin of the land?”
. In 1949, Acheson tried and failed to prevent European allies, including the British, from recognizing Communist China. In 1954, the Eisenhower administration failed to
get its way at the Geneva Conference on Vietnam and refused to sign the final accords. Two years later it tried to prevent the British, the French, and the Israelis from invading Egypt over the closure of the Suez Canal, only to see them launch an invasion without so much as a heads-up to
Washington. When the United States confronted China over the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the Eisenhower administration tried and failed to get a show of support from European allies, prompting John Foster Dulles to fear that NATO was “beginning to fall apart.” By the late 1950s,
Mao believed the United States was a superpower in decline, “afraid of taking on new involvements in the Third World and incr easingly incapable of maintaining its hegemony over the capitalist countries.” But what about “soft power”? Wasn’t it true, as the political scientist Joseph S.
Nye Jr. has argued, that the United States used to be able to “get what it wanted in the world” because of the “values expressed” by American culture as reflected through television, movies, and music, and because of the attractiveness of America’s domestic and foreign policies? These
soft power
the historical truth is
more complicated
great portions of the world neither admired the United States nor
sought to emulate it, and were not especially pleased at the way it conducted itself in international
affairs American media
they were spreading images that were not always flattering.
The
Ugly American painted a picture of American bullying and boorishness
The racism of America was practically “ruining” the
American global image
in the so-called Third World
elements of
made other peoples around the world want to follow the United States, “admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness.” Again,
. During the first three decades after World War II,
. Yes,
were spreading American culture, but
In the
1950s the world could watch televised images of Joseph McCarthy and the hunt for Communists in the State Department and Hollywood. American movies depicted the suffocating capitalist conformism of the new American corporate culture. Best-selling novels such as
. There were the battles over segregation in the 1950s and 1960s, the globally transmitted
images of whites spitting at black schoolchildren and police setting their dogs on black demonstrators. (That “used to be us,” too.)
, Dulles feared, especially
. In the late 1960s and early 1970s came the Watts riots, the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert
Kennedy, the shootings at Kent State, and then the government-shaking scandal of Watergate. These were not the kinds of images likely to endear the United States to the world, no matter how many Jerry Lewis and Woody Allen movies were playing in Parisian cinemas. Nor did much of
the world find American foreign policy especially attractive during these years. Eisenhower yearned “to get some of the people in these down-trodden countries to like us instead of hating us,” but the CIA-orchestrated overthrows of Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in
Guatemala did not help. In 1957, demonstrators attacked the vice president’s motorcade in Venezuela, shouting, “Go away, Nixon!” “Out, dog!” “We won’t forget Guatemala!” In 1960, Khrushchev humiliated Eisenhower by canceling a summit when an American spy plane was shot down
over Russia. Later that year, on his way to a “goodwill” visit in Tokyo, Eisenhower had to turn back in mid-flight when the Japanese government warned it could not guarantee his security against students protesting American “imperialism.” Eisenhower’s Democratic successors fared little
better. John F. Kennedy and his wife were beloved for a time, but America’s glow faded after his assassination. Lyndon Johnson’s invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 was widely condemned not only in Latin America but also by Eur opean allies. De Gaulle warned American officials
that the United States, like “all countries that had overwhelming power,” had come “to believe that force would solve everything” and would soon learn this was “not the case.” And then, of course, came Viet nam—the destruction, the scenes of napalm, the My Lai massacre, the secret
incursion into Cambodia, the bombing of Hanoi, and the general perception of a Western colonialist superpower pounding a small but defiant Third World country into submission. When Johnson’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey, visited West Berlin in 1967, the American cultural center
was attacked, thousands of students protested American policies, and rumors swirled of assassination attempts. In 1968, when millions of Europe’s youth took to the streets, they were not expressing their admiration for American culture. Nor were the great majority of nations around
the world trying to emulate the American system. In the first decades of the Cold War, many were attracted to the state-controlled economies of the Soviet Union and China, which seemed to promise growth without the messy problems of democracy. T he economies of the Soviet bloc
had growth rates as high as those in the West throughout much of this period, largely due to a state-directed surge in heavy industry. According to Allen Dulles, the CIA director, many leaders in the Third World believed that the Soviet system “might have more to offer in the way of quick
results than the U.S. system.” Dictators such as Egypt’s Nasser and Indonesia’s Sukarno found the state-dominated model especially attractive, but so did India’s Nehru. Leaders of the emerging Non-Aligned Movement—Nehru, Nasser, Tito, Sukarno, Nkrumah—expressed little admiration
for American ways. After the death of Stalin, moreover, both the Soviet Union and China engaged in hot competition to win ov er the Third World, taking “goodwill tours” and providing aid programs of their own. Eisenhower reflected that “the new Communist line of sweetness and light
was perhaps more dangerous than their propaganda in Stalin’s time.” The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations worried constantly about the leftward tilt of all these nations, and lavished development aid on them in the hope of winning hearts and minds. They found that
aid
guaranteed neither allegiance nor appreciation One result
States steadily lost influence at the United Nations
the
, while eagerly accepted,
.
of Third World animosity
was that the United
after 1960. Once the place where the American war in Korea was legitimized, from the 1960s until the end of the Cold War the U.N. General
Assembly became a forum for constant expressions of anti-Americanism. In the late 1960s, Henry Kissinger despaired of the future. The “increased fragmentation of power, the greater diffusion of political activity, and the more complicated patterns of international conflict and
alignment,” he wrote to Nixon, had sharply reduced the capacity of both superpowers to influence “the actions of other governments.” And things only seemed to get more difficult as the 1970s unfolded. The United States withdrew from Vietnam in defeat, and the world watched the
the inability of the United
people point to America’s failure to bring
first-ever resignation of an American president mired in scandal. And then, perhaps as significant as all the rest, world oil prices went through the roof. The last problem pointed to a significant new difficulty:
States to wield influence effectively in the Middle East
Israelis and Palestinians to a negotiated settlement
. Today
, or to manage the tumultuous Arab Awakening, as a sign of weakness and decline. But in 1973 the United States could not even prevent the
major powers in the Middle East from engaging in all-out war. When Egypt and Syria launched their surprise attack on Israel, it was a surprise to Washington as well. The United States eventually had to go on nuclear alert to deter Soviet intervention in the conflict. The war led to the oil
embargo, the establishment of OPEC as a major force in world affairs, and the sudden revelation that, as historian Daniel Yergin put it, “the United States itself was now, finally, vulnerable.” The “world’s foremost superpower” had been “thrown on the defensive, humiliated, by a handful
of small nations.” Many Americans “feared that the end of an era was at hand.”
AT: Econ Impact
No chance of war from economic decline---best and most recent data
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global
Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
The final outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border
conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead
states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.37 Whether through greater internal repression,
diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict , there were genuine concerns that the global
economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the
disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. ¶ The aggregate data suggests otherwise ,
however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has constructed a “Global Peace Index” annually since 2007. A key conclusion they draw from
the 2012 report is that “The
average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007.”38
Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis – as have military
expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any
increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.39 Rogers
Brubaker concludes, “the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion
that might have been expected.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains
unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily
due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of
other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great
Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One
financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however.
Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great
Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive . As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff
concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and
not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42
AT: Econ i/L
Global economic governance institutions guarantee resiliency
Daniel W. Drezner 12, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global
Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf
Prior to 2008, numerous foreign policy analysts had predicted a looming crisis in global economic governance.
Analysts only reinforced this perception since the financial crisis, declaring that we live in a “G-Zero” world. This paper takes a closer look at
the global response to the financial crisis. It reveals a more optimistic picture . Despite initial shocks that
were actually more severe than the 1929 financial crisis, global economic governance structures responded quickly
and robustly. Whether one measures results by economic outcomes, policy outputs, or institutional flexibility, global economic
governance has displayed surprising resiliency since 2008. Multilateral economic institutions performed
well in crisis situations to reinforce open economic policies, especially in contrast to the 1930s. While there are areas
where governance has either faltered or failed, on the whole, the system has worked. Misperceptions about global economic
governance persist because the Great Recession has disproportionately affected the core economies – and because the efficiency of past
periods of global economic governance has been badly overestimated. Why the system has worked better than expected remains an open
question. The rest of this paper explores the possible role that the distribution of power, the robustness of international regimes, and the
resilience of economic ideas might have played.
AT: Asia War Impact
No Asian war – interstate coalition promote peace
Bitzinger and Desker 9 (Richard A. Bitzinger, Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of
International Studies and Barry Desker, Dean of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies and
Director of the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore,
2009. Survival vol. 50 no. 6, “Why East Asian War is Unlikely,” p. Proquest)
Yet despite all these potential
crucibles of conflict, the Asia-Pacific, if not an area of serenity and calm, is certainly
more stable than one might expect. To be sure, there are separatist movements and internal struggles, particularly with
insurgencies, as in Thailand, the Philippines and Tibet. Since the resolution of the East Timor crisis, however, the region has been relatively free
of open armed warfare. Separatism
remains a challenge, but the break-up of states is unlikely. Terrorism is a
nuisance, but its impact is contained. The North Korean nuclear issue, while not fully resolved, is at least moving
toward a conclusion with the likely denuclearisation of the peninsula. Tensions between China and Taiwan,
while always just beneath the surface, seem unlikely to erupt in open conflict any time soon, especially given recent
Kuomintang Party victories in Taiwan and efforts by Taiwan and China to re-open informal channels of
consultation as well as institutional relationships between organisations responsible for cross-strait
relations. And while in Asia there is no strong supranational political entity like the European Union, there are many multilateral
organisations and international initiatives dedicated to enhancing peace and stability, including the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation. In Southeast
Asia, countries are united in a common geopolitical and economic organisation – the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) –
which is dedicated to peaceful economic, social and cultural development, and to the promotion of
regional peace and stability. ASEAN has played a key role in conceiving and establishing broader regional institutions such as the East
Asian Summit, ASEAN+3 (China, Japan and South Korea) and the ASEAN Regional Forum. All this suggests that war in Asia – while not
inconceivable – is unlikely.
AT: Russia War Impact
No US-Russia war – domestic problems
Lieber 8 (Robert, professor of government and international affairs at Georgetown World Affairs,
“Falling Upwards”, Summer 2008)
Farther East, and despite its economic recovery and the restoration of central power under Putin,
Russia remains overwhelmingly
dependent on the current boom in energy and commodity prices—and correspondingly vulnerable in
the event of their decline. The country suffers from pervasive corruption, with a ranking from Transparency
International that puts it at 121 among 163 countries in this category. Its population, already less than half that of the U.S.
and plagued with alcoholism, chronic violence, a decrepit health-care system, and a male life
expectancy of fewer than 60 years of age (lower than that of Bangladesh), shrinks by some half a
million people per year. And its army, while bidding for attention and resources, remains weak and in
disarray. As The Economist recently summarized Putin’s Russia, it has become one of the most “criminalized, corrupt and bureaucratized
countries in the world.” True, the Putin regime plays to its domestic base with strident nationalism and
xenophobia. In doing so, it has actively opposed and occasionally subverted American policies on some issues while providing a degree of
cooperation on others. Instances of the former include opposition to NATO enlargement and to the stationing of anti-missile systems in Poland
and the Czech Republic, the use of oil and gas resources as leverage against neighboring countries, overt and covert pressure against former
Soviet Republics, and arms sales to Syria and Iran. Yet Moscow grudgingly collaborates where it has shared concerns, as with North Korea and
combating terrorism. Russia
presents a problem for the United States, but its erratic behavior, its priorities
at home, and its own internal decline put it well short of being a major power challenger.
AT: Terror Impact
No terror impact---super unlikely
Schneidmiller 9 (Chris, Experts Debate Threat of Nuclear, Biological Terrorism, 13 January 2009,
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090113_7105.php)
There is an "almost vanishingly small" likelihood that terrorists would ever be able to acquire and detonate a
nuclear weapon, one expert said here yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 2, 2008). In even the most likely scenario of nuclear terrorism, there are 20 barriers
between extremists and a successful nuclear strike on a major city, said John Mueller, a political science
professor at Ohio State University. The process itself is seemingly straightforward but exceedingly difficult -- buy or steal highly enriched
uranium, manufacture a weapon, take the bomb to the target site and blow it up. Meanwhile, variables strewn across the path to
an attack would increase the complexity of the effort, Mueller argued. Terrorists would have to bribe officials in a state nuclear program to acquire the
material, while avoiding a sting by authorities or a scam by the sellers. The material itself could also turn out to be bad. "Once the purloined material is purloined,
[police are] going to be chasing after you. They are also going to put on a high reward, extremely high reward, on getting the weapon back or getting the fissile material back," Mueller
said during a panel discussion at a two-day Cato Institute conference on counterterrorism issues facing the incoming Obama administration. Smuggling the material out of a country
would mean relying on criminals who "are very good at extortion" and might have to be killed to avoid a double-cross, Mueller said. The
terrorists would then have
to find scientists and engineers willing to give up their normal lives to manufacture a bomb, which would require an expensive and
sophisticated machine shop. Finally, further technological expertise would be needed to sneak the weapon across national borders to its destination point and conduct a successful
detonation, Mueller said. Every obstacle is "difficult but not impossible" to overcome, Mueller said, putting the chance of success at no less than one in three for each. The
likelihood of successfully passing through each obstacle, in sequence, would be roughly one in 3
1/2 billion, he said, but for argument's sake dropped it to 3 1/2 million. "It's a total gamble. This is a very expensive and difficult thing to do," said Mueller, who addresses the
issue at greater length in an upcoming book, Atomic Obsession. "So unlike buying a ticket to the lottery ... you're basically putting everything, including your life, at stake for a gamble
Other scenarios are even less probable, Mueller said. A nuclear-armed
state is "exceedingly unlikely" to hand a weapon to a terrorist group, he argued: "States just simply won't give
it to somebody they can't control." Terrorists are also not likely to be able to steal a whole weapon,
Mueller asserted, dismissing the idea of "loose nukes." Even Pakistan, which today is perhaps the nation of greatest concern regarding nuclear security, keeps its
that's maybe one in 3 1/2 million or 3 1/2 billion."
bombs in two segments that are stored at different locations, he said (see GSN, Jan. 12). Fear of an "extremely improbable event" such as nuclear terrorism produces support for a wide
range of homeland security activities, Mueller said. He argued that there has been a major and costly overreaction to the terrorism threat -- noting that the Sept. 11 attacks helped to
precipitate the invasion of Iraq, which has led to far more deaths than the original event. Panel moderator Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute, said
academic and governmental discussions of acts of nuclear or biological terrorism have tended to focus on
"worst-case assumptions about terrorists' ability to use these weapons to kill us." There is need for consideration for what is probable rather than simply what is
possible, he said. Friedman took issue with the finding late last year of an experts' report that an act of WMD terrorism would "more
likely than not" occur in the next half decade unless the international community takes greater action. "I would say that the report, if you read it,
actually offers no analysis to justify that claim , which seems to have been made to change policy by
generating alarm in headlines." One panel speaker offered a partial rebuttal to Mueller's presentation. Jim Walsh, principal research
scientist for the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he agreed that nations would almost certainly
not give a nuclear weapon to a nonstate group, that most terrorist organizations have no interest in seeking out
the bomb, and that it would be difficult to build a weapon or use one that has been stolen.
Aff Answers – NOAA Tradeoff DA
UQ
2AC Non-UQ
Beaufort guaranteed to close – maintenance is too expensive
Kornegay and Cooney 14 (Ben and Patrick, The Fisheries, 03.24.14, “Are NOAA Administrators and
President Obama Giving Up on a Century of Research?”, http://thefisheriesblog.com/2014/03/24/arenoaa-administrators-and-president-obama-giving-up-on-a-century-of-research/, Accessed 07.10.14)//LD
On Wednesday, March 5, the President’s proposed budget states very vaguely: “The overall budget
would finance the National Weather Service while closing an ocean science laboratory and
consolidating another.” This was surprising considering an announcement of a 6% increase in the total
Department of Commerce budget, under which the funding for this lab resides.¶ Shortly following, Dr.
Holly Bamford, the Assistant Administrator of the National Ocean Service (the agency that owns the
laboratory facility in Beaufort), visited Beaufort and identified the Beaufort laboratory as the “ocean
science laboratory” that will be closed if the proposed budget passes.¶ On Tuesday, March 11, Beaufort
NOAA employees received an email from Southeast Fisheries Science Center Director, Dr. Bonnie
Ponwith, stating that:¶ “The decision to close the Beaufort lab was driven by the fiscal realities of
operating and maintaining the aging facility and the significant long-term costs needed to repair and
improve the laboratory. The facility requires infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding
current and future resources. In 2012, the estimated cost to repair the facility was approximately $55
million and is likely higher now. An investment of this magnitude is not realistic for NOAA in the
current budget environment.Ӧ An article in the Carteret County News-Times similarly quotes Ciaran
Clayton, director of NOAA’s Communications and External Affairs: “This aging facility requires
infrastructure repairs and improvements exceeding agency budget resources now and for the
foreseeable future,” she said. “The president’s FY2015 budget request addresses this challenge by
proposing closure of the lab. The proposal requires Congressional approval.”
Link
2AC No Link
Aff doesn’t have to use the NOAA – other federal agencies including NASA have ocean
programs
Etzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶
Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 6574, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer2014.pdf)//LD
Moreover, NOAA is not the only federal agency that deals¶ with the oceans. There are presently
ocean-relevant programs in more than 20 federal agencies —including NASA .¶ For instance, the ocean
exploration program that investigates deep ocean currents by using satellite technology to¶ measure
minute differences in elevation on the surface of¶ the ocean is currently controlled by NASA, and much
basic¶ ocean science research has historically been supported by¶ the Navy, which lost much of its
interest in the subject since¶ the end of the Cold War. (The Navy does continue to fund¶ some ocean
research, but at levels much lower than earlier.)¶ Many of these programs should be consolidated into a
Department of Ocean Research and Exploration that would¶ have the authority to do what NOAA has
been prevented¶ from doing: namely, direct a well-planned and coordinated¶ ocean research program.
Although the National Ocean¶ Council's interagency coordinating structure is a step in the¶ right
direction, it would be much more effective to consolidate authority for managing ocean science
research under¶ a new independent agency or a reimagined and strengthened NOAA.
Tradeoff
2AC No Tradeoff
No internal NOAA tradeoff – doesn’t have the ability to redirect funding
R&D Portfolio Review 13 (Task Force, 02.19.13, “In the Nation’s Best Interest: Making ¶ the Most of
NOAA’s Science Enterprise ¶ ¶ Final Report to the NOAA Science ¶ Advisory Board”,
http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Meetings/2013/february/PRTF%20Report_02_14_13%20FINAL.pdf, Accessed
07.03.14)//LD
The difficulties in managing NOAA’s R&D funds are compounded by continuing earmarks and ¶
reprogramming restrictions. One of the factors that limit NOAA's R&D flexibility is its inability to ¶
redirect internal funding to adjust its R&D portfolio to respond to changing needs and shifting ¶
scientific priorities. NOAA's appropriation currently limits any changes to $500,000 or 10% of the ¶
budget (whichever is less) of a Congressionally-recognized program, project, or activity before ¶ approval
of Congress must be sought. However, when research funding is divided into multiple ¶ small programs,
projects, or activities, NOAA has very limited flexibility to redirect funding to ¶ higher priority
activities. Again, if NOAA undertakes to reduce its internal R&D staff in order to ¶ change the
distribution between intramural and extramural research and to diversify the ¶ disciplinary distribution
of its R&D, it must be able to protect the funds it saves in order to use them ¶ for their intended
purposes.
2AC UQ o/w
House bill saves Beaufort and prevent NOAA from lying about maintenance costs
again
Jones 14 (Walter B, Congressman, 05.05.14, “Jones, Price Announce Beaufort NOAA Lab Protected in
House Funding Bill”, https://jones.house.gov/press-release/jones-price-announce-beaufort-noaa-labprotected-house-funding-bill, Accessed 07.10.14)//LD
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representatives Walter B. Jones (NC-03) and David Price (NC-04) announced
today that the Fiscal Year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill
includes full funding for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ocean science labs,
including the facility located in Beaufort, N.C. The text of the bill was released by the House
Appropriations Committee today and will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee Thursday
morning. The president’s FY2015 budget had proposed shuttering the lab.¶ “The Beaufort lab is both an
integral part of the local economy and an important provider of scientific research affecting the entire
East Coast,” said Congressman Jones. “I am grateful to Chairman Frank Wolf (VA-10) for working with
me and my North Carolina congressional colleagues to prevent the closure of this valuable facility.” ¶
“The Beaufort NOAA Lab is the focal point for federal, state and university-based marine and fisheries
research in North Carolina,” Rep. Price said. “I’m very pleased we were able to work together to secure
this funding because the lab has a significant economic impact, and it is critical to maintaining the
competitiveness of our state’s research enterprise.”¶ Earlier this year, Reps. Jones and Price asked the
CJS subcommittee to include report language in its bill continuing funding for all existing labs in
FY2015. The language also requires that “NOAA shall submit a comprehensive analysis no later than
one year after enactment of this Act on all National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) facilities
and labs, to include current maintenance costs as well as a detailed analysis of how the research
conducted by NCCOS laboratories would be affected by any proposed NCCOS lab consolidation.”
1AR UQ o/w
Beaufort isn’t in danger – new bill will save it from being cut
News Observer 14 (05.05.14, “US House bill would maintain funding for Beaufort marine lab”,
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/05/3837809/us-house-bill-would-maintainfunding.html#storylink=cpy, Accessed 07.09.14)//LD
BEAUFORT — A bipartisan effort has put funding in a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations bill
to save a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Beaufort that the scientific agency
had proposed to close.¶ The lab, which opened in 1899, employs 108 people and is the only government
facility between New Jersey and Miami, Fla., studying Atlantic fish populations.¶ It also is a hub for
several research operations in Carteret County, including labs run by three universities. Together, NOAA
and the universities have 163,000 square feet of research buildings and 40 labs. Marine science directly
employs more than 500 people locally and injects $58 million into the local economy, according to the
county economic development council.¶ The President’s budget for fiscal year 2015 had proposed
shuttering the lab, but Democrat David Price of Chapel Hill, who is a member of the House
Appropriations Committee, and Republican Walter Jones, who represents the coastal district that
includes Beaufort, announced Monday that the Fiscal Year 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science and
Related Agencies appropriations bill includes full funding for NOAA’s ocean science labs, including the
one in Beaufort.¶ The bill will be considered by the full Appropriations Committee on Thursday.
Impact
AT: Lionfish i/L
Status quo solves lionfish control – volunteer divers remove from the ocean and
provide specimens for research
Ali et al 13 (Fadilah + Ken Collins, Ocean and Earth Science ¶ University of Southampton, National
Oceanography Centre, Rita Peachey, CIEE Research Station Bonaire, 2013, http://dspace.rubiconfoundation.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/10403/AAUS_2013_2.pdf?sequence=1, Accessed
07.10.14)//LD
The Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans) is a venomous, voracious predator that is ¶ currently causing
ecological and economical harm throughout the Caribbean. Their ¶ generalist diet and habitat
preference coupled with their rapid growth rate and lack of ¶ natural predators has allowed their
population to explode throughout the Caribbean. As ¶ a means to control lionfish populations,
countries have designed lionfish removal ¶ programs which, in some instances, depend primarily on
volunteer divers . Activities such ¶ as lionfish tournaments or specified lionfish removal trips and
events are another ¶ platform whereby volunteer divers help to remove substantial quantities of
lionfish. These ¶ removal events are important for lionfish control, and they contribute greatly to
research. ¶ In Bonaire, since October 2009, almost 5,000 lionfish have been submitted to CIEE ¶ Research
Station Bonaire by volunteer divers for research on lionfish morphometrics, ¶ sexual maturity and
feeding ecology. This submission of specimens has contributed to ¶ one of the most in-depth and longterm studies of lionfish feeding ecology in the ¶ Caribbean. Staff from CIEE have also attended lionfish
hunting tournaments in Curaçao ¶ to collect data on lionfish ecology and make comparisons. During the
first tournament in ¶ 2012, 317 fish of the 1,069 caught were analysed, whereas in 2013, 1,500 fish out
of ¶ 2,403 caught were dissected. Thus, within two days an extensive sample size was attained ¶ from
various depths throughout various locations in Curaçao, an achievement that would ¶ have taken a
small group of researchers many weeks or even months. Thus, volunteer ¶ divers have the ability to
play an instrumental role in lionfish research and control and ¶ should be implemented into further
lionfish management strategies throughout the ¶ Caribbean.
Invasive species won’t cause extinction—long term effects are increases in
biodiversity
Craig 10 (Matthew T, Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, “Patter Versus
Process: Broadening the View of Marine Invasive Species,” Web, 10/10, Marine Biology, Proquest)
The patterns observed as results of invasive species often evoke strong emotional responses as in the short term
seemingly catastrophic changes occur. However, in taking a broader look at the processes underlying species invasions and their
long-term ecological interactions, we see that they may be a fundamental contributor to the generation of
new diversity through Briggs' IAS mechanism. Take for example, the Great Trans Arctic Biotic Interchange (Briggs 1995). The
opening of the Berring Straight during the Cenozoic allowed for the exchange of hundreds of species
between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific Oceans. Among the Atlantic species of molluscs with Pacific ancestors,
nearly 47% evolved into distinct species (Vermeij 2005).
AT: Biodiversity Impact
No species snowball – loss of biodiversity in a region doesn’t impact global biod
Sedjo 2k (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.
Fragility theories are wrong – the loss of single species won’t cascade and nature
won’t implode
Kareiva et al 12 (Peter, Chief Scientist and Vice President, The Nature Conservancy, Michelle Marvier, professor and department
chair of Environment Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara University, Robert Lalasz, director of science communications for The Nature
Conservancy, Winter, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-2/conservation-inthe-anthropocene/)
As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement's justification for saving nature shifted from spiritual and
aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity. Nature was described as primeval, fragile, and at risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse.
And indeed, there are consequences when humans convert landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and urban development and
when key species or ecosystems are lost. But ecologists
and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility
of nature , frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever. Some ecologists
suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem will be in danger of collapse, and that if too
much biodiversity is lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the expansion of agriculture to
rainforest destruction to changing waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate inner-workings of our planetary ecosystem. The
fragility trope dates back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of life and warned that
perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous consequences.22 Al Gore made a similar argument in his 1992 book, Earth in
the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the expansion of agriculture and other forms of
development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was simultaneously putting systems in jeopardy
of collapse.24 The
trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the idea of a fragile
nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists now know that the disappearance of one species does not
necessarily lead to the extinction of any others, much less all others in the same ecosystem . In many
circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to ecosystem function. The American
chestnut, once a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished by a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly
unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless other species from the
Steller's sea cow to the dodo, with no catastrophic or even measurable effects. These stories
of resilience are not isolated
examples -- a thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240 studies of ecosystems following
major disturbances such as deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of pollution. The abundance of plant and
animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function recovered, at least partially, in 173 (72 percent)
of these studies.25 While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is returning
to former agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve a similar level of
economic development. A 2010 report concluded that rainforests
that have grown back over abandoned agricultural
land had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even Indonesian orangutans, which were widely
thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28
Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.
Around the Chernobyl nuclear facility, which melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of
radiation.29 In the Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests, including the 1954 hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area,
the number of coral species has actually increased relative to before the explosions.30 More recently,
the massive 2010 oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a remarkably fast rate. 31 Today, coyotes
roam downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons astonish San Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper canyons to pick off pigeons for their
next meal. As we destroy habitats, we create new ones: in the southwestern United States a rare and federally listed salamander species seems
specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been found in no other habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the
Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data show the biomass of cod has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be written
about this cod recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse and environmental apocalypse.
Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear, seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good
chance of surviving global warming if the changing environment continues to increase the populations and northern ranges of
harbor seals and harp seals. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a cooling period in Earth's
history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two
opposing trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase of energy-rich prey. The history of life on
Earth is of species evolving to take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment changes again. The wilderness
ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by humankind, but today
it is impossible to find a place on
Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been impacting their natural environment for centuries.
The wilderness so beloved by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never existed, at least not in the
last thousand years, and arguably even longer. The effects of human activity are found in every corner of the Earth. Fish and whales in
remote Arctic oceans are contaminated with chemical pesticides. The nitrogen cycle and hydrological cycle
are now dominated by people -- human activities produce 60 percent of all the fixed nitrogen deposited on land each year, and
people appropriate more than half of the annual accessible freshwater runoff.35 There are now more tigers in captivity than in their native
habitats. Instead of sourcing wood from natural forests, by 2050 we are expected to get over three-quarters of our wood from intensively
managed tree farms. Erosion, weathering, and landslides used to be the prime movers of rock and soil; today humans rival these geological
processes with road building and massive construction projects.36 All
around the world, a mix of climate change and
nonnative species has created a wealth of novel ecosystems catalyzed by human activities.
AT: HABs i/L
Status quo physical controls solve HABs – flocculation, resuspension, burial, and
removal
Kidwell 14 (David M, Research Oceanographer, May 2014, “DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE Prevention, Control, and Mitigation of Harmful Algal Blooms
Program”, http://coastalscience.noaa.gov/about/docs/Draft_PCM_HAB_PEA.pdf, Accessed
07.10.14)//LD
2.1.1 Physical Control Methods¶ Physical controls are those methods that physically remove algal cells from the water
column,¶ limit the spatial extent of a bloom by physical barrier or manipulation of abiotic factors, or kill algal¶ cells
through physical means. The methods included herein are those that have proven most¶ promising in the
laboratory or on the mesocosm scale. These methods are also likely to be more¶ easily constrained in a variable, open
aquatic system than are chemical or biological controls.¶ Therefore, these methods are generally the closest to being fieldready for in situ demonstration¶ projects. The physical control methods that are likely to be field demonstration ready by FY2018 and¶
therefore included in the Proposed Action are flocculation; sediment resuspension, burial, and¶ removal; cell harvesting and removal; and
water column mixing.¶ Flocculation¶ Flocculation is the
process of removing microscopic algae through the use of
clay and¶ sedimentation. Through repeated collisions and adhesion, large, rapidly sinking aggregates (or flocs)¶ of algae and clay are
formed and settle to the ocean floor. The specific type of clay that is used is¶ dependent upon the type of bloom. Researchers are
currently developing modified clays to improve¶ algal removal efficiency. Removal efficiency depends upon many
factors, including both flocculant¶ and algal type, concentration and size, flocculant dispersal method, water flow, and salinity. If the¶ floes
remain out of the photic zone, the zone in the water column in which light penetrates, the algae¶ would not have an opportunity for
photosynthesis, resulting in cell mortality. In some instances,¶ physiochemical
interactions occur between the algae and
the flocculant, directly resulting in mortality¶ (Beaulieu et al., 2003). Flocculants have also been shown to
adsorb, or adhere, to the surface of some¶ types of HAB toxin, removing both intracellular and extracellular toxins (Pierce et
al., 2004).¶ Sediment Resuspension, Burial, and Removal¶ Sediment resuspension, burial, and removal activities
achieve HAB control through different¶ mechanisms. Resuspension of bottom sediments affects HABs in two ways: one, to
resuspend¶ sediments in an area thought to be a seedbed for algal cysts (thick walled dormant cells of algae) with¶
the objective of burying cysts in deeper oxygen-depleted sediments where they are unable to¶ germinate; and two, to resuspend
sediments which would act as a natural flocculant to remove algal¶ cells from the water column.¶
Burial can be achieved by the placement of offsite material over the treatment area. All¶ offsite material
would be clean and free of toxins and of similar grain size and composition to¶ sediments of the treatment area. Burial is also
achievable through hydraulic suction dredging, where¶ dredged material is removed from one area and discharged over the
treatment area. It is also possible¶ to remove the sediment and cysts through dredging and retain the sediments for treatment and¶ disposal
instead of discharging the sediments back to the treatment area. Burial
and removal¶ activities can also remove algal
cysts so they cannot initiate new blooms.¶ Cell Harvesting and Removal¶ Hydrodynamic separation,
centritugation, pump filtration, and plankton net trawling are all¶ examples of harvesting technologies
with the ability to separate algae from water. Hydrodynamic¶ separation and centrifugation are active methods that involve
the withdrawal and processing of¶ affected water through either centritugation or vortex to create concentrated algal cells and water¶
discharge. Pump filtration is also an active removal method involving the withdrawal of affected¶ water in which a screen or filter is used to
separate the algae from the water. All active cell-¶ harvesting methods would have screening over the water intake and an appropriate flow
rate to¶ prevent impacts to non-target organisms.
AT: Fishery Impact
Status quo solves fishery management – more regulations to protect ecosystems
Reef Resilience 13 (The Nature Conservancy, 08.16.13, “Fisheries Management”,
http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/management-strategies/fisheries-management/, Accessed
07.09.14)//LD
Fishery regulations — Most countries have regulations and laws to control fishing activity. Often, these have been
developed with the primary goal of protecting sovereign fishing rights, partitioning resources among fishing sectors or optimizing fishing yields. Increasingly,
however, fisheries authorities are implementing regulations aimed at improving the economic and
ecological sustainability of fisheries. These provide the legal context for fishery regulations that support coral reef management goals such as
catch quotas, species bans, size restrictions, gear restrictions and area closures. ¶ Protecting functional groups — In recent years, there have been
important developments in fisheries management that have focused on protecting key functional groups,
such as sharks and herbivores. Whether motivated by economic considerations (such as protecting sharks to support dive tourism) or ecological concerns (bans on
catching herbivorous fishes to minimize risk of algae taking over reefs), these strategies can make
valuable contributions to reef
resilience and are an important area of collaboration between coral reef managers and fisheries managers. ¶ Compliance and enforcement — In many
instances, coral reef managers may find that unsustainability of fishing activities is due less to lack of regulation and more to poor compliance. This is
best addressed through a multi-faceted and collaborative approach that includes strengthened enforcement
capacity, education of fishers and managers, and programs to reduce dependency on fishery
resources (alternative livelihoods, supplemental incomes, alternative fishing resources, etc.). ¶ Reducing bycatch — The incidental catch of
non-target species or undersized animals during fishing operations can have significant impacts on coral reef
biodiversity. Sea turtles, sharks, seabirds, juvenile fishes and even species such as sponges and sea fans can be significant bycatch in some fisheries. Coral
reef managers can work with fishery managers to promote adoption of measures including bycatch reduction devices (such as
turtle exclusion devices), use of selective fishing gear (larger hook size, or hook and line rather than nets), by-catch reporting and
fishery observer programs.¶ Promoting best practices and market-based incentives — An increasing number of fishing sectors are
demonstrating social and environmental responsibility through adopting codes of conduct, fishery
standards or stewardship programs. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has developed a Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries that includes a set of management practices to support sustainable fisheries. The aquarium collecting sector, through the Marine
Aquarium Council, has developed its own standards for best practices, including a certification program. The Marine Stewardship Council’s fishery certification
program and seafood ecolabel aim to recognize and award sustainable fishing. A key ingredient for effective uptake of best practice is market demand, and these
programs also aim to create a market for sustainable marine resources through informing consumer
choice.¶ Protecting spawning aggregations — Protection of spawning aggregations is important for both fisheries management and biodiversity conservation.
Spatial or temporal closures can be used to prevent fishing of aggregations or to protect fish using migration corridors. Effective protection of fish spawning
aggregations can be a major contributor to resilience of targeted fish migrations if done in combination with other fishery management measures, such as size
restrictions or permitting. Science and Conservation of Fish Aggregations has resources to support efforts to protect fish aggregations. ¶ Marine protected areas
(MPAs) — MPAs can take many forms, but no-take areas are especially important for sustaining populations of targeted fish species. No-take
MPAs can
be established as tools for fishery management or for biodiversity protection, and often both objectives can be achieved simultaneously.
The following strategies have proven to be successful models to achieve MPA designation and buy-in from stakeholders:¶ ‘Locally managed marine
areas’ (LMMAs) recognize the contribution of customary or community based management. They are based on the
long history of informal, local-scale marine management in many tropical cultures.¶ Herbivore protection involves
regulating herbivore removal in MPAs, and working with fishers and fishery managers to protect the viability of herbivore populations in the wider reef ecosystem.¶
Diversifying livelihoods — Strong
economic dependency on coral reef resources can be one of the most important causes
of over-exploitation. As a result, coral reef managers and non-government organizations are increasingly working with
local communities to identify and develop sources of income that help fishers to become less
dependent on species that are under pressure of overexploitation, or that play important roles in
ecosystem resilience.